# Calling All Atheists and Interested Parties **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 26, 2006, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575 "2006-12-26T01:23:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/361 "2006-12-30T18:45:49Z")
You use that word “metaphysical” as if it means something. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/362 "2006-12-30T18:49:16Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Any statement that a metaphysical God did anything is a nonscientific statement. Science tests only physical things. Now, a claim that the universe was or was not created (as opposed to, say, existing eternally) can theoretically be tested scientifically if a falsifiable hypothesis can be formulated about a _physical_ causality agent (like a sub-quantum flux in some brane or something). But God is off-limits to science, just as gravity is off-limits to faith. [/quote] Neither are off-limits to either. One could very well say that gravity is in fact caused directly from their god. As you say, science only tests physical things. But gods interact with the physical world. They may obey different rules - gravity is related to mass, for example, whilst a god may have no mass and yet create gravity - but there are examples that may still be measured. If one claims that their god created an Earth-centric universe, and through science we find that isn’t so, this does mean that that belief is wrong, or that our scientific testing was inaccurate. Both are possible. But, through science, we have learnt about god - he might not have created an Earth-centric universe. There are certainly some things where science doesn’t help. Science would say that Jesus could not have resurrected, but God isn’t constrained by that particular limit. But there are cases of physical interaction which can be studied without the god concerned having an “out”. > [@](#): > > Now, you can say that you don’t trust nonscientific claims, but unless you get more specific than that, it would mean that you don’t trust predicate logic or Peano arithmetic. They’re analytical too. You need some reason to single out faith in God as particularly to your disliking even if it’s just arbitrary. That’s why I said earlier that “There is no evidence of God” is a misstatement of fact, while “There is no evidence of God that I find acceptable” is a valid statement of opinion. Thanks for pointing that out, but I don’t not trust nonscientific claims. Philosophy is a legitimate field. I trust that logic works, too. Your argument here is, I think, better directed at others than myself. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/363 "2006-12-30T18:54:18Z")
[QUOTE=Hogwash] **Sarahfeena** , I’m curious. What exactly do you mean by our unique human-ness (Self-awareness? Love? Art? Morality?), and what aspects do you feel will probably never be explained by science? [/QUOTE] All of that…probably the key being the self-awareness part, and inter-human relationships. Part of what is unique about human-ness is that it is, I think, impossible to define. We clearly are an evolved mammal…I don’t think any of us would argue with that. So, what is the precise thing that separates us from the other animals? JUST our big brain? Maybe, but I think there is more than that. Call it a soul or whatever, there is a spark of understanding there that I don’t think can be attributed to neurons & synapses. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/364 "2006-12-30T18:58:54Z")
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber] Here’s where we differ. I find “it just is” infinitely more satisfying, in that I don’t need to posit or invent entities, or in any way lie to myself, to reach that conclusion. [/QUOTE] And I don’t have to in any way lie to myself, either, by eliminating possibilities just because I don’t have the capablility of truly understanding them. I don’t assume that everything there is in the universe can be quantified, measured, or in some other way “proven”. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/365 "2006-12-30T19:01:44Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] All of that…probably the key being the self-awareness part, and inter-human relationships. Part of what is unique about human-ness is that it is, I think, impossible to define. We clearly are an evolved mammal…I don’t think any of us would argue with that. So, what is the precise thing that separates us from the other animals? [/quote] The idea that we’re “separate” from other animals is just a bit of human hubris. > [@](#): > > JUST our big brain? Pretty much. And it’s not THAT much bigger than a chimp’s. > [@](#): > > Maybe, but I think there is more than that. Call it a soul or whatever, there is a spark of understanding there that I don’t think can be attributed to neurons & synapses. Why can’t it? What do you think about extinct hominid species like neanderthals. They had a equivalent level of consciousness to homo sapiens. Were they “animals” or “humans?” Did they have souls? Did they have “free will?” Could they “sin?” ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/366 "2006-12-30T19:13:37Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] The idea that we’re “separate” from other animals is just a bit of human hubris. [/QUOTE] Maybe, but it is clear that we have certain understandings that they don’t. > [@](#): > > Pretty much. And it’s not THAT much bigger than a chimp’s. You are right, it’s not that much bigger than a chimp’s. It’s constructed a little differently, of course. So, if it’s not that much bigger than a chimp’s, what is your assertion? That chimps have basically the same capabilities as humans, we just don’t know about it yet? Or could it be that, if there is a difference, it’s clearly NOT because of our big brain? > [@](#): > > Why can’t it? I’ve thought a lot about this, and your example of the chimp is really what makes me think that there is more to it than that. There is a leap that is so gargantuan, that I, personally, do not see how a few extra neurons could account for it. If it could, then I think we would see more out of chimps than we do. > [@](#): > > What do you think about extinct hominid species like neanderthals. They had a equivalent level of consciousness to homo sapiens. Were they “animals” or “humans?” Did they have souls? Did they have “free will?” Could they “sin?” I don’t think there’s any way for anyone to know that. I don’t see why not. They may have been just as human as any of us. They may not have been. What difference does it make? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/367 "2006-12-30T19:14:43Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] One could very well say that gravity is in fact caused directly from their god. [/quote] Yes, but then it’s a nonscientific claim. > [@](#): > > As you say, science only tests physical things. But gods interact with the physical world. They may obey different rules - gravity is related to mass, for example, whilst a god may have no mass and yet create gravity - but there are examples that may still be measured. If one claims that their god created an Earth-centric universe, and through science we find that isn’t so, this does mean that that belief is wrong, or that our scientific testing was inaccurate. Both are possible. But, through science, we have learnt about god - he might not have created an Earth-centric universe. Sorry to belabor the point, but it’s an important point. Science has never proved anything about what any god might have created — an earth-centric universe included. Science might have proved that the universe is not earth-centric (though that is debatable), but nothing more than that. It did not prove that a god did not do it. > [@](#): > > Philosophy is a legitimate field. I trust that logic works, too. Your argument here is, I think, better directed at others than myself. Not arguing, really. Just pointing things out. Your posts have been convenient for making the points. I apologize for casting you in the mold of defending something you don’t believe. That was just a regrettable by-product of my poor writing skills. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/368 "2006-12-30T19:30:44Z")
> [@](#): > > **Sarahfeena** said: > Something as basic to our existence as what makes us human (vs. just another mammal) has not been and probably will never be explained by science. Which is another motive for inventing an imaginary being who caused it all so that you don’t have to deal with the fact that current science lacks a tool to sufficiently explain why humans make tools that make tools, and other animals don’t. Your other mistake is assuming that because we currently cannot explain it with science, there is no scientific explanation. The Greeks thought that of lightning, the sun, and myriads of other things that are no longer mysterious. > [@](#): > > Yet, we all strive to understand and put meaning to our human-ness every day. Some choose to attribute our human-ness to god. Why not? Because it insulates us from reality and maintains our state as prepetual children who never have to learn that rain isn’t caused by ‘god crying’. Complacency in a simple, childish explanation consisting of nothing more than imagining a person-like figure who did it stymies growth, and I for one refuse to be a believer in bedtime stories. > [@](#): > > It’s as plausible an explanation as any science can come up with, and more satisfying than saying “it just is.” It is to an ignorant mind. To the ancient Greeks, it was plausible to believe that Apollo drove a firey chariot across the sky every day that brought light to the earth. Why do you not choose that for your explanation of the sun? > [@](#): > > **Revenant Threshold** said: > Certainly the existence of gods must be argued philisophically, Is the existence of bears something that must be argued philosophically? I mean, if something exists, shouldn’t it be scientifically demonstrable? > [@](#): > > **Liberal** said: > That’s why I said earlier that “There is no evidence of God” is a misstatement of fact, Since you continue to claim that there is evidence, provide it. > [@](#): > > **Revenant Threshold** said: > There are certainly some things where science doesn’t help. Science would say that Jesus could not have resurrected, but God isn’t constrained by that particular limit. But there are cases of physical interaction which can be studied without the god concerned having an “out”. How is this any different than a child playing make-believe? Something’s physically impossible, you just say ‘god doesn’t have to play by the rules.’ That’s what little kids do. That whole concept is ridiculous. All you’re attempting to do is set up a game that you can’t lose because you change the rules of the game to suit you at any time. Eventually you (general believers in ‘god’) will give up your beliefs to mythology. I happen to think that time has come. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/369 "2006-12-30T19:33:20Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Yes, but then it’s a nonscientific claim. [/quote] Not at all. By claiming that a god is the one that directly creates gravity, it follows that gravity is \*not \*created by mass, or that the god creates gravity through mass. Both have some level of scientific…ness. > [@](#): > > Sorry to belabor the point, but it’s an important point. Science has never proved anything about what any god might have created — an earth-centric universe included. Science might have proved that the universe is not earth-centric (though that is debatable), but nothing more than that. It did not prove that a god did not do it. If it proves that the universe is not Earth-centric, surely it is proved that god did not create an Earth-centric universe? You seem to be moving the goalposts a bit; certainly it says nothing about whether or not a god created the universe. It does say that god didn’t create an \*\*Earth-centric \*\* universe. Through science we have learnt about god. > [@](#): > > Not arguing, really. Just pointing things out. Your posts have been convenient for making the points. I apologize for casting you in the mold of defending something you don’t believe. That was just a regrettable by-product of my poor writing skills. No worries, then. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/370 "2006-12-30T19:58:20Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Pretty much. And it’s not THAT much bigger than a chimp’s. [/QUOTE] It’s 3x bigger, to be precise. A bit less if you correct for body size, but not much less. I would call that a lot bigger, even if I tend to agree with your overall assessment of the closeness between the two species. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/371 "2006-12-30T20:01:22Z")
[QUOTE=catsix] Which is another motive for inventing an imaginary being who caused it all so that you don’t have to deal with the fact that current science lacks a tool to sufficiently explain why humans make tools that make tools, and other animals don’t. [/QUOTE] It has nothing to do with making tools. We make tools because we are smarter (some other smart animals use tools, as well, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to discover that a chimp has actually “made” a tool. I am not talking about us being smarter than other animals. Making a big deal about being smarter, and implying that this makes us somehow better, IS human hubris, as **Diogenes** says. I am talking about intangibles, such as self-awareness, emotion, etc. > [@](#): > > Your other mistake is assuming that because we currently cannot explain it with science, there is no scientific explanation. The Greeks thought that of lightning, the sun, and myriads of other things that are no longer mysterious. I haven’t made that mistake. As I said, I have thought about it a lot. I may very well someday be proven wrong. My OPINION is that I won’t be, that these intangibles are not something that can ever or will ever be “measured” or explained by science. If I am proven wrong about this, I will gladly come back to this message board and cop to my mistake. > [@](#): > > Because it insulates us from reality and maintains our state as prepetual children who never have to learn that rain isn’t caused by ‘god crying’. Complacency in a simple, childish explanation consisting of nothing more than imagining a person-like figure who did it stymies growth, and I for one refuse to be a believer in bedtime stories. Who said anything about complacency? If anything, I think that saying “it just is” is complacency. I don’t believe in God in order to feel better about life & the universe…if anything, it brings up more questions. If there is no god, then I don’t have to wonder why a tsunami wipes out 100,000 people…it’s just nature, and that’s life. Personally, I think it would be much EASIER not to believe in god. > [@](#): > > It is to an ignorant mind. To the ancient Greeks, it was plausible to believe that Apollo drove a firey chariot across the sky every day that brought light to the earth. Why do you not choose that for your explanation of the sun? Because I don’t need to. > [@](#): > > Is the existence of bears something that must be argued philosophically? I mean, if something exists, shouldn’t it be scientifically demonstrable? Not necessarily. Philosophy students by the droves have had exam questions along the lines of “prove that this chair exists.” Philosophy doesn’t necessarily assume that anything exists, even IF it can be scientifically proven that it does. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/372 "2006-12-30T20:07:47Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] My OPINION is that I won’t be, that these intangibles are not something that can ever or will ever be “measured” or explained by science. If I am proven wrong about this, I will gladly come back to this message board and cop to my mistake. [/QUOTE] In your opinion, is there is precise point in time where certain primates “became” human? In other words, do you accept evolutionary theory, and if you do, can you opine as to how these intangibles came to be associated with humans, and came to be transferrable from one generation to another? As a follow-up, did the first humans necessarily have non-human parents? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/373 "2006-12-30T20:11:09Z")
