Why Atheist/secular Science is wrong to ignore God/Metaphysics

I was going to do a long and short version of this thread. However I see no way to make it more brief without losing the validations and such. If I do not get many replies I will attempt to do a long and short version.


I wonder why science minded atheists that believe, or at least accept as possible the fairly new science theories of our infinite and nearly infinite universes*, and or dimensions that go far beyond the four that we (science) claim today**? Why is it popular to ridicule etc spiritualists and theists who claim a afterlife and God exists among other things metaphysical***? I claim the reason for the sometimes severe ridicule etc that believers and ID (intelligent design), and anything metaphysical in nature is caused by 'tenured bigotry' (my term see ^) and fear. First a rational reason to challenge sciences^^ bigotry of metaphysics. Science and those that use science to define their reality readily accept the theories of Hawking, the late C Sagan etc that claim extra dimensions/other universes and other cosmological phenomenon exist. These fairly new theories of how and if the universe began deviate from the accepted idea of the Big Bang one universe model. They are accepted as probably true even are true by much of the esteemed scientific community.

Nevertheless there is a problem. None of these theories can be tested empirically i.e. none satisfies all aspects of the scientific method. All have some circumstantial evidence to support them, but no one has seen another dimension or has empirical proof of other universes. There are experiments running but so far all that I know of have failed or haven't been repeated or do not meet all the criteria of the scientific method. Guess what? I could be describing progressive creation theory! Both creation ID and other metaphysical God did it explanations have the same type of circumstantial evidence supporting them as the new theories of origins of the universe, including Hawking's newest theory! So atheists and specular folks, even agnostics that lean towards critiquing religious folks as backwards and uneducated etc are actually critiquing themselves in a kind of paradoxical metaphor. Its kind of satisfying to think that the atheists and seculars who pride themselves on being down to earth types are really more like we God fearing (btw translates better as respecting rather than fearing) theists and metaphysicists ! Lol! Disagree? Please tell me why they still insist on rejecting and ridiculing religious belief etc considering the implications of believing the science theories mentioned. I do believe this is a gotcha! moment.

reva


* Many respected theoretical physicists, including Hawking and other scientists of related disciplines are talking in a serious manner about universes where every conceivable event is taking place and of the universe having 11+ dimensions.

*** Einstein’s theories added a fourth dimension, space time to the three that science claim existed prior to his genius. Briefly Spacetime is simply time merged with 3d space, time adding a to it to make the universe 4d. The 4th dimension is ‘different’ from the first three spatial ones. In Netwons mind (Using Euclidean geometry) the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. However when space and time is combined (in what is known as a manifold) the math works at both relativistic velocities and other areas where Newton’s math fails.

 

The thing is Science is actually ok with admitting when it's been wrong, and revising/completely slashing theories that have been proven to be flawed and/or wrong. This is because science is a tool for understanding and using the properties of the universe, the earth, and ourselves etc.
The same can not be said for religion, because religion is a mental tool people use to deal with the stresses and problems of everyday life, as well as a tool cultivated and manipulated by religious leaders to control people.

I don't actually see what benefit metaphysical beliefs could possibly bring to science which is used to deal with real, everyday problems. At best it would remain irrelevant, and at worst it would actually impede progress. And impeding progress not only hurts atheists, but the religious moderate and nutjobs alike.

 

I can't speak for all atheists/agnostics/scientist, but as an agnostic who is fairly science-minded myself I don't believe with a 100% certainty that the multiverse exists the same way I don't think it is very probable that a god exists. I approach all of these theories with skepticism, though I think the main difference between the multiverse and the big bang, and god is the way in which these theories were constructed. For The multiverse scientists began with a phenomena and posed ideas as to what might be able to explain that phenomena, whereas with god and intelligent design the idea that god created it was their point of origin and they changed their view of the phenomena so as to validate their predisposed conclusion. The big problem with this is not only that is absolutely unscientific, it completely removes the ability of the scientist to freely interpret his information and ties his ideas down to a single explanation. Of course people who believe the big bang theory and the multiverse theory without any doubt are just as mistaken, because all things must be questioned; however these are both theories which began as hypotheses and enough supporting evidence was found to make them theories which in my opinion makes them more scientifically sound and trustworthy than an idea where the conclusion is already determined by the predispositions and beliefs of the observer.

 

delete posted unedited version~

 

Your explanation makes some assumptions that I can’t fully agree with, still the relpy is a well thought out intellegent peice. Was the 100% certainty bit’ was just a figure of speech etc. The reason I say that is because there is very little we can be 100% certain of! In this strange universe nothing is as it seems. As the famous quote goes ; The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine. Quote by; J. B. S. Haldane, in Possible Worlds and Other Papers the universe. So I would say I am as postive as a non perfect brain and mind can be that God exists. Metaverses? I am not even 10% certain that multiverses/metaverse or more than four dimensions exist. Out of the latter group I would guess there may be more than four dimensions may exist.

I don't think the serial methodology you describe i.e.; the order of construction of (any) theory helps or hurts it's credibility or validity. Also your assessment of ID and God is very dated and too all encompassing, a blanket statement in other words. I would even say its wrong as well but I would rather first ask you if you are saying all religious and ID is included in your critique. For example did you know that there are at least two kinds of ID/ creationism. Two main ones are; progressive creation and YO creation. I subscribe to Progressive Creation which nearly parallels some most science theory and is exactly the same as others! So, with all due respect concerning at least progressive creation you are wrong as to how it was constructed.

