Atheos You Have Faith in Science

When science can't explain something, God is the answer.

Select an ideal response for:

Even if scientists found enough evidence to confirm a naturalistic universe, laws of probability would still show the need for a Creator.

I think mathematicians determine probabilities by analyzing trends. There seems to be only one universe, so how can we talk about the odds of divine creation?

The domain of what's possible doesn't intersect with the domain of what's actual. Do you see how that's an invalid inference?

Wait. If enough evidence was collected to conclusively indicate a naturalistic universe, what would be the use of positing a 'Creator'?

Don't you see that laws of probability show that you do not understand the laws of probability?

Select an ideal response for:

I don’t trust theories. Science is a bunch of theories written by some old white dudes. There are no theories in the Bible.

How do you define the word 'theory'?

What do you mean, you 'don't trust theories'? Aren't they called 'theories' precisely because they're open to being revised & disproven?

There are no theories in the Bible because its propositions are purely fictional.

Actually, I think you just described the creative process for the Bible.

Select an ideal response for:

Minds & consciousness defy naturalistic explanation & definitively indicate a supernatural realm.

Centuries ago, people made the same claim about lightning & magnetism. Were they right to conclude that those things were supernatural?

Brains don't defy naturalistic explanation. What makes you think that its functions indicate a supernatural realm?

No, they don’t. Neuroscience is discovering more everyday about our minds & consciousness. Isn't it exciting?!

Lack of explanation doesn't justify assumptions. There's a great body of real research that exists on this topic that you should read.

Postulating an unseen realm to explain a phenomenon is not an explanation. How does that differ from just replacing one mystery with another?

Select an ideal response for:

My religion provides answers where science & reason cannot.

The 'answers' of different religions contradict one another. How do we adjudicate between competing religious claims?

What good are 'answers' if there's little reason to think they're actually true? Do we want just an answer, or do we want the truth?

Are you a scientist?

Your religion provides delusions to fill the gaps in reason & science, nothing more.

Select an ideal response for:

Reason isn't an infallible tool for learning & knowing.

At least it is a tool for reaching truth—unlike faith.

How so. Isn't it the best tool we have? Don’t we depend on it in virtually every aspect of our lives?

Did you reason to that conclusion? And, are you implying that because we can't reason to certain conclusions, then... what?

Neither is faith. Is anything infallible? Yes & no. It's binary.

No, which is why I embrace it: Wouldn't you prefer to know when you're wrong than to believe blindly?

Select an ideal response for:

Religion explains the unexplainable.

I'm confused. If it's unexplainable, how does religion explain it?

Then explain quantum physics to me, per religion.

Different religions offer competing explanations. Doesn't that mean most (if not all) of those explanations are necessarily incorrect?

Such as how you've sunk to such depths of delusion?

Select an ideal response for:

As Guy P. Harrison said, "Science can't explain everything.'

No, of course not! But does that give people a license to make things up?

At least science doesn't pretend to know things that it doesn't know.

But it sure does try & what it can't, it seeks to. Do you see the value in this?

That's true. Should we use God to explain that which we don't fully understand?

We owe every piece of reliable knowledge we have to collective human scientific investigation.

Select an ideal response for:

Science can't explain [x].

Science doesn’t do anything—it’s not a person—but it is a method that will suggest the best guess for [x] absent delusional belief.

Religion can't explain [x].

That's because scientists only claim to know things when they have sufficient evidence. Isn't any other kind of explanation really just a guess?

When we don’t know something, shouldn't we just say, 'I don’t know yet'? Isn’t epistemic humility what science is about?

Pretending to know what you do not know cannot explain [x] either. See what I mean?

Select an ideal response for:

Science doesn’t know everything.

Scientists would admit that, which is more than might be said of theists.

Does religion know anything?

Scientists only make scientific claims if they can support them with evidence. Isn't anything else just speculation?

Yes it does, you just don’t know the work of the more obscure scientists.

Isn't that the great strength of science?: Being aware that our understanding is incomplete drives us to keep looking & learning!

Select an ideal response for:

Science has failed to explain a lot of things, like thought & emotion. Therefore, God must exist.

How does the conclusion that God exists follow from the fact that some things are currently unexplained?

Scientists were also long unable to explain how magnets work—until they finally did. Why shouldn't that be the case for other things, too?

Science has explained thought & emotion at the level of the brain & endocrine system. Right?

Science has its limitations—enter more research.

Select an ideal response for:

Science is constantly being proven wrong—just look at Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

That is the purpose of science, the scientific method, falsifiability & fallibility. See how this is a good thing?

Science is a continual refinement of our understanding of reality. That constant revision is what makes it a tool upon which we can rely.

Is it 'science' which gets proven wrong, or is it instead particular claims which are tested & sometimes found to be flawed?

Whoa, do you even science?

The fact that science can be wrong doesn't discredit the validity of other findings. Unlike the Bible, science isn't infallible.

Select an ideal response for:

The naturalistic view simply can't be the whole story.

It's one thing to say we don't have the whole story & another thing for someone to claim they know the 'bigger picture'. Right?

So therefore one should patch the holes with belief in a deity?

So you would rather bridge the gaps with fairy tales to comfort yourself?

Why not?

Select an ideal response for:

There are some things science can’t explain, like quantum mechanics.

Are you kidding? The theory of quantum mechanics was invented by scientists!

Doesn't that demonstrate that the province of science deals with discovering what's true & avoiding making unjustified assumptions? If science cannot offer an adequate explanation for a phenomenon, what does that mean to you?

What does that have to do with positive claims about deities?

That is, in & of itself, the purpose of science: To understand the unknown, to learn about that which we don't understand. No?

Select an ideal response for:

There is no other explanation for the wonders of the universe.

Whatever the explanation, it definitely isn't a God!

You need a better imagination.

Why not just acknowledge that there are unanswered questions until more/better evidence becomes available?

Wouldn't one need a nearly perfect & complete understanding of the universe in order to be sure of that?

Why don’t you think there are plenty of explanations for the wonders of the universe?

Select an ideal response for:

You can’t explain consciousness.

The God hypothesis doesn't explain consciousness either, right?

Are you saying that any gap in my understanding of reality should be filled with a theistic explanation?

Yes, we can. Have you not read Conciousness Explained by Dan Dennett?

Neither can you. But Dan Dennett can & he's an atheist!

What does my current inability to fully explain consciousness have to do with your assertions about it?

Select an ideal response for:

You can’t explain the supernatural.

You can't explain the consciousness of living creatures; therefore we are brains in vats. Would you say that's a solid argument?

What do you mean by 'supernatural'?

I'm not aware of evidence of the 'supernatural.' What reasons do you have for belief in the supernatural?

Neither can you.

An explanation is only as reliable as the evidence supporting it. You may have your own explanation, but it's not at all reliable.