God & Science: A Look at Possibilities

[Pattonias]

That would also make the agnostic an atheist. If the agnostic doesn't want to say one way or the other, until he makes up his mind, he's an atheist.
For example, if my friend says he found some gold, I'm not inclined one way or the other to say for sure that he did or didn't find gold. I don't know. But I won't believe it until I see it. So until I see it, I have to be considered a non-believer.

That is not it at all. I'm going by the dictionary definitions.

atheism:
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

agnostic:
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics

theism:
belief in the existence of a god or gods

In the example you gave regarding the gold a true agnostic when asked to make a statement by a third party regarding whether he believes his friend has gold, would reply that he can say nothing one way or another as he has never seen it himself.

 

[jackmell]

What knowledge could an atheist possibly have on the non-existence of god?

Emergence. That's why not God.

 

[Pattonias]

Assuming that a god didn't set "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence" " into motion.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Do you really, honestly, not see the difference between being unsure if he has gold, or believeing that he is lying and needing to be convinced otherwise?

I don't believe he's lying, I don't know one way or the other, but I can't be considered a believer until I see it.

In the example you gave regarding the gold a true agnostic when asked to make a statement by a third party regarding whether he believes his friend has gold, would reply that he can say nothing one way or another as he has never seen it himself.

Exactly. An atheist would also say that. Neither an atheist nor an agnostic has any knowledge if the gold exists. Until they see it and can say for sure one way or the other, they're both non-believers.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I don't believe he's lying, I don't know one way or the other, but I can't be considered a believer until I see it.

That wasn't the question.

Do you recognise the fact that: not konwing and not believeing are two different positions?

 

[Pattonias]

Exactly. An atheist would also say that. Neither an atheist nor an agnostic has any knowledge if the gold exists. Until they see it and can say for sure one way or the other, they're both non-believers.

Since when was not being a theist being an atheist? You are obviously having trouble grasping the definitoins that I have already laid out. I think I already made my point.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Since when was not being a theist being an atheist. You are obviously having trouble grasping the definitoins that I have already laid out. I think I already made my point.

I told you, he either really can't see the difference. or is trolling the hell out of us.

 

[Borek]

As an agnostic, I say that I will try to follow the evidence as it is given to me.

Do dragons, unicorns, mermaids, elves and centaurs exist?

 

[Pattonias]

Do dragons, unicorns, mermaids, elves and centaurs exist?

Maybe, just like there might be a flying-speghetti monster.

 

[jackmell]

Assuming that a god didn't set "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence" " into motion.

Not exactly. Here's an excerpt from that site:

"An emergent behavior or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a collective . . . The complex behaviour or properties are not a property of any single such entity, nor can they easily be predicted or deduced from behaviour in the lower-level entities:"

In the context of the question I addressed, the emergent property is the knowledge the Atheist has about the non-existence of God.

And therefore, the answer to the question, "Why Not God?" is simply "there is none". And that answer is based on emergent properties of knowledge.

 

[Pattonias]

Not exactly. Here's an excerpt from that site:

"An emergent behavior or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a collective . . . The complex behaviour or properties are not a property of any single such entity, nor can they easily be predicted or deduced from behaviour in the lower-level entities:"

In the context of the question I addressed, the emergent property is the knowledge the Atheist has about the non-existence of God.

And therefore, the answer to the question, "Why Not God?" is simply "there is none". And that answer is based on emergent properties of knowledge.

Oh, I see what you were saying. clever

 

[xxChrisxx]

Do dragons, unicorns, mermaids, elves and centaurs exist?

Why the loaded question? You must know the answer that most people will give anyway.

I do not believe they exist. Becuase I weight up the likely probability that something that has never been recorded existing. There is no evidence for it, and the claim is quite fantastic. So rationally I am disinclined to believe.

