A key reason why some atheists challenge religious beliefs

by defender of truth 193 Replies latest members adult

• 

  prologos

  oneeyedjoe, it is true that looking at the perceived stability of all the orbits he mused that surely go would give it a nudge one and then to keep it going, but even with the Leibnitz refinements, paper and pen would not allow for all the variables to be accounted for.

  Supercomputers are doing the work now and came up with good models.

  The one thing that kept Isaac from doing more and further research, porgress,-- was not lack of confidence in the existence of a creator, but the time he spent in dabbling in Bible research, chronology based on an errant book.
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  I'm not super familiar with the leibnitz stuff, but I know laplace was the one that came up with perturbation theory, which was well before the computing days. Perturbation theory was so successful, that it predicted planets that had yet to be discovered (I believe it was neptune)

  Maybe there was more than one factor at play, but it seems fairly certain that religion has held up progress. You never know who might be the next Newton or Einstein, but if they get stuck in the comforting thought that "god did it" whenever there's a difficult question, there's going to be less progress made.
• 

  Apognophos

  I strongly disagree with the idea that scientists will be stopped in their inquiries by a belief in God. The arguments being put forth are based on specious reasoning. Scientists are an unusual breed of person that wants to know how things work and is single-minded in their curiosity. Their belief that God designed something won't stop them from trying to understand it any more than someone who hacks computers is going to decide not to investigate how they work because they know who made the computer.
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Apognophos, you're correct that belief in god doesn't in itself stop all inquiry. The belief that something is unknowable does, though. The two often (but not always) go hand-in-hand, and that's the problem.

  I'm under no illusion that scientists in modern times are frequently stopped dead by their theism. Theistic scientists are the minority these days anyway. The problem comes when non-scientist theists start trying to dictate curriculum in science classes, and when someone has their curiosity stiffled at a young age by their theist parents. That's not the case in every religious household, but its likely the case in many.

  It's something that I can't assert on any concrete basis, since I know of no studies done that can determine if someone would've been a great scientist for want of an atheist upbringing, but I feel pretty confident that theism isn't helping anything.

  That said, everyone has a right to their opinions, even if their opinions fly in the face of all evidence.
• 

  MadGiant

  "Then third person not even directly involved in the exchange jumps in to defend believers everywhere:"Why is everyone not free to go to church and believe what they want to? Atheists keep trying to force their beliefs on us. Who cares what anyone believes? Live and let live"." -

  This is from a few days back:

  People have opinions, but these opinions could be based on bad information. There is no logic behind them, no foundation to base them.

  Saying that people are entitled to their opinion as a way to dismiss non-based opinions, only supports the proliferation of those non-based opinions. You have to be ready to accept that it may be wrong and misguided and in need of correction.

  I'm not sure when people began to believe that any opinion was above reproach, or the idea that someone's opinion could be made fun of is anathema. Once that "opinion" is made public, that "opinion" most withstand criticism, analysis and questioning. Should be tested, challenge and justified. And that's not an opinion.

  I realize what it means to test my beliefs against the dictates of reality, and to correct them when nature tells me I’m wrong. I bear no personal stake in any of the beliefs I hold, but simply in the rational assurance that whatever beliefs I do hold are indeed correspondent with reality. I therefore measure my beliefs through a clear set of epistemic rules, and I make no exceptions under any context. That’s what it takes to make new discoveries and build the knowledge of humanity.

  Respectfully,

  Ismael
• 

  MadGiant

  Unfortunately, too many people have beliefs that are rigid and not open to criticisms or challenge. People can't critically analyze and evaluate all available information, making decisions, including those involving their beliefs, based on thought, facts and reason. It's like trying to pee with a boner, they are difficult to manage and can be disastrous when forced or show another direction.

  No one likes to hear that the things they strongly believe are wrong, but it's a disservice to all of us if we can't be open to the idea that we are wrong, and open to learning something new or the real facts for that matter.

  Ismael
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  They've got a right to their opinions, which means don't go killing people because they belive in god, and don't fire them if it doesn't affect their job. I do agree, though, that most theists get really upset really quickly when you start questioning their beliefs. That's probably due to a subconsious (or maybe even conscious) knowledge that their beliefs won't survive serious scrutiny. Their defending their belief from even being questioned is quite objectionable.
• 

  MadGiant

  "They've got a right to their opinions, which means don't go killing people because they belive in god, and don't fire them if it doesn't affect their job." -'

  Here's the thing. We can argue about with ice cream is best cookies and cream or strawberry (C&C), or your favorite player, etc. But this is not the case. An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be based on that which is less than absolutely certain. And sometimes needs correction.

  If I present the verified facts, then that opinion, if wrong, is obsolete and should be modify to correspondent with reality. As a matter of fact (pun intended), if you keep spreading that debunked opinion, you are misleading people.
  
  Let's say I ask; why the sky is blue? And the answer I get it's something like this; The sky as blue because that is the wavelength that the human eye sees the most of.

  This is an opinion, it's not base on facts and its completely wrong. Should I correct that statement of should I let it slide because it's someone else "opinion".

  If someone proof me wrong is the most precious thing in existence. It's how I learn new things.

  Ismael
• 

  galaxie

  Anyone with true conviction about their beliefs shoul always be keen to look at evidence to confirm othewise they may well be being duped .

  If you refuse or are complacent to study the evidence , then you are wilfully in ignorance.

  If you look at evidence which overwhelmingly disproves your position you deserve the title of stupidly delusional if you still adhere to your belief.

  Best wishes.
• 

  prologos

  The idea that there is a creator was a 'a priori' zeitgeist of these earlier researchers. Of course there is comfort in the thought that the Universe is just fine, whether we research it or not. Unlike the great medical research our lives dont depend on it.

  As to the now very stable setup of the solar system, the perturbations and the theory about it is enlightening. Looking at the asteroid belt, its gaps, spacings made the discoverers glad that we have Jupiter around, to create a depositoire of all these body that cratered our neighbourhood earlier.

  Uranus, Neptune, Pluto even, might have been predicted*, discovered by the mutual orbital perturbations they experience, but an easier guide was the modified Bode Law, which predicts the orbits with 5% accuracy.-- EARTH 10, Jupiter 52, with .o1%

  Great insights will be gained when we develop the ability to analize accurately the spacings of the exoplanets.

  In this way proposing a theory about Creation is better then one (or many) about the Creator (if any), called religious doctrine, a pure guessing game.

  thats why we must, have the right to challenge religious beliefs, after all, we challenge scientific theories all the time, it's called peer review, ultimately progress.

  * now in doubt.