# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/161 "2014-06-19T15:30:28Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > But how do you define predictive value without defining truth? Predictive of what? Of future sensory experience. Do my expectations of what I WILL sense correlate with what I DO sense? If so, then the framework I used to produce those expectations can be considered provisionally valid. I believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States. That belief sets up a wide variety of expectations of future experiences I will have. For example, if I pull out my wallet I expect to see Washington’s face on the dollar bill. If someone else’s face is on the dollar, and every place I look for evidence of Washington I find evidence of someone else instead … then eventually I’ll begin to question the framework of beliefs that produced those expectations. Maybe my belief that George Washington was the first President of the United States was actually a mistake, or prank, or a delusion. But “truth” never enters into this process. I don’t believe that George Washington was the first President because that fact is TRUE, but because such a belief correlates with past experience and makes accurate predictions of future experience. ---
**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:** [June 19, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/162 "2014-06-19T20:02:41Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I doubt very much if your 12 yo son could prove that 1+1 = 2 either. I know that I couldn’t without resorting to circular reasoning. Yet people say that all the time. Actually quite simple. By the [Peano Axioms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms) 2 is S(S(0)) where S(0) is 1 and the successor function S can be written as +1. 2 is 1+1 because in a sense that is the definition of 2. If only God were so easy to define. > [@](#): > > The same is true of a almost anything that people say. People say that Angele Merckel is Chancellor of Germany, yet I doubt that any of them can prove it. They say that my computer monitor contains millions of LEDs, yet I doubt if any of them can prove it. And so on and so forth for virtually anything that any of us says. Very few of us can prove anything that we say, and those of us who can can only prove tiny bits. If by proof you mean legal proof these are easy to do. If by proof you mean mathematical or logical proof, then you are misusing the term. > [@](#): > > Which neatly disproves the idea that if someone “can’t prove it then it’s probably not true”. Since almost nobody can prove almost anything that they say, the only way that statement could be true is if almost everything anybody says is a lie. Assertion made for which there is no evidence are probably not true. > [@](#): > > What we actually do is repeat what other people we trust (eg newsreaders) have told us, and they are in turn repeating what other people (eg journalists) told them and they are trusting what somebody else (eg a marketing rep for Dell Computers) told them and so forth. At some point somebody presumably did see some actual proof for these claims, but they are so far removed from you or I that we can’t seriously claim to be able to prove what we say. We can thank Fox News for demonstrating that what newsreaders say can have very little relationship to what is factual. Crooked salesmen - perhaps a teeny bit more. Ministers - even less. > [@](#): > > The simple fact is that we don’t have the resources or knowledge to even attempt to prove 99% of what we believe. How would you even attempt to prove that your computer monitor is made of LEDs or that Angele Merckel is Chancellor of Germany? I’m not talking about proving that people you trust believe it. I mean actually proving it for yourself even if the whole world is lying to you? Another example of what ruined by Theory of Knowledge class - a couple of guys whose only remark was “you can’t prooooove it.” Sophmoric in both senses. > [@](#): > > Science adds another layer to this by asking people to show their proof to other people who, notionally, try to discredit it. That’s not even true. What reviewers do is to check for plausibility, consistency and logic. It is not the reviewer’s job to try to discredit a paper. If the investigator says she implemented a program, say, and the results look plausible and the algorithm description looks reasonable, you do not check to see of there is code in the program to spit out the “right” results. Most people smart enough to cheat plausibly are smart enough not to have to, though there are exceptions. > [@](#): > > Which is no different in essence to religion. > > That’s a scary thought, but it’s true. > > The reason why some of us are more inclined to trust science, or history or journalism has nothing to do with our ability to prove the things they say. It’s based on the track record that science has of actually working. > > But to pretend that our belief is grounded in what we have been able to prove to be true is a delusion. We believe because we have faith is those institutions and the people who are spokespeople for those institutions. > > Maybe we believe in those institutions because we have seen proof of some tiny proportion of what they say. But mostly we have faith in them because we know that they work in the real world. If I act as though my computer has an LED monitor or I act as though Barack Obama is President of the USA, I get good results. If I act as though those things are not true, bad things happen. A million iterations of this every year have taught me to have faith in those sources of information. > > But lets not kid ourselves that we believe because we have seen these things proven. We believe because we have faith in the institutions. Nothing more. We prove the results of science in a more subtle way. Though I’m closer to understanding semiconductors than most people here, modern circuit theory was developed long after I went to school, and I can hardly claim to be able to “prove” it in your distorted definition of the word. However the success we have in fabricating processors is proof enough. Ditto for nearly everything else. Hell, I don’t think I can prove that the code I wrote myself works in any meaningful sense, but it does work. The proof of science is in testable predictions. Religions make none, or those that are made are falsified (like dates for the end of the world, like statements of history in the Bible.) That’s the difference between them. Deism is unique in that it makes no testable predictions by definition. