# Atheism Is Not Scientific **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 17, 2014, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962 "2014-06-17T04:31:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2019, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/281 "2019-04-06T02:49:30Z")
Of course not. God isn’t ALL of the bottles of catsup,\* He’s **A** bottle of catsup. ALL the bottles would be silly. (We’re in the Pit, right? Good.) You don’t know much about theology, do you? \*NOT “ketchup,” heretic. ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2019, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/282 "2019-04-06T16:06:26Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Hold on a second, let me get my sneer face on. > > Hmm, I don’t seem to have one. I think this’ll do instead though: :rolleyes: > But seriously, my response to that is, “You’re defining that word in a strange and confusing way to no clear benefit.” Seriously, what do you get out of pointing straight up and saying “That’s God”? Sure you can say all kinds of meaningful-sounding things, like “I am part of God” or “Part of God is inside me” or “God doesn’t give the tiniest little shit about my existence”, but _you_ know that you’re not talking about some powerful supernatural entity. You know you’re just talking about the insensate ground we’re standing on. Calling it “God” doesn’t make the universe more powerful or amazing, and it doesn’t make Christianity make sense. It’s just slapping on a label that everybody’s going to misinterpret. By calling the universe God, it equates God and the universe on similar scales. Our ability to perceive God is comparable to our ability to perceive the universe. We’re constantly exploring and redefining both. And think about it, we are born of the universe. Scientists speculate the Earth began as a collection of star dust, and after billions of formative years, life began. Of course it doesn’t reconcile with Christianity, or any religion. This is just speculation using scientific principles. Besides, how is pointing up and saying “There’s God” any less valid than believing tales of God written thousands of years ago by goat farmers? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2019, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/283 "2019-04-06T16:20:56Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > By calling the universe God, it equates God and the universe on similar scales. Our ability to perceive God is comparable to our ability to perceive the universe. We’re constantly exploring and redefining both. Modern religions say we can’t perceive god, just god’s actions. Yeah, in the old days you could see god’s butt. We can perceive the universe, so that’s a difference. > [@](#): > > And think about it, we are born of the universe. Scientists speculate the Earth began as a collection of star dust, and after billions of formative years, life began. Of course it doesn’t reconcile with Christianity, or any religion. This is just speculation using scientific principles. > > Besides, how is pointing up and saying “There’s God” any less valid than believing tales of God written thousands of years ago by goat farmers? Not star dust, but the remnants of really big explosions. And it is more than speculation at this point. However the universe does exist, unlike the classically defined god, so there is that. But the universe as god doesn’t answer any questions. A lot of people look to god to answer “why” - even deists. The universe as god doesn’t even do that. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2019, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/284 "2019-04-06T19:49:07Z")
I agree that “the-universe-as-god” definition has no actual utility, but neither does the kind of atheism that proclaims “there is no God, by _ **any** _ definition”. I’m also not persuaded by the kind of argument advanced by **KO** , that God may exist but in a form that is completely beyond our comprehension and therefore beyond the reach of the scientific method. Science is not limited by our imaginations. Mathematical models bolstered by empirical evidence from fields like quantum physics and cosmology take us far beyond the realms of our feeble intuitions and imaginations. Science teaches us things that we could not possibly have imagined or intuitively understand, like wave-particle duality or the vacuum energy. Indeed many new discoveries demand that we follow science wherever it leads and leave our humble intuitions behind. Sir Arthur Eddington famously denied that black hole singularities could possibly exist because he couldn’t conceive of such a thing in the physical universe, which was probably the biggest mistake of his life other than the time he ordered the hot curried pork chops in a Soho pub. So science certainly has the potential to at least give us clues about a meaningful definition of God in terms of, say, the need for an omnipotent creator to have set the universe into being. Unfortunately for religionists, scientific theory to date [tends to support the opposite](https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468). Virtual particles created by quantum fluctations, which may actually become physically instantiated around the event horizons of black holes, are a theorized example of “something from nothing”. The real utility of atheism is not in defeating such ontological concepts of God, which is why I object to an atheist denying the existence of “any” god by any definition. The real utility is in spreading a little glimmer of enlightenment among those who are Biblical literalists or literally believe in the traditional God of organized religions. One might think that modern civilization is far past that point, but [when the Secretary of State of the USA informs the public that Donald J. Trump may well have been put into the presidency by God in order to save Israel](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47670717) – and gets public acclaim for making that abjectly idiotic statement – it appears that we have quite a ways yet to go. