Printable View
Alright, I not trying to turn this into a hot debate or anything, I just have a question. Atheism uses science to explain things, rather than god, right? All science can do now is explain how things happen instead of why(linked to God). Does an atheist believe science will eventually explain the why of everything? Or is why uninportant to them?
Why?
What the hell are you talking about?
"Why" is explained: "Action because Reaction because Action."
Is there even a 'why'? Think about that first...
Why should everything have a purpose? What evidence, what hints do we even have that this life, this universe has a purpose?
I think it is just human thinking to want to have a purpose, a deeper meaning for everything. We are so far evolved that we can question stuff... The only thing is that we see everything from a human perspective.
When we see a dog wagging it's tail, it isn't hard to imagine him saying something like 'Oh... it's my boss, hey pal!' Just because he looks so happy. We see the dog speaking, we momentarily see the dog from a human standpoint, simply because the only thinking we know is that of humans... Have you ever thought like a dog?
It's the same with seeing life and the universe. When we do something or make something, we do it with a purpose, with a meaning, and therefore we anthropomorphise nature, life, the world itself, because we can only think in terms of human thinking.
I can remember someone saying he felt sad for pluto because he was degraded to a dwarf-planet... How's that for personifying? It's a rock made of ice!
So yeah... Instead of asking whether science can explain why things are (which implies a creator, by the way... The only thing that can give a purpose to something is a creator... else it just happened, and there can only be a how...), you should ask whether there even is a why...
If you mean the "why" of existence itself, no. That belongs to the realm of philosophy, not science.
A child asks, "How did that apple fall?"
Your answer, "Gravity from the earth brought the apple towards it. The earth's gravity is stronger than the apple's.
The child then asks "How is the Earth's gravity stronger?"
You say, "because it has more mass."
The child asks, "How do more massive things have stronger gravity"
You say, "They leave deeper impressions in space-time.
Most of the time how can be subsituted for why, until we have no answer. Assuming we avoid questions that boarder philosophy and focus scientifically, we have no answer to explain how. We focus on the ending why-making it easier to say God was behind it. Do atheist believe science will explain How without ever needing a why?
As far as I'm concerned for science to replace religion, a completed science should answer everything, without ever needing the word philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
If science will ever explain everything, eventually our laws of physics/logic, ect. will break down and we will never need a philosopical why. We won't need a why for the universes origin, because we "know", this is assuming we have completed science. I'm just curious if atheist think we can achieve this.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSioType
1. Not every question can be answered by science. This is why we have philosophy.
2. Philosophy and science are complementary. The task of philosophy is not to solve problems, but to identify and clarify them. There is no science without the philosophy of science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
I realize this, I'm just saying it's a possibility that may happen eventually in some distant future when we become "gods" ourselves. Science should cover everything to be "true science". Questions regarding human pondering should be answered with the breakdown of logic/physics. It's hard to grasp as a possibility now only because it's so far into the future.
For example: Is it better to kill 1 person to save 2? Right now it can be argued with moral standards. With the breakdown, we can bypass this question because its too general. We should know the decendents of all the people and who further contributes a cause to humanity and who upsets it. On and on this breakdown will continue, what cause is better? ect. With unlimited sight, cold logic can be applied to anything. Morals would cease to be only as a human condition.
So, until people could explain lightning, they should have kept assuming it was caused by the god of thunder?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSioType
When I mean replace, I mean erradicating religion until it is no more. As of now they both exist. This is because science isn't "complete"-following the atheist view of course. Clear?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
What's with all these questions dealing with semantics? Some people just want to discredit others, does it make them feel beter? It's obvious when you brought up god of thunder instead of God. Polytheism isn't as common as monotheism, so I will assume this was spite. Just forget it...
Anyways back on topic.
No. There are questions which cannot be answered scientifically, and moral ones belong to that group. So long as humans are alive, they are subjects. And so long as they are subjects they ask questions that cannot be answered scientifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSioType
Fair enough, but we have different views on the matter. I will put more thought into this, even if it's foolish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
If you are going to talk about a subject like this, you can't be so sensitive. My question completely related to what you are talking about. I used "god of thunder" because people did used to believe in such a god and I assume you do not. That is why I thought it made a good analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSioType
My point is that not being able to explain something does not intellectually justify making up something unsupported as an explanation. That is what the god of thunder was, and it is what I think the God of modern Western religion is now.
So, you don't think people should have assumed the existence of the god of thunder before science explained lightning? If not, then why do you think people today should assume the god of the universe just because we don't have a full explanation of its source? I am not giving an opinion on going out and eradicating religion. That is a separate issue. I am asking why people should make such an assumption in the first place.