Well yes, however truth does that eh? lol! Why change anything if its correct? Now the details of how single explanation (God created the universe for example).

Again most scientists when they create a theory can change the thing so much and so often that it was not very close to the truth when it was created. Add to that fact many scientists are narrow minded and are resistant to change, even though the Scientific method demands otherwise. Lastly lets again take creation. It has changed and changed a lot since it was written down. The old Christian account in Genesis which is correct in core issues is far different (in details) than ID proponents such as Craig or Koon etc. Lastly I do not advocate teaching only ID. At first* I would suggest creation to be mentioned only as an alterative to the guesses of science about how life arose or began. Then if and when ID gets a standard theory it could be taught along with some science and philosophy courses. I would even agree it be separated somehow.

reva

 

The difference is that ID, both progressive and YE creation, begin with a vested interest in their being a designer in the creation of the universe. I am not saying that therefore ID must be wholly dismissed because of this but I think that it fundamentally goes against the scientific method in that regard. Also I have found very little empirical evidence that actually points towards a designer whereas the big bang theory and the multiverse theory were created by studying cosmic background radiation and quantum mechanical phenomena. Due to these differences I find the mostly philosophical ID arguments rather unconvincing.

The effectiveness of the scientific method is only because it is meant to, when used absolutely correctly, to find truth regardless of bias. So, when you base your entire approach to the problem on a predisposed and biased conclusion, the answers you arrive at will be biased and therefore unscientific. The method with which people arrive to conclusions is not at all removed from the validity of their conclusion, especially in a case where so much is still unknown and so we must strive to leave as little to subjective input as possible. As to your comment about YE creation and progressive ID, they are both firmly linked to the vested interest in the religious to affirm their belief, again this does not mean that it must be wrong but it must be approached with extreme caution and skepticism because of it.

The difference is that scientific data is not a conclusion within itself, it must be interpreted. If the person interpreting it already wants it to mean something before he has even looked at it, then it is flawed from the get go.

I would think that the perceived narrow-mindedness that you believe scientists to possess is in fact their reaction to being constantly challanged by many kinds of pseudoscience, so they will obviously approach every new idea with a lot of skepticism. I don't think this is a bad thing, in fact the harshness of pier review is part of what makes science so effective. Though creation has changed a lot since the times of Darwin and Galileo, which at first glance might seem to be a good thing, its proponents do not seem to be able to change it wholly. As I hope you know part of the effectiveness of sciences theories is that they are made to be completely flexible depending on what the data says, whereas with creation theory the theory comes first (i.e. there is a creator) and then it is bent in such a way that it can be somehow not disproved by data. that for me is incredibly disconcerting.

 

Come up with a mathematical description of God and you can talk on the same level as scientists.

 

So, I have leaned more towards calling myself agnostic because of a similar rational. If the multi-verse or string theory hold water, than I don't see how either theory is supported more by the idea entropy, and statistical probability, as the idea that something created something.

Now here is where I have a problem with the tone of your op. This tone I refer to is why I still refer to myself as atheist to most, as you seem not to be able to separate your religious beliefs from ideas based on facts. A prime example of this is that when I admit that the idea something created something is just as likely as anything else, that people of your ilk translate this statement to mean something different than what is said. That the concession of the idea something created something is automatically transferred to the idea that we have souls' or their is a afterlife, when this is a obvious jump in logic based on nothing.

Are people that base their world view on science, and strongly deny the possibility that something could have created something, just as misguided as those who base their lives on a 1400 year old book? Of Course!

Are people who transpose the idea of something creating something, to the idea of an afterlife or soul just as absurd? Of Course!

 

That is not the point.

Come up with a idea that explains the existence of strings, or the multi-verse that has anymore credibility than the idea that something created something?

What is time? Does your answer for what time is seem more or less plausible than something creating something?

 

Good post.

Good explanation of why you can't call something science when it was reverse engineered from conclusion to science.

 

God of the Gaps?

Such a fragile God.

 

Your young aren't you?

Something creating something does not equal a god. False equivalency.

 

you do it with your scientism. Surely they have some mathematical formula that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God.

 

There are no theories that say there are more than 3 physical dimensions. You are confused. It is being examined to find evidence if there are more physical dimensions but there are no theories that explain it.

 

A SCIENTIFIC THEORY is based upon facts, laws and hypothesises, is testable and falsifiable, has no evidence that can't be worked into the theory (has never been demonstrated to be false) and due to the overwhelming amount of evidence in support is considered the best hypothesis (all theories are hypothesis but not all hypothesises are theories) available. It is however not considered proven as proof is considered impossible in science. Science is based upon probability not absolute certainty.

 

Then it takes as much faith in scientism, the New Atheism, to believe there is no God as it takes faith to believe there is a God....more actuallly.

 

No it does not.

That's as rational as saying that it takes more faith to not believe there's an Easter Bunny than it does to believe there is one.

 

Do you believe in the Easter Bunny.

 

If your referring to the idea that something created something you would have a point, but I don't think anyone here believes that you are referring to anything short of a mythical creature first imagined in stories 2,000 years ago.

 

Do. YOU believe in the Easter Bunny?

 

Fail at what I said much?

 

Just so we understand each other. yes or no

 

No, I do not believe that there is an Easter Bunny.

 

why not?

 

The evidence available didn't support the conclusion which would make having the belief to not be rational.