demiurgent (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
demiurgent) wrote2007-12-03 12:06 pm
demiurgent) wrote2007-12-03 12:06 pm
Entry tags:
A brief conversation
A brief conversation with a coworker, fortunately where no students could hear:
Him: Well, agnostics are just atheists without the courage of their convictions.
Me: Wow. That was both a lie and offensive. That's a neat trick.
He looked confused. I went on to tell him what I'm going to tell you, right now.
Atheism is not the lack of religion, despite the roots of the word. Atheism is a religion. It is the specific belief, without evidence, that the universe lacked intelligent or motive force behind its creation.
Many atheists refute this, mind. They say that they stand for science, and skepticism, and that any divine presence would need to be proven, and without that proof one must assume there is no divine presence. That, they often say, is simple science and stark reason.
And that's utter bullshit.
Science is agnostic.
Science says "I do not know, until I see. When I see, I can gather evidence and hypothesize. After I hypothesize I gather more evidence. I experiment. I test my hypothesis. I revise my hypothesis. If I and many other scientists perform these experiments and verify and reproduce my results, we might -- might -- upgrade my hypothesis to a theory, but that takes a lot of doing."
Atheism doesn't do any of that. Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not. And the evidence for that is just as prevalent as the evidence for Yaweh, Allah, Aphrodite or Manannán mac Lir: absolutely none.
Guys? We don't know. We don't know who or what if anything started the cosmic ball rolling. We don't know if there's something beyond the edge of human perception. We just don't fucking know, okay?
Now, you can be convinced the Christians have it wrong. Or that the Greeks were full of shit. Or that the Wiccans are fooling themselves. You can be personally convinced that the universe is a cold place where everything is essentially chaotic and all things happened because of chance. That's fine.
But don't pretend you have an inside understanding that the religious nuts don't. You have a belief. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's fine. If it makes you happy, power to you.
And if you believe in a god, gods, goddesses, or whatever? Fine by me. Whatever helps you get to sleep, man.
Me? I'm agnostic. I don't have the hubris to think I've got the final answer. I'm still watching and waiting, and I'm keeping an open mind -- to all sides of the question.
And for the record? Don't you fucking dare say I don't have the courage of my convictions. It takes a hell of a lot more courage to admit what you don't know than assert what you believe to be true.
Sadly, it means I don't get to be nearly as smug as certain theists or atheists. But don't worry about me. I usually find something else to be smug about.
Him: Well, agnostics are just atheists without the courage of their convictions.
Me: Wow. That was both a lie and offensive. That's a neat trick.
He looked confused. I went on to tell him what I'm going to tell you, right now.
Atheism is not the lack of religion, despite the roots of the word. Atheism is a religion. It is the specific belief, without evidence, that the universe lacked intelligent or motive force behind its creation.
Many atheists refute this, mind. They say that they stand for science, and skepticism, and that any divine presence would need to be proven, and without that proof one must assume there is no divine presence. That, they often say, is simple science and stark reason.
And that's utter bullshit.
Science is agnostic.
Science says "I do not know, until I see. When I see, I can gather evidence and hypothesize. After I hypothesize I gather more evidence. I experiment. I test my hypothesis. I revise my hypothesis. If I and many other scientists perform these experiments and verify and reproduce my results, we might -- might -- upgrade my hypothesis to a theory, but that takes a lot of doing."
Atheism doesn't do any of that. Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not. And the evidence for that is just as prevalent as the evidence for Yaweh, Allah, Aphrodite or Manannán mac Lir: absolutely none.
Guys? We don't know. We don't know who or what if anything started the cosmic ball rolling. We don't know if there's something beyond the edge of human perception. We just don't fucking know, okay?
Now, you can be convinced the Christians have it wrong. Or that the Greeks were full of shit. Or that the Wiccans are fooling themselves. You can be personally convinced that the universe is a cold place where everything is essentially chaotic and all things happened because of chance. That's fine.
But don't pretend you have an inside understanding that the religious nuts don't. You have a belief. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's fine. If it makes you happy, power to you.
And if you believe in a god, gods, goddesses, or whatever? Fine by me. Whatever helps you get to sleep, man.
