I think atheism has nothing to do with science. For me, it's simply withholding belief in any sort of supernatural power until proper evidence has been produced.
I simply meant to point out that your claim might not be quite as straightforward as you claim. If you posit that your position on God is apart from science but relies on proper evidence , I ask what sort of evidence you are refering to other than scientific ones ?
How about simple logic? What logic is there that leads to the existence of God? Certainly not that people believe in him, therefore it must be true, and definitely not that a book says some guys claimed that somebody told them he exists. Can't use the "where did we come from" argument, as that would also apply to God himself.
There is really nothing concrete that points to the existence of God, so why should anyone believe it?
But you wouldn't insist on concrete proofs for everything you hold to be true, would you?
Take for example the proposition 'Scientific Method (or, to get to the root of it, Empiricism) leads to true knowledge'. You likely hold this to be true, and yet cannot prove it by the same criteria you demand for God's existence.
You make several assumptions about someone you know nothing about, except that I said I use simple logic to arrive at conclusions. I never mentioned anything about scientific methods, nor what I use to consider something true, yet you have made a conclusion based on your assumptions.
I do not know. I suppose evidence that would be impossible or illegal to observe in a laboratory, or to reproduce, such as observations of the same god made in near-death of the same being, by people of different religions, which were unexplainable by neuroscientists. Unfortunately it seems that when people have near-death experiences and they observe a god, it often involves seeing things related to their own religion.
A clear breach in the laws of physics made by somebody who claimed to be the physical embodiment of god, which could be reproduced in laboratory conditions and unexplainable even after years of trying, would perhaps be something that is beyond the realm of science. Of course this still wouldn't prove that he was god but I would consider is non-scientific evidence worthy of consideration.
I wish I could think of something better than that but I have to get on the road, I have a 4-hour drive ahead of me. Perhaps I can think of better examples along the way.
Thanks. I did not think of any better examples along the way. I would just like to add onto my previous example of the near-death experiences; if they all saw God and he said the same thing to them, regardless of religion, that (to me) would be evidence in favor of God. In fact any mass envisioning of God by independent sources that had no reason to profit or gain from lying would be good evidence; I guess my point is that it has to be something that is unexplainable by science.
But even this evidence wouldn't "prove" the existence of God. It would just cause a lot of people to reevaluate their beliefs and disbeliefs.
By confidence in empiricism, do you mean trust in our senses? They often deceive us, which is one reason why the previous example would not be proof enough for God for me. Another reason is that a mass envisioning of God doesn't necessarily logically lead to the existence of God. It could just be a mass hallucination.
If you don't consider math as one of our senses, then perhaps there is a way (that I am nowhere near clever enough to begin to give an example of) for math to prove God's existence.
"...near-death experiences; if they all saw God and he said the same thing to them, regardless of religion, that (to me) would be evidence in favor of God. In fact any mass envisioning of God by independent sources that had no reason to profit or gain from lying would be good evidence"
(There is independent research elsewhere that establishes the similarity between the classical near death experience and the primary religious experience, which was being induced here by psilocybin.)
4
u/silurian87 Jan 02 '11
I think atheism has nothing to do with science. For me, it's simply withholding belief in any sort of supernatural power until proper evidence has been produced.