This one is in response to a comment made on the “Do You Science” post.
I have a question to ask. What virtue is it to say that you acknowledge you might be wrong? I don’t get that take on agnosticism. Whether one’s wrong or not is not derived from the degree of humbleness one holds. What purpose does that humbleness serve?
And I am not an agnostic, I am an atheist. The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for a god what so ever, so I don’t believe in one. I cannot fathom a set of conditions that can rationally allow one to exist, however I accept that there is a vanishingly small chance that I may be wrong because my entire stance on atheism is based on a lack of evidence for any gods and after the first million gods got rejected the rest got easier and easier.
It’s not humility, it’s fact. My entire view is based on evidence. Should evidence show up to support the existence of a colony (I suppose?) of T-Rex in Central Africa then I will have to revoke my stance that Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. By the same principle if one can demonstrate to me empirically and scientifically that a god exists and that their personal god is Tlaloc then I am afraid I will have to revoke my atheism and start sacrificing babies to ensure the rains remain regular…
However, just like that Jehovah bloke, there isn’t any evidence for the existence of Tlaloc and our current knowledge indicates that the precipitation of the planet is reliant more on the water cycle than the satiation of a god through baby sacrifice.
It’s not humility it’s fact. I am not the only atheist who holds this view. Dawkins himself stated similar things.
If I demonstrate to you (hypothetically) testable, verifiable proof that a god exists and demands worship lest x, y and z occur, you would accept it (after proper testing and review) would you not?
The thing is not one person has been able to demonstrate the existence of a god and the spaces in which such a being can hide is vanishingly small. To the point that Christians have to hide their god behind the Big Bang and get very very vague about the interventionist policies of god. Any religious person who tries to bring scientific proof to a “proof of god” doesn’t manage to be convincing to anyone with an inkling about science.
I mean, the mere fact that we don’t know (and ignorance is the fundamental human condition) doesn’t in and of itself mean that we might be wrong on the (myriad contradictory and sometimes outright illogical) god notion(s). From “I don’t know” the only conclusion one can draw is “I don’t know.”
I prefer to think that a thirst for knowledge is a fundamental human condition. Religion satisfies that thirst, but it does so by claiming that the zenith of human achievement was around 0 AD Judea or 600 AD Saudi Arabia or 1800 BC Northern India. That we don’t know anything else that’s new. Which is daft.
Now if you obviously believe this notion or parts of this notion then you cannot understand how science works by saying “I Don’t Know. That is why a lot of religious fundies seem to misunderstand how science works.
Now, should evidence and reason be found to support this particular nonsense (and so it currently stands), and were we to deny it, by digging our fingers in our ears and saying “NONONONONONONO!”, then, sure, we’d be in the wrong. But up until that point, I don’t find that I’m under the obligation to entertain hypotheticals, all for the purpose of appearing “humble.”What am I missing here?
Which is how my atheism works too. There is no “hypothesis” of a god because there requires to be some observable evidence to indicate one exists or at least a valid assumption.
In order to accept a god exists we must assume that the laws of existence can be voided at whim. That in effect “magic” exists. Which is a phenomenal thing that needs to exist. Our literal understanding of reality has to change for that which itself requires extraordinary proof.
I wouldn’t even consider “the God Hypothesis” to be a valid one because it’s not a hypothesis grounded in reality.
Sorry, I realize it’s off topic, really, but, meh, ill informed Christian quote mines to denigrate …isn’t exactly news.
Which is fine. They can quote mine me all they like. Their Carpenter god is never going to get any realer just because I “accept” the very minute chance that Jesus may exist. If that’s what makes their faith “strong” then I am afraid they have a very weak faith.
They can quote mine but they still have no proof that their god is real. The religious will have to provide evidence. Scientific, Testable Proof.
We don’t accept Bible Verse in court, why should we accept it in science? I am willing to accept a god if someone provides proof.