Book Burning

[MMI]

Why? Those parameters are already in existence, put forth by the theists. It's up to them to prove their case, not up to scientists to prove them wrong.

Because, even now, I believe there is a majority consensus among sensible people that there is a god. That means that believers have persuaded most other reasonable people that there is a god. It seems to me that anyone who goes against this common acceptance must justify his position rather than the other way round.

And how can they do that without knowing the conditions in which gods could exist? And you cannot know that unless you know that there are gods in the first place. It would be like trying to establish an environment that's conducive to raising unicorns, without knowing anything about unicorns in the first place. It cannot be done. It's up to the Unicornists to show proof that these creatures exist.

That's a problem for the scientists to solve, and if they can't then science is too limited to be used as a method for deciding whether gods exist. Many scientific discoveries have been the result of inferring their existence, and then establishing whether the conditions existed to allow those "theoretical" objects to be. Do the same for gods, or admit that science is inadequate for that particular purpose.

For example - and I'm not offering this as a genuine argument, but simply as an illustration - you might infer god needs to be believed in to exist. You can then argue that god does not exist in any place where there is no faith. If you find any place in the universe or multiverse where faith exists at any time, you can then begin a search to find him. Maybe you will: that will be conclusive. Maybe you won't; that will leave the question open and reveal the limitations of your approach.

Remember also, the majority of reasonable people believe in gods: few reasonable people believe in unicorns.

Anywhere? Even places which we cannot see? Or measure? Like maybe between the universes? Or in the infinite time before the creation of the universe? Again, there's no way to absolutely say these hypothetical conditions do not, or can not, exist anywhere, any more than we can prove that gods, or unicorns, do not exist.

Yes anywhere, any time, any dimension. If we don't have the tools to prove our case, we must find them or accept the possibility of gods may be a real one and that our denial is just another act of faith. You can't blame religionists for science's shortcomings.

But first the majority would have to prove their case, not just base everything on an unprovable assertion. That's the point of atheism, after all. Theists are in the majority and asserting the existence of their multiple gods, without any evidence, and expecting non-believers to prove something which is ultimately unprovable. Show me the evidence for gods and then we can study that evidence and try to determine if it is truly evidence for supernatural beings or perhaps evidence of a much more advanced, but natural, race of beings. Just remember Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

You are doing precisely the same: claiming that belief in gods is unscientific, when science may be entirely irrelevant to the question. To deny the existence of god is just as much an unprovable assertion as to believe in the existence of gods. The evidence for god is all around us, but you interpret that same evidence as demonstrating his absence. Clearly, the evidence, either way, is inconclusive. Evidence, therefore, is unreliable for resolving this particular problem.

Finally, Clarke is wrong, technology is not to be confused with magic. Magic, if it works at all, works without technology - possibly in spite of it.

[Thorne]

Because, even now, I believe there is a majority consensus among sensible people that there is a god. That means that believers have persuaded most other reasonable people that there is a god. It seems to me that anyone who goes against this common acceptance must justify his position rather than the other way round.

The majority consensus doesn't mean anything except that many people believe in something that may or may not exist. What you are saying is that, since Christianity is the largest religion (according to Wikipedia) then everyone should be required to accept Christianity or justify why they do not.

And I, and atheists in general, HAVE justified our position. The is NO evidence for gods, none, nothing, nada. Not that there are no gods, which we cannot, can never, prove, but that there is no evidence for gods.

That's a problem for the scientists to solve, and if they can't then science is too limited to be used as a method for deciding whether gods exist.

Science will always be too limited, since science studies the natural world, not a supernatural one. In the supernatural world, anyone can make up anything they happen to think of and claim it to be true, simply because no one can prove them wrong. In the natural world, you must provide evidence, testable evidence, for your claims.

Many scientific discoveries have been the result of inferring their existence, and then establishing whether the conditions existed to allow those "theoretical" objects to be.

Yes, inferred from evidence which doesn't fit the established theories.

Do the same for gods, or admit that science is inadequate for that particular purpose.