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2019, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/285 "2019-04-06T23:27:12Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I agree that “the-universe-as-god” definition has no actual utility, but neither does the kind of atheism that proclaims “there is no God, by _ **any** _ definition”. I’m also not persuaded by the kind of argument advanced by **KO** , that God may exist but in a form that is completely beyond our comprehension and therefore beyond the reach of the scientific method. Science is not limited by our imaginations. Mathematical models bolstered by empirical evidence from fields like quantum physics and cosmology take us far beyond the realms of our feeble intuitions and imaginations. Science teaches us things that we could not possibly have imagined or intuitively understand, like wave-particle duality or the vacuum energy. Indeed many new discoveries demand that we follow science wherever it leads and leave our humble intuitions behind. Sir Arthur Eddington famously denied that black hole singularities could possibly exist because he couldn’t conceive of such a thing in the physical universe, which was probably the biggest mistake of his life other than the time he ordered the hot curried pork chops in a Soho pub. Denying any god seems to be a statement if knowledge, and I’ve know few if any atheists who claim to know that no god exists - conceivable or not conceivable. If a God exists who interacts with us, then this interaction can be studied using the scientific method. If this God never interacts with us, we can’t know it does not exist, but we can certainly say there is no reason to believe in it. (Being an atheist because of lack of reason to believe is something I have seen.) Models of the universe are fine, but don’t get accepted until they make predictions that can be physically verified. String theory has the problem that this isn’t happening, and string theory proponents fully accept this. No one is setting up a church of string theory. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2019, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/286 "2019-04-07T04:37:24Z")
Neither logic nor science can tackle an assertion of the non-existence of something. On the other hand, we’re tiny things not well equiped to tell the difference between really big and the infinite. So it becomes a question of whether to behave as if there were a god or no. (Setting aside the question of which god.) Doesn’t seem to cost all that much, but the Christians that claim to don’t really seem to behave as if there was one. IMO, faith is what you fall back on when times are tough and reason isn’t cutting it. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2019, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/287 "2019-04-07T10:05:52Z")
> [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > (And I’m reminded that I miss **Trinopus** and **Princhester**. Whatever happened to those guys?) I died. Turns out, there is a god. And of course I got sent to hell because of all my shitbagging of religion. He’s given me proper internet access for a few minutes, just to post this, as a warning to you all. After this, it’s back to only being allowed on MySpace. But seriously, I’m currently in a hotel in a 3rd world country and got bored so I checked in and did a vanity search and it turns out that only a few days ago, someone had wondered where I’d gone (thanks **SMV** ), which is interestingly co-incidental given that it doesn’t look like anyone has otherwise wondered that in the 18 months or so since I stopped posting here! ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2019, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/288 "2019-04-07T13:54:44Z")
Surely it’s worth sticking around another couple of years, if only to get your 20-year chip! 😉 Take care. Say hi to **Trinopus** if you happen to run into him. ---
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/289 "2019-04-07T18:26:25Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > **By calling the universe God** , it equates God and the universe on similar scales. Our ability to perceive God is comparable to our ability to perceive the universe. We’re constantly exploring and redefining **both**. My bolds. This sounded really profound and all, but you started off by saying that God and the universe are a single thing, and finished by referring to it as ‘both’. Perhaps it would be more concise just to say that God is the entity which transcends grammar? This would explain why so many theological arguments are so difficult for non-believers to engage with. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2019, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/290 "2019-04-07T19:18:24Z")