Religion at its heart is something designed to gives us answers for questions we don't have. I believe right now we lack the understanding to completely rule out God and embrace atheism(vice versa).Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Sure science has helped us understand the world's lightning, sunsets, ect, but to explain the thing we call "everything" is far grander. I think Atheist like us all don't truly realize how small we are in the vastness of space. For all we know our universe could be the equivalent of a drop of water running down the side of a cave in a much larger world. Of course to us this would be our expanding universe, filled with particles we call planets. Of course nothing are alike-bear with me.
I choose to believe in Christianity because it gives me outlines of answers(call them false, whatever) that I don't believe will ever be explained. Other people believe in God(s) for many reasons, that's them. Lack of an introduction to science/acceptence isn't always what keeps people from "real world realities"
-Back to the thread's purpose. It wasn't my intention to have to explain why people believe in God. I just wanted to know whether or not an atheist believe science will become "true" science thus eliminating religion, and philosophy(yes I'm still stuck on this)
I don't completely rule out God. I just think it is a far fetched idea that is not supported.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSioType
It is grander, but the same type of principle is applied to it by theists.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSioType
I am totally with you on our insignificance in the universe, but it has a lot to do with why I am an atheist. I don't think we are the biggest deal in the universe, like the Bible makes it sound like we are. I think we are virtually nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSioType
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aQRYQMSmNoM
The only thing I have to say is the more we know the less room there is for religion and unfounded ideas.
I don't think that's true. Religion and science are two VERY VERY different things, meant to explain very different things. Religion is trying to break into the realm of science, when it's really not where it belongs at all. Religion is one of the models people have. It models the question "why are we here", where the "why" is a conscious thing, because their minds can't process the lack of there being a conscious "why". Science explains the "how", based on observation and evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSioType
The two can and should coexist. What needs to be eradicated is the intolerance that comes out of all of it.
I agree, I'm just going from what I think is an extreme atheist point of view. Science and religion is like gold, you can't have it too pure or with to many impurites. It will either be too soft or wouldn't be gold anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
People have probably already explained this but science does work to understand the why, the why of everything, if theirs a why that is suspected science is out their trying to find it, philosophy is just pondering, science is essentially just a stricter version of philosophy with much more facts and less entertaining data :P.
For example science has found the purpose for the human race but no one really excepts it as very satisfying.
I also agree with CryoDragon, why suspect a why for everything (most questions science can't answer in the why are purpose questions which clearly don't require a why), and the how is important in religion at least, the fact that how did god get there is a very common bruise in religion that is weakly answered, a question a simple child could ask. And if he just always was there, then why can't matter and elements always have been here.
Why means nothing to anybody.
Christians don't need a why, such as: "Why did God make the Earth?"
And other such questions which would destroy the support of Christian theory if answered.
To science, why simply doesn't exist, only the earthly matters of how, when, where, etc. And that is its biggest downfall!
NeoSioType is essentially saying or asking if atheist plan to have a science that answers everything. Any person knows that it is important to understand how things function in order to live in a more sophisticated way. An atheist that says why is not an important question. Probably would fit in better amongst those living more fanatically. Like junkies for example. Who do not ask why they do it as they need their next fix.
A genuine atheist will ask why. And on proper and decent reflection. It would soon become a label of intriguing implications.
There is many like that already. Seismosaur tells us why is explained. As long as you can fly like superman and move like catwoman. I will believe you. Soon as he fails at something I will call him on it. When denile becomes obvious we move on.Quote:
We won't need a why for the universes origin, because we "know"
Others like CryoDragoon suggest we should ask why we ask why. Does a scientist ask for evidence of the evidence? Does a religion ask for a the beliefs of the beliefs? Sometimes it is appropriate....In this case CryoDragoon seems to be accepting that we don't need to ask why, and if we do, we need to ask why that is.
Next others like Universal Mind may think we are nothing. Yet why is he calling himself 'Universal mind'? That surely is not 'nothing' but everything. Despite this inconsistency he does admit he doesn't know everything. This makes him more credible and realistic than Seismosaur or Cryodragoon. Who suggest that it is not even productive to seek answers.
NeoSioType also comments religion serves the purpose of giving answers that we can't find with science. While it does fill some void, science is not compatible with a religious approach. Religion is faith based. Science is evidence based.
Korittke makes a very intelligent comment. He states why philosophy and science rely on each other to be whole. Someone who thinks about this heavily will realize. Science and philosophy progress through a mutual co-existent co-operation that operates under a functional mind.
Next NeoSioType is concerned with morals being a temporary condition brought out of ignorance. That when answers are known. Morals will cease to be a question of relevance. Imagination will always drive morals forward and improve them through the use of the question why and a striving for better things. But never completely eliminate the possibility of further progress. The very nature of unlimited logic allows for morals to co-exist as something valuable. Otherwise it would not be unlimited logic.