I seem to recall–too lazy to look for it, sorry–that there was some sort of mirror perception test that gave some evidence that dolphins, chimps, and even elephants possess some self-awareness. These results were pretty controversial. Self-awareness is pretty subjective and will be a hard thing to study scientifically. But I see no reason to rule it out a priori for certain animals. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/374 "2006-12-30T20:27:19Z")
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia] I seem to recall–too lazy to look for it, sorry–that there was some sort of mirror perception test that gave some evidence that dolphins, chimps, and even elephants possess some self-awareness. These results were pretty controversial. Self-awareness is pretty subjective and will be a hard thing to study scientifically. But I see no reason to rule it out a priori for certain animals. [/QUOTE] Yes, the mirror study to determine self-awareness. The great apes pass, dolphins pass, and possibly elephants. And if we get to the subject of evolution and soul, here’s a thread I started on that subject some time ago: [Christianity, Human evolution, and the concpet of the Soul](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=190236) ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/375 "2006-12-30T20:30:22Z")
> [@](#): > > **catsix** : I don’t subscribe to **Zoe’s** irrational religious theories or **whoisreading** this’s pseudo-intellectual philosophy. How strange to see it described as _theories_ or a _philosophy_. It isn’t “pseudo-intellectual” and it certainly isn’t _intellectual._. It’s no wonder that you don’t subscribe to them! They are personal beliefs based on observations made during personal experiences. I would think that your beliefs would be based on your own experiences. That’s why I am not quick to describe the thinking of others as “irrational.” I try to keep an open mind about what they may have experienced. Even scientists are supposed to be open-minded. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/376 "2006-12-30T20:45:53Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] Not at all. By claiming that a god is the one that directly creates gravity, it follows that gravity is \*not \*created by mass, or that the god creates gravity through mass. Both have some level of scientific…ness. [/quote] Yes, but see? You just made your point by an analytic method, not by an empirical method. It followed from logic, not science. And while we’re at it (I appreciate your letting me air these things out), another important point is that science is not bivalent. That is, just because something is shown by science to be false does not mean that its opposite is true. In fact, science doesn’t really speak to truth in any way shape or form. Science can only prove an hypothesis false; never true. > [@](#): > > If it proves that the universe is not Earth-centric, surely it is proved that god did not create an Earth-centric universe? You seem to be moving the goalposts a bit; certainly it says nothing about whether or not a god created the universe. It does say that god didn’t create an \*\*Earth-centric \*\* universe. I’m not moving anything. I’m standing steadfastly on the position that science makes statements about the physical universe _only_. Now, if you define God as a physical being, then fine, science can address that being. But in the vast majority of circumstances, people do not mean a physical being when they say God. And anything said about that metaphysical being is a nonscientific statement even if clauses are slipped in about physical things. The physical clauses must be stripped, and then science can examine them on their own. > [@](#): > > Through science we have learnt about god. That’s simply not possible. Maybe certain things we’ve learned through science have jibed with certain things we’ve learned about God. But science simply can say nothing about God. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/377 "2006-12-30T20:46:51Z")