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/163 "2014-06-20T02:16:32Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > What you said is there in black and white. You said that if a God is unfalsifiable, its existence can not be discussed in any meaningful sense. You then said that it should be treated with indifference. Not as though it didn’t exist. > > That is utter bollocks and something no philosopher or logician (ie the experts in the field) would ever agree with. > > But you are taking the usual sciencist stance: make an erroneous, absolutist, authoritative sounding statement. Then once it is shown to be a load of dingo’s kidneys, claim that you never made the statement . > > Since you have no intention of discussing this matter honestly I will leave it here, content that everyone can see your dishonesty and ignorance for themselves. Dear oh dear, **Blake**. What this topic does to you… Firstly, what \*\*Novelty Bubble \*\*said was “We are not then discussing existence in any meaningful sense”. You then “translated” that into an allegation that NB had said “[God’s] existence can not be discussed in any meaningful sense”. And then you accuse \*\*NB \*\*of dishonesty. \*\*NB \*\*is saying it is not _existence_ in a meaningful sense, and you strawmanned \*\*NB \*\*by accusing him/her of saying that such existence cannot be _discussed_ in a meaningful sense. There is a subtle but important difference. Further, you then go on to an argument from authority (“no philosopher or logician etc…”) and its pissweak even by the standards of an argument from authority since you are appealing to an unnamed, uncited alleged consensus, rather than anyone or anything in particular. It’s just sad is what it is: \*\*Blake \*\*you would _never_ put up with this shit if someone pulled it on you in a debate concerning, say, anthropology. You would turn your usual sarcasm and scorn upon such pathetic and underhanded technique. But when it comes to religion… ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/164 "2014-06-20T08:26:58Z")
Thanks **Princhester**. I think that little back and forth shows how tricky it can be to clarify even the simplest of points on this subject. I also think it shows the automatic defensiveness (of both theists and non-theists) to having religious claims dismissed. It somehow seems wrong and rude, even when in any other area (politics, sport, art, music) any similar ad-hoc claim would be subject to the same dismissiveness and no-one would bat an eyelid. Religious claims are different apparently, it is expected they are due respect just because they are religious. Sorry, can’t oblige. If it is unsubstantiated (or poorly defined) it gets equal attention from me (i.e. none) no matter what the topic. I’ll nod and smile and say “that’s interesting” in order to grease the cogs of social interaction but I won’t take you seriously. Not until you decide to have your unsubstantiated and ill-define concepts materially affect me, then I’ll get very serious indeed. And that’s the basis of my atheism as well. It isn’t scientific in that it is not the result of methodical, rational enquiry. It is just my childhood default that has yet to be persuaded otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/165 "2014-06-22T16:06:47Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > We need a better stock answer to these post and run religious posts. > > We should start explaining that the definition of Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, which means not actively choosing to believe something, which includes what most people considers wrongly that it can only be called agnosticism, which is the _“I don’t know”_ position. A nit I must pick: we cannot **choose** to believe anything at all, belief is outside our control, that is the nature of it. The very most you could ever deliberately _choose_ is to speak and behave as though you believe or do not believe in anything at all, be it God, leprechauns, or alien anal probes. Which is why it amazes me when proselytizers ask me about my fears of suffering for failing to believe; if the God they believe exists really does, then there isn’t the slightest doubt in my mind that their God understands perfectly well what they do not, that i am not capable of choosing to believe in Him, and it would therefore be completely perverse for him to hold me accountable for something I cannot control. So if He does anyway, then He is an Asshole, and I am completely fine with not believing in Him: my unbelieving value system is clearly superior to His, He is obviously a petty narcissist who has absolute no basis upon which to hold Himself out to me as the authority on how live a moral life, but thanks anyway. And I cannot adequately describe for you the delicious gobsmacked expressions I’ve enjoyed for years patiently and politely explaining this to Witnesses and missionaries. Priceless. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/166 "2014-06-23T03:13:19Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > A nit I must pick: we cannot **choose** to believe anything at all, belief is outside our control, that is the nature of it. The very most you could ever deliberately _choose_ is to speak and behave as though you believe or do not believe in anything at all, be it God, leprechauns, or alien anal probes. This becomes a kind of semantic issue. Because there are wildly varying strains of religious belief. Some people believe the Yowee/Christ stuff because it is _de rigeur_, basically just easier than not believing. Sometimes, the nominal believers can be convinced to disbelieve that (or whatever) stuff, at which point one might say they have made a decision about (or “chosen”) what to believe. As you get into the ranks of the more deeply indoctrinated, convincing them to not believe what they believe tends to become a more and more pointless exercise (in the 70s, we had these persons of questionable character called “deprogrammers” who specialized in breaking religious conditioning). On the other hand, we have a fair abundance of threads on the subject of “free will” which might call into question the nature of making choices. I know the Xtian religions rely pretty heavily on “free will”, because if you cannot freely choose to believe or not believe in their thingy, the hell-for-infidels concept falls apart completely. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/167 "2014-06-23T06:26:03Z")
You started: > [@eschereal](#): > > This becomes a kind of semantic issue. It isn’t “kind of” a semantic issue, it’s _absolutely_ a semantic issue, and “semantic issues” are crucial to logic, argument, and well-developed critical thinking. Semantics is the study of what words mean, and how can that not be important in trying to communicate with each other about anything, but especially things like religion and politics? A perfect definition offered from Urban Dictionary: > [@](#): > > Often misused when quibbling about something someone said. In that context, the statement “That’s only semantics” would be more aptly phrased as “You’re just 'splitting hairs on word meanings.” > Often used within the phrase “That’s only semantics”: > – as a blanket repudiation of precise communication. > > – by persons advocating ‘subjective feelings’ over ‘objective description’ as a mainstay of communication. > > The very concept of semantics is frequently disparaged by wishy-washy passive-aggressives who refuse to be accountable for their careless use of language or their deplorable lack of education. > > Skater-boy was too lazy to choose his words carefully, unaware that without semantics, even his street drivel would be incomprehensible. So you made your statement and then went on to make no effort to demonstrate how my point was not valid. Instead, you just tossed the word “belief” around without any reference or acknowledgment of my point at all: > [@](#): > > Some people believe the Yowee/Christ stuff because it is _de rigeur_, basically just easier than not believing. I’m sorry? I have no idea what this means. How can one belief be easier than another? All belief (assuming that it is sincere, because of course if it is not sincere, then it does not qualify as belief at all, it is just a lie you are telling to other people) is easy! Belief just is or isn’t, there’s no effort. > [@](#): > > Sometimes, the nominal believers can be convinced to disbelieve that (or whatever) stuff, at which point one might say they have made a decision about (or “chosen”) what to believe. Semantics indeed: “convinced to disbelieve”? I grant that it is difficult to discuss the nature of belief while avoiding the word belief itself, but it is necessary in order to be clear. To believe is to have a genuine opinion that a thing is true. To not believe is to genuinely not have the opinion that a thing is true. A (sincere) Christian is convinced that the story of all-powerful being who created everything implanting Jesus in a virgin to grow up, perform miracles, experience suffering as a surrogate for every member of the human race and then be resurrected from death is a _ **true** _ story. (Or whatever version of Christianity they believe is true, I know there is much squabble about the details) > [@](#): > > On the other hand, we have a fair abundance of threads on the subject of “free will” which might call into question the nature of making choices. I know the Xtian religions rely pretty heavily on “free will”, because if you cannot freely choose to believe or not believe in their thingy, the hell-for-infidels concept falls apart completely. More of the same: it’s not a choice to believe or not believe. It is not a choice to hold an opinion sincerely. Your sincerely held opinions are what they are… I have sincere, deeply held convictions that the following things are all absolutely true: [ul] [li]Men have walked on the moon. [/li][li]The Holocaust happened.[/li][li]Life on earth evolved from simpler to more complex forms, and all animals are connected.[/li][li]Human beings are animals.