Atheism and the Assumptions of Science and Religion

[citizenofearth]

http://lyceumphilosophy.com/?q=node/117

Since science starts out with at least three assumptions that aren't provable, it may be more rational to take science less seriously than religion, which starts out with zero.[3] Before scientists perform any kind of experiments, they start out with these basic assumptions: (1) that the experimental procedures will be performed adequately without any intentional or unintentional mistakes that will impact the results (2) that the experimenters won't be considerably biased by their preconceptions of what will happen (3) that the random sample is representative of the entire population and that any random sampling that isn't won't significantly impact the results (4) that nature has regularity; most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause[4] (5) that there is such a thing called Objective Reality (6) and that science at least partly corresponds to that Objective Reality. Therefore, when we think about it more deeply, the foundation of science is actually faith, a term usually used to describe religion, not science. In comparison, theists who claim that God exists and don't claim to know anything else about God base their belief on one currently true fact: that not everything can be explained by natural means.[5] Because scientists make at least six assumptions and theists make none, it is actually (and ironically) more rational to believe in God than in science.

the whole thing's just dang weird. comments?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It is weird and stupid.

 

[GoodKat]

A decent portion of those assumptions are unnecessary because of repeated experimentation.

 

[Gimble]

it is actually (and ironically) more rational to believe in God than in science.

Absolutely false. That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. :roll:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Absolutely false. That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. :roll:

Did you read more of it. That guy claims that belief in God is based on fact, not assumption. The fact in question is that science can't explain everything. That's the "fact" that leads him to claim that belief in God without any evidence is more rational than believing in magical sky pixies.

 

[Sando]

How the hell can someone capable of writing be that stupid? Every day is a surprise with creationists... you'd think they'd learn, but nooo. He totally forgets how religion starts out with a claim and tells not to try to falsify it, while science starts out with a claim (in a way at least) and encourages falsifying it. And the point about objective reality is just bending the truth... I bet he got that himself, but added it to strengthen his argument. Everybody understands that either objective reality exists or it doesn't matter, as we can all confirm things for ourselves.

 

[Josan]

In comparison, theists who claim that God exists and don't claim to know anything else about God base their belief on one currently true fact: that not everything can be explained by natural means.[5]

I was really confused by this sentence, so I thought I would check out source number 5, this is what I found:

[5] Attempting to define God is difficult because people's notion of God vastly differs from one another. God in this paper is defined as a being that we know nothing about because he hasn't been explained by natural means, so we at least know that God is not a human, or an animal, or anything that we do know about. The purpose here is not to justify any assumptions that people tend to make about the nature of God (i.e. God is good, God is immaterial, God is material, God is supernatural, God is immanent, etc). The reason is that no one truly knows what God is like, and if it is found that God is actually immanent as opposed to supernatural like he is traditionally depicted, that does not mean he suddenly ceases to exist. We as fallible people would just need to adjust our notion of what God is like, but God would still be there. Also, the term "theist" merely refers to a person who believes in God and not someone who also has an opinion concerning whether God actually influences our lives.

Wow.... Just wow....

 

[buzzausa]

I tried...I really tried to comment on this...but every time I re-read this thing a few of my brain cells commit apoptosis (cell suicide).

 

[Durakken]

It'd be easier to just accept that no matter how you go about it everything is faith based... and create a counter argument, as to why science is better than religion.

I have reason to believe that what I am sensing is true, but there is only what I am sensing and what I am thinking.

That we have sense is not faith based. Our minds are capable of sensing and thus must have reason for them and thus there must need input or at least be able to take in input which means input has to be out there.

Religion however is based on a feeling which is generated by senses combining and the production of chemicals in the brain. Thus this is based on senses, mixed with thought.

In other words... Brain > Senses > Thought > Feelings > Religion

Science on the other hand takes nothing else but what senses tell us... so... Brain > Senses > Science

this places Science at a tier closer to the brain than Religion and since this is true Science is more trust worthy as thing to put Faith in

that's basically what I think should generally be the answer to that...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It'd be easier to just accept that no matter how you go about it everything is faith based... and create a counter argument, as to why science is better than religion.

Since not everything is "faith based," why would that be a good place to start?

 

[pointyhairedhumanist]

Since not everything is "faith based," why would that be a good place to start?

I am reminded of a quote from The God Delusion: "I mean it as a compliment when I say that a philosopher is someone who won't take common sense for an answer."

On a philosophical level, the only thing that we can be certain of is our own existence. Everything else relies on assumptions, such as that what our senses tell us is some sort of mirror of reality. Of course, just because we can't be absolutely certain that we are not in the Matrix, it doesn't mean that it makes sense to act as if what we see, hear and taste isn't real.

This guy is basically running a "we could all be in the Matrix" argument, which we can't absolutely say that we are not in. Any one of those assumptions sience makes could, philosophically, be wrong. It's just that science has worked so well in the past that it doesn't really make sense to entertain the possibility that it is fundamentally flawed. Religion on the other hand...