Overall atheist views on what is possible probably vary and have as much connection to their atheism as chalk and cheese.
NeoSioType continues to press the idea of eradicating the need for religion through unlimited knowledge. In theory he would do well to listen to people like CryoDragoon here who tells us to ask why we are asking why we need something. Religion exist as an idea. Ideas are bullet proof. Yet if you feel a need to not need religion. This is also a bulletproof idea. Unlimited knowledge is not for or against ideas but compliments and back them up with evidence.
Korittke points out that questions will never end. While NeoSioType insists what if they could end. Keep in mind both are bullet proof ideas.
Here is where universal mind asks the question. Why believe and have faith in things which you have no explanation for. Why substitute a god of lightning or thunder for the science of lightning? We can see that imagination aids humans ability to move forward. No matter if we worship a god of lightning or visualize our idea of what causes lightning and put it into practice ourself. We cannot escape the fact that to move forward and continue in our life. Visualization through our imagination is essential to progress our possibilities through our energy we gain a clear focus of direction with confidence. Which then have the power to effect those things in motion around us.
Should we look down on a so called primitive person who devotes themself to Zeus? Or should we respect the power of their own faith to drive them forward in life with such confidence as having the power of lightning behind them with the support of Zeus? After all. Ideas are bullet proof. This is certainly a pretty powerful idea if they truly believe in it. Who are we to say things are impossible? Do we have unlimited knowledge? Would unlimited knowledge make things impossible or would they make everything possible.
We can talk about it till the cows come home. The best thing to do is experiment. Whoever is willing to experiment with an open mind will gain my trust
One little thing first: "Gravity from the earth brought the apple towards it. The earth's gravity is stronger than the apple's."
Not really, actually they both attract each other with equal forces but the Earth has very high mass so it doesn't move as a result, wheras the apple's mass is of the same sort of magnitude as the force so it accelerates towards the ground.
Secondly, hm. It depends how science is defined really. If science is just something that explains the behaviour of observed reality, then it will probably be the case that we cannot scientifically discover the ultimate nature of reality. As has been said, we'll probably have to refer to philosophy and mathematics to answer such things, via logical deduction, which isn't really science.
As for the original question (the rest of the thread is filled with stupidity), I think that you're trying to ask something like:
Science can only explain the physical nature of things, and can't explain something such as "The meaning of life".
Something such as "the meaning of life" only has meaning if we were created by something or someone which had a conscious intent of creation for a purpose. Because Agnostics / Atheists don't believe in God, there would be no meaning of life. This means that a "why" doesn't exist unless we try to create one (God). Why is so unimportant that it is non-existant (as long as God is non-existant).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
That's circular reasoning.
It depends how you use science and what you are looking for. It's like that Kennedy speech but with science. 'Think not what science can do for you, but what you can do for science'.Quote:
Science can only explain the physical nature of things, and can't explain something such as "The meaning of life".
Such as your parents who conceived you.Quote:
Something such as "the meaning of life" only has meaning if we were created by something or someone which had a conscious intent of creation for a purpose.
One is sure restricting themself to a dull existence with such little thought to possibilities considering what is yet to be discovered from the dramatic mystery of life. Even so you do not have to believe in god to make meaning out of things. This is even a more restrictive pale belief without any real substance or reason behind it. So much so considered seriously one might fall into depression and eventually as a result create a more lasting appreciation for their own individuality and power to appreciate what meaning they can make for themself while they are still alive. The finite quality surely making everything 100 times as beautiful as if their life was not a finite existence.Quote:
Because Agnostics / Atheists don't believe in God, there would be no meaning of life.
It's good to be independent but completely forgetting about the question why is going to make you unbalanced. You will never think about anything because you decide it does not matter anyway. Which gives false excuses to not make an effort. It also gives excuses for not being a good person. "It doesn't matter what I do because it just is". Saying why is not important to your existence is escaping responsibility for moral conduct. Which is another excuse to be lazy and let yourself descent into unconsious random behavior that possibly follows no productive pattern and knows no efficient boundaries.Quote:
This means that a "why" doesn't exist unless we try to create one (God). Why is so unimportant that it is non-existant (as long as God is non-existant).
None of these impractical conclusions are really based on any significant evidence other than a desire to choose. And a stronger desire to not research and remain apathetic perhaps.
Just because one decides a certain preconceived concept of god does not exist in their intellectual limited capacity of the infinite ever changing universe. This does not mean the question why also does not exist or hold some value in the many living beings of different potentialities that inhabit it.
You also do not need something else to tell you of your purpose. We have enough power on our own to think for ourself.