[/li][/ul] I am convinced that all these things are true because of the evidence for their truth that I have been shown, and my logical assessment of that evidence. That is one of the most powerful ways my mind arrives at certainties about what is true. It isn’t the exclusive way, however. But my convictions and opinions about the truth of anything tend to be only as strongly held as the evidence and logic that back them up. Other people arrive at their strong and sincerely held opinions and convictions about what is true based on other things. It comes down to how individuals arrive at their sincere opinions about truth; atheists, especially the vocal ones, tend to be the kinds of people who require very specific kinds of very strong evidence before they find they are sincerely convinced that a thing is true. Theists tend to be the kinds of people who can hold strong convictions about the truth of something based on their emotional responses. (That’s not a diss, I think emotional responses can be very accurate and important indicators of whether something is true; just not to the exclusion of all else.) I repeat: the sincere opinion that something is true or not isn’t a choice. If my own life and the lives of everyone I ever loved hung in the balance, I still would not be able to “choose” to have the sincere opinion that the moonwalk was a hoax. If I was offered powerful evidence that made sense to me, my mind would take it in and might get there as a direct result, but that isn’t choice, it’s a natural result of new information causing my mind to sincerely see things differently, which isn’t a choice. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/168 "2014-06-23T12:14:19Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I repeat: the sincere opinion that something is true or not isn’t a choice. Bullshit. We are supposedly an intelligent species with free will, we choose the level of evidence we need to believe in things. Some people accept the words of the guy in the robes standing on the altar, quoting words from a 1500+ year old book written by persons unknown, relaying stories about events that may or may not have happened, involving people who may or may not have existed, as **absolute truth**. Not only do they want to believe that, they want our country’s public policies to be based on their absolute truth. Frankly, my son who literally believes that a Jolly Fat Man and a Walking Rabbit break into our house at various times of the year to leave him gifts has more evidentiary support than Christians do of their version of reality. When he wakes up, there’s actually stuff for him in the living room, and the two people who generally give him the Straight Dope on how the world works tell him who did it. These people choose to have no evidence supporting their beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/169 "2014-06-23T12:30:19Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Thanks **Princhester**. > I also think it shows the automatic defensiveness (of both theists and non-theists) to having religious claims dismissed. It somehow seems wrong and rude, even when in any other area (politics, sport, art, music) any similar ad-hoc claim would be subject to the same dismissiveness and no-one would bat an eyelid. > Religious claims are different apparently, it is expected they are due respect just because they are religious. > > Sorry, can’t oblige. If it is unsubstantiated (or poorly defined) it gets equal attention from me (i.e. none) no matter what the topic. I’ll nod and smile and say “that’s interesting” in order to grease the cogs of social interaction but I won’t take you seriously. Not until you decide to have your unsubstantiated and ill-define concepts materially affect me, then I’ll get very serious indeed. > > And that’s the basis of my atheism as well. It isn’t scientific in that it is not the result of methodical, rational enquiry. It is just my childhood default that has yet to be persuaded otherwise. Religion actually is different than any other area; it’s not just another set of interests and conversational talking points that don’t really have anything to do with a person’s survival and psychological well being. Religion arises from very primal aspects of our species and the very fact that it sits at the heart of nearly all the pain and suffering of human beings is the evidence. Sports does not routinely drive people to blow themselves up for the team. Art does not have the stain of centuries of wars being fought in its name. Music isn’t the culprit when families find themselves torn apart forever. I’ve been reading reviews of what sounds like a fascinating book by Frans de Waal, _The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates_ that addresses this directly: > [@](#): > > In this lively and illuminating discussion of his landmark research, esteemed primatologist Frans de Waal argues that human morality is not imposed from above but instead comes from within. Moral behavior does not begin and end with religion but is in fact a product of evolution. > [@](#): > > De Waal then provides some vivid illustrations of whales, elephants and of course, chimpanzees, as proof that highly social animals know the difference between right and wrong, at least in terms of the code of their social group. Contrary to our idea of wild animals, unable to control their basest impulses, these creatures actually inhibit certain behaviors, knowing how violators are punished if they don’t. It’s this expectation of punishment and reward, and the inhibition of behavior, that de Waal argues is the basis of morality. > …… > > De Waal’s argument is as follows: Social animals have a set of rules and principles for an orderly society, and they exhibit (or inhibit) behaviors according to these rules. So, if the community rewards those who follow the rules and punishes those who don’t, aren’t these animals living under some sort of moral code? > …. > Although he insists that religion grew out of the seeds of morality, he also acknowledges that all human cultures exhibit this trait for some reason. And that reason may be that religion actually does aid in an individual’s and a group’s desire for order, fairness, cooperation and altruism. This atheist seems to be saying that religion, but more broadly morality, is essential to our survival as a species, because we would not have evolved to have it if it wasn’t. Most reviews are focusing on the morality gave birth to religion