Me? I'm agnostic. I don't have the hubris to think I've got the final answer. I'm still watching and waiting, and I'm keeping an open mind -- to all sides of the question.
And for the record? Don't you fucking dare say I don't have the courage of my convictions. It takes a hell of a lot more courage to admit what you don't know than assert what you believe to be true.
Sadly, it means I don't get to be nearly as smug as certain theists or atheists. But don't worry about me. I usually find something else to be smug about.
no subject
Phlogiston and aether weren't rejected because a better theory came along. They were rejected because hypotheses about phlogiston and aether made testable predictions that were tested, and disproven. People came up with better hypotheses because of that disproof.
Science already has you covered regarding the improbability of God existing: What testable predictions does theism make? What experiment can be performed to test those predictions? If theists can't put any of these on the table, there's no reason for science to treat theism any more seriously than a belief in polka-dotted unicorns dancing the macarena -- phlogiston and aether actually fared better as science!
Assuming theists can put together a test for whatever predictions they come up with, how many such predictions need to fail before theists would acknowledge that theism can be classified alongside phlogiston and aether?
no subject
Note that I did not say 'scientific theory'. Theory, the word, has different meanings. One of them is 'belief'. If you would prefer, I will use that instead.
"Phlogiston and aether weren't rejected because a better theory came along. They were rejected because hypotheses about phlogiston and aether made testable predictions that were tested, and disproven."
The process of disproving a theory and the process of building a different one are distinctly different and often not made by the same person or in the same time period. This has been repeated often, but phlogiston is a good example from Wikipedia: The theory was found flawed, some attempts were made to revise it and it remained the main theory. About twenty years later, the oxygen requirement for combustion was discovered and the theory was finally thrown away when the caloric theory was put in its place. There's no point in rejecting something if you don't have something better to fill its place. The point after all isn't to have something absolutely correct but to have something that explains phenomena and measurements as reliably as possible.
"Science already has you covered regarding the improbability of God existing: What testable predictions does theism make?"
That's why theism is NOT a scientific theory, it utterly fails as one. In a scientific context, it is much more reasonable to immediately reject it as extremely improbable (like you've already stated).
BUT, Science has failed so far to provide any answer to "where did the universe come from" that is any less improbable; if theism was that ridiculous, then any mediocre scientist could come up with theory that is at least a little less improbable. If there is such a theory, I'm not educated about it and would appreciate any and all enlightenment.
no subject
I did note that. The implication that there is any type of theory other than a "scientific theory" is exactly what prompted my comment.
Theory, the word, has different meanings. One of them is 'belief'. If you would prefer, I will use that instead.
In the context of a discussion of science, theory has only one meaning. "Belief" describes theism with far more accuracy and precision -- without muddying the difference between theistic belief and, say, the theory of gravitation.
There's no point in rejecting something if you don't have something better to fill its place. The point after all isn't to have something absolutely correct but to have something that explains phenomena and measurements as reliably as possible.
If a hypothesis makes predictions that are falsified by observational data, that is sufficient reason to alter or reject it, even if a better hypothesis has not yet been established. If something claiming to be a hypothesis doesn't even make predictions that can be confirmed or falsified by observational data, it is indistinguishable from shrugging and saying "I don't know."
BUT, Science has failed so far to provide any answer to "where did the universe come from" that is any less improbable; ; if theism was that ridiculous, then any mediocre scientist could come up with theory that is at least a little less improbable. If there is such a theory, I'm not educated about it and would appreciate any and all enlightenment.
Google "Big Bang."
Unlike any theistic assertion ever made, Big Bang theory makes quantifiable predictions borne out by observational data accurately and precisely. As such, it is infinitely more probable than theism -- or any other assertion that makes no quantifiable predictions. What's more, theism requires a belief in the existence of something that is neither observed nor observable and Big Bang theory does not. That, too, makes Big Bang theory infinitely more probable than any theistic assertion ever made.
The fact that most people have trouble understanding the math around why "before the Big Bang" is a meaningless concept does not alter the strength of Big Bang theory, it just means we do a shitty job of teaching people math in this society.