Is atheism a religion?

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,260
P1 So, how is that different from posting John 3:16 or Sura 3:42?

P2a Either someone is a world class physicist who had the academic background to fully understand the intricacies of the research. P2b Or they are taking a leap of faith and placing their trust in others to understand it and tell them it is true.

P3 Which is a religion in every sense. :lol:
P2a/b is of course, another bifurcation. Red flag for a weak argument.

Scientific theories require propositions and predictions. Mathematics is just a narrative in equation form. The mathematics are not the proposition or the predictions.

Mathematics is very useful in helping guide the development of a theory and in any predictions that are a product of the theory. Mathematics are also helpful for quantifying the exact metrics which characterize the phenomena.

However, the mathematics is not the proposition or the predictive test.

Additionally, P2a would be particularly onerous with large systemic theories that required highly advanced mathematical expertise in multiple scientific disciplines. Further, some theories require that the authors of the theory farm out their propositions to mathematicians or computers because the math is too complex. Contrary to P2b, one of the tenants of Popperian methodology is severe criticism of every aspect of any theory. Any aspect of the theory that is not fully understood should be viewed skeptically.

An example of this would be the Eddington/Dyson gravitational lensing test that gave Einstein's theory of relativity credibility to the public.

I won't bother with P1, the irrelevance of the question is obvious.

P3 is false for obvious reasons. The overreach is that everyone is going to have an irrational belief in science. This may be true in some cases but it does not necessarily follow from P2b. The bifurcation fails because of other options in play.

No one should believe a scientific theory with out some readily understandable propositions and evidence gathering to back it up.
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,260
Yeah! If you don't understand it, you can try to have someone knowledgeable in the idea explain it in an interesting way, using lots of metaphors. And when that is still too difficult, just take a leap of faith and just accept that they wouldnt lie to you.

rofl
ad hominem: red flag for weak argument

Implied is the false assumption that understanding the mathematics is required to substantiate a scientific proposition.

If you look closely you will see the bifurcation fallacy in play as well.
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,260
P1 Atheism isn't a belief, so it can't be a religion. P2 But what filled the void left when religious ideology was removed? P3 The ideology that replaced whatever previous religion is itself a religion.
P2/P3 Unsupported generalization/assumption presented as fact. Circular fallacy form: red flag, deception if truth in play is not explicit (circular reasoning: arguing from a premise that is assumed true, statement of "truth" presented as fact)

P2, if the void is due to an untenable ideology then there would be no void to fill.

P3, if P2 is invalid, then P3 would be, by default invalid. IOW, the ideology created the void so nothing had to be replaced. Something only had to be removed.

TEST:

P3 contradicts P1. If atheism is the "ideology" that replaced religion, how can P1 and P3 be true at the same time ?

Couldn't aggienation argue then that atheism is NOT an ideology ?

Yes, aggienation could, but then that means that P2 and P3 are not relevant to P1. Right ?

This means that Atheism is neither a religion or an ideology. Right ?

Then what was the point of P1 ?

What was the logic or the reason of the entire series of propositions P1, P2 and P3 ?

Isn't P3 taking us back to P1 ? Is there a deception in play here ? P2/P3 linked and not linked with P1, BUT, P2 appears to be linking to P1 re: conjuntion: but ?

Note that P2 or P3 does not follow from P1. Whereas P2 and P3 support each other.

Circular reasoning in play ? Why does something have to be a religion as presumed in P3 ?

Why does P2 use the conjunction "but" ? What is P2 in conjunction with ?
 
Last edited:
Jan 2014
2,564
Westmorland
Hm, maybe I didn't express myself clearly. One either has to accept that something (this whole universe!) can come into being out of nothing, or that it was brought into being by something that lies outside itself, and thus presumably trancends it.
For what it's worth, you did express yourself clearly. My position is that it is not necessary to accept this binary choice. One is free to conclude on the basis of the (lack of) evidence that God does not exist without having to replace God with an alternative proposition.

