. But the only stand science can take on religion is in the area of verifiable claims. Science can test whether or not the Earth is more than 3,000 years old or whether or not homo sapiens were contemporary of the dinosaurs.
... and, thus, science CAN examine the claims of religion, and so science CAN take a stand in the matter of religion.
It can, and often does, prove religions to be *false*. It can also prove specific claims of religions to be true.
And attempts to make science the antonym of faith just confuse the issue.
Uh, science *is* the antonym of faith. Faith is belief without (or in opposition to) evidence. Science involves only evidence. They are, in fact, totally opposite. However, faith, not concerning itself with evidence, goes into areas that science can't and has no interest in following. Science and faith don't always conflict, because faith, being nonscientific, concerns itself with nonscientific things.
When faith attempts to move into the realm of science, however, science destroys it, every time. It always has, and it always will, because when applied to testable claims either science will prove faith incorrect or it will remove the base requirement of faith by providing evidence.
An atheist is one who asserts there is no God.
No. That's sloppy terminology and sloppy thinking. There's no need to "assert no god" any more than there's a need to "believe in no Santa Claus, underpants gnomes, Tooth Fairy, or Zeus". Reducing things to the level of claiming "believe in the lack of" incorrectly cedes the validity of the question *in the first place* to the crazy people who demand that you talk to their invisible friend.
You no more "believe in a lack of gods" than you "believe in the lack of particles of Monetarium, which cause things to have value" or "believe in the lack of purple dogs who will EAT YOUR FACE if you don't spit twice a day"
As soon as you start claiming that a lack of belief is a belief in the lack, you're stuck "not believing" *every single wrong idiotic thing that anyone can imagine*, with the inevitable concomitant result that you're making a "leap of faith" in the "absence of evidence", and so you're JUST as wrong as anyone who says "the love of Monetarium is the root of all evil" is without proof.
Fuck that.
The question itself is wrong.
If you honestly don't care -- don't care about the question, don't care about the answer -- then why on Earth do you care about the terminology?
I'm not one of the people who don't care at all. I have examined the positive evidence of reality-affecting gods existing (none), and so concluded that no reality-affecting gods exist. All that remains, then, are the potential gods who *do not* affect reality - and my "don't care" statement shows up THERE. Since they don't affect reality, they're completely irrelevant, and considering their possible existence is a meaningless waste of time.
At no point in here is a positive statement of belief, any more than your disbelief that Monetarium particles are what makes that piece of paper with the writing on it more valuable than the envelope it came in is a positive belief.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 12:09 am (UTC)... and, thus, science CAN examine the claims of religion, and so science CAN take a stand in the matter of religion.
It can, and often does, prove religions to be *false*. It can also prove specific claims of religions to be true.
And attempts to make science the antonym of faith just confuse the issue.
Uh, science *is* the antonym of faith. Faith is belief without (or in opposition to) evidence. Science involves only evidence. They are, in fact, totally opposite. However, faith, not concerning itself with evidence, goes into areas that science can't and has no interest in following. Science and faith don't always conflict, because faith, being nonscientific, concerns itself with nonscientific things.
When faith attempts to move into the realm of science, however, science destroys it, every time. It always has, and it always will, because when applied to testable claims either science will prove faith incorrect or it will remove the base requirement of faith by providing evidence.
An atheist is one who asserts there is no God.
No. That's sloppy terminology and sloppy thinking. There's no need to "assert no god" any more than there's a need to "believe in no Santa Claus, underpants gnomes, Tooth Fairy, or Zeus". Reducing things to the level of claiming "believe in the lack of" incorrectly cedes the validity of the question *in the first place* to the crazy people who demand that you talk to their invisible friend.
You no more "believe in a lack of gods" than you "believe in the lack of particles of Monetarium, which cause things to have value" or "believe in the lack of purple dogs who will EAT YOUR FACE if you don't spit twice a day"
As soon as you start claiming that a lack of belief is a belief in the lack, you're stuck "not believing" *every single wrong idiotic thing that anyone can imagine*, with the inevitable concomitant result that you're making a "leap of faith" in the "absence of evidence", and so you're JUST as wrong as anyone who says "the love of Monetarium is the root of all evil" is without proof.
Fuck that.
The question itself is wrong.
If you honestly don't care -- don't care about the question, don't care about the answer -- then why on Earth do you care about the terminology?
I'm not one of the people who don't care at all. I have examined the positive evidence of reality-affecting gods existing (none), and so concluded that no reality-affecting gods exist. All that remains, then, are the potential gods who *do not* affect reality - and my "don't care" statement shows up THERE. Since they don't affect reality, they're completely irrelevant, and considering their possible existence is a meaningless waste of time.
At no point in here is a positive statement of belief, any more than your disbelief that Monetarium particles are what makes that piece of paper with the writing on it more valuable than the envelope it came in is a positive belief.