I always hear the following argument.
A.)The atheist states that he does not believe in God because there is no scientific evidence for God, which is fine, as God is absent from scientific literature.
B.)However, there is no scientific evidence for a slew of other things the atheist believes as well, there is certainly no scientific evidence that the atheist himself exists, or his mother exists, or that his parents love him/spouse love him, or his friends like him, yet the atheist believes that.
The atheist might state that A is more reasonable, but that is beside the point as it no longer becomes about scientific evidence now, but 'what is reasonable' and 'what is reasonable' is entirely subjective. To the atheist it might be 'more reasonable' to believe B rather than A, but to a theist it is equally reasonable to believe in A and B.
It is quite fine to say that you have not experienced evidence for God, it is also fine to say that there is no scientific evidence for God, but that doesn't even matter, as you most likely have not seen evidence for quantum mechanics nor have you seen evidence for evolution. The atheist engages in special pleading and hilarious irony when they declare personal experience is not good enough when it comes to God because they believe in something else that somebody elses personal experience. It simply boils down to what the completely subjective notion of who are what is 'more reasonable' to follow.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
TD,
I don't think I've ever said that I don't believe in God because of a lack of scientific evidence, specifically.
I would include the evidence that I said the sinner's prayer and did all the things you generally do in order for the Holy Spirit to come and give you a new heart etc, and I felt absolutely nothing despite the sincerity of my effort. I count that personal experience as supporting evidence against the idea of God. Of course, as always, I could be wrong, but that's the way I perceived it.
Scientifically, I would only say that there is no scientific evidence to support any of the actions God has supposedly taken during the course of history (ie, Global Flood). If a Global Flood had occurred and left evidence then that would be a strong indicator that God was real, but there is no evidence of this.
As to the rest of your points. I guess, metaphysically, we can't say that other people exist with absolute certainty and, as such, it can't be scientifically verified that we ourselves exist, but that's getting a little silly in my opinion.
We all operate on the assumption that we exist and I don't think anyone is about to question that unnecessarily. We also assume that we can learn things about the world because we inhabit reality and interact with it in a way that allows this, and allows others to verify our observations and conclusions.
So yes, we can scientifically determine that someone's mother exists; I'm not sure why you think we can't. Whether or not someone loves us is not really a scientific question - although with the right research you could probably verify that the 'right' parts of the brain were lighting up to indicate that loving feelings were present.
In terms of quantum mechanics; nobody 'believes' in it. The majority of people, who know next to nothing about it, generally accept that there are people working in this field who claim to have found some stuff out. That's fine, and if they turn out to be wrong, that's fine too - we accept it in the same way we accept that engineers know how to design a building without it falling down. But quantum mechanics (or the understanding of it) doesn't really matter for our day to day lives, does it?
Personally, I have seen evidence of evolution, so I've got no problem with that one.
Cheers,
I don't think I've ever said that I don't believe in God because of a lack of scientific evidence, specifically.
I've heard it a lot.
I would include the evidence that I said the sinner's prayer and did all the things you generally do in order for the Holy Spirit to come and give you a new heart etc, and I felt absolutely nothing despite the sincerity of my effort. I count that personal experience as supporting evidence against the idea of God. Of course, as always, I could be wrong, but that's the way I perceived it.
Sure, but this would count as lack of personal experience, kind've like if you told me to call your friend at his house and he did not answer. I am sorry you didn't feel anything, I would love to inquire about that specific point at a later date though.
Scientifically, I would only say that there is no scientific evidence to support any of the actions God has supposedly taken during the course of history (ie, Global Flood). If a Global Flood had occurred and left evidence then that would be a strong indicator that God was real, but there is no evidence of this.
That is assuming a global flood is the real translation of what happened in Genesis, if it was a local flood then we would expect to see no evidence of this, not to mention that even if we did have a global flood it is not scientific evidence for God.
So yes, we can scientifically determine that someone's mother exists; I'm not sure why you think we can't. Whether or not someone loves us is not really a scientific question - although with the right research you could probably verify that the 'right' parts of the brain were lighting up to indicate that loving feelings were present.
You miss the point on this one. You can scientifically determine your mother exists with a scientific test but until you do so you have no scientific evidence she exists. Same thing with love. it seems you're confusing the ability to make a scientific test, with scientific evidence. As of now there is no scientific evidence that you exist, your mother, nor any scientific evidence she loves you. You can make the test, sure, should she choose to submit to one, no one is disputing that, you can also make a scientific test for God, should He choose to submit to one as well.
In terms of quantum mechanics; nobody 'believes' in it. The majority of people, who know next to nothing about it, generally accept that there are people working in this field who claim to have found some stuff out. That's fine, and if they turn out to be wrong, that's fine too - we accept it in the same way we accept that engineers know how to design a building without it falling down. But quantum mechanics (or the understanding of it) doesn't really matter for our day to day lives, does it?
The point is, some people that have not seen evidence for quantum mechanics believe there is evidence of quantum mechanics, not because they have seen it, but because they trust an authority, so in this instance someone elses personal experience is good enough.
Similarly, atheists have not seen evidence for God, but don't believe in Gods existence, despite authorities of equal or greater intelligence than the quantum mechanist professing to have personally experienced Him, and in this aspect, personal experience is not good enough.
you see the point I am making here? personal experience is ok in regards to quantum mechanics, but not in regards to God, in both groups the atheist has not personally experienced or seen evidence for quantum mechanics or God, yet other peoples personal experience is ok in regards to quantum mechanics but not in regards to God. This is special pleading and entirely dependent upon a subjective notion of whom you are trusting
Personally, I have seen evidence of evolution, so I've got no problem with that one.
