Friday, January 14, 2011

Scientiifc Disprove of Atheist Ideology on Science

Photobucket


Anonymous atheist made this comment to the last post on "Atheist Fear of Gardening."


Please provide links to your evidence that science disproves atheism. This is a truly incredible claim and I cannot wait to read about the God of the Gaps. Or do you have something better? Please share.


It's important to understand the context.He probalby thought I mean creationism. I am not a creationist. Anyone familiar with my blog or Doxa (my site) knows that I am not a creationist, I see no contradiction between belief in God and evolution. The scientific knowledge I have in mind is the disprove of the atheist BS about scinece is the only from of knowledge and only scientific things can be believed. Science itself disproves this becuase it opens up so many vistas of which we have no further knowledge. The silly easy little idea that atheists so often propound, we have the only factual view becuase we just reject everything ot proved by scinece and believe ever thing that is proved, is an ideology. All the while they are spouting that they are swearing "there is no atheist ideology." They are sitting there vehemently denying they have an ideology as part of the ideology they are obviously wailing.

Here is what I said in the Gardening thing, this is what he's referring to:

Atheists will try to mock and ridicule the notion of the inner life. This is because they mock and ridicule anything that doesn't stack up to their ideology about truncated reality. They must collapse reality to eliminate possibles, so one doesn't seek God.the way they do this is to prescribe only one aspect aspect of reality as real, that which is empirically derived from scientific observation. Now a good deal of empirical scientific data disproves atheism but they can't allow that. Evidence which does not support their conclusions they reduce to their canon of prescribed reality by indicting it's scientific nature in all manner of bogus ways. They have to create the idea that only that which supports the ideology is valid. To do this they cling to the surface of reality. Things are only what can be gleaned form surface level facts of existence of physical objects and nothing else. There is no depth of being, they must create confusion about the very concept of being. They will call it abstraction and say it's pretend and so forth. Just as they label faith as "pretending" and what have you. Everything feeds back into the central thesis; reality is surface level only. That is the level of reality for them because that's what their knowledge controls. Anything deep requires thought, and thought is liberating. If one begins to think about reality and what depth means one begins to unravel the mythology that says only transcribe scientifically derived things can be in existence. To unravel that is to step onto the road to belief and they must avoid that at all costs.
This means that when I present the evidence you can expect them to deny that is matter, or that is scientific, or that is evidence. They are going to pull the ideolgoical line that it has to prove conclusively without ambiguous up front to such a degree that no sane person can argue with it. There is no such evidence anywhere on anything. Even the most solid scientific evidence can be argued about. All studies can be attacked. Everything can be doubted and their philosophy feeds on doubt. Science is not about proving things. Many philosophers of scinece agree with Karl Popper that scientific hypohtesis can only be disproved not proved. Since athism is essentually a philosphy of doubt, a lack of belief, a negative, its' ideology and it's postiive affirmations masquerade as the absence of something while functioning as the presence of something this is ideal for them, since they feed off of the denial aspect of argument anyway.

Two more observations before we get to the evidence. First of all, I did not say that God can be proved through scientific evidence. I said atheism can be proved wrong. What does that mean? It means that (1) the way scinece works disproves the assertions of the ideology that science is the only knowledge and that atheism is built upon a factual fortress. (2) it means that the basic assumptions under which the atheist ideology works can be contradicted with scientific evidence, that does not equal "God can be proved with science." Secondly, the idea of proving the existence of God is contrary to Christian theology. Not that Christianity is opposed to proving things, but long before modern scinece existed Christian mystics, thinkers,philosophers and religious authorities held to the noting God is beyond our understanding. God is not a thing alongside other things in creation. So what we aim for is rational warrant rather than proof. In other words, the demonstration that there is rational reason to believe a given hypothesis. That doesn't' mean that smaller supporting constructs can't be proved, or at least given Verisimilitude. The major tenets of faith such the reality of God need not be prove because they not amenable to proof, at least not empirical proof. they are not empirical matters. They must be resolved in other ways.

