Atheists and proof cont….

[Kdtym10]

A carry on from the previous thread

For me when speaking about scientific proof and the need for it or not...
Religion then Seems to be a pseudo science
Whereby every instance of everything can be explained away as gods word/work/teaching etc. when we allow theories free from falsification we only confirm our bias.

So the problem of evil is explained
Free will explained
Argument from design stands
Etc etc

For me, I have no faith.

Well, science isn’t always that objective, quite often it is swayed by where the finding is coming from

I think if I was on a boat on the sea, and someone walked across the water then got me to get out of the boat and also walk on the water, then that would be enough for me to change my mind about atheism.

Alexa, show me someone who doesn't understand science...

@HowardTJMoon I think I'd imagine I was hallucinating through dehydration or something before I concluded it was god - phenomenon or miracle can't explain god for me as there's no way to know that it's not aliens or some such. Why god and not aliens?

@antigome Sure. There are other possibilities. I could be hallucinating. I could be a brain in a jar being fed false imagery and sensations. It could be a spectacularly elaborate trick.

Nevertheless I still think that if someone got me to walk on water and then told me that it was a miracle performed by god... then I'd believe that such a god existed. If that's not enough evidence, what would be?

That being said I'd need that kind of thing to actually happen to me personally. Being told that it happened a couple of thousand years ago to someone I've never met isn't nearly enough.

@HowardTJMoon Absolutky
And I think that the issues isn't it
It's not proof it's faith that's needed

At the end of the day, I don't believe in a creator-nothing about my experience or awareness leads me to that conclusion. I don't think there is proof that could prove and I don't say that as a non believer I say that on balance-any proof could never be conclusive.
To prove god exists through some such way that we expect god to behave-miracles, divinity, omnipotence etc seems to beg the question.

That fact that we live in a world that jars with an omnipotent creator seems not to dissuade those with faith.

@antigome No proof of anything can be 100% conclusive. Hard solipsism, hallucinations, brains in jars etc. Everybody has their own line for what would be sufficient proof for a given claim, and what would be insufficient.

For me there's certainly a high bar for belief in any given claimed god. Some higher than others - eg, a deistic "a god created the universe and then left us to it" has a lower bar than "a god created the universe and continues to be intensely interested in who you're thinking about while masturbating".

I think this is a really important point. Often when people are arguing against the existence of divinity they pick the most extreme version (in the case of God this is often some characterise than few believers actually believe in either) as this is the easiest to argue against. Interestingly, the further away from this caricature the description of the divine gets the more likely it is ad hominem arguments unfortunately seem to surface

@HowardTJMoon yes, and where your bar is can shift over time, and trauma.
I still struggle with the idea of a creator however invested in our ahem goings on they may or may not be 😂
I can't make the leap to god-I'm ok with not knowing why something is how it is without needing a god to explain it. Not that that's the only reason for belief in god of course.
I'm no scientist either so it's not as if I've skin in that game. Essentially I'm fascinated by how people do religion but I'm not spiritual in the least.

Desperate much!

Whilst I find culture and religion very interesting, the fact that most wars are started because of people believing in something that clearly isn't actually true, is one of the most sinister and ridiculous things in the world.

Yes you are! You just make derogatory throw away comments with nothing to back it up, no discussion, nothing. It’s pointless!

Can you explain what it meant by 'it is swayed by where the finding is coming from'?
Do you just mean individual bias? Because surely the discussion is about the scientific method, not whether individuals follow it correctly.

Sorry that was a typo, it should say “funding”.

it initially sways science in specifying the areas which should be investigated. This is often driven by economic considerations. This means that there is disproportionate research in some areas rather than others. This can affect public perception regarding the importance and/or prevalence of certain matters.

Scientists are humans, they are potentially open to viewing results in ways which will satisfy their funders, they might put disproportionate effort in trying to prove or disprove certain hypothesis

Releasing research into the public domain. People twist results to try and prove their perspective.

We’ve all seen all of this in day the area of transgender.

How humans follow the scientific method is, part of the scientific method as it cannot stand alone.

Above all, science is based on a certain world view which affects every bit of scientific research. The presumption that the universe is a purely physical, measurable and objectively observable phenomenon and that this perspective, when viewed through earthly human eyes only gives us the whole reality of the cosmos.

