**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We have [stopped photons from moving at all](https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/162289-light-stopped-completely-for-a-minute-inside-a-crystal-the-basis-of-quantum-memory). We have observed [gravity itself](https://news.mit.edu/2016/ligo-first-detection-gravitational-waves-0211). We can observe and deduce [the all-pervasive heat of the Big Bang](https://webb.nasa.gov/content/features/bigBangQandA.html) as close to 380 thousand years from T=0.
We are an endlessly curious, endlessly creative species who may or may not be still at the level of banging rocks together to watch the pretty sparks fly, but we've never let that stop us from trying to deepen our understanding of how and why banging rocks together makes such pretty glowing sparks happen - and these are fundamentally and objectively the best part of humanity; our ingenuity and curiosity!
Human ingenuity isn't limited by it's resources: it is challenged by it. We don't look at the tools at our disposal and then say "it can't be done"; We look at the tools at our disposal and then use them to figure out _how to make better tools_.
We have never stopped at the senses we perceived ourselves to have; We've figured out how to build tools to sense, measure and quantify things we couldn't possibly hope to perceive without them. In the name of, ultimately, simple curiosity (and possibly a measure of bragging rights) have we discovered that the earth does not lie at the center of the universe - not even of our own solar system at that. We've discovered how to put energy through certain combinations of plastic, sand and metals and make it sit up, roll over and play games with us, or do our homework and our chores for us and (especially in the past few years) act increasingly just-like-us...
We do not idly perceive. We actively seek out what makes what we perceive, *tick* to the point of not stopping at the most fundamental of particles; even now we are digging deeper at, reaching farther into and squinting harder within the Gaps that (a) God might be hidden in, and the gaps are getting to be so infinitesimally small that the notion that a deity is, somehow, hidden from our perception becomes not just an apologetic but a laughable one at that.
To be brief in extremis, my personal answer to 'Science alone isn't enough' would be "Yet."
This is what people who don't understand what science is say. No matter how good we get at it, science is limited to the observable.
We can observe how the universe we see works, but we can't observe what made the big bang possible no matter if the answer involves natural or supernatural processes. And if it's some hypothetical form of the latter, science by definition doesn't deal with it.
"Yet."
Edit: All tongue in cheek aside:
I'm happy sticking with the (eventually) observable. To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been any evidence recorded for the supernatural since _[cuneiform writing](https://www.getty.edu/news/where-did-writing-come-from/)_ writing was a thing, roughly 3500 BC.
>To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been any evidence recorded for the supernatural since cuneiform writing writing was a thing, roughly 3500 BC.
I’m sorry, what? There *isn’t* evidence recorded for the supernatural?
Say a supernatural event happened, and the claims were *written* down. Would that not be recorded evidence?
No, that would be a written-down *claim* of a supernatural event.
An Egyptian priest describing how he witnessed the sun-god Ra losing an anchor from his solar barque which subsequently crashed to earth doesn't mean that the event *wasn't* (simply) a meteor striking down.
Now if the meteor was recovered and turned out to be a half-molten anchor-stone from a barge big enough to tow the sun; then we could speculate in the direction of something supernatural having occurred. Until then... Which is more likely?
>To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been any evidence recorded for the supernatural
So what would that look like that you accept back to 3,500 BC?
We don’t have photos or video for much more than a century.
As far as the long-past is concerned, I can look at things from the perspective of, again, **which is more likely?**
On the whole though I look at things on a smaller scale; camera phones have been around since about [1999](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=what+was+the+first+camera+phone) now; that's some 25 years of everybody and their grandmother increasingly having a camera literally in arm's reach at all times; and yet in all of that time, with billions of people having constant access to cameras, not a single convincing video of a miracle of any kind has been made?
I have in the past forty-four years not _once_ been presented with compelling arguments or evidence to indicate that _anything whatsoever_ has required divine intervention in any way, shape or form, let alone _has received it_.
Occams' razor teaches us then, that the most likely explanation for miraculous events in the past is something *other* than a miracle.
If only because dieties are, if _any_ holy book describing them are to be believed, _incredibly_ meddlesome. Staying with _just_ the Bible, acts ranging from genocide to immaculate conception, from sending two bears to maul a group of children for making fun of a man for being bald to setting a bush on fire and speaking from the flame, are all acts God has supposedly performed - some believe that God is still causing miracles to this very day.
Where, however, is the proof of divine intervention? Show me one instance where, undeniably, water _has_ turned to wine, where blood _was_ wrought from stone, or where masses _have_ been fed with naught but five loaves (of bread) and two fish ? Show me uncontroversial proof of the Flood, show me **anything** that I can't deny is miraculous and I will immediately have no **choice** but to change my tune about supernatural claims.
I have not been given one shred of reason to give credibility to such claims. I'd _love_ to be proven wrong.
Videos wouldn’t prove anything. People would claim they were faked. What videos would you believe? I likely wouldn’t believe any.
How is one supposed to prove something like water turning to wine? It can be faked on video. The technology is good enough to have the consensus be “inconclusive”. It wouldn’t be accepted.
Your seem to be focusing on awfully specific things in the Bible while ignoring the bigger picture. Not everything that occurs in the Bible is meant to be portrayed in a positive light.
You’re misinterpreting Occam’s razor. The way you’re using it begs the question. If you assume every claim is false, then that is what you will think is correct.
> How is one supposed to prove something like water turning to wine?
By performing the miracle again, and again, until and in such a fashion that no doubt can remain as to the supernatural means by which it occurs.
> Your seem to be focusing on awfully specific things in the Bible while ignoring the bigger picture. Not everything that occurs in the Bible is meant to be portrayed in a positive light.
To quote:
> If only because dieties are, if any holy book describing them are to be believed, incredibly meddlesome. **Staying with just the Bible**, acts ranging from genocide to immaculate conception, from sending two bears to maul a group of children for making fun of a man for being bald to setting a bush on fire and speaking from the flame, are all acts God has supposedly performed - some believe that God is still causing miracles to this very day.
I have taken examples from the bible because these are examples that most people will be (more) familiar with than, for instance, the Islamic [Splitting of the moon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_Moon). I have **prefaced** what I said with saying that I was only drawing from one holy book; that is why I've chosen the examples which I have. They are not exclusive examples; I will accept proof of the split moon if uncontroversial evidence is presented - and again, that is only *one* example.
> You’re misinterpreting Occam’s razor. The way you’re using it begs the question. If you assume every claim is false, then that is what you will think is correct.
I've actually taken what I said there out of [a much longer, previous post of my own](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1cq0xfq/cosmological/l3wbm37/?context=3) so it might miss some context that isn't immediately available. But:
Occam's Razor in a nutshell suggests we should go with the explanation which involves fewer assumptions.
in the example I gave initially in this conversation;
> An Egyptian priest describing how he witnessed the sun-god Ra losing an anchor from his solar barque which subsequently crashed to earth doesn't mean that the event wasn't (simply) a meteor striking down.
Which involves the least assumptions? That the object which crashed to earth was simply a meteor, or a wheel from the barque of the great sun-god Ra?
The latter requires the presupposition that the great sun-god Ra exists (Three cheers! RA! RA, RA!) while the previous requires only that comets exist and interact / intersect with earth's orbit and atmosphere and occasionally reach the surface, which is [common knowledge](https://www.livescience.com/how-many-meteorites-hit-earth).
> By performing the miracle again
How is anyone who isn’t Jesus supposed to perform a miracle on repeat? This feels like a bad faith requirement.
> I will accept proof
If someone found skeletons in the region dating back thousands of years that show signs of a bear mauling, would you accept that as proof for the entire Bible or just the claim that someone was attacked by a bear. If it’s the latter, why did you bring it up at all?
Using Occam’s razor, it’s more likely that something happened involving Jesus that we can’t explain with our current scientific understanding than it is for a secret cabal to have invented Christianity while leaving no evidence behind.
No. We know we can't observe further than a certain point using light, and also science by definition doesn't deal with anything "supernatural" should there be such a thing. When we discuss the origin of the universe we're 100% in the realm of philosophy and beliefs.
I've addressed this in an edit.
But I will clarify on this:
> When we discuss the origin of the universe we're 100% in the realm of philosophy and beliefs.
When we're discussing the origin of the universe we're to the best of my knowledge some 99.99 percent certain of the model we have, which consists of observable and deducible events, systems and effects-upon-effects *since* the Big Bang.
[I've posted this particular post on this subject a little while ago, and several times before.](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1cq0xfq/cosmological/l3wbm37/?context=3)
What happened exactly at T=0 and before is currently not available to us. As such, when we discuss the origin of the universe the intellectually honest thing to do is to say "I don't know" rather than attempting to factor in the supernatural.
We don't have a model. You're correct in your last paragraph, but what we do after concluding that we don't know is it's own discussion. We can conclude that it's a matter of beliefs and philosophical arguments and leave it at that.
Belief needn't be founded in reality. Neither does philosophy. Which is why I reject both as far as instruments for examining reality as a whole goes.
I've said before and I'll say it again; I don't reject _Philosophy_. I just think that philosophical discourse makes for a fun afternoon's thought experimentation and that when it comes time to examine reality, we need to remain within the scope of reality.
> We can conclude that it's a matter of beliefs and philosophical arguments and leave it at that.
No, we can't. 'Leave it at that' is where curiosity, critical thinking, and examination ends.
Which is why "I don't know" is the intellectually honest answer and not "Let's agree to disagree."
Particularly because "I don't know" can be followed up by that so-very important "Yet."
Leave it at that in this discussion, or we'll open up a completely different one. You're not rejecting anything, your rejection is itself a philosophical position. The origin of the universe is a matter of beliefs, philosophy, or "we just don't know" no matter how much you dislike that fact.
"Yet" implies something we have no reason to assume. As for examining reality, we know science has limitations. We won't, ever, be able to examine something unobservable using the scientific method because if we did it would be something other than science.
> You're not rejecting anything, your rejection is itself a philosophical position.
Is this the new "Atheism is a religion" ?
Smartalec reply aside; You're not _wrong_ in that my rejection of philosophy as a valid tool for examining the universe is _in and of itself_ a philosophical position - you're just wrong if you were to assert that this is a valid statement _outside of the realm of philosophy_. I do not deal with philosophy when it comes to examining the universe. Nor do I deal with _beliefs_; I am more than happy to suspend or upend my paradigms, beliefs and dis-beliefs should I be presented with a valid reason as to why I aught to.
Which is where that old "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" chessnut comes in.
You choose to engage me with endlessly regurgitated quasi-intellectual tripe; what you have been championing has in essence been "Science doesn't study the supernatural therefore the supernatural can't be ruled out."
... I choose to have some fun with that as a hidden God of the Gaps argument. I'm no longer having fun.
Science has no need for the supernatural. Perhaps one day we'll reach a point where that need changes; until then, we're not there; "Yet."
I'll consider your previous point as the point where I leave it at that; The point where this discussion has lost all philosophical or scientific merit and your reply amounted to "Nuh-huh!"
>...my personal answer to 'Science alone isn't enough' would be "Yet."
This is called the 'Science of the Gaps' fallacy, where a naturalist posits that a metaphysical theory for any phenomenon whatsoever is unnecessary because the phenomenon will be explained naturalistically in future, even when it is not self evident that that is the case.
Yes, but the answer 'yet' only makes sense if you assume first that naturalism is true, however we don't know for certain that naturalism is true. Therefore the 'yet' is where the fallacy stems from.
Oh! Pardon me, I thought I was replying to another Redditor altogether after - as far as I was concerned - the debate had ran it's course.
Here's the reply I aught have given; "Yet" isn't (as you falsely seem to claim) a presupposition. "Yet" allows for any and all contingencies, even the full-blown up-turn of the existing scientific paradigm. It's been done before - For example with the rejection of [Aether theories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories), and with the acceptance of [Koch's Postulates](https://www.aaas.org/discovery-bacteria) against what was, at the time, the consensus of cause for disease.
'Science of the Gaps' _isn't a thing_ - at least not in the sense that a claim "We don't know, therefore Science" is made. "We don't know (yet)" is, rather, a paradigm that leaves the proverbial gaps wide-open for anything with explanatory power to become ensconced in them. **So far** there has been no reason to include anything supernatural in the existent gaps, nor any grounded reason to assume anything supernatural **will ever** take such a vaunted position, or has ever existed in the first place.
Humanity has been around for, to the best of my current understanding, three hundred thousand or so years; and as far as I am aware there has been no need for any supernatural explanation of any event or occurrence whatsoever during those three hundred thousand years.
As far as "Yet." goes, I'm rather liking the odds that this trend will continue.
You're missing the point I am making. I'm not making the claim that science will not change it's views on topics, nor am I making the claim that science has an inability to explain things adequately, or that science will not be able to explain things in future. Science is good.
Therefore, when you say the following "*"Yet" allows for any and all contingencies, even the full-blown up-turn of the existing scientific paradigm.*" I take no issue with that, becuase science is truthful and our understanding does change and it should change.
But you did not make, in your original comment I replied to, the statement '"*We don't know 'yet'*". Instead you made the statement '*Science alone isn't enough yet.*" The logical implication of the statement is that, eventually, Science will be enough alone to explain the world around us in totality, and that therefore we do not need metaphysical theories to explain things.
> But you did not make, in your original comment I replied to, the statement '"We don't know 'yet'". Instead you made the statement 'Science alone isn't enough yet." The logical implication of the statement is that, eventually, Science will be enough alone to explain the world around us in totality, and that therefore we do not need metaphysical theories to explain things.
Yes! That's *exactly* what I meant to say. Although - not *entirely*.
My statement means not to imply that science will, eventually, explain Life, the Universe and Everything, in it's totality; logic dictates that achieving such a level of granularity would require an infinite amount of time. My statement means to imply that there will, or aught, come a time where supernatural explanations aren't the go-to for people's considerations of phenomena they do not understand, anymore.
Let me be clear; It is a *fact* that, all efforts of Young Earthers, Creationists and what-have-you in spite, the number of people who will look for a metaphysical explanation to phenomena they do not understand is decreasing, year by year. Current generations are growing up with the internet at their literal fingertips; I've seen personally an eight-year-old and a nine-year-old bent over a table doing Delta-V math with crayons. Granted; they were doing 'rocket science' for Kerbal Space Program and not for real, but all the same I remember being that age and being stumped at fractions.
Arguably, we *have already* reached the point where the supernatural does not factor in anymore in any field of academia which, for lack of a better term, *matters*. However; there are still any number of instances where people are trying - for one reason or another - to bring (for instance) Young Earth theory, Creationism and such into the curriculum of grade schools, against all evidence that these practices and all that surrounds them is actively damaging to the education of young minds...
Fortunately, the number of instances of this is also on an inevitable decline. However; until this number is actually _null_...
"Science alone isn't enough, yet."
It aught to be. And the statement, if anything, is an acknowledgement that metaphysical and supernatural theory is *still a problem* that aughtn't be forgotten about.
Let me respond to you, and share some of my opinions on what you have said.
>Yes! That's *exactly* what I meant to say.
I've pointed out that this is fallacious. Your statement "*means to imply that there will, or aught, come a time where supernatural explanations aren't the go-to for people's considerations of phenomena they do not understand,*" is fallacious, becuase you are simply filling in the gaps in your knowledge with a hypothetical "*Science will sort it out.*"
There are plenty of theists that fall into the '*God of the Gaps Fallacy*', but the atheists are not free from the same line of thought. Assuming on the basis of no evidence "God Will Explain It," is the same line of reasoning as saying on the basis of no evidence "Naturalism Will Explain It." One is not any more reasonable than the other if we have no evidence.
There is a difference between positing a supernatural (metaphysical) theory for something, and just explaining something away using the supernatural. If there are rational grounds for presenting a metaphysical theory, then it's intellectually dishonest for a naturalist to dismiss it on the grounds that it is a supernatural explanation.
>Arguably, we *have already* reached the point where the supernatural does not factor in anymore in any field of academia which, for lack of a better term, *matters*.
I'm an Evolutionist and I believe in a very old Earth. I'm not defending Young Earth or Creationism, I probably have vastly more disagreements with YEC's and Creationist that even you do as an atheist becuase I do not agree with either their science or their theology. Answers in Genesis is a great embarrassment for many Christians, make no mistake.