I cannot say for certain that I know they don't exist. As I know that rationally I have not experence everything in the universe.
Conclusion: agnostic amythical creatureist. Just like my position on a supreme being.I have no knowledge either way, yet the fantasic nature of the claim in comparion to what I see around me makes be disbelieve anyway. And that is the key. Deductive abilities allow us to make a 'guess' either way in the absence of evidence to either position.

Those who flat out refuse to take a position without knowledge are agnostic.
This is where leroys argument breaks down. He is saying that if you don't believe the positive, you must neessarily believe the negative. However this is not the case, it is infact a false dichotomy. You can believe neither position and take a middle or no ground based on the lack of knowledge

 

[Borek]

Maybe, just like there might be a flying-speghetti monster.

At least you seem to be honest

Occam's razor says "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". As long as they are not necessary to explain the world, there is no need to assume dragons, unicorns, mermaids, elves and centaurs may exist. The day one of these will be caught I will immediately change my opinion.

 

[jackmell]

Oh, I see what you were saying. clever

One final comment Pattonial.

There is a way to obtain this knowledge the Atheist has but I prefer to leave it as a riddle. It can be summarized in eleven words. Surely others here know them (I'll not come back and tell you):

____ ______ ___ ___ ____ ____ __ ______ _ ____ ____.

Edit: changed "only" to "a" and leave as a riddle, just for fun :)

 

[Pattonias]

One final comment Pattonial.

There is only one way to obtain this knowledge the Atheist has but I prefer if someone else tell you. It can be summarized in eleven words. Surely others here know them (I'll not come back and tell you):

____ ______ ___ ___ ____ ____ __ ______ _ ____ ____.

I'm not exactly sure what to make of this, but I guess I am dependent on someone else for the answer.

 

[Pattonias]

At least you seem to be honest

Occam's razor says "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". As long as they are not necessary to explain the world, there is no need to assume dragons, unicorns, mermaids, elves and centaurs may exist. The day one of these will be caught I will immediately change my opinion.

I can identify with that in a way, I'm an aspiring engineer and I don't really need to know where the Earth came from in order to use it to make my machines. Why should I make assumptions?

 

[Gokul43201]

I have no knowledge either way, yet the fantasic nature of the claim in comparion to what I see around me makes be disbelieve anyway. And that is the key. Deductive abilities allow us to make a 'guess' either way in the absence of evidence to either position.

Those who flat out refuse to take a position without knowledge are agnostic.

I'm a little confused here - are you saying you consider yourself an agnostic or an atheist?

A person says that he does not believe in the existence of a god/gods.

Would you call that person an atheist or an agnostic?

 

[xxChrisxx]

I can identify with that in a way, I'm an aspiring engineer and I don't really need to know where the Earth came from in order to use it to make my machines.

Thats the spirit! "good enough for practical purpose".

I don't care where stuff came from, so long as it works well enough for me to make powerful engines and fast cars, I couldn't give a hoot.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I'm a little confused here - are you saying you consider yourself an agnostic or an atheist?

A person says that he does not believe in the existence of a god/gods.

Would you call that person an atheist or an agnostic?

It's all part of the spectrum of knowing and believeing. You can be BOTH. As the two words define different things. One defines the knowing aspect, the other defines the belief aspect.Someone who does not belive in a god is an atheist. Thats comes from the etymology of the word. From the greek (i tihnk):
a - without theism - belief in god

Agnosticism comes from:
a - without gnosis - knowledge.As knowing and belieing are two different things, that are not necessarily mutually exclusive you can use both words to define a persons position.

If you had to split it up into three distint positions you have:

Don't believe - Atheism
No position - agnostic
Do believe - Theism

However, you can blur the lines between the three to create a spectrum that goes from athist >>>> agnostic>>>>hardcore believer. Splitting the aboe 3 into 5 categories.

