What do we need a deity for? (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 02, 2011, 13:28 (4862 days ago) @ broken_cynic

Broken_cynic: Matt pointed me to this page and noted that this crew was currently without an atheist perspective. I'm not sure how often I'll jump in as I've been busy as all hell lately, but I can't resist a good challenge. -First of all, a warm welcome to the forum ... and my thanks to Matt for bringing you along. We are indeed without an atheist perspective, although George Jelliss occasionally drops in to revive happy memories.-Broken_cynic: When you say "Science cannot explain X" it might be more fair and correct to say "science has not yet explained X." Note: there is no inherent assumption that science will explain X in the future, only a more precise phrasing of the current state of things. You have no more grounds to assume that it will not (cannot) happen than I have to assume that it will.-The use of the word "yet" certainly implies that the action will be performed in the future. When my wife asks if I've mended the bathroom lock, my reply will be that I haven't done it YET, which is meant to reassure her that it will be done! (Alas, she is difficult to fool.) However, you are right. My "cannot" is at best misleading, since it could imply that science doesn't have the capability and hence will never be able to explain X. That is not what I meant (I do not assume that it will not happen), and so we need a neutral formulation, which I think we can get by omitting your "yet". So how about a revised version: "Science has not explained X"? Perhaps we should add a parenthesis: (and may or may not be able to do so in the future).
 
Broken_cynic: Atheism and science are not quite as tightly linked as seems (on first glance) to be presumed here, but they do share the preference to not assume anything for which evidence is not available.
 
I don't think there is a link between atheism and science at all. As I see it, science has not come up with anything that either supports or contradicts theism or atheism. However, with regard to assumptions, I disagree profoundly with your statement. This is where abiogenesis offers us a prime example, so I'll look forward to your comments on the subject. Atheism categorically dismisses the idea of a designer. If conscious design is out of the question, what alternative do you offer to the assumption that life (i.e. its origin) is the product of chance? There is no scientific evidence for the abiogenesis hypothesis, and so your final statement in my view applies to agnosticism but emphatically not to atheism.