What do you mean seen evidence of evolution?
TD,
Yep, I misunderstood a few of the points you were making there; sorry.
I would say that the main reason there is a discrepancy between people not having evidence for either QM of God, yet accepting one and rejecting the other as being true is because QM is a field of study that investigates physical reality, whereas God is a supernatural agent.
You've said yourself before (I think) that there isn't any scientific evidence for God and there shouldn't be because it's a matter of faith, but we know there is scientific evidence to support our understanding of many aspects of our universe and QM would come under that banner.
That doesn't mean that anyone would stake their life on our understanding of QM being correct, without doing the requisite research, but the likelihood of there being good evidence is sufficiently high.
As to the evidence for evolution. My friend works in a lab and he's shown me a number of experiments that demonstrate speciation, which is all evolution really is.
Cheers,
TD,
Yep, I misunderstood a few of the points you were making there; sorry.
No problem, its the internet, its too be expected.
I would say that the main reason there is a discrepancy between people not having evidence for either QM of God, yet accepting one and rejecting the other as being true is because QM is a field of study that investigates physical reality, whereas God is a supernatural agent.
Sure, but this boils down to what is more reasonable for the individual, which is entirely subjective. For the atheist it is more reasonable to believe in QM but not God, but for the theists it is more reasonable to believe in both, the point of course is, what is reasonable is entirely subjective.
You've said yourself before (I think) that there isn't any scientific evidence for God and there shouldn't be because it's a matter of faith, but we know there is scientific evidence to support our understanding of many aspects of our universe and QM would come under that banner.
If you remember those are 2 different points. The scientific evidence point, was about your friends, mom, and love, while the quantum mechanics point is about personal experience. There is scientific evidence for quantum mechanics, not for God.
That doesn't mean that anyone would stake their life on our understanding of QM being correct, without doing the requisite research, but the likelihood of there being good evidence is sufficiently high.
Right, but likelihood is subjective in regards to the individual, to me it is likely that God and QM exist.
As to the evidence for evolution. My friend works in a lab and he's shown me a number of experiments that demonstrate speciation, which is all evolution really is.
Oh, ok understood.
The atheist states that he does not believe in God because there is no scientific evidence for God, which is fine, as God is absent from scientific literature.
I would say that if a person has no personal experience of something, it has to be demonstrated to them before they accept it.
An empirical demonstration is probably the most convincing form of demonstration, as I'm sure you'd agree.
Some things can't be demonstrated empirically, but can be argued for a posteriori. The existence of God, whether or not your partner loves you etc...
I don't think that it can be stated a priori that God exists, or that somebody loves someone else.
These are matters that seem to rely entirely on a person's own interpretation of their life experiences.
I would say that if a person has no personal experience of something, it has to be demonstrated to them before they accept it.
Sure, but that creates problems for the atheists that accept there is evidence for quantum mechanics and evolution etc. etc. without seeing it themselves.
An empirical demonstration is probably the most convincing form of demonstration, as I'm sure you'd agree.
As weird as it sounds, I kinda agree and kinda don't. I think its a cross between empirical demonstration and personal experience, it could go either way.
Some things can't be demonstrated empirically, but can be argued for a posteriori. The existence of God, whether or not your partner loves you etc...
I don't think that it can be stated a priori that God exists, or that somebody loves someone else.
These are matters that seem to rely entirely on a person's own interpretation of their life experiences.
Yes, that's exactly what the argument states, the type of personal experience people accept is entirely subjective.
Sure, but that creates problems for the atheists that accept there is evidence for quantum mechanics and evolution etc. etc. without seeing it themselves.
And that, sir, is why you never find me spouting off about evolution or QM. I haven't studied either.
Yes, that's exactly what the argument states, the type of personal experience people accept is entirely subjective.
I suppose that it's one thing to believe something that you can't demonstrate to people who have never experienced it, and another entirely to suggest that laws that would apply to everyone should be based off of it. I think that's the only time that atheists particularly care about it.
You can easily see how this reasoning applies if you imagine a Muslim majority in your country voting to make laws based on their religion apply to the nation as a whole.
Mill wrote some interesting stuff about protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority within a democratic state in On Liberty.
And that, sir, is why you never find me spouting off about evolution or QM. I haven't studied either.
I could hug you for saying that and it is quite refreshing to hear that.
I suppose that it's one thing to believe something that you can't demonstrate to people who have never experienced it, and another entirely to suggest that laws that would apply to everyone should be based off of it. I think that's the only time that atheists particularly care about it.
Agreed, but the same goes with QM as those laws certainly apply to everyone, so the same thing would apply to the people that talk about QM and evolution. For someone to state that the laws of QM and evolution apply to everyone without having personally seen it and relying only on those that have personally seen it and state that they have don't accept Gods laws apply to everyone without personally seeing it, despite people personally experience of that is special pleading, and is entirely subjective.
You can easily see how this reasoning applies if you imagine a Muslim majority in your country voting to make laws based on their religion apply to the nation as a whole.
Yes, I see how the reasoning applies but it goes both ways or course, in china and north korea for example.
Post a Comment