by Ruby456 15 Replies latest jw friends
"god did it" does not mean that god has disappeared because that particular misterious GAP has disappeared because we have found out how the process functioned.
It merely may mean we have found out "HOW GOD DID IT" without tinkering himself.
All we can see, measure of the cosmos is what arrives in our detectors, eyes at the moment.
Most of what exists is beyond that visibility horizon, in the Past and future.
be prepared for goodies to come.
I am an atheist but I have to say I don't share the confidence in science that some of you are expressing. The simple fact is that science can be locked into paradigms that need a revolution to shake scientists free and unless these revolutions happen science becomes trapped by its own dense interlocking network of hypotheses and theories.
Perhaps science needs a new revolution and new paradigm shift to really even begin to come to grips with dark energy an dark matter.
Perhaps wrongly, I view the 'dark matter/energy' as simply a page marker meaning 'we don't know what it is yet'. I can't see there's a problem in this instance which requires a change to the way scientists approach their work.
Also, there seems to me a significant difference between science per se, and the way individual scientists may practice it. Scientists are simply people after all with egos, prejudices, virtues and failings.
With regard to the OP: as cofty pointed out there is no necessary connection between atheism and science. Provide an honest atheist with adequate evidence of the existence of a god and expect that person to be convinced. To react otherwise would be illogical. By adequate, I mean sufficent for the person concerned. The standard of proof required to convince each person may vary considerably.
GromitSK, science does reflect upon itself and in its own self reflection it is conscious of the contingencies that govern its paradigms - so for example we have such expressions as Newtonian physics, Einsteinian physics and so on
On the matter of the conjunction of atheism and science you have to admit that there is a brand of atheism that conducts its discourse via emphasing correspondence between religious reality and scientific facts. This atheism conveniently changes the goal posts during discussions when it suits them.
I think it's true that some atheists take religious examples and highlight the conflicts with what is now known. Personally I see that as a service to believers, or at least a believer could choose to see it that way. I'm not sure there are brands of atheism; as far as I can see, one either believes that gods are at least possible (however unlikely) or that they definitely don't exist. I am no expert on atheism.
The paths by which people arrive at their atheism on the other hand seem to me quite diverse. What they do with it seems equally diverse to me too from passive disinterest to almost fundamentalist zeal and the apparent need to convert others.
gromitSK - regarding different kinds of atheism - there are marxist atheists, liberal atheists, conservative atheists, freudan atheists, feminist atheists, even theologians who are atheists - and they can express conflictng standpoints on issues. I have not met a single passive atheist - it seems that once a person becomes an atheist they immerse themselves in something energetic.