aspect and skip the other part: ok, but why? Which this answers: > [@](#): > > Chimpanzees are said to be about as clever as toddlers, but who is the more superstitious ape? In one study that set out to investigate this question, young chimps observed a researcher using a stick to retrieve candy from a clear plastic box, employing both effective and ineffective motions. The chimps quickly discerned the candy-releasing moves and proceeded to repeat only those. Four-year-old children who watched the same demonstration, however, imitated the entire routine, including the unnecessary moves. The children seemed to put their trust in the experimenter and thus invest some magical significance or “blind faith” in actions of no practical value—perhaps a symptom of the human predisposition for superstition, de Waal posits. > > The ease with which our brain suspends reality—call it irrationality, imagination or faith—has been crucial to the development of religion in human culture, according to de Waal, a respected primatologist and avowed atheist. He has a scientist’s curiosity about religion. Unlike prominent neo-atheists of our time, he has no interest in disproving God’s existence or proving that religion poisons everything. Instead, in this richly observed and intelligent book, de Waal ponders our natural receptiveness to religion, how religion evolved and what if anything might take its place. > > De Waal’s dispute with religion is its self-assigned monopoly on morality. The greatest enforcer of good behavior isn’t the wrath of an omniscient deity or any dogmatic ethical framework, the Emory University primatologist says, but our emotions. De Waal offers vivid examples of emotionally guided moral behavior in animals: elephants recruiting friends to help pull a heavy box, chimps refusing undeserved rewards and bonobos comforting losers after a fight. Empathy and reciprocity, the basis of prosocial behavior, appear to have deeper evolutionary roots than religion. > > If morality comes from emotions and religion from superstitions, what explains their entanglement? De Waal suggests that as communities grew larger and more impersonal, religion gained influence as a supervisor of moral behavior. But he believes secular humanism could serve a similar role and do so by appealing to human potential rather than defaming human nature. > > Along the same lines, de Waal rejects Darwinian fundamentalism, which supposes that all our actions, whether ostensibly naughty or nice, are dictated by selfish genes. We can extrapolate only so much about human nature from genes and social insects that lack the neural circuitry necessary for empathy. > > De Waal’s view of human nature is optimistic but not naive. The good news is that if we didn’t already lean in an ethical direction, moral rules “would be like seeds dropped onto a glass plate.” The bad news is that both our innate empathy and the religions we create have strong in-group biases. In an ever more globalized society, humanity’s greatest moral innovation—to make prosocial sentiments universal and impartial—will demand more than clashing faiths or biology. On a \*\*species \*\*level, whether you personally respect it or not, religion _ **is** _ a big fucking deal that absolutely does demand different treatment than our preference for Mozart or Justin Bieber. Which leads me to this comment: > [@](#): > > I’ll nod and smile and say “that’s interesting” in order to grease the cogs of social interaction but I won’t take you seriously. Well you damn well better start, given that religion is taken about as seriously as anything else human beings care about, just barely being edged out by (and yet still frequently beating!) food and sex, and is therefore going to continue to be the driving force behind the most serious behavior people exhibit. You know, like flying jets into skyscrapers. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/170 "2014-06-23T12:31:49Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Bullshit. We are supposedly an intelligent species with free will, we choose the level of evidence we need to believe in things. To deny **Stoid** ’s claim here is to imply that you could, by an act of sheer will, begin to believe that the sky is typically green. Can you do that? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/171 "2014-06-23T12:48:23Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Bullshit. We are supposedly an intelligent species with free will, we choose the level of evidence we need to believe in things. > > … > These people choose to have no evidence supporting their beliefs. A respectable attempt, but a fail. Read my last post. Human beings are innately superstitious. Plus, you really aren’t offering a good argument, you’re just continuing to say what YOU believe: that others are choosing what they believe. Well, okay, I’m listening. If what you say is true, then you should be able to demonstrate it by choosing to believe something you haven’t already chosen to believe prior to this. How about… the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11 was the result of a controlled demolition? There’s lots of evidence convincing a bunch of people of this, so show us how you can just choose, willfully and consciously, to make your mind sincerely accept this as truth. Good luck with that. People can make choices about their behavior, so yes, they can absolutely make the deliberate and meaningful choice to make it a practice to take in lots of information. To read, investigate, listen, test, etc. But that is choosing to behave differently, and it may indeed lead to a change in their genuine beliefs, but it isn’t guaranteed to do so and it still isn’t choosing to believe. Because you can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/172 "2014-06-23T14:40:14Z")