Disproof of the ideology atheists are always spouting, that their view is a big pile of "facts" that prove everything that is worth believing, self referential and self aggrandizing see my three part essay on the limitations of scinece.

Theoretical contradictions at the heart of atheism.

Theoretical contradictions of atheism two: reverse quantum argument.

Traces of God: answering reverse design argument

Modern atheism was established and linked to science by Laplace in his statement about "i have no need of that hypothesis." The hypothesis was God and the reason he had no need of it in his system of scinece was becuase he had naturalistic cause and effect. This basically makes him the father of modern atheism. Yet now atheists gladly jettison naturalistic c/e at least in relation to origins because it's the only way they can avoid the God argument of cosmology. So they are actually giving up the scientific basis upon which they took God out of science (Newton had Made design argument so deeply rooted in modern science he just almost introduced God as a physical law). With reason for excluding God one would think the door is now open again for understanding God as the basis of reality without threatening to destroy scinece.


read all that and on Monday I'll deal with the issue of positive evidence for the reality of God.

11 comments:

LadyFriend said...

Hi! I found you through NoQuivering's twitter feed and found your article to be very thought provoking. Full disclosure - I am an atheist (agnostic atheist or weak atheists, etc). Either way, I found your post to be well thought out and I would love to offer my reaction in the spirit of respectful dialogue.
I guess my first question has to do with what you interpret the label of atheist to mean. This might be cliche, but would you not consider yourself an atheist when it come to Zeus? Again...I am sure that you have been presented with such questions, so I will move on.
I think that I am curious as to what you think is the hypothesis that "atheism" presents. You correctly explained that atheist is, linguistically, a negative claim. I think that I am confused as to why you assume that naturalism MUST follow from atheism (perhaps I misinterpreted). Again - atheism is a negative claim. Beyond that, I think you are speaking about cultural influence? I am just a bit confused as to what positive ideas you are attributing to atheism. I am happy to keep any god(s) in or out of science depending of how one is defining that god(s). You seem to be antagonistic toward an incredibly specific type of positive atheism...what I would assume to be a positive assertion that goes beyond the generic label of atheist.
As you agreed, I will respectfully not yet engage in an argument about the evidence for the typical (omni....) conception of the Christian god (I assume that is what you are addressing...if not, please let me know). I only wish to address your assertions about what you label as atheism.
Ultimately, I'm not sure why you have such an antagonistic reaction toward empiricism. OF COURSE it has not (perhaps even cannot) provided all the answers. I still find that I have not found (or been presented with) another effective methodology for figuring out what appears correct within the world I can experience. I certainly acknowledge that there could be more to the universe than can possibly be observed. I simply see no justifiable reason to comment on the possibility or likelihood of such metaphysical objects if I have no effective means of knowing them.
I comment with positive intentions and hope for a thoughtful response.

Anonymous said...

You have some misconceptions you need to work through before you have anything approaching an argument here. (Also, just a suggestion - proofreading is great!)

"the [sic] way they [atheists] do this is to prescribe only one aspect aspect of reality as real, that which is empirically derived from scientific observation."

Which part of reality can you experience without being able to observe it in some way? That statement is inherently self-contradictory.

"Everything feeds back into the central thesis; reality is surface level only. That is the level of reality for them because that's what their knowledge controls. Anything deep requires thought, and thought is liberating."

I seriously resent the idea that atheists do not think, or think only on the surface level. It is far more facile to assume that all atheists think the same way - or even to posit that there is some transcendent feel-goody-thing to which atheists are not privy - than it is to consciously choose to examine all of the apologetics, the religious texts and traditions and science and make determinations based on actual evidence.

"Since athism [sic] is essentually [sic] a philosphy [sic] of doubt, a lack of belief, a negative, its' [sic] ideology and it's postiive [sic] affirmations masquerade as the absence of something while functioning as the presence of something this is ideal for them, since they feed off of the denial aspect of argument anyway."

Atheism is not a philosophy. A philosophy is, as defined by Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1a: All learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts; 2a: pursuit of wisdom. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods - it lacks a (3a) "system of concepts" because it is the lack of belief. That's all atheism is. If you want to get into secular philosophy, try humanism. That's where you're going to find people using the idea of godless living in a positive way, not simply sitting around talking about their doubts about gods.