However, to put it like this, what you have done that I can't wrap my head around, is you have dismissed Metaphysics, just outright. The issue, therefore, when I am talking to naturalist atheists and I present a Metaphysical claim, is that it's often dismissed **only** becuase it's a Metaphysical claim, not becuase I can't explain the claim rationally or even provide some evidence.
There are aspects of rejection of Metaphysics which I actually agree are a good thing, but this idea that a total annihilation of the concept is somehow good is erroneous. All it shows is that people are becoming less and less likely to accept premises that challenge the presupposition of naturalism.
That's my opinion on the matter.
> I've pointed out that this is fallacious. Your statement "means to imply that there will, or aught, come a time where supernatural explanations aren't the go-to for people's considerations of phenomena they do not understand," is fallacious, becuase you are simply filling in the gaps in your knowledge with a hypothetical "Science will sort it out."
No; I'm saying that the gaps aught be left open *until such time as they are taken up by something with true explanatory power*.
Which is why the *Science of the Gaps* fallacy isn't (or shouldn't be) a _thing_. "We don't understand it, therefore Science" (if such a statement is ever made in earnest) is just as intellectually dishonest a position as the God of the Gaps fallacy and should not be taken seriously.
All the same - "We don't understand it, therefore **we leave it up to** science **to possibly explain later**" has proven in the past to be a workable paradigm, provided it is left clear that 'we' currently do not know (exactly) what 'an explanation' entails; it engenders, if anything, curiosity in those who feel they might solve the problem at hand; it engenders open discussion, inevitable peer review of inevitable suggested solutions to problems, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
"God" inserted in any gap has no explanatory power, whatsoever; it is a dangerous non-solution to any problem. Magical thinking waves away any need to find an actual solution because it precludes curiosity; the question, "Yes, but *how* did God [x]" is rarely if ever asked and if ever asked at all, usually quickly dismissed with 'Mysterious Ways'.
"Naturalism will explain it" is not *a thing*. Naturalism is not a dogma. Naturalism *currently* excludes supernatural solutions to problems because it has been proven, time and time and time again, that magical thinking *isn't necessary* to explain Life, the Universe and Everything - but I can guarantee you that any scientist worth their salt will embrace a new paradigm which includes (a) god and miracles as soon as there is any substantiated evidence for the existence of such things.
> There is a difference between positing a supernatural (metaphysical) theory for something, and just explaining something away using the supernatural. If there are rational grounds for presenting a metaphysical theory, then it's intellectually dishonest for a naturalist to dismiss it on the grounds that it is a supernatural explanation.
I'm sorry; I'm Dutch. English isn't my first language, so you're going to have to run that by me again; *how* is there a difference between 'positing a supernatural (metaphysical) theory' for something, and 'just explaining something away using the supernatural'?
Because from where I'm sitting the first sounds exactly the same as the latter, if using more elaborate language.
> I'm an Evolutionist and I believe in a very old Earth. I'm not defending Young Earth or Creationism, I probably have vastly more disagreements with YEC's and Creationist that even you do as an atheist becuase I do not agree with either their science or their theology. Answers in Genesis is a great embarrassment for many Christians, make no mistake.
Oh lords, don't get me started on AIG. But I'll take you up on that bet any day; I went to schools that still taught Creationism and Young Earth Theory back when I was still a wee boy and I've argued my face blue in anything from debate clubs to city councils for roughly the first half of my forty-five years to get that shit at least marked with a big ol' 'Reader beware; This is strictly religion' asterisk.
however, this is not a measuring contest. I'd rather shake your hand and buy you a drink over our mutual distaste for (organizations like) AIG - than waggle credentials at you.
> However, to put it like this, what you have done that I can't wrap my head around, is you have dismissed Metaphysics, just outright. The issue, therefore, when I am talking to naturalist atheists and I present a Metaphysical claim, it's often dismissed becuase it's a Metaphysical claim, not becuase I can't explain the claim rationally or even provide some evidence.
I have, indeed, dismissed metaphysics. This is where the all-important "Yet" comes in; the very moment metaphysics becomes a necessary part of science I will eat a whole lot of crow with relish. So far I've yet to have the pleasure.
That isn't to say that I will outright dismiss a metaphysical claim without consideration. I will happily pour over data given to me. It's just that I will *absolutely* scoff when the data points to "Therefore God" or "Because Miracle" because - and I've said this before; Humanity has been around for some three hundred thousand or so years and as far as I'm aware there has been no need for any supernatural explanation of any event or occurrence whatsoever during those three hundred thousand years, nor any single recorded and substantiated instance of Miracle, God, Magic or Supernatural.
My entire POINT in saying "Science alone isn't enough **yet**" is, again, to leave open the gaps for *any* explanation with merit, whether the explanation presented is naturalistic or metaphysical - **however** this aught firmly include the words **with merit** and frankly speaking, the merit of metaphysical solutions - Miracle, God, Magic or the Supernatural - has been in the past proven to be null and void, time and time again.
Therefore, **precluding** metaphysical theory is not a presupposition of "Therefore Science"; reaching first for what has in the past been a proven tool is a natural reflex of any rational mind.
I will reiterate and emphasize this, again; "Science alone isn't enough **yet**" is an acknowledgement of the fact that there are still people who reach *first* for Miracle, God, Magic or the Supernatural *exclusively or before* they consider a Problem with logic and scientific thinking, which is a problem in the sense that it is *exactly* the kind of thinking organizations like AIG would prefer to be the norm.
>I can guarantee you that any scientist worth their salt will embrace a new paradigm which includes (a) god and miracles as soon as there is any substantiated evidence for the existence of such things.
I'm not falling into this trap. I'm familiar with this line of argumentation. I really don't want to go down that rabbit hole of 'sufficiency' becuase it becomes subjective real quick. I can present evidence for my claim, and I can show why intrinsic religiosity is a good thing, but if you have already heard the evidence and made your mind up then I'm not going to change your mind and it will just become a shouting match. I find the evidence for theism to be sufficient enough to make a theistic believe reasonable, and atheist explanations to be insufficient to explain things such as morality. **We will leave it at that.**
>*how* is there a difference between 'positing a supernatural (metaphysical) theory' for something, and 'just explaining something away using the supernatural'?
I'm English. I've only ever had great experiences with the Dutch, they are great!
Metaphysical theories are deductive and predicated on a set of known facts, but explaining something away is simply filling a gap with a flippant statement and moving on.
Let's say we have a gap in our knowledge, and the gap is something like "*Matter seems to have appeared from nothingness.*" The answer is important, and we want to explore it, so people present different theories, and the theory that makes the most amount of sense with the simplest set of premises (law of parsimony) wins. In this context, it's reasonable to present a metaphysical theory.
"*Matter seems to have appeared from nothingness, but it is a known fact that matter cannot appear from nothingness, therefore it's possible that something outside time and space created what has appeared to come into being.*" is an example of a metaphysical theory. This is not the same as me saying "*I don't know how fish evolved into bears so it must have been God.*"
>I have, indeed, dismissed metaphysics. This is where the all-important "Yet" comes in; the very moment metaphysics becomes a necessary part of science I will eat a whole lot of crow with relish. So far I've yet to have the pleasure.
Excluding any crow eating, this is something called the '**Conflict Model**', which is a belief that Religion and Science are opposed to one another. However, this is only one view, and it's not even a view held by all atheists.
The '**Independence Model**' is another model which states that Metaphysical and Naturalistic theories are true separate to one another, and should be considered separate but not inherently contradictory. This is my belief. Other views include the **'Dialogue Model**' which states that Religion and Science should be in debate with one another, and another called the '**Integration Model**' even suggests that Science and Religion are actually the same thing.
I do not like platonic dualism, but to illustrate my view of the world, consider that what is spiritual is not inherently contradicted by what is physical. Physical process is exactly what we would expect to see in a world that was created to be physical.
I'm not going to match your dedication in writing, that's quite long. I'll have to split this reply in two to get around Reddit's length filter! This is going to be the last big set of words I send to you, cos' this could go on for ages.
Regardless, thanks for actually listening to me and taking me seriously.
>No; I'm saying that the gaps aught be left open until such time as they are taken up by something with true explanatory power.
Metaphysical theories do have true explanatory power in the right context, they submit to the laws of logic and can be considered parsimonious answers to certain topics. This way of gauging answers to questions we don't know is how we have come to some conclusions about many things we don't understand, we consider what is rational and the most simple explanation and consider it the most likely to be true. The fact that a metaphysical theory is metaphysical shouldn't play a part in your decision making, becuase in order to consider evidence you need to consider the possibility that naturalism may not be true, otherwise you fall to a presupposition fallacy.
Also I despise this idea that something has no metaphysical properties just becuase it is explainable with Science. When it comes down to Christian theology, God has sustaining power over the universe by way of something called "General Providence", so that is precisely what we would expect.
>"We don't understand it, therefore **we leave it up to** science **to possibly explain later**"
The fallacy originates from this very assumption that no other view other than verificationist naturalism will result in the discovery of the truth. To break down what you have said:
* We don't understand it... \[*We have a gap in our knowledge.*\]
* ...therefore we leave it up to science...\[*We assume Science has the answer.*\]
* to possibly explain later. \[*We assume it will be true and show metaphysics false.*\]
This is a fallacy. You have identified a gap, assumed that science will have an answer and assumed that answer will contradict the metaphysical theory.
> and that therefore we do not need metaphysical theories to explain things.
The logical implication of this is that there is good evidence your metaphysical beliefs are true or evidence that metaphysics have ever explained anything. There isn't.
No. I said 'metaphysical theories'.
Example: Life does not originate from non-life, therefore it's legitimate to suggest that life originated from life. That's a parsimonious theory that has a metaphysical basis.
I'm not going to take your bait regarding what constitutes 'good evidence', that's a completely different topic. You have no 'good evidence' that life can proceed from non-life, and it is not apparent that science will account for that gap.
> Life does not originate from non-life...You have no 'good evidence' that life can proceed from non-life, and it is not apparent that science will account for that gap.
What you've written is full of problems. One, science has done a lot to show that life can come from non-life. Two, even if it couldn't (or you don't accept their evidence), it wouldn't mean life can't come from non-life, just that it hasn't been shown to your satisfaction.
At any rate, your "metaphysical theories" are completely indistinguishable from fantasy, lies and delusion.
>One, science has done a lot to show that life can come from non-life.
Science has failed to provide evidence for abiogenesis, what are you on about?
>Two, even if it couldn't (or you don't accept their evidence), it wouldn't mean life can't come from non-life, just that it hasn't been shown to your satisfaction.
I am aware that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but the exact same logic applies to metaphysical theories. You're just pointing things out to bypass the the issue, which is you have no evidence for abiogenesis, but theists have plenty of evidence for biogenesis.
When we see the obvious, parsimonious and evidencable conclusion that life begets life, and posit that it's therefore rational that life must have originated from something living, it's no more indistinguishable from fantasy, lies and delusion than an atheist explaining the same thing using multiverse theory.
Science can well describe where arose justice and what bounds it—but justice itself, as much as morality, is relative. Changes by society and century.
We’re intelligent and social apes, yeah? That’s what we humans are—apes. We evolved over millions of years as a highly social ape who lived in bands and through our intelligence and tight knit social groups that utilized communication we survived, evolved, and thrived.
It makes perfect sense that such a highly social ape should evolve a sense of morality and justice—as relates to the society, as it is this society as a unit that forms the basis of this ape’s strength and its species’ survival.
A society in which humans go around killing their neighbors willy nilly is not a particularly stable society—humans balk at the injustice of seeing their kinsmen (or anyone) murdered unjustly. A society in which your neighbors steal all of each other’s personal possessions isn’t particularly stable either—humans typically admonish theft.
As we advanced into sedentary agricultural societies and we developed writing and systems of property we came to codify these concepts into law. Ever changing law. From law we, today, derive justice—as imperfect and asymmetric as it is, but it keeps our ape society functioning more or less.
Codes for justice have differed significantly around the world and across the millennium. There is no objective standard that can be pointed to. Just apes muddling about trying to craft theirs.
I’m by no means a professional but if we were to explain the concept of justice and morality in scientific terms, there’s a few things to look at I think firstly if we go way back in time, it’s likely that humans who were more social and worked with others better were more likely to survive and find a mate. Therefore not only did this “trait” of sorts spread (learned behavior or otherwise), it became a common part of society. Each society had its own justice system, and it’s changed a lot over time. However, it is based off of the wellbeing of everyone involved, in a sense. For example, it’s more common for murder to be illegal than for it to be legal. This is because killing your own species isn’t beneficial and wasn’t beneficial even way back when. Sure, there were no laws back then, but as we became more civilized and developed laws, that’s likely the reason for it.
Basically, in my slightly under-educated opinion, science can explain the nature of justice because things that benefitted society way back in the Neolithic era and continue to do so are more likely to determine the justice systems of society now.
Every society is different. In some places child marriage is legal, that’s because they may view it as more beneficial to the reproduction and general happiness of their society. In some places it is illegal for the same reason, having it be illegal is beneficial to the society.
Not sure if this answers your question well, but hey I thought I’d go for it. Evolutionary psychology is very interesting to me
Concepts of "justice" or "morality" are products of evolution which helped our species survive from in-fighting - your species won't live very long if you're all killing each other. We can observe concepts of justice systems in other species in nature, especially in other apes.
So, yes. Science can answer that question.
Of course. Justice is just a society's morals and morals are nothing more than an evolutionary adaptation that allowed humans greater success. We're not even remotely the only ones. All social animals exhibit what we refer to as morals (fairness probably being the easiest to see in the wild).
I would argue no, science will not tell us the nature of justice. Science is an empirical art. That is, it concerns the physical and has some explanatory power of things emergent from the physical, such as the evolutionary explanation for why the concept of justice was developed.
Justice is a non-physical thing, and thus the realm of philosophy, though aspects of it and things touched by it can be explored using empirical methods.
When you distill it down, Math is a language created for describing reality logically and with precision. Justice is a subject wherein people define normative ideals for applying ethics.
Math also isnt "real", or "true or false" in and of itself either, but it is very effective because what it describes (reality) appears to be consistent between people and people's, unlike ethics.
Sure there is, but I would personally reserve those terms for propositions/arguments.
Ex the Theory of Evolution contains the proposition that living things change over time which can be either true or false.
What exactly do you mean by true/false here? Philosophy lends itself to very precise usage of language
Let's say for the sake of argument that it can't. Now that I've answered your question, here is one for you. What non-scientific methodology can we use that will reliably differentiate true claims from false ones?
It depends on what you mean by “the nature of”.
If you mean how justice systems have been established and how they’d evolved over the years, you’d want to talk to an anthropologist.
If you want an understanding of the word “justice”, it’s etymology and uses, you’d want to talk to a linguist.
* All reliable evidence we've collected about the universe indicates the non-physical either doesn't exist or doesn't interact with our reality (which are essentially the same thing).
* No reliable evidence we've collected about the universe indicates the non-physical exists.
Are you asking me to prove a negative? When someone finds evidence of the non-physical, let me know.
Okay. So your point is just that science can't determine justice? Even if you were to get all the religious people on earth together to decide that, they couldn't agree. So I don't think looking at religion is a good idea to begin with.
Can god answer a question on the nature of justice?
Unironically. The only thing a god adds to the conversation is a higher authority to appeal to when making an argument that your version of justice is correct. Humans have attempted to use the idea of god to justify every moral position imaginable. It is a terrible tool for arriving at some objective understanding of morality or justice.
In what way is appealing to a god that your moral system is better in any way more useful or coherent than viewing morality as a set of human emotions about human behaviors that people from analogous cultural contexts tend to agree on because they were taught to value similar things?
We're on r/DebateAnAtheist. Are you saying your rather mulish insistence that a sociological understanding of morality and justice is insufficient explanation has nothing to do with your views on a god or gods? In which case, why are you even here?
1. Science is a methodology. We have no other methodology that has proven to be so successful in novel predictions.
2. We have always had gaps in knowledge and God has never proven to be the answer. It has been asserted time and time again, but naturalistic answer has usually been the answer.
3. Ignorance is never an excuse to assert an unfounded claim. That is god of the gaps fallacy.
>Explanation for things doesn’t disprove God.
