Not only that – I see no need for a god. And I see no need to explain the workings of Nature and the universe through mystical and elusive gods and supernatural beings when science is doing such a cracking good job at it. And if a god really exists(*), she does an abysmal job of letting us know she’s here/there/anywhere.
(*) exists, as in not only exists in people’s imaginations, but objectively, verifiably, and measurably interacts with our environment.
I had a far more complete reply prepared, but when I went to post it, that’s when I realized this was a necro, so I shaved it way down. I agree and applaud what you’ve said. (edit to add: since it’s apparently ok to necro, I’m going to go ahead and post a more… substantive… response.)
I concur, in fact I have seen nothing approaching objective evidence a deity or anything supernatural is even possible.
Deities reside in the same folder as unicorns, mermaids, and garden fairies for me.
I do not believe in God (“the God of the Bible”), or in any god, simply because I have not seen the slightest bit of credible evidence thereof.
I do not “believe in” the Bible. I do not view the Bible as evidence for anything related to the existence of God, or of any god. (Yes, unfortunately, the Bible does exist. In that sense, I guess I believe in it.)
I also have read enough to know that to view the Bible as a “history book” is, at best, utterly nonsensical. Just one example: where is the archaeological evidence of somewhere between 30,000 and 2 million people (that’s as good as the estimate gets), wandering around in the desert? Pretty much zero archaeological evidence of such an exodus exists. That is just one example: there are hundreds.
I do, however view the Bible as a testament to the the ability of unscrupulous people to take advantage of less educated and possibly more gullible people.
I am an autodidact, definitely not not a “scientist”. (Is science my religion? It very well may be.) But, I do respect “scientists”. I do respect education. I do respect the scientific method, and the process of peer review. If I am curious about a subject, I have the collected and compounded knowledge of thousands of years of human cleverness and discovery at my fingertips.
And, just for fun, if you “don’t believe in science”, stop driving your car, as it was built using hundreds of years of scientific progress. Stop eating your food, for the same reason. Definitely stop screwing around in the Innerwebz. Definitely, you must. Much science, there.
I don’t know “how the universe began.” I don’t even know if it began. I willingly accept the findings and conjectures of professionals who have spent their lifetimes educating themselves on and researching the subject, so I willingly defer to them for expertise. It’s Totally Awesome that we live in a time when we have such ready access to so much knowledge and information!
As far as I can tell, the unfortunately and snidely named Big Bang is the best concept we have so far for how the first turtle was hatched. We see new ideas related to this idea almost every week. You may not be interested in this, but, to quote The Matrix, “… if you are, it’s a very exciting time.”
(The Bible hasn’t been updated since… well, that sort of depends on how you look at it, but, mostly, since like 325 CE at Nicaea. Sure, you can pedantically argue this point and “correct” it until you’re blue in the face, but the point stands. I will not even address responses to this paragraph, if any. It’s really not worth anyone’s time.)
We do not currently know what the bottom turtle stands upon. We may never know. Personally, I would much rather say “I don’t yet know”, than I would pretend that some bronze age, uhm, scholar (!?) knows better than today’s most brilliant pioneering theoretical physicists.
Pretending that some poorly defined, nebulous being, or force, or entity, beyond the laws of space, matter and time, hatched the first turtle really doesn’t do anything except maybe give you the Warm Fuzzys. It explains exactly nothing, and worse, not only does it not advance our knowledge in any way, it actually does a lot to retard the progress of our knowledge. If you think you know The Answer, then why continue searching? (In case you’re wondering, The Answer is, of course, 42.)
But, turtles are cool. (If you don’t “get” the turtle thing, please just ask. It’s turtles, all the way down.)
I am referring to any evidence that will provide justification that lead to a rational reason to accept the claim that a god or gods exist.
I don’t know what form that evidence would take. I just know it hasn’t been presented yet.
I’ve heard all of the philosophical arguments for the existence of a god (cosmological, teleological, ontological, presup, modal logic, etc) and they are all fallacious.
I’ve been presented with things theists claim is scientific evidence, and it is unconvincing.
Bottom line, I am not making the claim that a god or gods exist, so it is not up to me to figure out what evidence would convince me, It is up to those making the claim to present their evidence.
A well thought out response, IMHO. There is, however, something there I feel is worth commenting.
I don’t think science qualifies as a religion. You might be a science enthusiast, but it is obvious you don’t worship science as such. You accept scientific results on the basis of their own merits, not because someone told you to. Science is not dogmatic, and as new results tick in, the interpretation changes, along with your own perception of the relevant fields. Perhaps we can say that you have a naturalistic worldview? As for myself, I work professionally as a scientist, and if we are to sum up my worldview in only two words, it would be just that – a naturalistic worldview.
The difference between science and religion is that you don’t need to believe in mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc. for the disciplines to work their – ahem – magic. A radio transmitter + receiver work even if you deny electromagnetism; GPS and other GNSS systems provably work, even if you are a flat earther and deny the theory of relativity; cryptoalgoritms that protect military secrets and our privacy online work, even if you hate mathematics like the plague; etc.
Religion is only perceived to work if you believe in it, and exclude other modes of explanation that might include natural processes and logical explations.
In short: Science works objectively. Religion is only perceived to work, and then only subjectively.
Edit: grammar fix
Excellent commentary, and I thank you for it.
Yes, I think it would be accurate to describe my worldview as naturalist.
Nice. I like your sense of humor! =)
Seems I haven’t devoted much attention to this thread over the past five months or so. Time to remedy that deficit.
And, it seems that all the usual apologetic tripe has been dumped in said thread, both before and after my posts.
We’ve had “The universe is evidence for my pet magic man” apologetics … er, no it isn’t, it’s evidence for testable natural processes, as documented in several million peer reviewed scientific papers.