Strong atheism - They claim that that at the existence of at least one god exists is false. ie no gods.
Agnostic athist (weak atheism) - Lack of belief believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false.
Agnostic - 50/50 or no position at all
Agnostic theist - doesn't know god exists, but choses to believe anyway.
Theist - claims to know of gods existence. (any hardcore religious type)

 

[Gokul43201]

It's all part of the spectrum of knowing and believeing. You can be BOTH. As the two words define different things. One defines the knowing aspect, the other defines the belief aspect.Someone who does not belive in a god is an atheist. Thats comes from the etymology of the word. From the greek (i tihnk):
a - without theism - belief in god

So, about the person I described in my previous post, you'd call him an atheist (since he claims to not believe in the existence of a god).

What do you call yourself? (not trying to make this personal; just trying to better understand your earlier post)

 

[xxChrisxx]

I don't believe in god. Both the fact there is no evidence for a supernatural being, and I just find the whole idea tedious By that definition I am an atheist.I lack a belief in a god.

However I also don't claim the knowledge that gods don't exist, so by the definition I am also agnostic.

My position is weak atheist, or agnostic atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheismIf you had to put me in a box and label me up th would be this ^^^^^^^^

 

[leroyjenkens]

Do you recognise the fact that: not konwing and not believeing are two different positions?

Yes, but how can you believe something you don't know to be true?

Since when was not being a theist being an atheist?

Being a theist means you believe, not being a theist means you don't believe, not believing makes you an atheist.

This is where leroys argument breaks down. He is saying that if you don't believe the positive, you must neessarily believe the negative. However this is not the case, it is infact a false dichotomy. You can believe neither position and take a middle or no ground based on the lack of knowledge

If you're taking the middle ground, that means you're not a theist, which means you don't believe what they do, which makes you an atheist. If you believed, then you would be a theist, but since you don't, you're an atheist.

However I also don't claim the knowledge that gods don't exist, so by the definition I am also agnostic.

What atheist claims knowledge that god doesn't exist? No smart ones do. That's impossible to know.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Yes, but how can you believe something you don't know to be true?

Those religious types do it ALL the time.

It could also occur in the case of your firend with the gold. If you friend never EVER told a lie, you would be inclined to believe him without knowing. This is where personal judgement comes in. If your firend was a known practical joker who makes something up for kicks, then you would be less inclined to believe him. You would not know for sure until evidence was presented.

Gold is quite rare (so would require more faith in the person that they are telling the truth). If they made a mundane claim, such as they found a penny, that is a common occurence so you can be inclined to believe without any evidence..

Or for example: I believe my car is parked outside now. I don't know it is beucase I can't currently see it, it could have been stolen.

Being a theist means you believe, not being a theist means you don't believe, not believing makes you an atheist.
If you're taking the middle ground, that means you're not a theist, which means you don't believe what they do, which makes you an atheist. If you believed, then you would be a theist, but since you don't, you're an atheist.

If you are taking the dead middle ground it means you are neither. Thats the whole point of defining a word for the middle ground.

It's also a very rare case in a human that you get a dead middle ground, you will tend to lean one way or the other. Which is why the word agnostic can apply to both atheists and theists alike.

It's also the rason why you can't claim that all agnostics are atheists. Not only becuase one deals with belief and the other deals with kowledge which are not mutually exclusive, but it's possible to have the position of not knowing something but beliving in it.

 

[xxChrisxx]

What atheist claims knowledge that god doesn't exist? No smart ones do. That's impossible to know.

It's the definition of strong atheist.

I also believe it's as crazy a position to take as saying gods definitely do exist.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Those religious types do it ALL the time.

I think they really think they know it to be true, regardless of the fact that we know they don't.

If you are taking the dead middle ground it means you are neither. Thats the whole point of defining a word for the middle ground.

It's also a very rare case in a human that you get a dead middle ground, you will tend to lean one way or the other. Which is why the word agnostic can apply to both atheists and theists alike.

My argument is that it is black and white. If you're an agnostic and you lean towards theist on the religion line you created, do you believe in god? No? Then you're an atheist. If you do, then you're a theist. The only time you're a theist is if you believe in god, anywhere below that on the line is atheist, since you don't believe it.

but it's possible to have the position of not knowing something but beliving in it.