The rest of your argument relies on a fundamental misuse of terms and can therefore be dismissed as logically unsound.

Metacrock said...

Hi! I found you through NoQuivering's twitter feed and found your article to be very thought provoking. Full disclosure - I am an atheist (agnostic atheist or weak atheists, etc). Either way, I found your post to be well thought out and I would love to offer my reaction in the spirit of respectful dialogue.

I appreciate that. I would love a respectable dialogue and thanks for the kind words.



I guess my first question has to do with what you interpret the label of atheist to mean.


I was an athiest way back in my youth (before the net--way before "new atheism." In those days we defined it as "someone who is pretty sure there's no God." Maybe "one who takes a positive stand that there is no God."


This might be cliche, but would you not consider yourself an atheist when it come to Zeus?

No. God is not adding a fact to the universe. God is not a trade off between personalities. All gos point to God.


Again...I am sure that you have been presented with such questions, so I will move on.

sure

Metacrock said...

I think that I am curious as to what you think is the hypothesis that "atheism" presents. You correctly explained that atheist is, linguistically, a negative claim. I think that I am confused as to why you assume that naturalism MUST follow from atheism (perhaps I misinterpreted).

The claim atheists make all the time that atheism is just the lack of belief in God is something, a strategy, that didn't exist when I was an atheist (70s). It's not far from the way I thought about it but in my day atheists were more upfront about trying to replace belief with a philosophy, that was usually humanism and materialism is implied in secular humanism.

Most atheists are eitehr materialists or 'phycialists." in fact I think I call it all Materialism. that's what it is.




Again - atheism is a negative claim. Beyond that, I think you are speaking about cultural influence?

Yes but I think there's more to it than that. As I have demonstrated on the blog there are huge organized movements with lots of money doing major legal work in the courts on behalf of atheists. Its' obvious there is an organized movement.



I am just a bit confused as to what positive ideas you are attributing to atheism.

humanism, materialism, reductionism.


I am happy to keep any god(s) in or out of science depending of how one is defining that god(s). You seem to be antagonistic toward an incredibly specific type of positive atheism...what I would assume to be a positive assertion that goes beyond the generic label of atheist.

I don't want God to be part of science, I want to people value other forms of knowledge not see science as the only way to know things.


As you agreed, I will respectfully not yet engage in an argument about the evidence for the typical (omni....) conception of the Christian god (I assume that is what you are addressing...if not, please let me know).

I don't know what you mean by "the typical conception." I don't' think any of my conceptions are typical.

Metacrock said...

I only wish to address your assertions about what you label as atheism.

OK

Ultimately, I'm not sure why you have such an antagonistic reaction toward empiricism. OF COURSE it has not (perhaps even cannot) provided all the answers.

I'm not antagonistic toward empiricism per se. I'm antagonistic toward reductionism which seeks to make empiricism (scientifically based empiricism) the only form of knowledge.



I still find that I have not found (or been presented with) another effective methodology for figuring out what appears correct within the world I can experience.


Have you studied phenomenology?

my view is a global format that would include all major forms of knowledge, although of course not all philosophies or ideas. Not the occult. when say "all" I mean philosophy, scinece, literature, music, art, theology, phenomenology.




I certainly acknowledge that there could be more to the universe than can possibly be observed. I simply see no justifiable reason to comment on the possibility or likelihood of such metaphysical objects if I have no effective means of knowing them.

that's cool. I think such means exist.


I comment with positive intentions and hope for a thoughtful response.

I appreciate that.

Metacrock said...

You have some misconceptions you need to work through before you have anything approaching an argument here. (Also, just a suggestion - proofreading is great!)

see now this "ladyfriend" understands how to have a discussion

"the [sic] way they [atheists] do this is to prescribe only one aspect aspect of reality as real, that which is empirically derived from scientific observation."

Which part of reality can you experience without being able to observe it in some way? That statement is inherently self-contradictory.

