Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

I've heard some (flawed) philosophical arguments using a priori logic that knowledge of any kind requires the existence of God, but God being a requirement for the scientific method to exist is not something you can accurately deduce just from personal observation.

You could say God is a requirement for anything at all to exist, in which case saying God is a requirement for science is trivial.

sounds like sentimental gobbledygook

 

It seems that way if you binge watch Fox News or MSNBC. But recent polls indicate the real world on average is actually getting more generally tolerant and empathetic towards differing views.

 

Except you'd probably get laid a lot more

 

Fine if that's what you feel is important to you. I don't feel this way and its purity is felt deep inside my heart.

 

Didn't say anything about what's important. That's also a concept you're using aesthetically here.

I was just pointing out that atheism is a view referring to objective reality, and what you "feel deep inside your heart" doesn't necessarily correspond to objective reality - and in fact based on the track record of humans who have expressed similar feelings about other things there's no reason for you to expect it to.

 

But that's not what I'm saying. I believe science and God absolutely coexist, which is what I believe in my heart. You believe God and science can't. Neither has proof the other isn't logical in that thinking. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

 

the idea of a creator (god/ alien overlord/ some science experiment/ computer program/ who knows) makes some sense to me, but i can see how an atheist would thumb their nose at that. i think the way everything works together, the universe, down to the smallest bug or speck of mold, is spiritual in its own way. basically some "mother earth" hippie shit.

i think if everyone followed the teachings of "jesus" the world would be pretty rad, he seemed like a solid dude. if he is the arbiter, the way that religion and politics has corrupted that is a surefire ticket to hell if one exists, imo.

 

Cool. I was responding to your implication that something triggering poetic/romantic feelings is in any way evidence it's objectively true. It's not. Other people feel the same way you do about science/God when they think about magic/Harry Potter.

No, I believe the findings of science indicate the existence of any Gods described in human traditions is highly improbable. But otherwise speaking generally there is no reason to think science is incompatible with the existence of a creator.

 

I wonder how true that statement is. Sure, we can't measure those aesthetics but the more we learn about our brains the more we learn certain aestetic preferences are hard wired, and not quite as subjective as once thought. There have been analysis for example, of primitive artworks from tribes all over the globe. There tends to be certain types of shapes like triangles, and certain spacing, and certain number groups of repetition that come up far more often than one would expect if the art were truly subjective. Other studies of people's preferences of certain color combinations, and even voice tone and timber, seem to point that aesthetics might not be subjective and are actually based in part on evolutionary advantages. Understanding dangers in nature, love from adults a child should rely on, or pattern recognition for recall might all be reasons for our aesthetic preferences instead of some subjective personal determination.

 

It is possible that the belief in God provides an evolutionary advantage, and so the aesthetic beauty many find in God is hard wired I'm some people.

 

I think what's hard wired in humans more than anything is a need for intentional community or tribe. Religions provide that as do sports, arts, pubs, etc...folks need to belong to something that gives them a supportive environment. Political affiliations are the same...if I identify with a political party, there's a large demographic that I can tap into

 

No different than when Dawkins eloquently describes the wonders of evolution or the Big Bang. The emotional connection is what drives us as a species.

This argument can be used for anything that can't be observed through science. We can use abiogenesis or singularity for example.

 

In a naturalist point of view, this makes perfect sense. In a theistic point of view, we could say God implanted the yearning to seek him out

 

You're not actually disputing that it is. Even if belief in God is hardwired by evolution (which I'd dispute) it would not be evidence that God exists. Behavior motivated by false belief can provide evolutionary advantages. A primitive who automatically thinks a predator is after him every time the bushes rustle has a survival advantage over another who tries to figure out if it's the wind or not before running.

 

Best post of this entire thread

 

Dawkins doesn't believe in evolution because he thinks it's a poetic/romantic idea. He can point to a mountain of objective evidence that has nothing to do with the way anyone "feels" about anything.

Similarly atheists (most of them) do not lack belief in God because they feel a certain way about it. Almost all of them can make logical arguments without referring to feelings or intuition.

 

It's not an argument either way. It's just pointing out there is a gap in our knowledge.

 

This is false. He has publicly admitted being romantically involved with the theory of evolution. He carries that same passion for his atheistic views as well.

 

Okay fine, it can be applied the same way. The semantic argument of it being an argument is silly. You knew what I was trying to say