That's a theist position. No one knows, but some may claim they do. That doesn't change what atheist and agnostic means.

It's the definition of strong atheist.

I also believe it's as crazy a position to take as saying gods definitely do exist.

So by you saying that, you're saying that the only true atheists are the "strong atheists".

 

[arunma]

Every time I read a physics or modern science magazine, it always talks about evolution, our universe forming from others, and other secular stuff. Why can't God be considered as a possibility. I mean its not as if all modern scientists don't believe in God. Some of the greatest scientists are openly monotheistic (Stephen Hawking, Robert Penrose, ALBERT EINSTEIN, Michio Kaku.)

Hi gkc. Speaking from the position of someone who does believe in God (which makes me a minority among physicists)...

There are two issues here. The first is the consideration of God's role in the universe when we do science. A lot of people believe that God should be given credit for all physical processes (that isn't exactly what you said in your post, but I'm guessing you adhere to this philosophy). The problem with saying "God is responsible" is that from a scientific point of view, it's an absolutely useless statement. If you believe in a God who is actually worthy of that title, then you believe he is responsible for everything that happens. So why bother mentioning this at all? It would be impractical to glorify God for every single physical process that has to be considered in any scientific experiment. Besides that, science is concerned with "how" question, not "why" questions. Saying "God did it" adds absolutely nothing to an explanation of how diffusive shock acceleration creates high energy cosmic rays or how stars collapse into degenerate matter. For any religious scientist who is good at his job, giving God credit for physical processes would not be beneficial in any way, because you'd have to take the time to give God credit for every single thing that happens. Even according to most theologians this would be a waste of time rather than God-honoring. If you are a scientist who believes in God, it's better to take time, outside of your research, to give credit to God in whatever way you feel is best. But as far as scientific inquiry goes, there's no point in inserting the word "God" into your scientific papers. That's just meaningless.

The second issue is using religious doctrine to formulate scientific theses. You mention evolution and the formation of our universe from others. The latter is highly speculative (almost to the point of being a religion rather than science), so I won't go into it. But as for evolution, biologists have physical evidence backing up their theories. This isn't just a matter of evil atheist conspirators sitting in back rooms trying to figure out how to drag more people to hell with them. Lots of religious people believe in evolution. Even if you don't, it's contrary to the doctrines of most religions to make up lies in order to defend one's beliefs. Don't take this as any sort of personal offense, but basically all creation "scientists" are liars. I have never met one creationist who used legitimate scientific facts to make even a mildly convincing argument against evolution. If you try to negate physically observable facts, you're bound to lose.

As a theist I'm probably a bit more sympathetic to the creationism people than most (even if I don't agree with them). If you've got a legitimate argument against evolution, I'm willing to hear you out. All I ask is that you not go to the Answers in Genesis page and quote from their laughable arguments, or use some other already-refuted argument against evolution. I'm speaking somewhat rhetorically here; in evolution's 100+ year history, no one has come up with a valid argument against it. But hey, there's a first time for everything.

 

[xxChrisxx]

My argument is that it is black and white. If you're an agnostic and you lean towards theist on the religion line you created, do you believe in god? No? Then you're an atheist. If you do, then you're a theist. The only time you're a theist is if you believe in god, anywhere below that on the line is atheist, since you don't believe it.

This is based on the assumption that you can't believe something you don't know to be true. Which is false. You can believe something in the absence of evidence, but ratioanlly know that without evidence you cannot say for cartain.

If I can believe my car is parked outside, but not know it for sure. Someone can believe there is a god without knowing. I don't find it partucually rational to take that view to believe an extraordinary claim without knowing, but some people do believe without knowlege.

Anyone who is reasonable sits on the agnostic spectrum. We are all agnostic to some degree barring those who are brainwashed fundies, who 'know' god exists, and those who 'know' that they don't. Both extremes are slightly irrational positions.