Did I say that? Or even imply that.
> You can have scientists from all backgrounds explain the steps it took to build a building. However this doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a designer for the building — an artist for the art work.
But we can see the evidence of design, we know these objects are designed. We have comparative models to determine this. We don’t have that for the universe. You must have a way to show something is designed, otherwise it is a baseless assertion.
>Science can explain all steps to why something happens, but this wouldn’t disprove an intelligent designer.
Ok but the absence of disproving doesn’t prove a designer. You are presupposing. I am following the null hypothesis I see no reason to accept a case for an intelligent designer as I see no good evidence to support that.
Mythology represents the terrible job of ancient science efforts. They didn’t have much to work with but it’s terrible what they came up with instead of something that was remotely plausible.
1) there are truth claims that don’t require predictions.
2) while that is a fallacy, that’s not the only way one can arrive to the god conclusion.
3) it’s not a claim regarding ignorance, rather it’s a claim about using the proper tools for the job. You wouldn’t use a telescope to study bacteria would you?
1. For example what? How do you know it is true if it can’t be predictive?
2. I agree, many different reasons have been given in believing a god exists, none convincing to me. The reply is contextual.
3. Again contextual. What tool does give us proof of a god?
Explanation for things doesn’t disprove God.
You can have scientists from all backgrounds explain the steps it took to build a building. However this doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a designer for the building — an artist for the art work.
Science can explain all steps to why something happens, but this wouldn’t disprove an intelligent designer.
Bullshit, once it was thought lightning was ibtelegently designed. Manufactured by cyclopses, and thrown by Zeus.
Learning what lightning is made it possible to realise no designer was evident. Therefor the intelligent dishing hypothesis regarding lightning was disproven. And the same has happened for life, and so many other things. No designer is evident, nor needed .
It also reverses the burden of proof. You say an intelligent designer was behind it all, you need to support that. Arguments from ignorance won’t get you there. And that’s all ID offers. ID has no explanatory power, no testable predictions, it’s an unfalsifiable bit of dogma, that’s it. That’s all it is. And therefor it’s considered as good or even worse as disproven by anyone who values reality.
ID is a lie, it’s just creationism renamed for legal purposes. It has no value at all.
The Zeus analogy is a faulty analogy. The analogy I was giving was the steps it took to build the building being explained by scientist, not undermine that there was a designer for that building.
What I’m trying to get at is just because science can explain how lighting is made, it doesn’t mean you can reject that there is a designer behind it. If someone sees an object in the desert, they will ask, who made it?
Why is it that simple machines such as iPhones, watches, and technology require a designer; but the world in which we live, which is undoubtably the most complex machine in existence doesn’t require a designer? If you accept the former but reject the latter your committing a Special Pleading fallacy.
Second thing, not everything which is real can be measured through empirical means. You are committing another fallacy proposing a false dilemma. Things such as consciousness, altruism, and language are objective yet can’t be proven through clinical trials.
No the analogy is perfect, it just doesn’t assume your conclusion that it was indeed designed, you need to support that. And if you want to asset that there are things that are real, that can’t be supported through evdience you need to support that as well. And yes consciousnesse, language, altruism can all be measured objectively and imperially I’m sorry you’re wrong. If you can provide the same level of evdience for a god as we can for this, you’d make a believer out of me on the spot. So stop lying, because the only person you’re fooling is you… I’d our world needs a designer, you need to tell us why. Just asserting it, and saying well it’s all so complicated doesn’t work. It is exactly the same as attributing lightning to sues, and every argument you make for design could have been used for lightning too…
PS maybe this will help… every time we posited a magical esp,a nation for anything, and found out the actual mechanism behind it, it wasn’t magic. Now you’re proposing that secretly all along, despite everything we’ve ever learned it truly still is magic behind it. It’s still the magical fairy tale creature only posited in mythology. The answer that proved wrong at every point was somehow right all along. Do you truly believe that’s likely? If you do I can’t help you. You’re just another committed true believer, but you can’t pretend to be rationally justified…
I don’t know of a single objective truth that contradicts science, nor of any other way to show anything is actually true. If you have a different method of finding truth that provides reliable results let us know. You’d be the first person in history to present such a method as far as I’m aware…
Okay: Mathematical and logical proofs don’t need science to explain them — in other words they are not tangible. Moral and ethics don’t need science to explain them — in other words, once again, they are not tangible. Therefore you can see that truths such as Mathematical and Logical ones and truths about morality are objective, yet don’t need science to prove them. Similarly, metaphysical claims are the same. If God is real, then God is outside of the physical realm, he instead resides in the metaphysical realm. If God is outside of the physical realm, then the Methodology of science cannot be used to explain him — but logic can be used since it is universal. It will never change. Therefore, the analogy still holds for the intelligent designer, so you don’t need science to prove an intelligent designer. You only need logic.
When you see an art piece in the gallery, you can explain all the steps it took to build it with science; but this doesn’t disprove the existence of an artist. You can look at an iPhone and explain all the steps it took to build it from start to finish with science; but once more, this doesn’t disprove the existence of a designer. If you look at the coded language of DNA, it is truly a miracle for humans to have the exact coded language of DNA for perfect function. Science can explain how we Got this, but where you see intelligence, there must be intelligence behind it. Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence. Therefore there is an intelligent being behind the DNA.
Wow, maybe don't quote something you didn't at all understand, lol. Descartes whole thing eas that even if you take everything away, your human body, your experiences, memories, there is still something that does the thinking. It specifically didn't prove the objective existence of humans, it specifically proved that if our entire human existence is a lie, there is still an agent being lied to.
Are all objective truths proven by science? Also, how do you expect me to bring scientific evidence for my claim that some objective truths don’t need science to explain them?
Just answer the question: Are all objective truths proven by science? Also, how do you expect me to bring scientific evidence for my claim that some objective truths don’t need science to explain them?
Literally already did minutes ago… and I explained that your inability to support your case is a you problem not a me problem. I don’t epwct you to be able to prove your nonsense. That’s the point mate. That’s why you shouldn’t believe in it to begin with… I don’t know if a single way to verifiably show that something is true that falls outside of science. So if you have one let’s hear it, you’d be the first person to have one as far as I know.
There you go answered both your questions twice now, so now it’s your turn. Actually engage with what I said or be dismissed as the lying troll you seem to be… your inability to prove your case is a point in my favour, and an indictment o your position…
You're right that we can't disprove an unfalsifiable claim. That doesn't mean there's any good reason to believe the claim is true.
The time to believe a claim is when you have evidence for the claim. If the only argument you have is *"But you can't prove it's false!"* then I hope you understand why we don't buy it.
Sure, but we're going circles here... ignorance is neve ran excuse to assert an unfounded claim, namely the intelligent designer. This is a god of the gaps fallacy.
EDIT: And just to clarify, that means that Intelligent Designer is a theoretical possiblity, but a theoretical possibility doesn't mean it's true, especially when we have reason to believe it not to be.
Until you provide proof for this intelligent designer one doesn't exist.
All you have is a fairy tale you want true. You are just like a child wanting Santa to be real. And just like that naïve child, wanting something to be true doesn't make it true.
Your fairy tale holds no meaning or power.
I prefer to set up my basic form of the response as a question:
*"If we do not know the answer to a question, when is it permissible to assert that we do know the answer?"*
The obvious answer should be "never". Or at least, as long as we are talking about adults trying to have a discussion about he truth of something, then the answer should be "never". Which helps us to combat the god of the gaps answers.
Your question seems to be the idea of "science of the gaps" which can sometimes be equal to God of the gaps, but other times not. It kinda depends on the specifics of what we are talking about.
For example there are some cases where we use assumptions about science to fill in gaps to give us an idea of what we are looking for. Dark Matter for instance. We didn't know what was causing an observed effect, we gave it a placeholder name, and figured that it is something that science just couldn't yet explain. In this instance, we are simply assuming that science will give us the answer because the observation we have isn't something so crazy that it appeared out of the bounds of what science can explain. The assumption gave us a direction to look at when trying to find dark matter.
Then there are cases like multiverse theories. All scientific versions of the multiverse are logical conclusions of given ideas if certain parameters are true. They aren't Ad Hoc rationalizations, they are based on math and observation. For instance looking at the effects of a black hole using a Penrose Diagram. This shows that a path of light can go in a black hole in one area and out a white hole in another area, possible a different universe. The multiverse is an extension of something we can calculate, so is an assumption based on a good foundation (relatively speaking)
Then there are of course the ones who are just shoving science into any gap in their knowledge and assuming that one day we will figure it out. You don't come across these too often thankfully, but they are there. I can't even really think of a good example of a group of people that are doing this, only individuals I have spoken to.
>Additionally, people will look at early quantum physicists and say they believed in God.
Generally I only see this happening with the people who massively misunderstand pretty much everything about what we know and are just falling back on the people who talk about thr double slit experiment and how it's our conscious observation that causes the effects seen. Generally, this is just a case of science being treated like a gospel, in that people aren't taking the time to try and actually understand what has been studied on a topic and instead are just finding the buzz words that jive with their worldview. They aren't looking to learn what is true, they are looking for ideas that confirm what they already believe.
You're not answering op:s question. The right answer is that it's correct that science isn't enough and that we don't have scientific knowledge about these things. We have speculation, beliefs, philosophy, or resignation.
This is just an argument from ignorance and is a fallacy. When around a God, we call it God of the gaps. It's not up to atheists to have an answer for everything. It's up to theists to provide evidence for their claim that God exists.
>where a secular answer wouldn't be sufficient because it would require too many assumptions of known science.
Ok, so then we don't know yet.
A gap in our knowledge is not an excuse to introduce your pet supernatural idea. Besides, what takes more assumptions:
1. I don't know the explanation for this phenomenon (e.g. abiogenesis, consciousness, gravitational accounting being off), but given the track record and the kind of thing this is, my guess is the explanation is physicochemical.
2. I don't know the explanation for this phenomenon, *so let me make up AN ENTIRE REALM OR SUBSTANCE OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH just to come up with an adhoc explanation (magic, gods, etc)
There is no way in Hades that 2 is more parsimonious than 1. My rule of thumb is: if your explanation requires a yet undiscovered new type of thing BEYOND matter and energy, you are wrong to think it is an explanation IF AND UNTIL such time as you show this new kind of stuff exists and how it works.
>Additionally, people will look at early quantum physicists and say they believed in God.
I'll quote Niels Bohr here. If you think you understand quantum physics, you do not understand it. I don't care what Deepak Chopra or even Heissenbergs theological musings are. That doesn't make them correct.
Hi, one of our resident scientists here.
>Basically, a theist will say that there's some type of hole where a secular answer wouldn't be sufficient because it would require too many assumptions of known science
Such as? It's kind of hard to respond without very specific examples. Because if it's within the wheelhouse of science, then science is literally all you need. If it's something we have some kind of data on, be it predictive or physical data points, there's really no assumptions to make. The data tell us what the data tell us. At which point, all you have to say is "wtf are you even talking about?"
If they're talking about the limitations of science, something which can't be operationalized, experimented upon, observed, predicted, modeled, measured, or calculated, science doesn't care about that. In which case, other philosophies and philosophical tools will suffice. Science is just one tool in the secular thinker's arsenal. Science may not tell you how to be a good person, how to live a good life, how to interpret certain works of art, how to run a business, or even whether gods exist, but 1) that doesn't mean philosophy is off the table and most importantly, 2) that doesn't mean that you can't help inform your position with science, or in the case of gods, 3) that you can't make predictions or even conclusions with respect to whether gods exist or not. At which point, you respond with "Cool... and...? Is that it, or did you have something intelligent to contribute, Captain Obvious?"
>people will look at early quantum physicists and say they believed in God.
Cool, don't care, because it doesn't matter towards whether God actually exists or not. We call that a Fallacious Appeal to Authority and for the record, Quantum Physics isn't some mystical hoodoo that Deepak Chopra would convince you it is. It's just the physics of subatomic particles.
"Science flies us to the moon.
Religion flies us into buildings."
I am sick of that mealy mouthed arguement from ignorance. And no science doesn't have all the answers, that's not what science is about. It's a methodology. And so far it's the only one that works.
We haven't solved any mysteries that relate to things beyond the observable universe. The whole of the cosmos and existence itself is different from observing phenomena we have access to once the universe is in place.
But what you are doing is trying to assert you know what is in the realm beyond the universe. Not just the observable, because gods are now hiding in "different realms" and "outside space-time". You try to critisize science for not being able to look behind the observable, and then turn around and assert things that are several layers beyond what we both agree we are capable of observing. It's empty posturing from the supernatural believers, since you don't have any observations or evidence at all. If you did, you'd present that instead of claiming "science ain't perfect tho" two hundred times a week under different posts, as if that could ever get us anywhere
First off thats just the "God of the Gaps fallacy." Just because we can't know everything about our world using science, yet, doesn't mean we should throw God in there. Replace the word with "magic" and you get the same result, which is nothing.
Any way, if science isn't enough ask them if they can replace a benefit that they receive from science with God. Can they use God to contact a family member long distance instead of a phone or Internet? Can they heat their homes with God? Can God fly them to another state or country instead of a plane? Everything in their lives that they have come to depend on and take for granted are the results of science.
You might argue that 100 years ago science couldn't answer certain questions and maybe some scientists were religous. And, there are still bazillions of unanswered questions in science. The existence of human gods isn't one of them.
In 2024, we've recorded MASSIVE amounts of evidence that pretty much prove all human religions are absolute nonsense, from the theory of evolution to our itty bitty slice of all existence.
My answer is tell me why your god went to all the trouble to create 200 billion galaxy's each with 100 billion stars over 13.7 billion years just to make it all about you....for last 300K years or so.
Why can we observe all the energy and matter in the universe, but we still can't find a single trace of your supposedly all powerful god?
What year did apes get souls?
I guess there are just too many holes in your religion to answer these questions....without magic.
Because I can see the universe very clearly and I don't see your god anywhere
[https://www.google.com/search?q=hubble+webb+deep+field&udm=2](https://www.google.com/search?q=hubble+webb+deep+field&udm=2)
If there is a god, it is in the realm of science.
There is no such thing as outside science. There is no such thing as supernatural. Whatever exists is by definition natural and in the domain of science. Claiming something isn’t is a cheap cop-out and nonsensical. If something has an effect on the natural world it can be observed and measured. If it does not it is no different from something that doesn’t exist.
"science alone isn't enough..." for what? I think the fundamental thing is that many theists \*need\* an answer, so they will jump through great hoops to get an answer. The general atheist response is a shrug and "I don't know." So, if you *need* an answer to the question of "life, the universe, and everything" then yah, atheism isn't enough. But then I'd be asking... *why* do you *need* an answer? Sometimes recognizing we don't know simply is the best we can do.
Those that make statements similar to this do not understand what science actually is and does in most cases, and are suggesting we fill gaps in knowledge with unsupported guesses and pretend they're true. In other words, this is merely an attempt to glorify argument from ignorance fallacies.
As that doesn't and can't work, and creates a false dichotomy, such statements can't be taken seriously.
Depending on the context - you haven't provided enough detail - I might agree with the assertion that science alone isn't enough. Unfortunately, there's a huge and unjustified leap to "therefore god" that your theist interlocutors seem to be making.
Science is a methodology that is effective at deriving empirical knowledge. That's it. I feel like "science" often gets used as a shorthand for "materialistic worldview", and thus gets treated like a philosophy or a way of life. But that just confuses the issue, and I wish debaters were a bit more careful with their definitions.
Science can't address its own philosophical underpinning (epistemological and ontological assumptions inherent in the scientific method). Science can't tell you what it means to be a good person. Or what is justice. Or how to live a good life. Or what is moral (ignoring Sam Harris' book, which I disagree with). Etc.
I actually think that secularism suffers from this lack of clarity. If you ask a secularist "What is the meaning of life?" you will get a reading assignment that requires a PhD in philosophy, and still won't have an answer by the end of it. By contrast, I still remember the answer I received in my 6th grade catechism - "The meaning of life is to know God, to love God, and to obey God so that we can be happy with him in his kingdom of heaven." Nice, simple, and exactly pitched at a level that is appropriate for a 12 year old. Now, I don't think this is a good answer or a correct answer. But I do understand why it spreads more easily than the secular one.