Why do people choose to believe in Jesus but not Santa Claus? Children stop believing in Santa when they find out that he is fictional. This is normal human behavior, things that are fictional are not literally true. If, after it is explained that it is impossible for Santa to visit millions of children in one night, that flying reindeer do not exist, and that there is no Workshop at the North Pole, your child still literally believes in Santa, you’d think the child was broken. But, you point out that the world was not created in 6 days, we evolved from earlier types of hominids, it’s impossible for the whole earth to be flooded by a rainstorm, and you can’t fit all the land animals on one boat, and we handwave away the fact that the whole underpinning of the concept of God is fictional. We accept out politicians literally believing in the 6 day Creation, referencing it in actual legislation, quoting OT verses to support their positions as though it’s the actual word of the actual God who created us all in His Image, when we’d have them committed to a mental institution if they introduced an anti-leprechaun bill. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/173 "2014-06-23T14:52:02Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Why do people choose to believe in Jesus but not Santa Claus? You’re continuing to simply assume what you’re trying to prove. People _don’t_ choose to believe in Jesus and not Santa Claus. Rather, they just _do_ (or don’t as the case may be) believe in Jesus and not Santa Claus. > [@](#): > > Children stop believing in Santa when they find out that he is fictional. This is normal human behavior, things that are fictional are not literally true. If, after it is explained that it is impossible for Santa to visit millions of children in one night, that flying reindeer do not exist, and that there is no Workshop at the North Pole, your child still literally believes in Santa, you’d think the child was broken. That’s exactly the point. “Broken” implies lack of choice here–the kid’s not choosing to believe, he just keeps believing it. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/174 "2014-06-23T15:21:33Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Well you damn well better start, given that religion is taken about as seriously as anything else human beings care about, just barely being edged out by (and yet still frequently beating!) food and sex, and is therefore going to continue to be the driving force behind the most serious behavior people exhibit. > > You know, like flying jets into skyscrapers. I wasn’t going to post in this thread again but I can’t let you get away with what you’ve done here. If you can comprehend de Waal’s work well enough to offer an informed opinion then you can damn well manage get through a full paragraph of mine. Please don’t selectively quote me in that way. I fully acknowledge the seriousness of actions arising from religion and yet you saw fit to cut that part. Poor form. Here’s my full quote. Note the boldened text that you missed out in order to have a dig. > [@](#): > > I’ll nod and smile and say “that’s interesting” in order to grease the cogs of social interaction but I won’t take you seriously. **Not until you decide to have your unsubstantiated and ill-define concepts materially affect me, then I’ll get very serious indeed**. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/175 "2014-06-23T16:29:53Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Why do people choose to believe in Jesus but not Santa Claus? Why do you keep asserting that people choose to believe things but continue to offer exactly no evidence, no reasoning, and no demonstration that people choose their beliefs? Is it because no matter what reasoning is put in front of you, your belief that people choose their beliefs just won’t go away? Is it just stuck there, no matter what? Isn’t it funny how that works? > [@](#): > > Children stop believing in Santa when they find out that he is fictional. This is normal human behavior, things that are fictional are not literally true. If, after it is explained that it is impossible for Santa to visit millions of children in one night, that flying reindeer do not exist, and that there is no Workshop at the North Pole, your child still literally believes in Santa, you’d think the child was broken. > > But, you point out that the world was not created in 6 days, we evolved from earlier types of hominids, it’s impossible for the whole earth to be flooded by a rainstorm, and you can’t fit all the land animals on one boat, and we handwave away the fact that the whole underpinning of the concept of God is fictional. > > We accept out politicians literally believing in the 6 day Creation, referencing it in actual legislation, quoting OT verses to support their positions as though it’s the actual word of the actual God who created us all in His Image, when we’d have them committed to a mental institution if they introduced an anti-leprechaun bill. I’d venture to say that children do not observe other people maintaining a sincere belief in Santa Clause, so this undermines theirs. Which is not the case with religion, quite the opposite. As we’ve covered, we are a very social species, and the majority of people are anything but independent thinkers following the beat of their own drummer. It is not an insult, it is a fact. We are built that way. We believe in our family, our friends, our team, our city, state, country, planet. We learn from our group what to wear, eat, play, listen to, laugh at, care about and think. And most of us grow up observing our groups believing in God, so God must be true. Secondly, religion is enormously comforting for many people who are terrified of life ending. (Which