> [@](#): > > **catsix** : I don’t subscribe to **Zoe’s** irrational religious theories or **whoisreading** this’s pseudo-intellectual philosophy. How strange to see it described as _theories_ or a _philosophy_. It isn’t “pseudo-intellectual” and it certainly isn’t _intellectual._. It’s no wonder that you don’t subscribe to them! They are personal beliefs based on observations made during personal experiences. I would think that your beliefs would be based on your own experiences. That’s why I am not quick to describe the thinking of others as “irrational.” I try to keep an open mind about what they may have experienced. Even scientists are supposed to be open-minded. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/378 "2006-12-30T21:47:36Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Yes, but see? You just made your point by an analytic method, not by an empirical method. It followed from logic, not science. [/quote] Actually, it was a combination of logic and science. Without the science, it would simply be a theoretical debate. The evidence, obtained through the scientific method, provides legitimacy to the debate. > [@](#): > > And while we’re at it (I appreciate your letting me air these things out), another important point is that science is not bivalent. That is, just because something is shown by science to be false does not mean that its opposite is true. In fact, science doesn’t really speak to truth in any way shape or form. Science can only prove an hypothesis false; never true. You’re quite correct, and I apologise for my misstatements. Science cannot prove things to be true, but it can provide evidence to back up a particular hypothesis. It’s the same with philosophy, really. It’s only when we get to logic that we get into the “this is right, this is wrong” parts. > [@](#): > > I’m not moving anything. I’m standing steadfastly on the position that science makes statements about the physical universe _only_. Now, if you define God as a physical being, then fine, science can address that being. But in the vast majority of circumstances, people do not mean a physical being when they say God. And anything said about that metaphysical being is a nonscientific statement even if clauses are slipped in about physical things. The physical clauses must be stripped, and then science can examine them on their own. I’m defining God as a physical being. I’m defining God as a being which interacts on the physical plane. Normally things on the physical plane must (well, not must, but there is no scientific evidence otherwise) abide by laws. God doesn’t, you’re correct. We can’t say that, because water runs downhill, God could not make water run uphill. But we can use science to find evidence that suggests God doesn’t exist. Let’s make it simple; - If we posit that a god has created an Earth-centric universe; - and, through science, we collect significant evidence that the universe is not Earth-centric; - Then it follows that either God does not exist, or we are wrong in our initial position. Certainly we use logic to get there. But it’s science that provides the evidence. Where is the logical flaw? If there is none, I don’t see how you can claim that science can say nothing about God. > [@](#): > > That’s simply not possible. Maybe certain things we’ve learned through science have jibed with certain things we’ve learned about God. But science simply can say nothing about God. Period. Incorrect. Science can provide evidence against, or for, God. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/379 "2006-12-30T22:39:02Z")
> [@liberal](#): > > That’s simply not possible. Maybe certain things we’ve learned through science have jibed with certain things we’ve learned about God. But science simply can say nothing about God. Period. > [@Relevant Threshold](#): > > Incorrect. Science can provide evidence against, or for, God. Exactly. The purpose of science is to measure and make predictable physical effects. God obviously has an interaction with the physical world if he is able to affect **Liberal** ’s brain and thereby how he acts in the world. Therefore, God should be explainable by science. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2006, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575/380 "2006-12-30T22:39:25Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] What on earth does a thing’s “factual nature” have to do with its truth? Correspondence theories about truth and Socratic theories about knowledge are fine for high school, but beyond that plane there are [many theories](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth) about truth and knowledge. At the level of factual truth, how do you prove you love your wife? Brain activity scans? For that matter, why would you love her? What fact necessitates that you spend your last dollar to buy her a gift that she adores? And at a factual level, how does the quantum world of abstract mechanical descriptions emerge into a perceptible reality? Jesus, this constant abuse of science is tiresome. People are making science into something almost religious. And that’s terrible. [/QUOTE] I’m scanning my post and for the life of me I can see no assertion that empiricism ought to be applied to metaphysical claims, so I’m puzzled that you chose to address a point not made. It’s hardly surprising you find the abuse of science so terribly wearing, if you see it even when it isn’t present. Good to see that Truth has a wiki entry, though. Will it let me friend it on MySpace? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-atheists-and-interested-parties/385575.md?page=20)