We've been doing the same for gods since they were first dreamed up in some shaman's drug ravaged brain. "The gods live in the volcano," they said, so we studied the volcanoes. No gods. "The gods live in the sky," they said, so we studied the skies. No gods. "The gods send lightning to destroy the unfaithful," but the faithful get destroyed just as readily. Every testable claim for the gods has been tested, and the gods have come up short. So the theist claim that "The gods are unknowable, untestable. They must be taken on faith alone." And that lets science out. ANY test or evidence which fails to show the existence of gods will be either ignored as not relevant or shrugged at and a modified definition of gods will come out. It's called shifting the goal posts, and theists have had thousands of years to become masters at it.

For example - and I'm not offering this as a genuine argument, but simply as an illustration - you might infer god needs to be believed in to exist. You can then argue that god does not exist in any place where there is no faith. If you find any place in the universe or multiverse where faith exists at any time, you can then begin a search to find him. Maybe you will: that will be conclusive. Maybe you won't; that will leave the question open and reveal the limitations of your approach.

And that just more clearly illustrates my point. There will NEVER be enough evidence to convince the faithful that they are wrong. They will ALWAYS find some way around reality to justify their beliefs.

Remember also, the majority of reasonable people believe in gods: few reasonable people believe in unicorns.

And yet the evidence for unicorns is just as compelling as the evidence for gods.

You ignore the fact that most people are brought up in cultures which promote belief in gods. You ignore the fact that most people are not taught to be skeptical of everything they see, or to be wary of authority, especially religious authority. You shrug off the fact that humanity is still struggling to cast off the superstitions of thousands of years of ignorance.

At one time the majority of reasonable people believed the Earth was flat. It's not. At one time the majority of reasonable people believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. It's not. At one time the majority of reasonable people thought the sun was made of coal! It's not.

People will believe what they have been taught to believe, what they want to believe, what they think others want them to believe. It's not reasonable, it's just the way we are made.

Yes anywhere, any time, any dimension. If we don't have the tools to prove our case, we must find them or accept the possibility of gods may be a real one and that our denial is just another act of faith. You can't blame religionists for science's shortcomings.

I don't blame theists for anything. But as I noted before, science cannot examine something which is not there! And every time science has looked and shown that the gods are not here, theists have come back and said, "Of course they're not there, stupid, they're over here!"

And science will ALWAYS accept the possibility of gods, because they can never prove anything other than the improbability of them.

You are doing precisely the same: claiming that belief in gods is unscientific, when science may be entirely irrelevant to the question.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The gods, as defined by theists, are not testable by any current scientific method. When we develop new methods and, presumably, show that the gods don't appear there either, the theists will move even further away from reality, requiring science to start all over again.

To deny the existence of god is just as much an unprovable assertion as to believe in the existence of gods.

Absolutely. And I have said this repeatedly.

The evidence for god is all around us, but you interpret that same evidence as demonstrating his absence. Clearly, the evidence, either way, is inconclusive. Evidence, therefore, is unreliable for resolving this particular problem.

I disagree. The evidence is quite conclusive. The entire structure of the universe, everything from the first few milliseconds of the big bang right through to the present can be explained by evidence without recourse to supernatural beings. Nothing we have studied shows any evidence of being anything but natural. You want to say that God guided it? Be my guest. But if you can't prove it, your belief is worthless. Everything we know to date says that no gods did anything.

Finally, Clarke is wrong, technology is not to be confused with magic. Magic, if it works at all, works without technology - possibly in spite of it.

Magic, like the gods, is a supernatural explanation for something we don't understand. If you don't have the understanding of the technology, how do you differentiate the real from the unreal? Try explaining television to a primitive culture. To them it will seem like magic. Hell, even some "civilized" people don't understand it, even though they use it every day.

And yet again, magic, like the gods, fails in the face of knowledge. It's a trick, a sleight of hand designed to fool the believer. Once you understand the trick the magic, like the gods, dissolves.