It’s looking like I made the right choice in theological noncognitivism, more and more each passing day. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2019, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/291 "2019-04-07T22:20:45Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Denying any god seems to be a statement if knowledge, and I’ve know few if any atheists who claim to know that no god exists - conceivable or not conceivable. Hmmm… right here in this thread, [post #251](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21572965&postcount=251) seems to be saying just that. To be fair, the poster later clarifies that he meant “a supernatural god”. Fine. But what I call “crusading atheists” like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss often find themselves arguing against a much broader concept of god as any kind of motive force behind creation. Dawkins argues in _The God Delusion_ that such belief is literally delusional, and Krauss argues in _A Universe from Nothing_ that physics has already established that no such force of creation is necessary. You’re right that such views represent a statement of knowledge, and specifically, they represent (a) an implicit if unstated definition of what is meant by “god”, (b) assumptions about what evidence such a god would present, and (c) the assertion that no such evidence exists, ergo, no god exists. My position here is that this is indeed a statement of knowledge, and an unsubstantiated one. Again, I think the utility of rational atheism is in countering some of the more idiotic dogmas of traditional religions, which lead to inanities like the one I quoted about Trump being installed in the presidency by God in order to save Israel, or using the Old Testament or the Quran as the basis of social policy. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2019, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/292 "2019-04-07T22:51:08Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I died. Turns out, there is a god. And of course I got sent to hell because of all my shitbagging of religion. He’s given me proper internet access for a few minutes, just to post this, as a warning to you all. After this, it’s back to only being allowed on MySpace. > > But seriously, I’m currently in a hotel in a 3rd world country and got bored so I checked in and did a vanity search and it turns out that only a few days ago, someone had wondered where I’d gone (thanks **SMV** ), which is interestingly co-incidental given that it doesn’t look like anyone has otherwise wondered that in the 18 months or so since I stopped posting here! Welcome back! Don’t be a stranger. Cuz that’d really annoy **Stranger**. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2019, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/293 "2019-04-07T22:54:35Z")
Any subject that transcends grammar isn’t worth talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2019, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/294 "2019-04-07T22:58:19Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Surely it’s worth sticking around another couple of years, if only to get your 20-year chip! 😉 > > Take care. Say hi to **Trinopus** if you happen to run into him. Huh. 20 years. Well I keep renewing my membership even though I’ve stopped posting. I can’t quite let that go, and I’d lose my Charter Member status. So I will hopefully get to 20 years. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2019, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/295 "2019-04-07T23:07:48Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > Disagree. Atheism at its core is the refusal, on principal, to accept the existence of any deities based on faith, without evidence or reason or cogent argument. > > At least, that is the basis on which I consider myself to be an atheist. > [@Voyager](#): > > Denying any god seems to be a statement if knowledge, and I’ve know few if any atheists who claim to know that no god exists - conceivable or not conceivable. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Hmmm… right here in this thread, [post #251](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21572965&postcount=251) seems to be saying just that. (major snips) No it doesn’t. Read one whole sentence for comprehension and you will see “based on faith, without evidence or reason or cogent argument.” \*\*Voyager \*\*is correct. This is the idea that the existence of a deity is a positive assertion that requires at least some valid evidence or argument, lacking which the rational person will not buy it. I have some sympathy with Dawkins et al, but I am not a cosmologist, just an average rational person. So far, I’m not buying it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/296 "2019-04-08T21:16:12Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > By calling the universe God, it equates God and the universe on similar scales. Our ability to perceive God is comparable to our ability to perceive the universe. We’re constantly exploring and redefining both. > > And think about it, we are born of the universe. Scientists speculate the Earth began as a collection of star dust, and after billions of formative years, life began. Of course it doesn’t reconcile with Christianity, or any religion. This is just speculation using scientific principles. You seem to not actually think that the universe is literally God - you seem to be instead trying to borrow some properties of the universe (like, it being big) and claim that God has these properties too, without substantiating that claim with anything other than a frivolous equating that you don’t seem to seriously mean. > [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > Besides, how is pointing up and saying “There’s God” any less valid than believing tales of God written thousands of years ago by goat farmers? Nope; they’re both equally 100% invalid. Most atheists will deny the existence of nondisprovable gods while simultaneously stating that they can’t be literally disproven. The notion that atheists make a habit of claiming they can disprove undisprovable gods seems to be the result of confusion on the part of theists - or strawmanning on the part of theists. That’s not what’s happening; we’re just stating that there’s not an invisible elephant in our living rooms. Persons who claim that we’re wrong about these things - not that we can’t prove it, but that we’re actually wrong and there are invisible elephants in our living rooms - are delusional. Their beliefs aren’t based on reality; if they were, we could examine that reality and prove/disprove their claims. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/297 "2019-04-08T23:59:01Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > No it doesn’t. Read one whole sentence for comprehension and you will see “based on faith, without evidence or reason or cogent argument.” \*\*Voyager \*\*is correct. > > This is the idea that the existence of a deity is a positive assertion that requires at least some valid evidence or argument, lacking which the rational person will not buy it. I have some sympathy with Dawkins et al, but I am not a cosmologist, just an average rational person. So far, I’m not buying it. I went back to look at your post wondering if I missed something, and found out I didn’t. I agree with you 100%. That people read your post as a statement of knowledge seems to be indicative of a pernicious aspect of theism, which is claiming to believe on faith and then magically transforming that into knowledge. Dawkins’ bus campaign for atheism (too bad it didn’t work as well as the Brexit bus campaign) even said that we can be pretty sure no gods exist. Only in religion could a set of people claim they believe or know with no evidence, and act on that belief, and then complain about their actions being called irrational. Hinckley had more evidence than a theist. At least Jodie Foster exists. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/298 "2019-04-09T00:12:09Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Hmmm… right here in this thread, [post #251](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21572965&postcount=251) seems to be saying just that. To be fair, the poster later clarifies that he meant “a supernatural god”. Fine. But what I call “crusading atheists” like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss often find themselves arguing against a much broader concept of god as any kind of motive force behind creation. Dawkins argues in _The God Delusion_ that such belief is literally delusional, and Krauss argues in _A Universe from Nothing_ that physics has already established that no such force of creation is necessary. You’re right that such views represent a statement of knowledge, and specifically, they represent (a) an implicit if unstated definition of what is meant by “god”, (b) assumptions about what evidence such a god would present, and (c) the assertion that no such evidence exists, ergo, no god exists. > > My position here is that this is indeed a statement of knowledge, and an unsubstantiated one. Again, I think the utility of rational atheism is in countering some of the more idiotic dogmas of traditional religions, which lead to inanities like the one I quoted about Trump being installed in the presidency by God in order to save Israel, or using the Old Testament or the Quran as the basis of social policy. The statement that something does not require a god is not a statement of knowledge that no god exists. Cosmology is pretty iffy, so we can look at something where the science is clearer, evolution. For a long time man’s existence was viewed as evidence if not proof of god. Darwin showed that God was not necessary to explain the diversity of life and man. Now those who believe in theistic evolution - which I think Catholics do - say that God invisibly intervened to direct evolution to produce man in God’s image. That is clearly unfalsifiable, so I don’t think we can say that we know God (if he existed) did this. But I don’t see any good reason to believe in it. So a God is sufficient to explain the natural world, but not necessary. And sufficiency is not a proof of existence. And considering how fuzzy the theist definition of God is, it is not surprising that atheists writing for the general public assume the definition used by the sort of theist trying to teach creationism and other insults to the public. No one spends a lot of time arguing against a deistic god, both because it is unfalsifiable and because deists don’t think this god cares about our sex lives. Acting as if this god does not exist (being no reason to think it does) is different from claiming we know it doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/299 "2019-04-09T13:02:00Z")
A question for those who use logic puzzles and wordplay to try to trick people into believing: Do you think the god you believe in will reward you for trying to gain converts this way? ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/300 "2019-04-09T15:02:03Z")
From the zombie OP: > [@Not\_Freddy\_Fender](#): > > Most skeptics claim they’re atheists. > They do this because they “see no evidence” for the existence of God. > And yet, they never disclose what exactly what they would consider to be “evidence” for the existence of God. > Is it walking on water? Elimination of all pain and suffering in the world? Allowing everyone to live forever? > Seriously, I would like to know exactly what skeptics would consider to be evidence for God. Something not subjective. Something easily observable/experienced by every living person, not just a few who must then try to convince others that god has revealed himself to them. No “God came to me in a dream,” not this “God turned my wife into a pillar of salt” shit, or some crusty desert rat supposedly turning water into wine for a few friends at his table. Something that would never occur naturally, and would be impossible for human beings to achieve. Something for which there could be no explanation other than the existence of some entity that is capable of defying the laws of nature. One can think of many feats that would fit in this category. How about turning the moon into a cube that spins at a few RPM while text appears next to it that says “I am the lord thy God,” in every written language known? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962.md?page=16)