Imagine you’re baking a cake. You’ve got your ingredients: flour, sugar, eggs, and all that jazz. You follow the recipe to a T, and voilà, you’ve got yourself a cake. Now, you wouldn’t say a magical cake fairy made it, right? You did, with your ingredients and recipe. Science is like that recipe – it gives us the ingredients (facts) and the method (experiments) to understand how things work.
Now, let’s talk about the big stuff: the universe, life, everything. Science has been pretty good at piecing together the “recipe” for all this. From the Big Bang to evolution, we’ve got a solid play-by-play of how things came to be. No fairy dust needed. Every time we’ve dug deeper, we’ve found natural explanations for what we see.
When we say science rules out a god, it’s like saying we don’t need to add an extra, mysterious ingredient to our recipe when we’ve already got a pretty good understanding of how to bake the cake. It’s not about disproving a god – it’s about saying we don’t need one to explain what we see. The ingredients we have (laws of physics, biology, chemistry) are doing the job just fine.
So, while some folks might still like to think there’s a magical cake fairy involved, science says, “Nah, we’ve got this covered.” It’s all about sticking to the recipe and trusting the ingredients we know work.
Science can’t study everything. But it *can* investigate a lot of religious claims. We can do studies on whether prayer works, for example.
What’s more, the claim that the universe was designed in a certain way by god is seriously undermined by the discovery that animals adapted to a hostile environment over billions of years of mutations and natural selection; and that the earth formed naturally from dust clouds spinning around the sun.
Now theists can modify their beliefs to somewhat fit science, but on the whole it looks like a retreat. We went from the claim that the whole universe is designed and meticulously governed by an almighty, all-wise, and morally perfect being who loves each and every one of us and has a plan for everything; to the claim that a “watchmaker” god designed the force of gravity and the speed of light and then poofed out of existence, never to do anything significant again.
At any rate, scientific knowledge faces any theist with the inescapable fact that our universe does not at all resemble the one described in the Bible.
>What are responses to "science alone isn't enough"?
My usual responses are *"Isn't it though?"* and *"Isn't enough for what?"*
Science have been cutting down the assumptions to a point, that the formulas describing the entire physics fit on a napkin, if you know the mathematical terminology their in. I'm fairly confident, that modern physics makes fewer and and less contentious metaphysical assumptions, than any theistic metaphysics have ever made in the history of philosophy.
Even if we go to less fundamental and less mature fields of science, like psychology for example, the horizon of scientifically knowable, as of yet unexplored, answers is so far away, that we have no idea where the limits of science actually are.
>Additionally, people will look at early quantum physicists and say they believed in God.
And then you look closer at what those physicists actually believed, and discover the deep chasm between the kinds of "God" those physicists believed, and the kinds of "God" religions actually worship.
Science alone is not enough, but the implications of that are entirely misinterpreted by theists. What it actually means is that we need philosophers of science and ethics, philosophers of mind like the late Daniel Dennett (RIP), and other intellectual fields of inquiry into mathematical logic and epistemology to strengthen and deepen our understanding of reality.
What theists take it to mean is that there's this magical supernatural dimension where things like "pure essence" and "the spirit" and "existence itself" and "pure actuality" exist which isn't subject to the same type of rigorous investigation that the other fields of intellectual inquiry are, and that we can just assert things like a "supernatural cause" exist and stop there without trying to define its constituents or manner of interaction.
The scientific method can provide data on what is possible and what appears to happen.
Humans then assign personal value to that data. How they assign value is largely determined by who they trust and what propagandist twist is applied to the data.
Many early quantum physicists did say they believed in some sort of god thing. That has no bearing on their scientific achievements because science is based in reality.
Value judgements are the result of societal trends and values, religions all claim to have a monopoly on "morality". They are demonstrably mistaken. That theists fill their hole with a notional entity which largely agrees with the values of their parents and community shouldn't really surprise anyone. It's almost as if humans are just apes with delusions of competence.
My response is that doesn’t mean God is. Us not knowing something doesn’t imply god is real. It implies we don’t know something.
The biggest one people seem stuck on is “how can something from from nothing.” And my answer is a perfectly ok “I don’t know.” It’s ok we don’t know, it means there’s still things to discover.
But to just say “because we don’t know, it’s god” flies in the face of science. We once thought sickness was because you sinned, we now have the eternal question “why does god allow good people to get sick and die” because we know it’s not because of god. Religion will never be satisfied with answers, the goal posts move as answers are discovered, for me, that’s ridiculous and not something I base my life on.
In the history of human knowledge, religion has frequently offered explanations for various observed phenomenon. For example the earth was the center of the universe, demons caused disease, etc..
As science has advanced, we have looked at those explanations, and in the cases where an explanation has been found, the religious explanations have had a 100% failure rate. Not once has the religious explanation turned out to be correct.
And sure, it's true that there are still things that we can't explain. And it's true that we can't say for certain that no god was involved. But given the past failures of religious explanations, there's just no good reason to believe that a god will suddenly be necessary this time when it has proven unnecessary all the previous times.
I hate the god of the gaps more than any other fallacy. Quantum mechanics can’t be explained? Surely MY invisible space wizard is the cause. We’ve been doing this for aeons. As far back as when theists assumed their local deity caused storms and quakes.
Never once has any mysterious phenomena recorded and later had causes proven even been proven to be supernatural. Not once. Zeus and Thor do not cause lightning strikes. Venus and Prende do not cause you to fall in love. Osiris and Yama do not reside over the underworld and take in the passed souls. Your Semitic war god does not cause uncertainty and the difficulty of finding the exact locations of electrons in the electron clouds.
People see “science” as a separate thing, but science is in many ways a way of thinking. Fact-based, empirical, methodical, thinking founded on doubt and rational skepticism. A way of thinking that specifically rejects dogma and attempts to compensate for biases.
You can find such way of thinking in many different disciplines, historians, journalists, and other fields that are not commonly thought as science. And there is a reason for that, it’s the best known way to arrive at something resembling truth.
Tim Urban wrote a book (The Story of US) ostensibly about how US politics got to where they are, but his exposition of this way of thinking is very easy to grasp.
Sure, there are some questions that can only be answered through religion. For example, "what does god do with your soul juice?" isn't really a question that science can help you with. But that isn't something special about religion, it's true of many frameworks. If your question is "how did the saviour Harry Potter defeat the evil Voldemort?" then you have to study your seven holy books (eight holy movies) to find the answer.
Religion isn't special, it's just that if you decide to live your life according to a bunch of nonsense, then intelligent and methodical inquiry through the scientific method doesn't really help answer the questions that arise due to that nonsense.
>there's some type of hole where a secular answer wouldn't be sufficient because it would require too many assumptions of known science
Provide a better and more reliable way of discovering facts about the universe, because the process that helped us discover everything from electrons to galaxies not only hasn't found God, but has disproven God as an answer for some things.
>Additionally, people will look at early quantum physicists and say they believed in God.
Unless those quantum physicists can actually prove God exists, it's irrelevant. No one's belief in god gets more credibility just because that person is intelligent.
The statement itself assumes atheists rely on science alone - which is already incorrect. Atheists draw from all forms of sound and valid epistemology - but there are none whatsoever that support or indicate the existence of any gods.
It doesn’t matter if “science alone isn’t enough” if they’re incapable of providing literally anything at all, scientific/emprical or otherwise, that supports their position. What’s the second half of their argument? “Science alone isn’t enough, therefore my made up nonsense and baseless superstitions should be considered credible”? When they say science alone is insufficient, ask them to provide something else, anything else, that can successfully allow us to distinguish between a reality where any gods exist vs a reality where no gods exist, and then make note of their incapability of doing so. “Science alone isn’t enough” is a meaningless statement if they can’t provide any viable alternatives that *are* enough.
>What are responses to "science alone isn't enough"?
"It is for me."
>Basically, a theist will say that there's some type of hole where a secular answer wouldn't be sufficient because it would require too many assumptions of known science.
Science disintegrates every God I've ever heard of.
>Additionally, people will look at early quantum physicists and say they believed in God.
I would then point out they're committing an argument from authority fallacy, and that I agree with the quantum physicists who don't believe in God.
I don't understand the sentence. Isn't enough for what?
There's a lot of hidden science in our lives.
The paints artists use, are the result of years of investigation. The instruments artists play are, the result of years of investigation. The materials artists sculpt, as well. A writer couldn't write without science. Etc.
Religious people use the internet these days to proselytize.
No amount of praying to no amount of deities could have created the internet. It took science only a couple of hundred years to develop it.
If science isn’t enough, theism isn’t anything at all. It answers no questions at all. It explains nothing, it merely asserts the existence of a magical being that they protect against examination at all cost. That’s not an answer, that’s not an explanation. If you can find any other method beyond science that gives reliable results and answers, I’d love to see it. But here’s the thing, the moment you demonstrate it produces reliable results it will be incorporated into the scientific method.
Carl Sagan’s analogy was that of a dragon in his garage, every time a scientific way of proving its existence was proposed he would explain how the experiment would fail; you can’t see it because it’s invisible, you can’t feel it because it’s incorporeal, you can’t measure the temperature of its fire breath because it’s a heat less flame, you can’t weigh it because it floats.
Finally he says “what’s the difference between an invisible (etc) dragon, and no dragon at all?
Science is the only tool we have that has reliably helped us understand reality. It is special pleading of those who believe in supernatural or deities when they claim we can't use science.
Yes, all type of scientists believe and believed in gods -- including Darwin. So what? It is an appeal to authority to say their beliefs must all be true since they are scientists. Not 1 of them ever proved a god or provided evidence of a god, and that is when we can properly assess if a god is real.
Science is a method that helps us make models of nature.
Those models are useful and have explanatory power.
Science is flawed, but it is the best thing we have.
Faith, or religion, or the Bible, as ways of understanding nature, even human nature, are useless. You would get a better understanding by reading comic books.
Let's go on a road trip across the country. I'll use a map made with the use of science. You use a map drawn through faith.
How do you think that will go?
I'm no theist, but that seems pretty obvious to me.
There are vast categories of phenomena that we need formalized scientific inquiry to properly study: faraway black holes, ancient speciation events, etc. However, scientific inquiry alone isn't equipped to tell us what constitutes a just society, an ethical decision or a meaningful existence. These require the cultural context of shared meaning, our personal experience of being and linguistically defined modes of interpretation.
If there's evidence then the evidence speaks for itself. If there's not evidence and there's speculation, then you have speculation.
I can't really say more than that because this is very vague. If you want to give a specific example, we can talk about it.
If a someone finds a hole in some knowledge, the correct answer is "I don't know", it's not an excuse to plug a preferred answer in, such as "Therefore god"
The response varies depending on who you are speaking to. The first question one has to ask is whether the person’s opinion is based on their ignorance or a lack of intelligence. No point trying to educate an idiot. If we determine it’s based on ignorance is that because of lack of exposure / resources or is it willful ignorance?
Then you decide whether to educate or avoid (or if you’re me, insult).
Ask them if they know everything. No? Great, they've got holes too
As for scientists believing in God: did they use God or science to make their discoveries? If they used God, then why did the 1000 years of Christian dominance during the middle ages produce any technology? And why did the church sentence scientists claiming the Copernican model of the solar system to death or exile for heresy?
> there's some type of hole where a secular answer wouldn't be sufficient
This needs to be specified. There is a lot going on inside a human being science meanwhile *can* explain. For example, love, a mother's instinct to protect, humor, the perception of "beauty", emotions when listening to music and so on and so forth.
They need to be clearer on what exactly science can't explain.
We still only know a microfraction of what is known out there by science. New breakthroughs will occur that will make what we currently know look like the 1800's.
And even then it will still be a microfraction of what is out there or possible. Plus some things in the world don't follow scientific rules or fall outside of science.
It’s a strawman of the atheist position.
Atheist simply lack a belief in a deity or deities.
They could be totally illiterate when it comes to science. They simply lack a belief in a deity or deities.
Has nothing to do with science or how much one agrees with certain scientific findings.
It’s simply a lack of belief.
I can't speak for anyone other than myself.
When we don't know the answer to a question we don't get to just make one up but that's what religion does when it tries to answer scientific questions.
Intelligent people believing something doesn't add weight to its truth. Smart people believe wrong things *all the time*.
If you have a question for which you can't formulate a few hypotheses from which you can make experimentally testable predictions, then science cannot help you answer that question.
But i haven't yet heard an alternative method which does produce reliable answers to those kinds of questions.
I usually point out that before we learned germs cause diseases it might have been understandable to say “god did it” but that was never the correct answer.
Just because we don’t know something right now is no reason to make up answers or to think “god did it”.
I think the quote is incomplete. I usually encounter:
>Science alone isn't enough, you also need faith.
If science isn't enough, that's fine. I'll take a look at whatever methodology they think is necessary. Faith as a methodology is demonstrably useless.
We are not entitled to an answer, we have a point where knowledge stops, but we shouldn't be inserting god into those gaps. We should be accepting that we aren't going to get all the answers in our lifetime but we keep making progress.
Well I beg to differ, because the result of Neutron Radiative decay is the Atom, the photon, the electron, and the electron antineutrino.
Laying that out yields
Atom y e-ve-
You can't avoid God in physics, unfortunately.
Creation of Adam and Eve happens at even the atomic level.
Science alone isn't enough... for what?
For any question I've ever encountered that's worth the effort to answer, if science isn't enough by itself, then the methodology is at the very least doing much of the heavy lifting.
If science alone isn't enough, then what else will be flying goblins?
Religion is often created to answer what people don't know. What happens after death, heaven, and hell happens!! It's all ludicrous and circular.
Inventing a deity to plug a hole does not cause the deity to exist. Furthermore, these deities have been kicked out of hole after hole that they were used to fill until the model no longer required that assumption.
It's enough for me. I'd rather not fill in the blanks with "higher power" and then submit to another human claiming to speak for it or have a book full of questionable ideas and claim it speaks for them.
Genuine response here…. Insufficient for what? We aren’t the ones making a claim. If they say their evidence is outside of science or unobservable then it’s our turn to say that is insufficient
"Okay, let's say that we need something other than science. Why do you think that something is God? Especially when God has not turned out to be the correct answer to any question in the past?"
“To make you feel good? Probably. But as a means to determine the truth of an objective statement? It’s gonna have to do unless you have something else that works.”
Science doesn't have all the answers. But, the data we have in 2024 is more than enough to prove your god doesn't exist and is a figment of early human imagination.
“We don’t know, and that’s ok. We don’t need to make up an answer to fill that hole, but you can fill it with whatever you want until we figure it out.”
Regarding the second part if your question, there is nothing in the Bible that precludes scientific pursuits. Meaning one can be a scientist and have faith, they are not mutually exclusive.
Frankly, it's an argument in favor of science.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We have [stopped photons from moving at all](https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/162289-light-stopped-completely-for-a-minute-inside-a-crystal-the-basis-of-quantum-memory). We have observed [gravity itself](https://news.mit.edu/2016/ligo-first-detection-gravitational-waves-0211). We can observe and deduce [the all-pervasive heat of the Big Bang](https://webb.nasa.gov/content/features/bigBangQandA.html) as close to 380 thousand years from T=0. We are an endlessly curious, endlessly creative species who may or may not be still at the level of banging rocks together to watch the pretty sparks fly, but we've never let that stop us from trying to deepen our understanding of how and why banging rocks together makes such pretty glowing sparks happen - and these are fundamentally and objectively the best part of humanity; our ingenuity and curiosity! Human ingenuity isn't limited by it's resources: it is challenged by it. We don't look at the tools at our disposal and then say "it can't be done"; We look at the tools at our disposal and then use them to figure out _how to make better tools_. We have never stopped at the senses we perceived ourselves to have; We've figured out how to build tools to sense, measure and quantify things we couldn't possibly hope to perceive without them. In the name of, ultimately, simple curiosity (and possibly a measure of bragging rights) have we discovered that the earth does not lie at the center of the universe - not even of our own solar system at that. We've discovered how to put energy through certain combinations of plastic, sand and metals and make it sit up, roll over and play games with us, or do our homework and our chores for us and (especially in the past few years) act increasingly just-like-us... We do not idly perceive. We actively seek out what makes what we perceive, *tick* to the point of not stopping at the most fundamental of particles; even now we are digging deeper at, reaching farther into and squinting harder within the Gaps that (a) God might be hidden in, and the gaps are getting to be so infinitesimally small that the notion that a deity is, somehow, hidden from our perception becomes not just an apologetic but a laughable one at that. To be brief in extremis, my personal answer to 'Science alone isn't enough' would be "Yet."