I'm kind of torn here. Partly I want to point out the philosophical errors this guy has made, but I can still understand the desire to rebutt the argument with the phrase "don't be an idiot".

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I am reminded of a quote from The God Delusion: "I mean it as a compliment when I say that a philosopher is someone who won't take common sense for an answer."

On a philosophical level, the only thing that we can be certain of is our own existence. Everything else relies on assumptions, such as that what our senses tell us is some sort of mirror of reality. Of course, just because we can't be absolutely certain that we are not in the Matrix, it doesn't mean that it makes sense to act as if what we see, hear and taste isn't real.

This guy is basically running a "we could all be in the Matrix" argument, which we can't absolutely say that we are not in. Any one of those assumptions sience makes could, philosophically, be wrong. It's just that science has worked so well in the past that it doesn't really make sense to entertain the possibility that it is fundamentally flawed. Religion on the other hand...

I'm kind of torn here. Partly I want to point out the philosophical errors this guy has made, but I can still understand the desire to rebutt the argument with the phrase "don't be an idiot".

Hahaha!!! "Don't be an idiot" is a good end after you point out the errors.

The big problem with the whole "everything is faith-based" idiocy is that it uses a definition of "faith" that suits absolutely no one, and fails to fit any logical discussion. For religious people, "faith" is the cornerstone of their religion, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," so to speak. If you try to extend the definition of "faith" to include everything we have huge amounts of evidence for, it destroys the value of the word to theists. And the reason it doesn't suit rationalists should be apparent: there's no "faith" in trusting the mountains of evidence, when "faith" means trusting WITHOUT evidence.

Oh, and that whole "we could all be in the Matrix" argument? DON'T BE AN IDIOT!!! :lol:

 

[buzzausa]

This guy is basically running a "we could all be in the Matrix" argument, which we can't absolutely say that we are not in. Any one of those assumptions sience makes could, philosophically, be wrong. It's just that science has worked so well in the past that it doesn't really make sense to entertain the possibility that it is fundamentally flawed. Religion on the other hand...

I'm kind of torn here. Partly I want to point out the philosophical errors this guy has made, but I can still understand the desire to rebutt the argument with the phrase "don't be an idiot".

Actually we all ARE in the Matrix. The difference is that it is not machines keeping humans in a state of blissful oblivion to generate electricity, it is religion keeping humans in a state of blissful oblivion to generate profit.
And, as in the movie Matrix, some of us have pulled the plug and awakened to reality.

 

[Durakken]

pointyhairedhumanist - I think that is a bad way to go about it. While yes common sense is there and I doubt anyone even really thinks about that whole analogy very often, the fact is they want to use it as a weapon and the best way to counter that is to turn it against them and ask why is science, if it's based on faith, better than religion. In my opinion it's nt a good enough argument to say common sense or what not because it says you are relying on the same thing religion is and makes it no better at all.

the best course of action in science and for breaking down religion has always been to take what is said and explain why your position is better. Not saying, that is nonsense.

It is a far better approach for a debate and it is far better from a psychological viewpoint. No one wants to be called an idiot and the moment you do that, whether it is by saying "It's common sense" or just blatantly stating it you have turned away a majority of those you wish to make understand.

 

[pointyhairedhumanist]

It is a far better approach for a debate and it is far better from a psychological viewpoint. No one wants to be called an idiot and the moment you do that, whether it is by saying "It's common sense" or just blatantly stating it you have turned away a majority of those you wish to make understand.

I did not say that we should call people idiots. I just said I understood the desire to do so with something so patently in breach of common sense. I'm pretty sure I was clear on that point, and I'm not sure how you managed to misread me.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Since science starts out with at least three assumptions that aren't provable, it may be more rational to take science less seriously than religion, which starts out with zero.[3] Before scientists perform any kind of experiments, they start out with these basic assumptions: (1) that the experimental procedures will be performed adequately without any intentional or unintentional mistakes that will impact the results

NO, it doesn't assume that at all. In fact it is quite aware of the possible mistakes and biases and uses every method possible to remove these mistakes.

(2) that the experimenters won't be considerably biased by their preconceptions of what will happen

Same - this is considered in EVERY scientific experiment and the methods MUST account for any possible bias for it to be good science... that creationists think this isn't true shows how they get themselves to ideas like intelligent design - they don't even make an EFFORT to remove this personal bias.

(3) that the random sample is representative of the entire population and that any random sampling that isn't won't significantly impact the results

This person must have never done any science. This is always taken into consideration.

(4) that nature has regularity; most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause[4]. (5) that there is such a thing called Objective Reality (6) and that science at least partly corresponds to that Objective Reality.

These are all REAL assumptions, but are all part of the same assumption of which we have ABUNDANT evidence for, and are really just a single assumption: The world we experience corresponds to something objectively real.

Therefore, when we think about it more deeply, the foundation of science is actually faith, a term usually used to describe religion, not science. In comparison, theists who claim that God exists and don't claim to know anything else about God base their belief on one currently true fact: that not everything can be explained by natural means.[5] Because scientists make at least six assumptions and theists make none, it is actually (and ironically) more rational to believe in God than in science.

