nagirrac wrote: » You have to consider God to believe in God. I can only speak for myself but in my experience belief in God is absolutely rational from both a subjective and objective perspective. The mistake many atheists make imo is in having rejected a specific idea of God they cannot allow themselves conceive of another. This results in a retreat into scientism and the belief that if science cannot prove God then God cannot exist. If you reflect on what all the major mystical traditions tell us, starting with Hinduism the oldest of the major religions, you see the same theme that "God is not part of nature, God is the reason for nature".
nagirrac wrote: » There was certainly no arrogance intended, but if it came to a choice I would always favor unintended or perceived arrogance over ignorance. I clearly said my opinion on the question is based on my own experiences. Talk about pot and kettle, calling people's opinions "rubbish" is the height of both arrogance and ignorance but work away.
Morbert wrote: » Atheists don't retreat into scientism. Instead, atheists maintain that there is no evidence for God, whether that evidence is scientific, historical, or otherwise.
Jernal wrote: » In my experience of people, they come in all flavours. Saying a person was never a true Fianna Fail supporter, or a true spiritualist, or a true atheist is kind of completely misunderstanding people. There are no true persons. You can generalise them but each time at the back of your mind must be that idea that every generalisation has limitations.
nagirrac wrote: » I would agree with this. In answer to both marienbad's criticism of my post and your comment however, I would emphasize the "many atheists" phrase in my post. Again, based on my own experience, I encounter far more examples of scientism from atheist acquaintances and friends than I do from any other individuals. The fact that "some" atheists argue their worldview is not influenced by scientism is, in my view, evidence of their own confirmation bias.
marienbad wrote: » So unless they agree with your view they are wrong ?
nagirrac wrote: » Not at all, I agree with what seems to be the concensus atheist opinion on many topics, secularism, abortion, etc. The primary argument I have with some atheists (the ones I know personally and some on this forum) is how much their worldview is influenced by scientism.
joseph brand wrote: » By 'scientism', do you mean 'the world around us'?
Gumbi wrote: » ROFL. Explain.
nagirrac wrote: » No, I mean the view that science is the only source of real knowledge, or "putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture".
MrPudding wrote: » The biggest change would be the whole happy clappy, I love Jesus, he is awesome, which, quite frankly, makes me throw up a little in my mouth.
Zombrex wrote: » Ok, can you answer me this. If scientific study is not the only source of "real" knowledge about the world around us, why are these other methodologies that give as good results as the ones science currently accepts, not themselves included in the scientific method (making the point moot)? Science has an issue with us having too much accurate information about the world around us?
nagirrac wrote: » I am criticizing scientism, not science. Scientism is a belief system and as such has no place in science. Unless you believe that the only valid form of human inquiry is via the scientific method. I am not aware of anyone who does not welcome scientific advancement, but you have to distinguish that from those who seek to convince people using science to embrace a godless, materialistic universe.
nagirrac wrote: » Unless you believe that the only valid form of human inquiry is via the scientific method.
nagirrac wrote: » I am not aware of anyone who does not welcome scientific advancement, but you have to distinguish that from those who seek to convince people using science to embrace a godless, materialistic universe.
Gumbi wrote: » If you accept that scientific inquiry is a reasonable format to learn about the universe around us, and if you accept it leads to accurate conclusions, and teaches us more and more about the world every day, then the onus is on you to propose another, better system.
nagirrac wrote: » Are you speaking for all atheists:) Are you claiming that scientism does not exist or it exists but atheists do not hold this worldview? If the latter then the atheists I am personally familar with are clearly dissimilar to your experience. In the words of Thomas Burnett which I heartily endorse "Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) which cannot be verified or falsified by science. It is, in a word, unscientific".
Zombrex wrote: » You haven't answered my question. You haven't even attempted to answer my question.
nagirrac wrote: » Your question is not related to the point I am making about scientism (see my response to Gumbi). Clearly you think I am making an argument against science which I am not. I am making a point about extending science into other means of human inquiry.
Morbert wrote: » No atheist subscribes to scientism as defined by Christian apologists. Nobody familiar with common definitions would claim, for example, that mathematical theorems, or an enjoyable book, or right and wrong are measured scientifically. Even Sam Harris's book "The Moral Landscape" isn't a work of scientism. The difference between what motivates a theist and an atheist isn't found in abstract metaphysical world-views. It is instead found in the answer to the question "Is there evidence for God?"
marienbad wrote: » What are those other means of human enquiry ? You keep positing an either or kind of argument. Are you saying that science can tell us nothing about art literature beauty or what ?
nagirrac wrote: » Explain to me how we can apply the scientific method to morality? As I said above, math, logic, philosophy, art, literature, music, etc. are not pursued using the scientific method.