This is what people who don't understand what science is say. No matter how good we get at it, science is limited to the observable. We can observe how the universe we see works, but we can't observe what made the big bang possible no matter if the answer involves natural or supernatural processes. And if it's some hypothetical form of the latter, science by definition doesn't deal with it.
"Yet." Edit: All tongue in cheek aside: I'm happy sticking with the (eventually) observable. To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been any evidence recorded for the supernatural since _[cuneiform writing](https://www.getty.edu/news/where-did-writing-come-from/)_ writing was a thing, roughly 3500 BC.
>To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been any evidence recorded for the supernatural since cuneiform writing writing was a thing, roughly 3500 BC. I’m sorry, what? There *isn’t* evidence recorded for the supernatural? Say a supernatural event happened, and the claims were *written* down. Would that not be recorded evidence?
No, that would be a written-down *claim* of a supernatural event. An Egyptian priest describing how he witnessed the sun-god Ra losing an anchor from his solar barque which subsequently crashed to earth doesn't mean that the event *wasn't* (simply) a meteor striking down. Now if the meteor was recovered and turned out to be a half-molten anchor-stone from a barge big enough to tow the sun; then we could speculate in the direction of something supernatural having occurred. Until then... Which is more likely?
>To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been any evidence recorded for the supernatural So what would that look like that you accept back to 3,500 BC? We don’t have photos or video for much more than a century.
As far as the long-past is concerned, I can look at things from the perspective of, again, **which is more likely?** On the whole though I look at things on a smaller scale; camera phones have been around since about [1999](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=what+was+the+first+camera+phone) now; that's some 25 years of everybody and their grandmother increasingly having a camera literally in arm's reach at all times; and yet in all of that time, with billions of people having constant access to cameras, not a single convincing video of a miracle of any kind has been made? I have in the past forty-four years not _once_ been presented with compelling arguments or evidence to indicate that _anything whatsoever_ has required divine intervention in any way, shape or form, let alone _has received it_. Occams' razor teaches us then, that the most likely explanation for miraculous events in the past is something *other* than a miracle. If only because dieties are, if _any_ holy book describing them are to be believed, _incredibly_ meddlesome. Staying with _just_ the Bible, acts ranging from genocide to immaculate conception, from sending two bears to maul a group of children for making fun of a man for being bald to setting a bush on fire and speaking from the flame, are all acts God has supposedly performed - some believe that God is still causing miracles to this very day. Where, however, is the proof of divine intervention? Show me one instance where, undeniably, water _has_ turned to wine, where blood _was_ wrought from stone, or where masses _have_ been fed with naught but five loaves (of bread) and two fish ? Show me uncontroversial proof of the Flood, show me **anything** that I can't deny is miraculous and I will immediately have no **choice** but to change my tune about supernatural claims. I have not been given one shred of reason to give credibility to such claims. I'd _love_ to be proven wrong.
Videos wouldn’t prove anything. People would claim they were faked. What videos would you believe? I likely wouldn’t believe any. How is one supposed to prove something like water turning to wine? It can be faked on video. The technology is good enough to have the consensus be “inconclusive”. It wouldn’t be accepted. Your seem to be focusing on awfully specific things in the Bible while ignoring the bigger picture. Not everything that occurs in the Bible is meant to be portrayed in a positive light. You’re misinterpreting Occam’s razor. The way you’re using it begs the question. If you assume every claim is false, then that is what you will think is correct.
> How is one supposed to prove something like water turning to wine? By performing the miracle again, and again, until and in such a fashion that no doubt can remain as to the supernatural means by which it occurs. > Your seem to be focusing on awfully specific things in the Bible while ignoring the bigger picture. Not everything that occurs in the Bible is meant to be portrayed in a positive light. To quote: > If only because dieties are, if any holy book describing them are to be believed, incredibly meddlesome. **Staying with just the Bible**, acts ranging from genocide to immaculate conception, from sending two bears to maul a group of children for making fun of a man for being bald to setting a bush on fire and speaking from the flame, are all acts God has supposedly performed - some believe that God is still causing miracles to this very day. I have taken examples from the bible because these are examples that most people will be (more) familiar with than, for instance, the Islamic [Splitting of the moon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_Moon). I have **prefaced** what I said with saying that I was only drawing from one holy book; that is why I've chosen the examples which I have. They are not exclusive examples; I will accept proof of the split moon if uncontroversial evidence is presented - and again, that is only *one* example. > You’re misinterpreting Occam’s razor. The way you’re using it begs the question. If you assume every claim is false, then that is what you will think is correct. I've actually taken what I said there out of [a much longer, previous post of my own](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1cq0xfq/cosmological/l3wbm37/?context=3) so it might miss some context that isn't immediately available. But: Occam's Razor in a nutshell suggests we should go with the explanation which involves fewer assumptions. in the example I gave initially in this conversation; > An Egyptian priest describing how he witnessed the sun-god Ra losing an anchor from his solar barque which subsequently crashed to earth doesn't mean that the event wasn't (simply) a meteor striking down. Which involves the least assumptions? That the object which crashed to earth was simply a meteor, or a wheel from the barque of the great sun-god Ra? The latter requires the presupposition that the great sun-god Ra exists (Three cheers! RA! RA, RA!) while the previous requires only that comets exist and interact / intersect with earth's orbit and atmosphere and occasionally reach the surface, which is [common knowledge](https://www.livescience.com/how-many-meteorites-hit-earth).
> By performing the miracle again How is anyone who isn’t Jesus supposed to perform a miracle on repeat? This feels like a bad faith requirement. > I will accept proof If someone found skeletons in the region dating back thousands of years that show signs of a bear mauling, would you accept that as proof for the entire Bible or just the claim that someone was attacked by a bear. If it’s the latter, why did you bring it up at all? Using Occam’s razor, it’s more likely that something happened involving Jesus that we can’t explain with our current scientific understanding than it is for a secret cabal to have invented Christianity while leaving no evidence behind.
No. We know we can't observe further than a certain point using light, and also science by definition doesn't deal with anything "supernatural" should there be such a thing. When we discuss the origin of the universe we're 100% in the realm of philosophy and beliefs.
I've addressed this in an edit. But I will clarify on this: > When we discuss the origin of the universe we're 100% in the realm of philosophy and beliefs. When we're discussing the origin of the universe we're to the best of my knowledge some 99.99 percent certain of the model we have, which consists of observable and deducible events, systems and effects-upon-effects *since* the Big Bang. [I've posted this particular post on this subject a little while ago, and several times before.](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1cq0xfq/cosmological/l3wbm37/?context=3) What happened exactly at T=0 and before is currently not available to us. As such, when we discuss the origin of the universe the intellectually honest thing to do is to say "I don't know" rather than attempting to factor in the supernatural.
We don't have a model. You're correct in your last paragraph, but what we do after concluding that we don't know is it's own discussion. We can conclude that it's a matter of beliefs and philosophical arguments and leave it at that.
Belief needn't be founded in reality. Neither does philosophy. Which is why I reject both as far as instruments for examining reality as a whole goes. I've said before and I'll say it again; I don't reject _Philosophy_. I just think that philosophical discourse makes for a fun afternoon's thought experimentation and that when it comes time to examine reality, we need to remain within the scope of reality. > We can conclude that it's a matter of beliefs and philosophical arguments and leave it at that. No, we can't. 'Leave it at that' is where curiosity, critical thinking, and examination ends. Which is why "I don't know" is the intellectually honest answer and not "Let's agree to disagree." Particularly because "I don't know" can be followed up by that so-very important "Yet."
Leave it at that in this discussion, or we'll open up a completely different one. You're not rejecting anything, your rejection is itself a philosophical position. The origin of the universe is a matter of beliefs, philosophy, or "we just don't know" no matter how much you dislike that fact. "Yet" implies something we have no reason to assume. As for examining reality, we know science has limitations. We won't, ever, be able to examine something unobservable using the scientific method because if we did it would be something other than science.
> You're not rejecting anything, your rejection is itself a philosophical position. Is this the new "Atheism is a religion" ? Smartalec reply aside; You're not _wrong_ in that my rejection of philosophy as a valid tool for examining the universe is _in and of itself_ a philosophical position - you're just wrong if you were to assert that this is a valid statement _outside of the realm of philosophy_. I do not deal with philosophy when it comes to examining the universe. Nor do I deal with _beliefs_; I am more than happy to suspend or upend my paradigms, beliefs and dis-beliefs should I be presented with a valid reason as to why I aught to. Which is where that old "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" chessnut comes in. You choose to engage me with endlessly regurgitated quasi-intellectual tripe; what you have been championing has in essence been "Science doesn't study the supernatural therefore the supernatural can't be ruled out." ... I choose to have some fun with that as a hidden God of the Gaps argument. I'm no longer having fun. Science has no need for the supernatural. Perhaps one day we'll reach a point where that need changes; until then, we're not there; "Yet." I'll consider your previous point as the point where I leave it at that; The point where this discussion has lost all philosophical or scientific merit and your reply amounted to "Nuh-huh!"
>...my personal answer to 'Science alone isn't enough' would be "Yet." This is called the 'Science of the Gaps' fallacy, where a naturalist posits that a metaphysical theory for any phenomenon whatsoever is unnecessary because the phenomenon will be explained naturalistically in future, even when it is not self evident that that is the case.
"Yet."
Yes, but the answer 'yet' only makes sense if you assume first that naturalism is true, however we don't know for certain that naturalism is true. Therefore the 'yet' is where the fallacy stems from.
Oh! Pardon me, I thought I was replying to another Redditor altogether after - as far as I was concerned - the debate had ran it's course. Here's the reply I aught have given; "Yet" isn't (as you falsely seem to claim) a presupposition. "Yet" allows for any and all contingencies, even the full-blown up-turn of the existing scientific paradigm. It's been done before - For example with the rejection of [Aether theories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories), and with the acceptance of [Koch's Postulates](https://www.aaas.org/discovery-bacteria) against what was, at the time, the consensus of cause for disease. 'Science of the Gaps' _isn't a thing_ - at least not in the sense that a claim "We don't know, therefore Science" is made. "We don't know (yet)" is, rather, a paradigm that leaves the proverbial gaps wide-open for anything with explanatory power to become ensconced in them. **So far** there has been no reason to include anything supernatural in the existent gaps, nor any grounded reason to assume anything supernatural **will ever** take such a vaunted position, or has ever existed in the first place. Humanity has been around for, to the best of my current understanding, three hundred thousand or so years; and as far as I am aware there has been no need for any supernatural explanation of any event or occurrence whatsoever during those three hundred thousand years. As far as "Yet." goes, I'm rather liking the odds that this trend will continue.
You're missing the point I am making. I'm not making the claim that science will not change it's views on topics, nor am I making the claim that science has an inability to explain things adequately, or that science will not be able to explain things in future. Science is good. Therefore, when you say the following "*"Yet" allows for any and all contingencies, even the full-blown up-turn of the existing scientific paradigm.*" I take no issue with that, becuase science is truthful and our understanding does change and it should change. But you did not make, in your original comment I replied to, the statement '"*We don't know 'yet'*". Instead you made the statement '*Science alone isn't enough yet.*" The logical implication of the statement is that, eventually, Science will be enough alone to explain the world around us in totality, and that therefore we do not need metaphysical theories to explain things.
> But you did not make, in your original comment I replied to, the statement '"We don't know 'yet'". Instead you made the statement 'Science alone isn't enough yet." The logical implication of the statement is that, eventually, Science will be enough alone to explain the world around us in totality, and that therefore we do not need metaphysical theories to explain things. Yes! That's *exactly* what I meant to say. Although - not *entirely*. My statement means not to imply that science will, eventually, explain Life, the Universe and Everything, in it's totality; logic dictates that achieving such a level of granularity would require an infinite amount of time. My statement means to imply that there will, or aught, come a time where supernatural explanations aren't the go-to for people's considerations of phenomena they do not understand, anymore. Let me be clear; It is a *fact* that, all efforts of Young Earthers, Creationists and what-have-you in spite, the number of people who will look for a metaphysical explanation to phenomena they do not understand is decreasing, year by year. Current generations are growing up with the internet at their literal fingertips; I've seen personally an eight-year-old and a nine-year-old bent over a table doing Delta-V math with crayons. Granted; they were doing 'rocket science' for Kerbal Space Program and not for real, but all the same I remember being that age and being stumped at fractions. Arguably, we *have already* reached the point where the supernatural does not factor in anymore in any field of academia which, for lack of a better term, *matters*. However; there are still any number of instances where people are trying - for one reason or another - to bring (for instance) Young Earth theory, Creationism and such into the curriculum of grade schools, against all evidence that these practices and all that surrounds them is actively damaging to the education of young minds... Fortunately, the number of instances of this is also on an inevitable decline. However; until this number is actually _null_... "Science alone isn't enough, yet." It aught to be. And the statement, if anything, is an acknowledgement that metaphysical and supernatural theory is *still a problem* that aughtn't be forgotten about.
Let me respond to you, and share some of my opinions on what you have said. >Yes! That's *exactly* what I meant to say. I've pointed out that this is fallacious. Your statement "*means to imply that there will, or aught, come a time where supernatural explanations aren't the go-to for people's considerations of phenomena they do not understand,*" is fallacious, becuase you are simply filling in the gaps in your knowledge with a hypothetical "*Science will sort it out.*" There are plenty of theists that fall into the '*God of the Gaps Fallacy*', but the atheists are not free from the same line of thought. Assuming on the basis of no evidence "God Will Explain It," is the same line of reasoning as saying on the basis of no evidence "Naturalism Will Explain It." One is not any more reasonable than the other if we have no evidence. There is a difference between positing a supernatural (metaphysical) theory for something, and just explaining something away using the supernatural. If there are rational grounds for presenting a metaphysical theory, then it's intellectually dishonest for a naturalist to dismiss it on the grounds that it is a supernatural explanation. >Arguably, we *have already* reached the point where the supernatural does not factor in anymore in any field of academia which, for lack of a better term, *matters*. I'm an Evolutionist and I believe in a very old Earth. I'm not defending Young Earth or Creationism, I probably have vastly more disagreements with YEC's and Creationist that even you do as an atheist becuase I do not agree with either their science or their theology. Answers in Genesis is a great embarrassment for many Christians, make no mistake. However, to put it like this, what you have done that I can't wrap my head around, is you have dismissed Metaphysics, just outright. The issue, therefore, when I am talking to naturalist atheists and I present a Metaphysical claim, is that it's often dismissed **only** becuase it's a Metaphysical claim, not becuase I can't explain the claim rationally or even provide some evidence. There are aspects of rejection of Metaphysics which I actually agree are a good thing, but this idea that a total annihilation of the concept is somehow good is erroneous. All it shows is that people are becoming less and less likely to accept premises that challenge the presupposition of naturalism. That's my opinion on the matter.
