Faith Schools

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="thunderhorse"][quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"]...Some

people, not me, but other people, would say that the evidence for the existence

of God is all around us, not least in the existence of “holy” books that are

supposedly divinely inspired. Pretty shaky in my view, but then so is casting

out the possibility of the existence of the supernatural when the hypothesis

cannot be disproved.[/quote]

It's very easy to cast out the possibility of the existence of the supernatural, especially when there is no testable evidence to support such a notion. The onus of proof is on those who assert that the supernatural exists.

Following your argument, should we accept the possibility of mermaids and unicorns, and teach similar idiotic ideas in schools, seeing as how the hypothesis cannot be disproved?

[/quote]

Onus? Some

key points in the philosphy of science:

 - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence;

 - An hypothesis can only be discarded once it can be tested;

 - Observations defeat theory;

 - A scientist who disregards any of the foregoing is not a scientist. He

is a muppet.

Sure, I can state that unicorns do not exist. And tomorrow a fossil unicorn

might turn up. And I might try to argue that they still don't exist and have

never existed, like the people who argued that the Earth was not a sphere and

did not go around the sun despite there being plenty of evidence that it does

or those who encountered dinosaur bones and argued for years that they were

forgeries. On the other hand I could suppose that both unicorns and mermaids

are mythical creatures and no evidence currently exists to

suggest they were ever real but that I couldn't say that it would never appear. That is a rigorous

philosophy. And that is what I would teach, were I called upon to do so.

I imagine that some people would except that it is possible that life might one

day be shown to exist elsewhere in the universe, it being a big place and all.

As things stand – as far as I know – there is not a single shred of hard

evidence that life does exist elsewhere. Following your logic, should we now state that we are,

definitively, alone?

[allanb]

[quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"]I stand by what I said: atheist fundamentalism is alive & well and is just as pernicious as its theastic counterparts. I am sure that if you do a web search you will find the term is in current usage and is taken to mean that which I have described.

[/quote]

RRE: I am an atheist, and I have explained why.  I would like you to explain why you think my view can be described as "fundamentalist".

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="allanb"][quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"]I stand by what I said: atheist fundamentalism is alive & well and is just as pernicious as its theastic counterparts. I am sure that if you do a web search you will find the term is in current usage and is taken to mean that which I have described.

[/quote]

RRE: I am an atheist, and I have explained why.  I would like you to explain why you think my view can be described as "fundamentalist".

[/quote]

Sorry, what can I have said to make you think that I think that you, personally are in any way a fundementalist? There are christians and there are christian fundementalists; there are moslems and there are moslem fundamentalists; there are atheists and there are atheist fundamentalists.

Since I have no idea to what extent you are dogmatic about your views I cannot pretend to know what you are. But if, for example, an atheist expressed the view that all reference to theistic faiths should be removed from day-to-day life (demolition of places of worship, abolition of all religious festivals, burning of books, etc) and that all those caught following banned faiths would be persecuted I might regard them as a fundamentalist. Christians or Moslems following comparible paths I would describe in the same way.

[allanb]

RRE: I didn't take it personally.  What I described as "my view" is, I think, the view of atheists generally: there is no "fundamental" source of knowledge (holy books, etc); all that counts is observation and deduction.

Of course I can't be certain about every atheist in the world; there may be one somewhere who thinks that the non-existence of God was infallibly revealed to him in some way, and who will deny any evidence that contradicts it - just like a religious person.  But as a general rule I don't think an atheist can be a fundamentalist. 

[thunderhorse]

[quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"][quote user="thunderhorse"][quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"]...Some

people, not me, but other people, would say that the evidence for the existence

of God is all around us, not least in the existence of “holy” books that are

supposedly divinely inspired. Pretty shaky in my view, but then so is casting

out the possibility of the existence of the supernatural when the hypothesis

cannot be disproved.[/quote]

It's very easy to cast out the possibility of the existence of the supernatural, especially when there is no testable evidence to support such a notion. The onus of proof is on those who assert that the supernatural exists.

Following your argument, should we accept the possibility of mermaids and unicorns, and teach similar idiotic ideas in schools, seeing as how the hypothesis cannot be disproved?[/quote]

Onus? Some

key points in the philosphy of science:

 - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence;

 - An hypothesis can only be discarded once it can be tested;

 - Observations defeat theory;

 - A scientist who disregards any of the foregoing is not a scientist. He

is a muppet.

Sure, I can state that unicorns do not exist. And tomorrow a fossil unicorn

might turn up. And I might try to argue that they still don't exist and have

never existed, like the people who argued that the Earth was not a sphere and

did not go around the sun despite there being plenty of evidence that it does

or those who encountered dinosaur bones and argued for years that they were

forgeries. On the other hand I could suppose that both unicorns and mermaids

are mythical creatures and no evidence currently exists to

suggest they were ever real but that I couldn't say that it would never appear. That is a rigorous

philosophy. And that is what I would teach, were I called upon to do so.

I imagine that some people would except that it is possible that life might one

day be shown to exist elsewhere in the universe, it being a big place and all.

As things stand – as far as I know – there is not a single shred of hard

evidence that life does exist elsewhere. Following your logic, should we now state that we are,

definitively, alone?[/quote]

Unicorns, mermaids, dragons. Human inventions so it's stretching credulity to pose in an argument that one day such a fossil may turn up, as a basis for that argument.