Besides the fact that this idea that not everything can be explained by natural means is an assumption, no one believes in a God that is nothing except the explanation of things we don't understand. Every religion's version of God has hundreds or thousands of characteristics - usually based on things attributed to God that can now be naturally explained because we learned to trust the coherency of reality. The idea that God sends rains and floods made him wrathful in the old testament. The idea that people 'miraculously' escape from situations occasionally means God chooses a particular group of people to be his chosen people. That we are the center of His Universe. Blah blah blah. All based on the clearly faulty assumptions that these things cannot be described by natural means. Meanwhile, science, by looking at the world and thinking that it IS connected to an objective reality has been able to offer us all of modern technology.


At the VERY least, even a broad conception of God like the one offered above, completely lacking any qualities beyond being an explanation for the things unexplained (which I have little problem with, except in its inability to offer anything useful to us and its tendency to make us not look for more satisifying answers that CAN offer something useful to us) has other assumptions:
1. That the world cannot be explained through natural means.
1b. That there is something going on beyond the reach of our ability to comprehend.
2. That categorizing such things and calling them God has some sort of usefulness or meaning.
3-infinity. That THIS but not THAT are in the realm of things that cannot be explained by natural means (as MUST happen when making such claims for them to have any meaning or ability to describe).

 

[aeroeng314]

It says something about the writer when he stops counting the number of assumptions at 3 (...at least three assumptions...) but lists 6. Wouldn't it sound worse for us foolish, foolish "rationalists" to start with at least 6 assumptions as opposed to "1"?

 

[scikidus]

Since science starts out with at least three assumptions that aren't provable, it may be more rational to take science less seriously than religion, which starts out with zero.[3]

Are the assumptions provable? No. Are they supported by everything e've evr seen in the universe? Yes. Nothing is the physical world is "provable" in the way the author of this quotation is using the word.

Before scientists perform any kind of experiments, they start out with these basic assumptions:

You yourself call them "basic assumptions! Empirical science DEPENDS on making initial assumptions and working from there. Here, I'll parallel the assumptions you list with the assumptions everyone makes to get through their day.

(1) that the experimental procedures will be performed adequately without any intentional or unintentional mistakes that will impact the results

(1) That our sensory inputs are no faulty and are accurately relaying infromation abotu the unievrse to us.

(2) that the experimenters won't be considerably biased by their preconceptions of what will happen

(2) that we trust our sensory inputs.

(3) that the random sample is representative of the entire population and that any random sampling that isn't won't significantly impact the results

(3) That our processes of deductive logic will not fail us as we process our sensory data.

(4) that nature has regularity; most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause[4]

(4) We can rely on previous knowledge about the universe ot make future predictions.

(5) that there is such a thing called Objective Reality

(5) Our processes o deductive logic acutally do their jobs.

(6) and that science at least partly corresponds to that Objective Reality.

(6) We can trust our sensory data and our conclusions derived from it.

Do you see? Even in order to basically function, we must make assumptions. How do you know that when you blink next you'll be able to open your eyes again?

Therefore, when we think about it more deeply, the foundation of science is actually faith, a term usually used to describe religion, not science.

Faith: holding something as true without or against evidence.

But there's evidence for these assumptions! Ergo it's no faith, and ergo you're wrong.

In comparison, theists who claim that God exists and don't claim to know anything else about God base their belief on one currently true fact: that not everything can be explained by natural means.[5]

Yet that's an assumption which is NOT supported by evidence! Every area we originally could not be explained by natural means has been at leats partially explained by natural means. There is no area where we've given up and been force dot say "That's it, it must be God."

Because scientists make at least six assumptions and theists make none, it is actually (and ironically) more rational to believe in God than in science.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Your argument has been destroyed. Have a nice day.

 

[Sparky]

What I thought would have been a better assumption is:
Our senses are what we use to gain information. If our senses are wrong then we cannot get correct information on the Universe to test. We must assume that our senses provide correct information to our brains for interpretation.

This can reasonably be assumed true I think though as everything we base upon this assumption works fine so why say it is wrong?

From http://lyceumphilosophy.com/?q=node/117

(4) that nature has regularity; most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause[4] (5) that there is such a thing called Objective Reality (6) and that science at least partly corresponds to that Objective Reality.

1 through 3 are not valid arguments.

4) - Nature does have regularity! We have not seen otherwise. Why assume differently?
5) - Reality has always been observed as being objective. Why assume differently?

They are assumptions but are reasonable because we have never observed anything to contradict them. Also, religious people all use their respective holy books to glean information on how to live. They also must make these assumptions or else they would have to admit that they cannot use these books as they must be interpreted by their senses, must not have changed due to an irregular Universe and must appear the same to each individual. Quite frankly any argument like this against is farcical as they are claiming that we all must have faith in these assumptions but they must have faith in all this PLUS believe in a holy book.

Quite simply,
Science is a few reasonable assumptions that so far have held + logic, evidence and observation
Religion is a few reasonable assumptions that so far have held + a whole lot of unproven, incorrect crap.