Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Atheist Penelope
Jackie Blue:
Right. So if science is built upon never relinquishing doubt, shouldn't all atheists actually be agnostic?
jtheory:
--- Quote from: mustang6172 on 22 Dec 2008, 22:21 ---The definition of science is an attempt to explain the functioning of the natural world without use of the supernatural. So if the supernatural exists (and this isn't an attempt to say that it does or it doesn't), it would be impossible to prove because science can't go beyond the natural. It's already very arrogent just to expect science to explain everying in the natural world in the future. It wasn't long ago that most scientists still believed in the theory of spontanous generation. Let's say pizza is your favorite food. How can you prove that pizza is your favorite food?
--- End quote ---
I can put this in simpler terms. If it can be sensed/perceived in any way, it is natural, and it is subject to science (not always easy to experiment on, but that's a different question). If it cannot be sensed, where are you getting your information from? (Note -- you have to be taught about God & the beliefs of your religion... notice how very different religious beliefs arose in different parts of the world... the major religions have spread through conquest and missionaries).
If I passed my hand over a cup of water and it became wine, that would be a natural phenomenon that had not yet been explained by science. It would have a lot of scientists extremely excited, in fact, because it would seemingly violate a lot of previously-known natural laws, so whoever figured it out would at the very least get a solid tenured academic position somewhere, if not win some serious prizes.
There is no phenomenon where scientists would say "ah, but that's a supernatural ____, so can can't investigate or discuss that".
Nobody expects science to explain everything about the natural world in the future. Ask any scientist. Seriously. No one has that expectation. But we're doing the best we can, and spontaneous generation, to use your example, was *mostly* disproved in 1768 and finally disproved completely by in the mid-1800s. Better experimental methods and lenses strong enough to see microscopic organisms helped a lot (as more information is available, the theories must change & improve... isn't it wonderful?). This is the strength of science... whereas when something in a religious text is shown to be false, outdated, confused, etc., is the text corrected? No, interpretation must be twisted around....
And are you claiming that you liking pizza is a supernatural phenomenon? It's not, and in fact favorite foods *are* [url http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PainManagement/Story?id=5475061&page=1]subject to science and included in scientific studies[/url]. Though note that the study I link is about pain management, not your personal favorite food -- because that's pretty useless to study, funding is limited, and science doesn't "prove" things the way you imagine anyway. There is *also* study on the relationship between conscious thought and brainwave patterns, etc., so one day we might be able to detect your favorite food without you saying it out loud....
jtheory:
--- Quote from: Jackie Blue on 23 Dec 2008, 14:39 ---Right. So if science is built upon never relinquishing doubt, shouldn't all atheists actually be agnostic?
--- End quote ---
You're changing the subject.
But the answer is "no, but definitions are muddy."
Neither "agnostic" or "atheist" has one single definition that everyone agrees on, so unfortunately this is a huge discussion.
Many people use atheism to mean "an absolute belief that God does not exist". This then relies on a definition of "God", which can be hugely broad.... I don't meet that definition -- very, very few people do. I don't meet that definition regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus, either -- the possibility for error, even logical error, must always be permitted, no matter how infinitesimally small.
Many people also use "agnostic" to imply someone who may or may not go to church, may or may not think God "probably exists", may or may not pray, but either way says they can't know for sure. Most people who call themselves atheists do not want to be lumped into this group either. It's completely misleading -- we don't wonder every day if maybe God is watching and listening. We've already sorted that out and put it aside, and no new evidence has shown up that requires us to reevaluate.
What other words do we have? "Bright"? Ugh.
So I go with "atheist", in spite of the negative baggage, in the meaning based on "a-" (lack of) "theism" (belief in a deity). I have no belief in a god or gods, because I've spent a lot of time reading the arguments, studying the historical basis of religious beliefs, and learning a reasoned approach to the world, and I have found utterly no hint that this deity exists.
It kind of sucks, but those are the options. I'd rather have a few people argue with me (no, this isn't the first time I've explained this) than have them think I'm on the fence. If someone asked you about Santa Claus, you would not say "well... I'm still an Santa Claus agnostic"; you'd say "the stories are fun, but he doesn't exist"; that's my conclusion on God.
Jackie Blue:
You just compared God to Santa Claus.
I think we're done here.
jtheory:
--- Quote from: Jackie Blue on 24 Dec 2008, 09:28 ---You just compared God to Santa Claus.
I think we're done here.
--- End quote ---
That's always your prerogative, though I wasn't trying to offend anyone. That's the downside of the internet: you get no facial expression to show someone's getting annoyed, so you keep on talking.... This thread's probably ready to die anyway.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version