We’ve had the tiresome resurrection of the “atheists believe the universe came from nothing” garbage, which I’ve dealt with repeated in numerous threads, not least by referring to some of the postulates that are actually presented by cosmological physicists, as opposed to this duplicitous strawman caricature thereof.
We’ve also had the even more tiresome lie that acceptance of evidentially supported scientific postulates, including postulates that have been successfully tested experimentally, purportedly requires “faith”. No it doesn’t, this is a flat out lie.
Then, of course, we have the usual caricatures of what atheism actually is, a subject to which I have devoted numerous column inches, specifically to destroy the dishonest caricatures and canards in question. Foremost among which is the canard, that regarding unsupported assertions about cartoon magic man from pre-scientific mythologies as unsupported assertions, purportedly constitutes “denial”. No it doesn’t. Until mythology fanboys provide genuine evidence for their particular pet choice of cartoon magic man from their pet choice of mythology, said assertions are safely discardable. More on assertions later.
Also, we have the appearance of quantifier abuse. Rejecting specifically defined entities, on the basis that said entities are asserted to possess contradictory and/or absurd properties, does NOT equal rejecting all possible entities within the class. Again, I have devoted numerous column inches to this, not least because it’s connected to other canards about atheism that the usual suspects peddle. There are other instances of quantifier abuse that the mythology fanboys bring to the table, but I’ve noted that this one is a particular favourite.
Likewise, I have devoted numerous column inches to the matter of the proper treatment of assertions, including the matter of how assertions that have not been properly tested to ascertain their truth-value, can be filed under “truth value unknown”, and discarded on that basis. We are only obliged to accept assertions that have been successfully tested, and via said successful test, converted into evidentially supported postulates. I emphasise at this point that we require proper tests of said assertions, not ex recto apologetic fabrications that an astute child would point and laugh at. I am not in the least surprised to discover, that every mythology fanboy who comes here, needs to be schooled on this from scratch.
Then of course, we have that favourite mythology fanboy pastime, the duplicitous conflation of “faith” with inference from insufficient data. Which is duplicitous, because the moment you take data into account, you are not engaging in “faith” by definition. Indeed, the talent of deriving an inference from a limited data set, is a trait that is positively selectable by evolution. Just ask any organism that avoided becoming lunch at the hands of a predator, be that predator real or imagined. Treating any signal in the right class, as a potential or actual warning of danger, tends to be a useful habit in an environment where real dangers are abundant. Organisms that ignore such signals are much more likely to become something else’s latest delicacy.
And, of course, there’s the duplicitous projection of the mythology fanboy modus operandi upon those of us who paid attention in class, and have zero need for said modus oeprandi. The whole farcical, and suppuratingly dishonest, practice of pretending that science bears any relation to religion is one I find particularly obnoxious. Accepting scientific postulates because scientists provide evidence for said postulates isn’t “worship” thereof. Accepting the validity of evolution doesn’t make it our “god”. Accepting the arguments presented by scientists doesn’t make those scientists our “high priests” or “popes”. Indeed, in this latter instance, the identity of whoever presents the postulates is irrelevant - what counts is whether or not the DATA supports said postulates.
Indeed, that’s a part of the mythology fanboy psyche that at times puzzles me - their complete inability to understand ideas outside their narrow and parochial experience, combined with their at times obstinate and pig-headed refusal to even attempt to learn about those ideas. Their facile and dishonest attempts to force-fit us into their mendacious stereotype pigeonholes; their repeated revelling in utterly crass and infantile caricatures of scientific postulates, as if they think that ideas arising from millions of man-hours of diligent labour, are a suitable target for playground level ridicule; and their frankly obnoxious mixture of rectally self-inserted pomposity with toddler level sub-humour; all of these really do grate.
This is, of course, coupled intimately to the arrogance that is endemic to simplistic self-righteousness, which is another of those irritating mythology fanboy traits. Exemplified by the manner in which every one of this ilk who arrives here, does so without performing even the most elementary of checks to see if prior discussion of relevant ideas has already taken place. (Hint; it has, and on a grand scale). Instead, the typical specimen arrives here, thinking that their repeatedly destroyed apologetics constitute some startling new brand of “wisdom”, with which they’re going to "stick it to the stoopid atheists™ ". The shock that ensues, when the specimen in question realises we’ve seen it all before, and have the relevant discoursive ordnance ready to launch at a moment’s notice, is savoured with special schadenfreude relish by several of the veterans.
Furthermore, all of the aforementioned are utterly alien to me. I have spent my entire life wanting to learn. I have spent my entire life revelling in new discoveries, and hope that advancing years will not dull this. Indeed, regulars here will already be aware of my account of Arthur Mee and The Children’s Encyclopaedia, and how that influenced my development: for the newcomers and the unfamiliar, I will provide this link. This should prove wonderfully informative in this vein to the genuinely curious, and to those willing to exert a little mental effort.
I also don’t assume that no one has discussed a topic before, when I enter a new discoursive arena, unless that topic is particularly esoteric. Special conditions apply to arenas that are specialists in a particular field, of course, and the onus therein is on me to establish that I possess sufficient competence to participate. I like to think that I exert the relevant effort, and thus far, no one actually possessing genuine expertise has had cause to experience exasperation in this respect. On the other hand, exasperation in abundance is experienced even by elementary commentators, when they see the usual repeatedly destroyed canards being peddled.
Yes, I’ve launched into another of my infamous editorials, and it’s become another lengthy addition to the column inches. But, once more, I regarded the need as pressing. Hopefully some of the newcomers will agree with my assessment and action. I shall bid everyone arrivederci for the duration.
People’s misconceptions about science might make it a religion (in their heads anyway).