is logically foolish, of course, but logic doesn’t really enter into most people’s emotional processing about their own death) So there is a bias towards the belief for those who hold it that makes it much easier to ignore logical arguments, and that’s hardly something exclusive to religious belief. I would also venture that many otherwise intelligent, educated, reasoning people who claim that they believe in things like the biblical stories of Christ are not really totally convinced at all, I’m certain they have doubts and lots of them. But they don’t want to feed those doubts by freely admitting to them and in fact they often will be the people who argue most stridently for the truth of their beliefs because of course they want their beliefs to be true, they want to continue to have that comfort in their lives and all that information and argument assaulting them and adding to their doubts is painful, frightening, and wholly unwanted. And finally, I offer the example of my mother, who was born in 1923. She went to Catholic school from age 4 onward (she could actually converse in Latin) in a town made up of Catholics by Catholic parents born in Ireland, a country made up of devout Catholics. My mother was a very intelligent, free-thinking, wise woman whose parents died before she was 13, and when she decided to keep the baby she had out of wedlock at 17 instead of going away to “visit an aunt” like all the other girls did, and not apologize for it, her scholarship to Georgetown evaporated, as did her association with the church and Christianity. She had four daughters and I am endlessly grateful that we were spared any sort of indoctrination at all, either for or against. On of the most marvelous gifts my parents gave me was the gift of teaching me that it was up to me get the information, evaluate it in the most rigorous way I could, and decide for myself, that truth about anything was never proven by how many people agreed to agree about it. When we were all grown, in the late 70’s, she became interested in Science of Mind and ultimately went on to become an ordained minister in the Church of Religious Science, which is in no respect whatsoever a Christian church: > [@](#): > > Science of Mind was established in 1927 by Ernest Holmes (1887–1960) and is a spiritual, philosophical and metaphysical religious movement within the New Thought movement. In general, the term “Science of Mind” applies to the teachings, while the term “Religious Science” applies to the organizations. However, adherents often use the terms interchangeably. > > In his book, The Science of Mind, Ernest Holmes stated “Religious Science is a correlation of laws of science, opinions of philosophy, and revelations of religion applied to human needs and the aspirations of man.” He also stated that Religious Science/Science of Mind (RS/SOM) is not based on any “authority” of established beliefs, but rather on “what it can accomplish” for the people who practice it.[1] Today the International Centers for Spiritual Living, the United Centers for Spiritual Living (which combined into the Centers for Spiritual Living in 2011) and Global Religious Science Ministries are the main denominations promoting Religious Science. Science of Mind was the ancestor of the New Age. And here’s the reason I’ve told you all this about my mother as an example: My mother had told me when I was very young about the Jesuit maxim “Give me a child until his 7th birthday and I care not who has him thereafter.” and it really stuck with me, it’s part of the knowledge that makes me so deeply grateful for the way I was raised to think for myself about everything right out the gate. Almost 70 years after she last set foot inside the Catholic church, years during which she lived a life that in no way whatsoever included any hint of the hardcore old school religion that framed her home, her family, and her entire education, my mother was dying…and the\*\* only \*\*thing she wanted, and wanted very badly, _ **was a priest to take her confession and perform the last rites.** _ So yeah, all the logic in the world is vapor when held up against the power of religion that has been drilled into someone from the day they were born, and if I ever doubted it my mother’s terrified need to return to the bosom of the church when her mortality was bearing down on her swept it away forever. So really, you gotta try to stop being so harsh on people, ya know? As individuals, I mean… because I’m right there that religion has been and continues to be the single most horrendous cause of the majority what’s fucked in the world, no question. But I don’t think it’s right or necessary to judge, belittle or dismiss all the individual human monkeys just doing what evolution shaped them to do. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/176 "2014-06-23T17:01:32Z")
Incidentally, regarding the Catholic Church - I’ve always had much more respect for them in terms of the theology - Catholics accept evolution as true, because the Church respects science and knowledge, and recognizes the perversity, in light of what know, of clinging to the belief that that the Earth was formed a few thousand years ago in the course of a week, etc. And they can accept the truth of evolution because they understand what I try to tell Christians who have to stick their fingers in their ears and sing if the subject comes up: to accept the fact of evolution does not require a believer to abandon their belief in a creator at all! It just requires them, if they want to respect being the brilliant apes that their Creator designed them to be, to accept that evidently the Creator accomplished the creation via the mechanism of evolution, what’s the big deal? Accepting the obvious fact that the bible is a book written by human beings during a very different time and is therefore guaranteed to be flawed in the details does not mean you must abandon God. It means you have to grow your belief up a little, that’s all. The way fundamentalists believe is the way children believe and it’s irritating as fuck to see otherwise perfectly reasonable people cling to ignorance out of fear when it’s not necessary. ---