In any event, the choice you present is not as clear as it first looks. Whether or not he lies outside his creation, God had to have a cause too. Ultimately, unless I am missing something, you are positing the same argument expressed in two slightly different ways - either the universe came out of nothing or the Universe was created by God who came out of nothing. Either way, we are still left with something coming out of nothing.
 
Jun 2016
1,851
England, 200 yards from Wales
So, how is that different from posting John 3:16 or Sura 3:42?

Either someone is a world class physicist who had the academic background to fully understand the intricacies of the research. Or they are taking a leap of faith and placing their trust in others to understand it and tell them it is true.

Which is a religion in every sense. :lol:
Not quite the same surely, if the research is published in an appropriate journal, peer-reviewed, open to criticism by a variety of people who can understand the maths?
 
Jan 2014
2,564
Westmorland
Not quite the same surely, if the research is published in an appropriate journal, peer-reviewed, open to criticism by a variety of people who can understand the maths?
Quite so. A leap of faith is what is required in order to believe a proposition which is unsupported by any evidence. That is not the same thing as believing in a proposition which one knows to have been shown to be demonstrably true, even if one wasn't personally involved in that process.

As such, if the same boffins who have done all of the wonderful scientfic research from which we all benefit said that they had applied the same rational processes to the question of the creation of the universe and were able to prove that God existed, I'd accept that.
 
Nov 2016
968
Germany
In reference to Ch.S. Peirce, Karl Popper, with his theory of Fallibilism, emphasized above all that scientific knowledge can never be completed and must always be open for revision. Factuality for Popper is always relative to the fallibilistic principle, i.e. a fact is considered a fact because and as long as it is not refuted, and NOT because it is ´true´. Once a refutation has been established beyond all doubt, science will have to revise its previous view. This applies in principle to all fields of science, even in the extreme case of the scientific ´natural laws´: From the point of view of fallibilism, a so-called law of nature is not a ´law´, but an regularity of events that does not have to apply per se forever, i.e. theoretically gravity could function in reverse from tomorrow or not at all. David Hume already suspected this in the 18th century when he postulated in his criticism of the causal law that the stone becomes hot AND the sun shines, instead of the stone becoming hot, BECAUSE the sun shines. Immanuel Kant agreed to this and denaturalized the causal law and put it into the human mind as a mode of thought.
 
Likes: Cepheus

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,260
In reference to Ch.S. Peirce, Karl Popper, with his theory of Fallibilism, emphasized above all that scientific knowledge can never be completed and must always be open for revision. Factuality for Popper is always relative to the fallibilistic principle, i.e. a fact is considered a fact because and as long as it is not refuted, and NOT because it is ´true´. Once a refutation has been established beyond all doubt, science will have to revise its previous view. This applies in principle to all fields of science, even in the extreme case of the scientific ´natural laws´: From the point of view of fallibilism, a so-called law of nature is not a ´law´, but an regularity of events that does not have to apply per se forever, i.e. theoretically gravity could function in reverse from tomorrow or not at all. David Hume already suspected this in the 18th century when he postulated in his criticism of the causal law that the stone becomes hot AND the sun shines, instead of the stone becoming hot, BECAUSE the sun shines. Immanuel Kant agreed to this and denaturalized the causal law and put it into the human mind as a mode of thought.
Good summery of Popper's view.

Popperian methodology posits that we should never take the position that we understand phenomenon with 100% statistical certainty.

Another way of putting it is that fallibilism allows us to accept less than perfect evidence as long as there is reasonable evidence to support the assertion.
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,260
Quite so. A leap of faith is what is required in order to believe a proposition which is unsupported by any evidence. That is not the same thing as believing in a proposition which one knows to have been shown to be demonstrably true, even if one wasn't personally involved in that process.
Or, as Popper would say, the theory is still viable because it is able to predict events with a some measurable degree of accuracy and it is the most consistent theory out of any other competing theories.

An advanced degree in math is not necessary to match stated predictions to observed results. This is information that is normally understandable to nonscientists.
 

Similar History Discussions