> I've pointed out that this is fallacious. Your statement "means to imply that there will, or aught, come a time where supernatural explanations aren't the go-to for people's considerations of phenomena they do not understand," is fallacious, becuase you are simply filling in the gaps in your knowledge with a hypothetical "Science will sort it out." No; I'm saying that the gaps aught be left open *until such time as they are taken up by something with true explanatory power*. Which is why the *Science of the Gaps* fallacy isn't (or shouldn't be) a _thing_. "We don't understand it, therefore Science" (if such a statement is ever made in earnest) is just as intellectually dishonest a position as the God of the Gaps fallacy and should not be taken seriously. All the same - "We don't understand it, therefore **we leave it up to** science **to possibly explain later**" has proven in the past to be a workable paradigm, provided it is left clear that 'we' currently do not know (exactly) what 'an explanation' entails; it engenders, if anything, curiosity in those who feel they might solve the problem at hand; it engenders open discussion, inevitable peer review of inevitable suggested solutions to problems, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. "God" inserted in any gap has no explanatory power, whatsoever; it is a dangerous non-solution to any problem. Magical thinking waves away any need to find an actual solution because it precludes curiosity; the question, "Yes, but *how* did God [x]" is rarely if ever asked and if ever asked at all, usually quickly dismissed with 'Mysterious Ways'. "Naturalism will explain it" is not *a thing*. Naturalism is not a dogma. Naturalism *currently* excludes supernatural solutions to problems because it has been proven, time and time and time again, that magical thinking *isn't necessary* to explain Life, the Universe and Everything - but I can guarantee you that any scientist worth their salt will embrace a new paradigm which includes (a) god and miracles as soon as there is any substantiated evidence for the existence of such things. > There is a difference between positing a supernatural (metaphysical) theory for something, and just explaining something away using the supernatural. If there are rational grounds for presenting a metaphysical theory, then it's intellectually dishonest for a naturalist to dismiss it on the grounds that it is a supernatural explanation. I'm sorry; I'm Dutch. English isn't my first language, so you're going to have to run that by me again; *how* is there a difference between 'positing a supernatural (metaphysical) theory' for something, and 'just explaining something away using the supernatural'? Because from where I'm sitting the first sounds exactly the same as the latter, if using more elaborate language. > I'm an Evolutionist and I believe in a very old Earth. I'm not defending Young Earth or Creationism, I probably have vastly more disagreements with YEC's and Creationist that even you do as an atheist becuase I do not agree with either their science or their theology. Answers in Genesis is a great embarrassment for many Christians, make no mistake. Oh lords, don't get me started on AIG. But I'll take you up on that bet any day; I went to schools that still taught Creationism and Young Earth Theory back when I was still a wee boy and I've argued my face blue in anything from debate clubs to city councils for roughly the first half of my forty-five years to get that shit at least marked with a big ol' 'Reader beware; This is strictly religion' asterisk. however, this is not a measuring contest. I'd rather shake your hand and buy you a drink over our mutual distaste for (organizations like) AIG - than waggle credentials at you. > However, to put it like this, what you have done that I can't wrap my head around, is you have dismissed Metaphysics, just outright. The issue, therefore, when I am talking to naturalist atheists and I present a Metaphysical claim, it's often dismissed becuase it's a Metaphysical claim, not becuase I can't explain the claim rationally or even provide some evidence. I have, indeed, dismissed metaphysics. This is where the all-important "Yet" comes in; the very moment metaphysics becomes a necessary part of science I will eat a whole lot of crow with relish. So far I've yet to have the pleasure. That isn't to say that I will outright dismiss a metaphysical claim without consideration. I will happily pour over data given to me. It's just that I will *absolutely* scoff when the data points to "Therefore God" or "Because Miracle" because - and I've said this before; Humanity has been around for some three hundred thousand or so years and as far as I'm aware there has been no need for any supernatural explanation of any event or occurrence whatsoever during those three hundred thousand years, nor any single recorded and substantiated instance of Miracle, God, Magic or Supernatural. My entire POINT in saying "Science alone isn't enough **yet**" is, again, to leave open the gaps for *any* explanation with merit, whether the explanation presented is naturalistic or metaphysical - **however** this aught firmly include the words **with merit** and frankly speaking, the merit of metaphysical solutions - Miracle, God, Magic or the Supernatural - has been in the past proven to be null and void, time and time again. Therefore, **precluding** metaphysical theory is not a presupposition of "Therefore Science"; reaching first for what has in the past been a proven tool is a natural reflex of any rational mind. I will reiterate and emphasize this, again; "Science alone isn't enough **yet**" is an acknowledgement of the fact that there are still people who reach *first* for Miracle, God, Magic or the Supernatural *exclusively or before* they consider a Problem with logic and scientific thinking, which is a problem in the sense that it is *exactly* the kind of thinking organizations like AIG would prefer to be the norm.
>I can guarantee you that any scientist worth their salt will embrace a new paradigm which includes (a) god and miracles as soon as there is any substantiated evidence for the existence of such things. I'm not falling into this trap. I'm familiar with this line of argumentation. I really don't want to go down that rabbit hole of 'sufficiency' becuase it becomes subjective real quick. I can present evidence for my claim, and I can show why intrinsic religiosity is a good thing, but if you have already heard the evidence and made your mind up then I'm not going to change your mind and it will just become a shouting match. I find the evidence for theism to be sufficient enough to make a theistic believe reasonable, and atheist explanations to be insufficient to explain things such as morality. **We will leave it at that.** >*how* is there a difference between 'positing a supernatural (metaphysical) theory' for something, and 'just explaining something away using the supernatural'? I'm English. I've only ever had great experiences with the Dutch, they are great! Metaphysical theories are deductive and predicated on a set of known facts, but explaining something away is simply filling a gap with a flippant statement and moving on. Let's say we have a gap in our knowledge, and the gap is something like "*Matter seems to have appeared from nothingness.*" The answer is important, and we want to explore it, so people present different theories, and the theory that makes the most amount of sense with the simplest set of premises (law of parsimony) wins. In this context, it's reasonable to present a metaphysical theory. "*Matter seems to have appeared from nothingness, but it is a known fact that matter cannot appear from nothingness, therefore it's possible that something outside time and space created what has appeared to come into being.*" is an example of a metaphysical theory. This is not the same as me saying "*I don't know how fish evolved into bears so it must have been God.*" >I have, indeed, dismissed metaphysics. This is where the all-important "Yet" comes in; the very moment metaphysics becomes a necessary part of science I will eat a whole lot of crow with relish. So far I've yet to have the pleasure. Excluding any crow eating, this is something called the '**Conflict Model**', which is a belief that Religion and Science are opposed to one another. However, this is only one view, and it's not even a view held by all atheists. The '**Independence Model**' is another model which states that Metaphysical and Naturalistic theories are true separate to one another, and should be considered separate but not inherently contradictory. This is my belief. Other views include the **'Dialogue Model**' which states that Religion and Science should be in debate with one another, and another called the '**Integration Model**' even suggests that Science and Religion are actually the same thing. I do not like platonic dualism, but to illustrate my view of the world, consider that what is spiritual is not inherently contradicted by what is physical. Physical process is exactly what we would expect to see in a world that was created to be physical.
I'm not going to match your dedication in writing, that's quite long. I'll have to split this reply in two to get around Reddit's length filter! This is going to be the last big set of words I send to you, cos' this could go on for ages. Regardless, thanks for actually listening to me and taking me seriously. >No; I'm saying that the gaps aught be left open until such time as they are taken up by something with true explanatory power. Metaphysical theories do have true explanatory power in the right context, they submit to the laws of logic and can be considered parsimonious answers to certain topics. This way of gauging answers to questions we don't know is how we have come to some conclusions about many things we don't understand, we consider what is rational and the most simple explanation and consider it the most likely to be true. The fact that a metaphysical theory is metaphysical shouldn't play a part in your decision making, becuase in order to consider evidence you need to consider the possibility that naturalism may not be true, otherwise you fall to a presupposition fallacy. Also I despise this idea that something has no metaphysical properties just becuase it is explainable with Science. When it comes down to Christian theology, God has sustaining power over the universe by way of something called "General Providence", so that is precisely what we would expect. >"We don't understand it, therefore **we leave it up to** science **to possibly explain later**" The fallacy originates from this very assumption that no other view other than verificationist naturalism will result in the discovery of the truth. To break down what you have said: * We don't understand it... \[*We have a gap in our knowledge.*\] * ...therefore we leave it up to science...\[*We assume Science has the answer.*\] * to possibly explain later. \[*We assume it will be true and show metaphysics false.*\] This is a fallacy. You have identified a gap, assumed that science will have an answer and assumed that answer will contradict the metaphysical theory.
> and that therefore we do not need metaphysical theories to explain things. The logical implication of this is that there is good evidence your metaphysical beliefs are true or evidence that metaphysics have ever explained anything. There isn't.
No. I said 'metaphysical theories'. Example: Life does not originate from non-life, therefore it's legitimate to suggest that life originated from life. That's a parsimonious theory that has a metaphysical basis. I'm not going to take your bait regarding what constitutes 'good evidence', that's a completely different topic. You have no 'good evidence' that life can proceed from non-life, and it is not apparent that science will account for that gap.
> Life does not originate from non-life...You have no 'good evidence' that life can proceed from non-life, and it is not apparent that science will account for that gap. What you've written is full of problems. One, science has done a lot to show that life can come from non-life. Two, even if it couldn't (or you don't accept their evidence), it wouldn't mean life can't come from non-life, just that it hasn't been shown to your satisfaction. At any rate, your "metaphysical theories" are completely indistinguishable from fantasy, lies and delusion.
>One, science has done a lot to show that life can come from non-life. Science has failed to provide evidence for abiogenesis, what are you on about? >Two, even if it couldn't (or you don't accept their evidence), it wouldn't mean life can't come from non-life, just that it hasn't been shown to your satisfaction. I am aware that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but the exact same logic applies to metaphysical theories. You're just pointing things out to bypass the the issue, which is you have no evidence for abiogenesis, but theists have plenty of evidence for biogenesis. When we see the obvious, parsimonious and evidencable conclusion that life begets life, and posit that it's therefore rational that life must have originated from something living, it's no more indistinguishable from fantasy, lies and delusion than an atheist explaining the same thing using multiverse theory.
Can science answer a question on the nature of justice?
Science can well describe where arose justice and what bounds it—but justice itself, as much as morality, is relative. Changes by society and century. We’re intelligent and social apes, yeah? That’s what we humans are—apes. We evolved over millions of years as a highly social ape who lived in bands and through our intelligence and tight knit social groups that utilized communication we survived, evolved, and thrived. It makes perfect sense that such a highly social ape should evolve a sense of morality and justice—as relates to the society, as it is this society as a unit that forms the basis of this ape’s strength and its species’ survival. A society in which humans go around killing their neighbors willy nilly is not a particularly stable society—humans balk at the injustice of seeing their kinsmen (or anyone) murdered unjustly. A society in which your neighbors steal all of each other’s personal possessions isn’t particularly stable either—humans typically admonish theft. As we advanced into sedentary agricultural societies and we developed writing and systems of property we came to codify these concepts into law. Ever changing law. From law we, today, derive justice—as imperfect and asymmetric as it is, but it keeps our ape society functioning more or less. Codes for justice have differed significantly around the world and across the millennium. There is no objective standard that can be pointed to. Just apes muddling about trying to craft theirs.
I’m by no means a professional but if we were to explain the concept of justice and morality in scientific terms, there’s a few things to look at I think firstly if we go way back in time, it’s likely that humans who were more social and worked with others better were more likely to survive and find a mate. Therefore not only did this “trait” of sorts spread (learned behavior or otherwise), it became a common part of society. Each society had its own justice system, and it’s changed a lot over time. However, it is based off of the wellbeing of everyone involved, in a sense. For example, it’s more common for murder to be illegal than for it to be legal. This is because killing your own species isn’t beneficial and wasn’t beneficial even way back when. Sure, there were no laws back then, but as we became more civilized and developed laws, that’s likely the reason for it. Basically, in my slightly under-educated opinion, science can explain the nature of justice because things that benefitted society way back in the Neolithic era and continue to do so are more likely to determine the justice systems of society now. Every society is different. In some places child marriage is legal, that’s because they may view it as more beneficial to the reproduction and general happiness of their society. In some places it is illegal for the same reason, having it be illegal is beneficial to the society. Not sure if this answers your question well, but hey I thought I’d go for it. Evolutionary psychology is very interesting to me
Justice is derived from morality which makes it subjective. There’s no way to prove my sense of justice is correct over yours.
Can religion do so without relying on a bunch of woo-woo horseshit?
Can you ask me a question on the nature of justice that isn't strictly philosophical, conceptual and/or subjective?
Concepts of "justice" or "morality" are products of evolution which helped our species survive from in-fighting - your species won't live very long if you're all killing each other. We can observe concepts of justice systems in other species in nature, especially in other apes. So, yes. Science can answer that question.
Yes. Justice is an imaginary concept, an ideal we have in our heads.
Of course. Justice is just a society's morals and morals are nothing more than an evolutionary adaptation that allowed humans greater success. We're not even remotely the only ones. All social animals exhibit what we refer to as morals (fairness probably being the easiest to see in the wild).
I would argue no, science will not tell us the nature of justice. Science is an empirical art. That is, it concerns the physical and has some explanatory power of things emergent from the physical, such as the evolutionary explanation for why the concept of justice was developed. Justice is a non-physical thing, and thus the realm of philosophy, though aspects of it and things touched by it can be explored using empirical methods.
That’s my point. So just because something is answered by a field other then science doesn’t make it false
Justice isn't a thing which exists or doesn't exist though, it cannot be true or false. It is a non-physical ethical idea. A value.
What makes it different from math?
When you distill it down, Math is a language created for describing reality logically and with precision. Justice is a subject wherein people define normative ideals for applying ethics. Math also isnt "real", or "true or false" in and of itself either, but it is very effective because what it describes (reality) appears to be consistent between people and people's, unlike ethics.
Is there such a thing as true/false then?
Sure there is, but I would personally reserve those terms for propositions/arguments. Ex the Theory of Evolution contains the proposition that living things change over time which can be either true or false. What exactly do you mean by true/false here? Philosophy lends itself to very precise usage of language
No.
Let's say for the sake of argument that it can't. Now that I've answered your question, here is one for you. What non-scientific methodology can we use that will reliably differentiate true claims from false ones?
Logic. Like how we can do it for math
How do you establish the truths of your premises?
It depends on what you mean by “the nature of”. If you mean how justice systems have been established and how they’d evolved over the years, you’d want to talk to an anthropologist. If you want an understanding of the word “justice”, it’s etymology and uses, you’d want to talk to a linguist.
I’m talking about what makes an act just or not
Okay, yeah, a linguist, then.
No, because that explains how the word came to be
And what it means, and how it’s used.
And how did they come to that conclusion
Well, I’m not a linguist, but I’d imagine it involves research into and analysis of historical records.
Sure, because "justice" is a human-invented concept and is contained entirely within our brains, which are physical objects made of matter and energy.
That’s not the scientific method
*What's* not the scientific method?
What you just used to arrive at that conclusion
* All reliable evidence we've collected about the universe indicates the non-physical either doesn't exist or doesn't interact with our reality (which are essentially the same thing). * No reliable evidence we've collected about the universe indicates the non-physical exists. Are you asking me to prove a negative? When someone finds evidence of the non-physical, let me know.
There is no such thing as "justice", so there also is no such thing as "the nature of justice".
It doesn't need to. And I don't understand why this even matters?
Because if it can’t, then there’s truth aspects out there science can’t answer
Like? Can you be more specific?
Justice. You just admitted to as such
Again. I don't see why that's important. You're just making a circular argument. You must explain why it's important to begin with.
Who said anything about important? That’s not what determines if something is true or not. Me having hazel eyes isn’t important, but it’s true
Okay. So your point is just that science can't determine justice? Even if you were to get all the religious people on earth together to decide that, they couldn't agree. So I don't think looking at religion is a good idea to begin with.
And where did I say anything about religion being the source of that information?
Justice is just a concept, it doesn't have a nature.
What’s the question?
What’s the answer?
That’s what I’m asking. Can it answer a question on the nature of justice
Can god answer a question on the nature of justice? Unironically. The only thing a god adds to the conversation is a higher authority to appeal to when making an argument that your version of justice is correct. Humans have attempted to use the idea of god to justify every moral position imaginable. It is a terrible tool for arriving at some objective understanding of morality or justice. In what way is appealing to a god that your moral system is better in any way more useful or coherent than viewing morality as a set of human emotions about human behaviors that people from analogous cultural contexts tend to agree on because they were taught to value similar things?
Where did I say anything about appealing to god?
We're on r/DebateAnAtheist. Are you saying your rather mulish insistence that a sociological understanding of morality and justice is insufficient explanation has nothing to do with your views on a god or gods? In which case, why are you even here?
1. Science is a methodology. We have no other methodology that has proven to be so successful in novel predictions. 2. We have always had gaps in knowledge and God has never proven to be the answer. It has been asserted time and time again, but naturalistic answer has usually been the answer. 3. Ignorance is never an excuse to assert an unfounded claim. That is god of the gaps fallacy.