**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:** [June 24, 2014, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/177 "2014-06-24T03:02:56Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Why do people choose to believe in Jesus but not Santa Claus? Because parents and others in the community keep on telling them that Jesus is real long after they see the evidence that Santa is not. What if each parent kept up the Santa belief? I can assure that Jewish kids who aren’t under this pressure don’t believe in Jesus. I certainly didn’t, even when I believed in God. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/178 "2014-06-24T05:40:23Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > There is no doubt a continuum with fundies tending more towards a god who does or did things literally as described in the bible, through to the minimalist god of theological argument, who is barely there at all. > > However, I disagree with you about where mainline Xtians fit on this spectrum: even the minimum possible specification one can (IMHO) meet while still being a Xtian has to involve believing that there is a god who has some form of active interest in humans. > > The minimalist god of so much theological argument is very often nothing more than some form of self aware universe creating being, with no requirement of interest in the day to day lives of humans whatsoever. ## I think I agree with your main point (and say furthermore that it’s a good one as presented). I was just saying that there’s a fairly wide divide between biblical literalism and, say, British Anglicanism. I disagree with the OP. Atheism is highly scientific, insofar as the scientific method embraces parsimony, hypothesis testing and the provisional nature of their edifice of knowledge. Believe what can be established: the rest is speculation or conjecture at best. Similarly, a belief in the germ theory of disease in 1700 would be non-scientific, as sufficient evidence for it had not been collected - heck the idea hadn’t even been presented. Much of medicine is non-scientific, insofar as treatment protocols haven’t yet been subjected to double blind testing. Think about icing wounds or the way medical practice varies by region of the country or even a single state. The point being is that while the scientific method is, well, methodical, it isn’t the only useful epistemology in common use. Nor is it all encompassing: certain decisions must be implemented in medicine, psychiatry or business without the sort of established knowledge that is demanded in a peer-reviewed paper. “But, whoa, MfM. Sure, the scientific method is only a small (though important) aspect of human endeavor, but Jack Chick is still risible, right?” Sure. I was making a narrow point. There are more epistemologies on the table than the scientific method and woo. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/179 "2014-06-24T17:39:30Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > The point being is that while the scientific method is, well, methodical, it isn’t the only useful epistemology in common use. But the scientific method is merely a formalized version of the everyday epistemology we use to go about our affairs. I lift up my foot to step onto the next square of the sidewalk. Is it POSSIBLE that the next square is merely a well-disguised pit trap that will plunge me down onto deadly spikes? Yes, certainly that’s POSSIBLE, but unlikely. My prior evidence of sidewalks gives me confidence that that my theory that the next square is solid concrete is well-justified. I provisionally believe the sidewalk ahead is solid and I proceed with my walk according to that hypothesis. If any any point I discover contradictory data (“My word, I almost fell in a concealed pit trap!”) then I’ll revise my “sidewalk hypothesis” to include this new data and adjust my behavior. (“I’d better be careful walking around here!”) The scientific method is merely this naive process formalized, with the steps explicitly spelled out and the hypotheses and evidence placed under close logical scrutiny. (“I will poke every square with a stick three times before I step forward.”) But it’s not some entirely different way of arriving at information about the world. Empiricism is empiricism, whether it is the naive, unconscious version we practice from moment-to-moment in our daily lives, or the rigorous, meticulous version that science embodies. The question is: Are there really ANY other viable epistemologies? Is there any other justified way of forming knowledge about the world besides some form of empiricism? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/180 "2014-06-24T20:18:00Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > . . . The question is: Are there really ANY other viable epistemologies? Is there any other justified way of forming knowledge about the world besides some form of empiricism? Does “taking the word of others” count? If a tribal elder says, “Don’t eat those berries, they’ll make you sick,” and I accept this, is that really an empirical approach, or merely an appeal to authority? “Education” is a means by which we cause people to become informed, without them doing the real work of finding out. It’s not quite the same as empiricism…because it can convey false information nearly as easily as truth. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962.md?page=10)