In logical argument, the burden (onus) of proof is on the one making a claim or assertion. To do otherwise is a logical fallacy. It is not incumbent on the other side to try and prove a negative, for obvious reasons.

When you linked supernatural with hypothesis, I don't know if you meant in a strictly scientific sense. Religion (God) is not generally (or at all) amenable to scientific enquiry and the scientific method. The existence of the supernatural is not a(n) hypothesis that can be checked, altered, verified, rechecked etc. It's a religious 'theory'. A foregone conclusion. The existence of the supernatural is a pre-requisite and a given. From there, a worldview is formed to fit. Rational enquiry and independant thinking dictates the opposite. The problem lies in being told what to think, not how to think.

There is no evidence (how can there be?) for the real existence of inventions of the human mind. I don't give credence to those who have seen leprechauns and believe in fairies and other fanciful imaginings like anal probing after abduction by aliens. Likewise, I can't say that God/gods don't exist, but I don't give the notion credence when theists assert it as an evidence-less fact, and especially, I don't bend my life around the concept as if such existence is a fact.

Neither is there any evidence for aliens. There may well be later. We just don't know. I keep an open mind, but I don't bend my life to reflect that aliens do exist. That's the big difference in rational enquiry. If we don't know, we say we don't know. The theistic viewpoint is generally, Goddidit.

I have never seen a theist produce any evidence for the existence of God, other than their own wishful thinking. Theists need faith (belief without evidence). Evidence would therefore kill their faith, and for most, that just wouldn't do. I'm sure you can see the illogicality in theistic thinking.

[quote]That is a rigorous

philosophy. And that is what I would teach, were I called upon to do so.[/quote]

Agreed. It's called teaching how to think, not what to think.

[thunderhorse]

[quote user="allanb"]... there may be one somewhere who thinks that the non-existence of God was infallibly revealed to him ...[/quote]

Only God could do that. [:P] Or the Pope.

[Will]

So if a scientist says he/she has seen or done something, it is fact, whereas if a 'theist' says something it's just the unprovable ramblings of a brainwashed moron who cannot reach a sensible conclusion?

Scientists have been proved wrong before, believe it or not.

[Dick Smith]

[quote user="Will"]

So if a scientist says he/she has seen or done something, it is fact, whereas if a 'theist' says something it's just the unprovable ramblings of a brainwashed moron who cannot reach a sensible conclusion?

[/quote]

Yup. That's about right.

It's the difference between the observable and repeatable and the imagined.

[thunderhorse]

[quote user="Will"]So if a scientist says he/she has seen or done something, it is fact, whereas if a 'theist' says something it's just the unprovable ramblings of a brainwashed moron who cannot reach a sensible conclusion?[/quote]

Not quite. Scientists go through a peer-review process. What is produced is the best possible conclusion based on testable findings. If a scientific theory is successfully challenged, then it is dumped and they start again. The same cannot be said for religious belief.

Theists start with the premise that God/gods exist, and then work backwards. It is up to each individual to decide if theistic claims are as you describe.

[quote]Scientists have been proved wrong before, believe it or not.[/quote]

Yes. But see above. And such an argument from you is not supportive of a theistic position of rationality.

[allanb]

[quote user="thunderhorse"][quote user="allanb"]... there may be one somewhere who thinks that the non-existence of God was infallibly revealed to him ...[/quote]

Only God could do that.  Or the Pope.

[/quote]Bertrand Russell, trying to postulate something that could be imagined but almost certainly did not exist, but wanting to avoid hackneyed examples like Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy, suggested a china teapot in orbit around the sun, somewhere between the orbits of Earth and Mars, but too small to be detected by our most powerful telescopes.

It is possible that the non-existence of God is revealed in a message concealed inside the teapot.

[Will]

[quote user="allanb"]
It is possible that the non-existence of God is revealed in a message concealed inside the teapot.
[/quote]

Now that's what I call philosophy - teaching that in schools, whether faith or secular, would be perfect for encouraging the kids in free thought, after all it could be equally possible that the teapot contained firm proof of the existence of a supreme being, couldn't it? OK class - discuss...

[The Riff-Raff Element]

There is a certain

piquant irony in the degree of faith that many people who might describe themselves

as rational, level-headed thinkers place in science and the pronouncements of

scientist.

I trained

as a scientist, I’ve a very solid grounding in the physical sciences, I am pretty

good at maths, and I am as guilty as the next man of doing this. For example,

we all know that the Earth goes around the sun and the converse is not the

case. But I’ve never made the necessary observations myself to confirm this. I’ve

taken it on faith that lots of other people have made them and have reported

correctly.

Rather

fewer people have made the measurements necessary to test the hypothesis that

the universe started with a big bang. I still believe it did, but I’m investing

a little more faith here.

And as

science moves forward and into ever more esoteric realms of particle physics

& cosmology – comes closer to knowing the mind of God, to borrow a phrase

from Stephen Hawking – I’m going to be heading into the region of blind faith

because I won’t have a clue how, let alone have the opportunity, to go about testing

the hypothesis that are going to be banded around.

In fact,

only a handful of people will be able to truly understand the “truth” that is

revealed. The rest of us will have to make do with a best-selling paperback

book that “explains” the findings of these Lords of the New Church.

I just hope

that they aren’t going to be winding us up. [:D]

[thunderhorse]

I suppose the scientific version of hell is a black hole. We're all doomed. Doomed, I tell ye! [:-))]