It's not an issue of observing it. You don't accept observations that aren't demonstrated through scientific means. so you are limited reality to that which is given in scientifically empirical evidence.

We have other forms of experince that are not as direct but no less real.

we have deductive reasoning that helps us understand it.


"Everything feeds back into the central thesis; reality is surface level only. That is the level of reality for them because that's what their knowledge controls. Anything deep requires thought, and thought is liberating."

I seriously resent the idea that atheists do not think, or think only on the surface level.

I'm not exactly saying that. I"m saying your idea of reality is on the surface of reality. you can very intelligent and think deeply about the surface it's still the surface: that which is given in empirical scientific data.

Metacrock said...

It is far more facile to assume that all atheists think the same way - or even to posit that there is some transcendent feel-goody-thing to which atheists are not privy - than it is to consciously choose to examine all of the apologetics,

here's the mocking. This is proof you can't take anything seriously that conflicts with the atheist ideology. you can't describe religious ideas without mocking.



the religious texts and traditions and science and make determinations based on actual evidence.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say there.

"Since athism [sic] is essentually [sic] a philosphy [sic] of doubt, a lack of belief, a negative, its' [sic] ideology and it's postiive [sic] affirmations masquerade as the absence of something while functioning as the presence of something this is ideal for them, since they feed off of the denial aspect of argument anyway."

Atheism is not a philosophy. A philosophy is, as defined by Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1a: All learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts; 2a: pursuit of wisdom. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods - it lacks a (3a) "system of concepts" because it is the lack of belief. That's all atheism is.

that is just the party line. I was an atheist I know what it is. I was one way back before it became so propagandist. I've proved it's an ideology you are just naive.

all you are doing is spouting the party line. ok so you believe what your handlers tell you that doesn't prove anything.




If you want to get into secular philosophy, try humanism. That's where you're going to find people using the idea of godless living in a positive way, not simply sitting around talking about their doubts about gods.


NO. Christianity is a wonderful intellectual tradition. all you know about it is what your atheist masters want you to know. Maybe you were a pew sitter at one time but you weren't a seminary student. so you are not that well grounded in it.

The rest of your argument relies on a fundamental misuse of terms and can therefore be dismissed as logically unsound.


NO they don't. I was a Ph.D. candidate at the fifth ranked history of ideas program in the country I had a 4.0 for five years. If you think there's something wrong with my argument you are not sophisticated or well learned enough to understand it.

Anonymous said...

Ok, so what I see you doing is: making assumptions about who and what I am without any knowledge of me other than one brief comment I left on your blog; making an appeal to authority; and failing to make sense or provide actual arguments (making assertions without backing them other than, "I said so because I used to be a PhD candidate" is not actually an argument - it is, again, an appeal to some authority that you do not have).

As for me mocking religions and religious traditions, I'll simply leave this here and be on my merry way:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I missed one! You also used the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Poor thinking, my friend. Very poor thinking indeed.

Metacrock said...

Ok, so what I see you doing is: making assumptions about who and what I am without any knowledge of me other than one brief comment I left on your blog;

a comment that betrays your ignorance, like he stupid out context quote by Jefferson you also misuse.


making an appeal to authority; and failing to make sense or provide actual arguments (making assertions without backing them other than, "I said so because I used to be a PhD candidate" is not actually an argument - it is, again, an appeal to some authority that you do not have).


No it's not an arguent,it's information.It's informing you that I know more than you do about it and that I have expertise you don't have. I have backed what I've said so far. you are not well red, not learned, stupid, arrogant, silly, and you not on my level. Its' a waste of time answering little know nothings who think they have to do is mock and ridicule to win an argument.

As for me mocking religions and religious traditions, I'll simply leave this here and be on my merry way:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson.

that's why I'm mocking you, stupid!

Metacrock said...

Oh, I missed one! You also used the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Poor thinking, my friend. Very poor thinking indeed.

Atheist don't undersatnd what that means they always misuse it. I did not use it at all in any way but you are misusing it becuase you don't understand it.

wise up, read this essay