These debates are worthless. You will not convince non believers by denigrating things they have seen to be true, by suggesting an alternative reality or invoking the 'woo' card. In the same way, you will not convince believers of the futility of god, since belief trumps everything (see also conspiracy theories). So, all debate comes down to either I believe so I'm right, or I don't believe (because of a lack of earthly proof), so I'm more likely to be right.

I don’t think they’re worthless at all, they facilitate the exploration of ideas. You could make the same argument about any debate tbh. In fact, why have conversations at all?

Although good try on trying to sound impartial whilst clearly showing a real
bias😀

OP, have you ever tried to look at this from the other side?
I have never had faith and don’t really feel any kind of spiritual anything. I do get a lovely sense of scale and calm from being up high and seeing landscapes and countryside. I also find astronomy calming. But for a very long time I found religion and faith and even the idea of destiny just utterly baffling. How on earth could people hold beliefs that contradict things we can see with our own eyes? Why do spiritual and religious beliefs end up so specific? How come people are so sure their own version is correct? None of it made the least bit of sense to me.
And then I went through a difficult period in my life and started having some anxiety issues and some distressing and recurring thoughts. Irrational stuff. Thoughts I knew weren’t true rationally. But they felt so real. And I had to work very hard to stop those thoughts from controlling my life. I did that work because it was thoroughly unpleasant living with irrational thoughts that make you feel anxious and scared. But it did clear up for my what faith and spirituality is and how people are able to hold on to ideas that don’t make rational sense.
Thoughts that are connected to strong emotions are powerful and hard to shake. If those emotions are positive then why would you even try to get rid of them? You wouldn’t. You’d welcome them. So the conclusion I came to is that people with a strong sense of religion or spirituality have thoughts that don’t necessarily gel with what they know about the world rationally but they don’t need to. The positive feelings attached to those religious or spiritual thoughts is enough to make them real.
Anyway, back to your point of view - it’s pointless telling atheists they should take faith seriously. We don’t have any emotions attached to spiritual or religious ideas so they just come across as weird and nonsensical rather than deep and powerful. People are different. Some people have strong spiritual or religious feelings and others just don’t and likely never will.

Although good try on trying to sound impartial whilst clearly showing a real bias

Apologies, no lack of bias intended.

*Releasing research into the public domain. People twist results to try and prove their perspective.

We’ve all seen all of this in day the area of transgender.*

People may try and 'twist' any results, but at the end of the day scientific evidence and facts cannot be twisted.

Above all, science is based on a certain world view which affects every bit of scientific research. The presumption that the universe is a purely physical, measurable and objectively observable phenomenon and that this perspective, when viewed through earthly human eyes only gives us the whole reality of the cosmos.

I think it's really based on studying the physical universe (or biology, or any other scientific discipline). That is its utility: looking at observable phenomena and drawing conclusions from those. Many scientists are also spiritual or religious in some way but that way of thinking isn't really part of the scientific method. Whether or not there is bias or certain areas are funded by vested interests, the method should in theory be the same. You could certainly argue that not every scientist is doing so perfectly and discuss ethical issyes but in a way that's a separate discussion.

People may try and 'twist' any results, but at the end of the day scientific evidence and facts cannot be twisted.

@Lalupalina, biases can still be present in what exactly is researched and where the gaps are. Also the interpretation of evidence and how official organisations and institutions put into place systems of action based upon those interpretations often in the presence of huge evidence gaps. The general public don't necessarily have easy access to every study and trust these organisations in their ordinary life.

For me my faith adds balance. It gives me confidence to pursue answers further. To find out what the evidence actually is before treating commonly accepted courses of action as infallible or the only/best way.

One way which this has affected me in my life is with my eyesight. I became progressively more and more short sighted every year in the period between my late teens and early twenties. Then we were just given a new prescription after the eye test. I then started reading up on eye relaxation exercises and realised how bad my habits were reading in my glasses designed for myopia. I once told one optician about doing the exercises and got a telling off! Now, though there are actually controlling myopia progression programmes at good opticians which include composite lenses so you don't use the same prescription for reading as you do for short sightedness. They are expensive though. The price you used to for numerous increased prescriptions is replaced with the cost of lots of and frequent testing and measurements. But anyway the aim is to prevents the eye strain which is thought to trigger the growth in the axial length of the eye.

Used to pay

I think it's very interesting how the pull of faith is in some and so very absent for others, to the point of thinking faith an absurdity.
And I agree that discussion will not often illuminate the thinking between opinions.