So by you saying that, you're saying that the only true atheists are the "strong atheists".

No I am not sayin that. I'm saying if you don't believe then you are atheist. That inclused strong and weak. However being a weak atheist also puts you in the box of not knowing. Making you agnostic.

It's not an either/or thing.

 

[Pattonias]

My last statement in regards to the difference between an atheist, agnostic, an theist is that if you have three definitions with which to categorize people, then it is fairly clear cut the differences between the three, as we have clearly layed out here. If you (leroy) reduce this to a decision between only two categories (theist and atheist), as you have done, then you are correct. When you are not a theist you are an atheist.

The guy wants to wait to decide one way or another until he can make a better judgement is an agnostic.

 

[xxChrisxx]

My last statement in regards to the difference between an atheist, agnostic, an theist is that if you have three definitions with which to categorize people, then it is fairly clear cut the differences between the three, as we have clearly layed out here. If you (leroy) reduce this to a decision between only two categories (theist and atheist), as you have done, then you are correct. When you are not a theist you are an atheist.

The guy wants to wait to decide one way or another until he can make a better judgement is an agnostic.

Is it reasonable to reduce it down to a dichotomy though? If you begin to reduce down your options then you start to put people into a bracket that doesn't accurately reflect their views.

But yes I agree that if you boil it down to those two options, then Leroy is indeed correct, what he is saying a tautological. And no one is aguing that. This is reality though, there aren't only two options, we have more and they are well defined. Three by dictionary definition, and a spectrum becuase those three options are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Evo]

Hi gkc. Speaking from the position of someone who does believe in God (which makes me a minority among physicists)...

There are two issues here. The first is the consideration of God's role in the universe when we do science. A lot of people believe that God should be given credit for all physical processes (that isn't exactly what you said in your post, but I'm guessing you adhere to this philosophy). The problem with saying "God is responsible" is that from a scientific point of view, it's an absolutely useless statement. If you believe in a God who is actually worthy of that title, then you believe he is responsible for everything that happens. So why bother mentioning this at all? It would be impractical to glorify God for every single physical process that has to be considered in any scientific experiment. Besides that, science is concerned with "how" question, not "why" questions. Saying "God did it" adds absolutely nothing to an explanation of how diffusive shock acceleration creates high energy cosmic rays or how stars collapse into degenerate matter. For any religious scientist who is good at his job, giving God credit for physical processes would not be beneficial in any way, because you'd have to take the time to give God credit for every single thing that happens. Even according to most theologians this would be a waste of time rather than God-honoring. If you are a scientist who believes in God, it's better to take time, outside of your research, to give credit to God in whatever way you feel is best. But as far as scientific inquiry goes, there's no point in inserting the word "God" into your scientific papers. That's just meaningless.

The second issue is using religious doctrine to formulate scientific theses. You mention evolution and the formation of our universe from others. The latter is highly speculative (almost to the point of being a religion rather than science), so I won't go into it. But as for evolution, biologists have physical evidence backing up their theories. This isn't just a matter of evil atheist conspirators sitting in back rooms trying to figure out how to drag more people to hell with them. Lots of religious people believe in evolution. Even if you don't, it's contrary to the doctrines of most religions to make up lies in order to defend one's beliefs. Don't take this as any sort of personal offense, but basically all creation "scientists" are liars. I have never met one creationist who used legitimate scientific facts to make even a mildly convincing argument against evolution. If you try to negate physically observable facts, you're bound to lose.

As a theist I'm probably a bit more sympathetic to the creationism people than most (even if I don't agree with them). If you've got a legitimate argument against evolution, I'm willing to hear you out. All I ask is that you not go to the Answers in Genesis page and quote from their laughable arguments, or use some other already-refuted argument against evolution. I'm speaking somewhat rhetorically here; in evolution's 100+ year history, no one has come up with a valid argument against it. But hey, there's a first time for everything.

Excellent post Arunma, I need to keep this as a reference for whenever this discussion comes up.