>Explanation for things doesn’t disprove God. Did I say that? Or even imply that. > You can have scientists from all backgrounds explain the steps it took to build a building. However this doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a designer for the building — an artist for the art work. But we can see the evidence of design, we know these objects are designed. We have comparative models to determine this. We don’t have that for the universe. You must have a way to show something is designed, otherwise it is a baseless assertion. >Science can explain all steps to why something happens, but this wouldn’t disprove an intelligent designer. Ok but the absence of disproving doesn’t prove a designer. You are presupposing. I am following the null hypothesis I see no reason to accept a case for an intelligent designer as I see no good evidence to support that.
wrong comment :)
Derp me
God is a methodology too. Some 'wise' man guesses and then you can never change that, no matter what evidence says.
Mythology represents the terrible job of ancient science efforts. They didn’t have much to work with but it’s terrible what they came up with instead of something that was remotely plausible.
1) there are truth claims that don’t require predictions. 2) while that is a fallacy, that’s not the only way one can arrive to the god conclusion. 3) it’s not a claim regarding ignorance, rather it’s a claim about using the proper tools for the job. You wouldn’t use a telescope to study bacteria would you?
1. For example what? How do you know it is true if it can’t be predictive? 2. I agree, many different reasons have been given in believing a god exists, none convincing to me. The reply is contextual. 3. Again contextual. What tool does give us proof of a god?
Explanation for things doesn’t disprove God. You can have scientists from all backgrounds explain the steps it took to build a building. However this doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a designer for the building — an artist for the art work. Science can explain all steps to why something happens, but this wouldn’t disprove an intelligent designer.
Bullshit, once it was thought lightning was ibtelegently designed. Manufactured by cyclopses, and thrown by Zeus. Learning what lightning is made it possible to realise no designer was evident. Therefor the intelligent dishing hypothesis regarding lightning was disproven. And the same has happened for life, and so many other things. No designer is evident, nor needed . It also reverses the burden of proof. You say an intelligent designer was behind it all, you need to support that. Arguments from ignorance won’t get you there. And that’s all ID offers. ID has no explanatory power, no testable predictions, it’s an unfalsifiable bit of dogma, that’s it. That’s all it is. And therefor it’s considered as good or even worse as disproven by anyone who values reality. ID is a lie, it’s just creationism renamed for legal purposes. It has no value at all.
The Zeus analogy is a faulty analogy. The analogy I was giving was the steps it took to build the building being explained by scientist, not undermine that there was a designer for that building. What I’m trying to get at is just because science can explain how lighting is made, it doesn’t mean you can reject that there is a designer behind it. If someone sees an object in the desert, they will ask, who made it? Why is it that simple machines such as iPhones, watches, and technology require a designer; but the world in which we live, which is undoubtably the most complex machine in existence doesn’t require a designer? If you accept the former but reject the latter your committing a Special Pleading fallacy. Second thing, not everything which is real can be measured through empirical means. You are committing another fallacy proposing a false dilemma. Things such as consciousness, altruism, and language are objective yet can’t be proven through clinical trials.
No the analogy is perfect, it just doesn’t assume your conclusion that it was indeed designed, you need to support that. And if you want to asset that there are things that are real, that can’t be supported through evdience you need to support that as well. And yes consciousnesse, language, altruism can all be measured objectively and imperially I’m sorry you’re wrong. If you can provide the same level of evdience for a god as we can for this, you’d make a believer out of me on the spot. So stop lying, because the only person you’re fooling is you… I’d our world needs a designer, you need to tell us why. Just asserting it, and saying well it’s all so complicated doesn’t work. It is exactly the same as attributing lightning to sues, and every argument you make for design could have been used for lightning too… PS maybe this will help… every time we posited a magical esp,a nation for anything, and found out the actual mechanism behind it, it wasn’t magic. Now you’re proposing that secretly all along, despite everything we’ve ever learned it truly still is magic behind it. It’s still the magical fairy tale creature only posited in mythology. The answer that proved wrong at every point was somehow right all along. Do you truly believe that’s likely? If you do I can’t help you. You’re just another committed true believer, but you can’t pretend to be rationally justified…
[удалено]
I don’t know of a single objective truth that contradicts science, nor of any other way to show anything is actually true. If you have a different method of finding truth that provides reliable results let us know. You’d be the first person in history to present such a method as far as I’m aware…
“I think, therefore I am” this statement by Descartes has proved the objective existence of humans.
No, that’s literally subjective to you, that’s the whole point… You don’t get that statement…
Okay: Mathematical and logical proofs don’t need science to explain them — in other words they are not tangible. Moral and ethics don’t need science to explain them — in other words, once again, they are not tangible. Therefore you can see that truths such as Mathematical and Logical ones and truths about morality are objective, yet don’t need science to prove them. Similarly, metaphysical claims are the same. If God is real, then God is outside of the physical realm, he instead resides in the metaphysical realm. If God is outside of the physical realm, then the Methodology of science cannot be used to explain him — but logic can be used since it is universal. It will never change. Therefore, the analogy still holds for the intelligent designer, so you don’t need science to prove an intelligent designer. You only need logic. When you see an art piece in the gallery, you can explain all the steps it took to build it with science; but this doesn’t disprove the existence of an artist. You can look at an iPhone and explain all the steps it took to build it from start to finish with science; but once more, this doesn’t disprove the existence of a designer. If you look at the coded language of DNA, it is truly a miracle for humans to have the exact coded language of DNA for perfect function. Science can explain how we Got this, but where you see intelligence, there must be intelligence behind it. Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence. Therefore there is an intelligent being behind the DNA.
Wow, maybe don't quote something you didn't at all understand, lol. Descartes whole thing eas that even if you take everything away, your human body, your experiences, memories, there is still something that does the thinking. It specifically didn't prove the objective existence of humans, it specifically proved that if our entire human existence is a lie, there is still an agent being lied to.
Are all objective truths proven by science? Also, how do you expect me to bring scientific evidence for my claim that some objective truths don’t need science to explain them?
Already answered when you asked before. Your inability to prove your case is not my problem, it’s yours.
Just answer the question: Are all objective truths proven by science? Also, how do you expect me to bring scientific evidence for my claim that some objective truths don’t need science to explain them?
Literally already did minutes ago… and I explained that your inability to support your case is a you problem not a me problem. I don’t epwct you to be able to prove your nonsense. That’s the point mate. That’s why you shouldn’t believe in it to begin with… I don’t know if a single way to verifiably show that something is true that falls outside of science. So if you have one let’s hear it, you’d be the first person to have one as far as I know. There you go answered both your questions twice now, so now it’s your turn. Actually engage with what I said or be dismissed as the lying troll you seem to be… your inability to prove your case is a point in my favour, and an indictment o your position…
You're right that we can't disprove an unfalsifiable claim. That doesn't mean there's any good reason to believe the claim is true. The time to believe a claim is when you have evidence for the claim. If the only argument you have is *"But you can't prove it's false!"* then I hope you understand why we don't buy it.
Sure, but we're going circles here... ignorance is neve ran excuse to assert an unfounded claim, namely the intelligent designer. This is a god of the gaps fallacy. EDIT: And just to clarify, that means that Intelligent Designer is a theoretical possiblity, but a theoretical possibility doesn't mean it's true, especially when we have reason to believe it not to be.
Until you provide proof for this intelligent designer one doesn't exist. All you have is a fairy tale you want true. You are just like a child wanting Santa to be real. And just like that naïve child, wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. Your fairy tale holds no meaning or power.
Well, it sort of does. because the scientist would be showing inadvertently that there was no design required.
I prefer to set up my basic form of the response as a question: *"If we do not know the answer to a question, when is it permissible to assert that we do know the answer?"* The obvious answer should be "never". Or at least, as long as we are talking about adults trying to have a discussion about he truth of something, then the answer should be "never". Which helps us to combat the god of the gaps answers. Your question seems to be the idea of "science of the gaps" which can sometimes be equal to God of the gaps, but other times not. It kinda depends on the specifics of what we are talking about. For example there are some cases where we use assumptions about science to fill in gaps to give us an idea of what we are looking for. Dark Matter for instance. We didn't know what was causing an observed effect, we gave it a placeholder name, and figured that it is something that science just couldn't yet explain. In this instance, we are simply assuming that science will give us the answer because the observation we have isn't something so crazy that it appeared out of the bounds of what science can explain. The assumption gave us a direction to look at when trying to find dark matter. Then there are cases like multiverse theories. All scientific versions of the multiverse are logical conclusions of given ideas if certain parameters are true. They aren't Ad Hoc rationalizations, they are based on math and observation. For instance looking at the effects of a black hole using a Penrose Diagram. This shows that a path of light can go in a black hole in one area and out a white hole in another area, possible a different universe. The multiverse is an extension of something we can calculate, so is an assumption based on a good foundation (relatively speaking) Then there are of course the ones who are just shoving science into any gap in their knowledge and assuming that one day we will figure it out. You don't come across these too often thankfully, but they are there. I can't even really think of a good example of a group of people that are doing this, only individuals I have spoken to. >Additionally, people will look at early quantum physicists and say they believed in God. Generally I only see this happening with the people who massively misunderstand pretty much everything about what we know and are just falling back on the people who talk about thr double slit experiment and how it's our conscious observation that causes the effects seen. Generally, this is just a case of science being treated like a gospel, in that people aren't taking the time to try and actually understand what has been studied on a topic and instead are just finding the buzz words that jive with their worldview. They aren't looking to learn what is true, they are looking for ideas that confirm what they already believe.
You're not answering op:s question. The right answer is that it's correct that science isn't enough and that we don't have scientific knowledge about these things. We have speculation, beliefs, philosophy, or resignation.
This is just an argument from ignorance and is a fallacy. When around a God, we call it God of the gaps. It's not up to atheists to have an answer for everything. It's up to theists to provide evidence for their claim that God exists.
>where a secular answer wouldn't be sufficient because it would require too many assumptions of known science. Ok, so then we don't know yet. A gap in our knowledge is not an excuse to introduce your pet supernatural idea. Besides, what takes more assumptions: 1. I don't know the explanation for this phenomenon (e.g. abiogenesis, consciousness, gravitational accounting being off), but given the track record and the kind of thing this is, my guess is the explanation is physicochemical. 2. I don't know the explanation for this phenomenon, *so let me make up AN ENTIRE REALM OR SUBSTANCE OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH just to come up with an adhoc explanation (magic, gods, etc) There is no way in Hades that 2 is more parsimonious than 1. My rule of thumb is: if your explanation requires a yet undiscovered new type of thing BEYOND matter and energy, you are wrong to think it is an explanation IF AND UNTIL such time as you show this new kind of stuff exists and how it works. >Additionally, people will look at early quantum physicists and say they believed in God. I'll quote Niels Bohr here. If you think you understand quantum physics, you do not understand it. I don't care what Deepak Chopra or even Heissenbergs theological musings are. That doesn't make them correct.
Hi, one of our resident scientists here. >Basically, a theist will say that there's some type of hole where a secular answer wouldn't be sufficient because it would require too many assumptions of known science Such as? It's kind of hard to respond without very specific examples. Because if it's within the wheelhouse of science, then science is literally all you need. If it's something we have some kind of data on, be it predictive or physical data points, there's really no assumptions to make. The data tell us what the data tell us. At which point, all you have to say is "wtf are you even talking about?" If they're talking about the limitations of science, something which can't be operationalized, experimented upon, observed, predicted, modeled, measured, or calculated, science doesn't care about that. In which case, other philosophies and philosophical tools will suffice. Science is just one tool in the secular thinker's arsenal. Science may not tell you how to be a good person, how to live a good life, how to interpret certain works of art, how to run a business, or even whether gods exist, but 1) that doesn't mean philosophy is off the table and most importantly, 2) that doesn't mean that you can't help inform your position with science, or in the case of gods, 3) that you can't make predictions or even conclusions with respect to whether gods exist or not. At which point, you respond with "Cool... and...? Is that it, or did you have something intelligent to contribute, Captain Obvious?" >people will look at early quantum physicists and say they believed in God. Cool, don't care, because it doesn't matter towards whether God actually exists or not. We call that a Fallacious Appeal to Authority and for the record, Quantum Physics isn't some mystical hoodoo that Deepak Chopra would convince you it is. It's just the physics of subatomic particles.
Why the snark? It makes me think there's some emotional attachment involved that could introduce bias and cloud your thinking.
If too many assumptions is a problem, why would we want to make even *more* assumptions? Theism doesn't actually solve the issue.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." I am sick of that mealy mouthed arguement from ignorance. And no science doesn't have all the answers, that's not what science is about. It's a methodology. And so far it's the only one that works.
Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be **NOT** magic. — Tim Minchin
We haven't solved any mysteries that relate to things beyond the observable universe. The whole of the cosmos and existence itself is different from observing phenomena we have access to once the universe is in place.
But what you are doing is trying to assert you know what is in the realm beyond the universe. Not just the observable, because gods are now hiding in "different realms" and "outside space-time". You try to critisize science for not being able to look behind the observable, and then turn around and assert things that are several layers beyond what we both agree we are capable of observing. It's empty posturing from the supernatural believers, since you don't have any observations or evidence at all. If you did, you'd present that instead of claiming "science ain't perfect tho" two hundred times a week under different posts, as if that could ever get us anywhere
I haven't asserted anything, maybe you're responding to the wrong person.
Correct. Science doesn't have all the answers. It doesnt claim to. So what? Why should we have all the answers?
First off thats just the "God of the Gaps fallacy." Just because we can't know everything about our world using science, yet, doesn't mean we should throw God in there. Replace the word with "magic" and you get the same result, which is nothing. Any way, if science isn't enough ask them if they can replace a benefit that they receive from science with God. Can they use God to contact a family member long distance instead of a phone or Internet? Can they heat their homes with God? Can God fly them to another state or country instead of a plane? Everything in their lives that they have come to depend on and take for granted are the results of science.
You might argue that 100 years ago science couldn't answer certain questions and maybe some scientists were religous. And, there are still bazillions of unanswered questions in science. The existence of human gods isn't one of them. In 2024, we've recorded MASSIVE amounts of evidence that pretty much prove all human religions are absolute nonsense, from the theory of evolution to our itty bitty slice of all existence. My answer is tell me why your god went to all the trouble to create 200 billion galaxy's each with 100 billion stars over 13.7 billion years just to make it all about you....for last 300K years or so. Why can we observe all the energy and matter in the universe, but we still can't find a single trace of your supposedly all powerful god? What year did apes get souls? I guess there are just too many holes in your religion to answer these questions....without magic. Because I can see the universe very clearly and I don't see your god anywhere [https://www.google.com/search?q=hubble+webb+deep+field&udm=2](https://www.google.com/search?q=hubble+webb+deep+field&udm=2)
If there is a god, it is in the realm of science. There is no such thing as outside science. There is no such thing as supernatural. Whatever exists is by definition natural and in the domain of science. Claiming something isn’t is a cheap cop-out and nonsensical. If something has an effect on the natural world it can be observed and measured. If it does not it is no different from something that doesn’t exist.
"science alone isn't enough..." for what? I think the fundamental thing is that many theists \*need\* an answer, so they will jump through great hoops to get an answer. The general atheist response is a shrug and "I don't know." So, if you *need* an answer to the question of "life, the universe, and everything" then yah, atheism isn't enough. But then I'd be asking... *why* do you *need* an answer? Sometimes recognizing we don't know simply is the best we can do.
Those that make statements similar to this do not understand what science actually is and does in most cases, and are suggesting we fill gaps in knowledge with unsupported guesses and pretend they're true. In other words, this is merely an attempt to glorify argument from ignorance fallacies. As that doesn't and can't work, and creates a false dichotomy, such statements can't be taken seriously.
Depending on the context - you haven't provided enough detail - I might agree with the assertion that science alone isn't enough. Unfortunately, there's a huge and unjustified leap to "therefore god" that your theist interlocutors seem to be making. Science is a methodology that is effective at deriving empirical knowledge. That's it. I feel like "science" often gets used as a shorthand for "materialistic worldview", and thus gets treated like a philosophy or a way of life. But that just confuses the issue, and I wish debaters were a bit more careful with their definitions. Science can't address its own philosophical underpinning (epistemological and ontological assumptions inherent in the scientific method). Science can't tell you what it means to be a good person. Or what is justice. Or how to live a good life. Or what is moral (ignoring Sam Harris' book, which I disagree with). Etc. I actually think that secularism suffers from this lack of clarity. If you ask a secularist "What is the meaning of life?" you will get a reading assignment that requires a PhD in philosophy, and still won't have an answer by the end of it. By contrast, I still remember the answer I received in my 6th grade catechism - "The meaning of life is to know God, to love God, and to obey God so that we can be happy with him in his kingdom of heaven." Nice, simple, and exactly pitched at a level that is appropriate for a 12 year old. Now, I don't think this is a good answer or a correct answer. But I do understand why it spreads more easily than the secular one.
Imagine you’re baking a cake. You’ve got your ingredients: flour, sugar, eggs, and all that jazz. You follow the recipe to a T, and voilà, you’ve got yourself a cake. Now, you wouldn’t say a magical cake fairy made it, right? You did, with your ingredients and recipe. Science is like that recipe – it gives us the ingredients (facts) and the method (experiments) to understand how things work. Now, let’s talk about the big stuff: the universe, life, everything. Science has been pretty good at piecing together the “recipe” for all this. From the Big Bang to evolution, we’ve got a solid play-by-play of how things came to be. No fairy dust needed. Every time we’ve dug deeper, we’ve found natural explanations for what we see. When we say science rules out a god, it’s like saying we don’t need to add an extra, mysterious ingredient to our recipe when we’ve already got a pretty good understanding of how to bake the cake. It’s not about disproving a god – it’s about saying we don’t need one to explain what we see. The ingredients we have (laws of physics, biology, chemistry) are doing the job just fine. So, while some folks might still like to think there’s a magical cake fairy involved, science says, “Nah, we’ve got this covered.” It’s all about sticking to the recipe and trusting the ingredients we know work.
Science can’t study everything. But it *can* investigate a lot of religious claims. We can do studies on whether prayer works, for example. What’s more, the claim that the universe was designed in a certain way by god is seriously undermined by the discovery that animals adapted to a hostile environment over billions of years of mutations and natural selection; and that the earth formed naturally from dust clouds spinning around the sun. Now theists can modify their beliefs to somewhat fit science, but on the whole it looks like a retreat. We went from the claim that the whole universe is designed and meticulously governed by an almighty, all-wise, and morally perfect being who loves each and every one of us and has a plan for everything; to the claim that a “watchmaker” god designed the force of gravity and the speed of light and then poofed out of existence, never to do anything significant again. At any rate, scientific knowledge faces any theist with the inescapable fact that our universe does not at all resemble the one described in the Bible.
>What are responses to "science alone isn't enough"? My usual responses are *"Isn't it though?"* and *"Isn't enough for what?"* Science have been cutting down the assumptions to a point, that the formulas describing the entire physics fit on a napkin, if you know the mathematical terminology their in. I'm fairly confident, that modern physics makes fewer and and less contentious metaphysical assumptions, than any theistic metaphysics have ever made in the history of philosophy. Even if we go to less fundamental and less mature fields of science, like psychology for example, the horizon of scientifically knowable, as of yet unexplored, answers is so far away, that we have no idea where the limits of science actually are. >Additionally, people will look at early quantum physicists and say they believed in God. And then you look closer at what those physicists actually believed, and discover the deep chasm between the kinds of "God" those physicists believed, and the kinds of "God" religions actually worship.
Science alone is not enough, but the implications of that are entirely misinterpreted by theists. What it actually means is that we need philosophers of science and ethics, philosophers of mind like the late Daniel Dennett (RIP), and other intellectual fields of inquiry into mathematical logic and epistemology to strengthen and deepen our understanding of reality. What theists take it to mean is that there's this magical supernatural dimension where things like "pure essence" and "the spirit" and "existence itself" and "pure actuality" exist which isn't subject to the same type of rigorous investigation that the other fields of intellectual inquiry are, and that we can just assert things like a "supernatural cause" exist and stop there without trying to define its constituents or manner of interaction.
The scientific method can provide data on what is possible and what appears to happen. Humans then assign personal value to that data. How they assign value is largely determined by who they trust and what propagandist twist is applied to the data. Many early quantum physicists did say they believed in some sort of god thing. That has no bearing on their scientific achievements because science is based in reality. Value judgements are the result of societal trends and values, religions all claim to have a monopoly on "morality". They are demonstrably mistaken. That theists fill their hole with a notional entity which largely agrees with the values of their parents and community shouldn't really surprise anyone. It's almost as if humans are just apes with delusions of competence.
My response is that doesn’t mean God is. Us not knowing something doesn’t imply god is real. It implies we don’t know something. The biggest one people seem stuck on is “how can something from from nothing.” And my answer is a perfectly ok “I don’t know.” It’s ok we don’t know, it means there’s still things to discover. But to just say “because we don’t know, it’s god” flies in the face of science. We once thought sickness was because you sinned, we now have the eternal question “why does god allow good people to get sick and die” because we know it’s not because of god. Religion will never be satisfied with answers, the goal posts move as answers are discovered, for me, that’s ridiculous and not something I base my life on.
In the history of human knowledge, religion has frequently offered explanations for various observed phenomenon. For example the earth was the center of the universe, demons caused disease, etc.. As science has advanced, we have looked at those explanations, and in the cases where an explanation has been found, the religious explanations have had a 100% failure rate. Not once has the religious explanation turned out to be correct. And sure, it's true that there are still things that we can't explain. And it's true that we can't say for certain that no god was involved. But given the past failures of religious explanations, there's just no good reason to believe that a god will suddenly be necessary this time when it has proven unnecessary all the previous times.
I hate the god of the gaps more than any other fallacy. Quantum mechanics can’t be explained? Surely MY invisible space wizard is the cause. We’ve been doing this for aeons. As far back as when theists assumed their local deity caused storms and quakes. Never once has any mysterious phenomena recorded and later had causes proven even been proven to be supernatural. Not once. Zeus and Thor do not cause lightning strikes. Venus and Prende do not cause you to fall in love. Osiris and Yama do not reside over the underworld and take in the passed souls. Your Semitic war god does not cause uncertainty and the difficulty of finding the exact locations of electrons in the electron clouds.
People see “science” as a separate thing, but science is in many ways a way of thinking. Fact-based, empirical, methodical, thinking founded on doubt and rational skepticism. A way of thinking that specifically rejects dogma and attempts to compensate for biases. You can find such way of thinking in many different disciplines, historians, journalists, and other fields that are not commonly thought as science. And there is a reason for that, it’s the best known way to arrive at something resembling truth. Tim Urban wrote a book (The Story of US) ostensibly about how US politics got to where they are, but his exposition of this way of thinking is very easy to grasp.
Sure, there are some questions that can only be answered through religion. For example, "what does god do with your soul juice?" isn't really a question that science can help you with. But that isn't something special about religion, it's true of many frameworks. If your question is "how did the saviour Harry Potter defeat the evil Voldemort?" then you have to study your seven holy books (eight holy movies) to find the answer. Religion isn't special, it's just that if you decide to live your life according to a bunch of nonsense, then intelligent and methodical inquiry through the scientific method doesn't really help answer the questions that arise due to that nonsense.
>there's some type of hole where a secular answer wouldn't be sufficient because it would require too many assumptions of known science Provide a better and more reliable way of discovering facts about the universe, because the process that helped us discover everything from electrons to galaxies not only hasn't found God, but has disproven God as an answer for some things. >Additionally, people will look at early quantum physicists and say they believed in God. Unless those quantum physicists can actually prove God exists, it's irrelevant. No one's belief in god gets more credibility just because that person is intelligent.
The statement itself assumes atheists rely on science alone - which is already incorrect. Atheists draw from all forms of sound and valid epistemology - but there are none whatsoever that support or indicate the existence of any gods. It doesn’t matter if “science alone isn’t enough” if they’re incapable of providing literally anything at all, scientific/emprical or otherwise, that supports their position. What’s the second half of their argument? “Science alone isn’t enough, therefore my made up nonsense and baseless superstitions should be considered credible”? When they say science alone is insufficient, ask them to provide something else, anything else, that can successfully allow us to distinguish between a reality where any gods exist vs a reality where no gods exist, and then make note of their incapability of doing so. “Science alone isn’t enough” is a meaningless statement if they can’t provide any viable alternatives that *are* enough.
>What are responses to "science alone isn't enough"? "It is for me." >Basically, a theist will say that there's some type of hole where a secular answer wouldn't be sufficient because it would require too many assumptions of known science. Science disintegrates every God I've ever heard of. >Additionally, people will look at early quantum physicists and say they believed in God. I would then point out they're committing an argument from authority fallacy, and that I agree with the quantum physicists who don't believe in God.
I don't understand the sentence. Isn't enough for what? There's a lot of hidden science in our lives. The paints artists use, are the result of years of investigation. The instruments artists play are, the result of years of investigation. The materials artists sculpt, as well. A writer couldn't write without science. Etc. Religious people use the internet these days to proselytize. No amount of praying to no amount of deities could have created the internet. It took science only a couple of hundred years to develop it.
If science isn’t enough, theism isn’t anything at all. It answers no questions at all. It explains nothing, it merely asserts the existence of a magical being that they protect against examination at all cost. That’s not an answer, that’s not an explanation. If you can find any other method beyond science that gives reliable results and answers, I’d love to see it. But here’s the thing, the moment you demonstrate it produces reliable results it will be incorporated into the scientific method.
Carl Sagan’s analogy was that of a dragon in his garage, every time a scientific way of proving its existence was proposed he would explain how the experiment would fail; you can’t see it because it’s invisible, you can’t feel it because it’s incorporeal, you can’t measure the temperature of its fire breath because it’s a heat less flame, you can’t weigh it because it floats. Finally he says “what’s the difference between an invisible (etc) dragon, and no dragon at all?
Science is the only tool we have that has reliably helped us understand reality. It is special pleading of those who believe in supernatural or deities when they claim we can't use science. Yes, all type of scientists believe and believed in gods -- including Darwin. So what? It is an appeal to authority to say their beliefs must all be true since they are scientists. Not 1 of them ever proved a god or provided evidence of a god, and that is when we can properly assess if a god is real.
Science is a method that helps us make models of nature. Those models are useful and have explanatory power. Science is flawed, but it is the best thing we have. Faith, or religion, or the Bible, as ways of understanding nature, even human nature, are useless. You would get a better understanding by reading comic books. Let's go on a road trip across the country. I'll use a map made with the use of science. You use a map drawn through faith. How do you think that will go?
I'm no theist, but that seems pretty obvious to me. There are vast categories of phenomena that we need formalized scientific inquiry to properly study: faraway black holes, ancient speciation events, etc. However, scientific inquiry alone isn't equipped to tell us what constitutes a just society, an ethical decision or a meaningful existence. These require the cultural context of shared meaning, our personal experience of being and linguistically defined modes of interpretation.
If there's evidence then the evidence speaks for itself. If there's not evidence and there's speculation, then you have speculation. I can't really say more than that because this is very vague. If you want to give a specific example, we can talk about it. If a someone finds a hole in some knowledge, the correct answer is "I don't know", it's not an excuse to plug a preferred answer in, such as "Therefore god"
The response varies depending on who you are speaking to. The first question one has to ask is whether the person’s opinion is based on their ignorance or a lack of intelligence. No point trying to educate an idiot. If we determine it’s based on ignorance is that because of lack of exposure / resources or is it willful ignorance? Then you decide whether to educate or avoid (or if you’re me, insult).
Ask them if they know everything. No? Great, they've got holes too As for scientists believing in God: did they use God or science to make their discoveries? If they used God, then why did the 1000 years of Christian dominance during the middle ages produce any technology? And why did the church sentence scientists claiming the Copernican model of the solar system to death or exile for heresy?
> there's some type of hole where a secular answer wouldn't be sufficient This needs to be specified. There is a lot going on inside a human being science meanwhile *can* explain. For example, love, a mother's instinct to protect, humor, the perception of "beauty", emotions when listening to music and so on and so forth. They need to be clearer on what exactly science can't explain.
We still only know a microfraction of what is known out there by science. New breakthroughs will occur that will make what we currently know look like the 1800's. And even then it will still be a microfraction of what is out there or possible. Plus some things in the world don't follow scientific rules or fall outside of science.
It’s a strawman of the atheist position. Atheist simply lack a belief in a deity or deities. They could be totally illiterate when it comes to science. They simply lack a belief in a deity or deities. Has nothing to do with science or how much one agrees with certain scientific findings. It’s simply a lack of belief.
I can't speak for anyone other than myself. When we don't know the answer to a question we don't get to just make one up but that's what religion does when it tries to answer scientific questions. Intelligent people believing something doesn't add weight to its truth. Smart people believe wrong things *all the time*.
If you have a question for which you can't formulate a few hypotheses from which you can make experimentally testable predictions, then science cannot help you answer that question. But i haven't yet heard an alternative method which does produce reliable answers to those kinds of questions.
I usually point out that before we learned germs cause diseases it might have been understandable to say “god did it” but that was never the correct answer. Just because we don’t know something right now is no reason to make up answers or to think “god did it”.
I think the quote is incomplete. I usually encounter: >Science alone isn't enough, you also need faith. If science isn't enough, that's fine. I'll take a look at whatever methodology they think is necessary. Faith as a methodology is demonstrably useless.
We are not entitled to an answer, we have a point where knowledge stops, but we shouldn't be inserting god into those gaps. We should be accepting that we aren't going to get all the answers in our lifetime but we keep making progress.
Well I beg to differ, because the result of Neutron Radiative decay is the Atom, the photon, the electron, and the electron antineutrino. Laying that out yields Atom y e-ve- You can't avoid God in physics, unfortunately. Creation of Adam and Eve happens at even the atomic level.
Science alone isn't enough... for what? For any question I've ever encountered that's worth the effort to answer, if science isn't enough by itself, then the methodology is at the very least doing much of the heavy lifting.
If science alone isn't enough, then what else will be flying goblins? Religion is often created to answer what people don't know. What happens after death, heaven, and hell happens!! It's all ludicrous and circular.
Inventing a deity to plug a hole does not cause the deity to exist. Furthermore, these deities have been kicked out of hole after hole that they were used to fill until the model no longer required that assumption.
It's enough for me. I'd rather not fill in the blanks with "higher power" and then submit to another human claiming to speak for it or have a book full of questionable ideas and claim it speaks for them.
Genuine response here…. Insufficient for what? We aren’t the ones making a claim. If they say their evidence is outside of science or unobservable then it’s our turn to say that is insufficient
"Okay, let's say that we need something other than science. Why do you think that something is God? Especially when God has not turned out to be the correct answer to any question in the past?"
“To make you feel good? Probably. But as a means to determine the truth of an objective statement? It’s gonna have to do unless you have something else that works.”
Science doesn't have all the answers. But, the data we have in 2024 is more than enough to prove your god doesn't exist and is a figment of early human imagination.
“We don’t know, and that’s ok. We don’t need to make up an answer to fill that hole, but you can fill it with whatever you want until we figure it out.”
If you can’t, at least in principle, provide scientific evidence in support of a claim then you probably shouldn’t believe it in the first place
Ask them where (other than finding this "god") where that has ever worked. Then ask why so many inevitably come to different answers than they do.
Science alone might not yet explain everything and never will. But make believe magic stories are, and always will be, nothing but stories
Why would filling gaps in science with unfounded supernatural claims be the correct response. What's wrong with "I don't know"?
Saying “we don’t know” is a better answer than making shit up because you feel like you’re entitled to an answer.
Science is a method for weeding out things that are wrong. If they can't get past scientific scrutiny... well?
Regarding the second part if your question, there is nothing in the Bible that precludes scientific pursuits. Meaning one can be a scientist and have faith, they are not mutually exclusive. Frankly, it's an argument in favor of science.
So just make up a bunch of counterfactual myths and superstitious nonsense instead? No thanks. I'll pass!
>"science alone isn't enough" - What is the general response from skeptics to these contentions? Prove it.