Atheism is not falsifiable

[El Che]

Atheism

a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

2. Godlessness; immorality.

Falsifiability

First developed by Karl Popper in the 1930s, falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science. For an assertion to be falsifiable, in principle it must be possible to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. For example, the assertion "All crows are black" could be falsified by observing one red crow. Popper proposed falsification as a way of determining if a theory is scientific or not. If a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific. If it is not, then it is not science. Popper uses this criterion of demarcation to draw a sharp line between scientific and unscientific theories.

[redstar2000]

???What???

So if a real live god or even demi-god actually shows up...then atheism has been falsified?

Ok, I can live with that.

Of course it will not be easy for this entity to prove its supernatural origins & powers...the testing will be rigorous indeed.

People are not as gullible as they used to be.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[El Che]

Inductive reasoning tells us it is not possible to falsify atheistic claims. Therefore the question can not even be considered in terms of the natural sciences, much less proved. For the sake of coherence I invite you to join the ranks of the agnostic. Or admit your atheism is a belief that is most likely correct, which is also acceptable.

Weak agnosticism

Weak agnosticism is in contrast to strong agnosticism, in which the agnostic believes that the existence of any gods is not only unknown, but is also unknowable to man. Neither type of agnosticism is fully irreconcilable with theism (belief in a deity or deities), but both are typically irreconcilable with strong atheism.

[Trissy]

But the problem here is that Falsificationism fails its own test. You cannot Falsify falsificationism so just like Verificationism, it fails it fails its own tests. Popper proposed falsificationism to demarcate science from non-science but in doing so he produced an unscientific theory of science...

Then again I see the point you're making. I'd prefer a mass abandonment of religion myself because then we would have no need to oppose it. The ultimate truth of whether or not God exists is beyond our reach so agnosticism should be the typical stance of most people but that said whenever I meet a theist I feel obliged to question their reasoning from the stance of an atheist.

[redstar2000]

Inductive reasoning tells us it is not possible to falsify atheistic claims.

Excuse me? The appearance of a "real god" would falsify atheism completely, would it not?

Or incontrovertible evidence that a "real god" existed...that would also serve to falsify atheism, right?

Popper has his shortcomings on this matter (or so I've been informed by those who know much more of this than I do)...but within the constraints of his reasoning, atheism is clearly falsifiable.

Just produce your real god! :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[cubist]

in reference to this i thought i would look at poppers work, and came across suggested reading, critical rationalism by david miller is this worth a read??

[El Che]

Trissy, thats an interesting point about falsification not being falsifiable. However, I'm not sure it applies, since falsification is aplicable to theories in natural sciences while it, its self, is philosophy of science. An epistemological discipline centered on science. Since we don't extrapolate falsificationism beyond the subject matter it refers to, we can not apply it to its self.

Redstar2000, the point you make appears logically consistent. Atheism could, in theory, conceivably, be falsified. However all of the available evidence points otherwise. So, the conclusion atheism is not falsibiable has some legs to walk on; just like the conclusion all planets describe orbits is also a valid and useful conclusion. Induction is useful and has its place in the scientific and philosophical world.

[kroony]

Tristan: Falsificationism is indeed falsifiable. For example: let's say that you want to test the claim that the sky is blue, according to falsificationism. OF course, we know that the sky, is in fact blue.

If we found evidence measuring the wavelengths of the light and finding that they corresponded to "red", we would know that falsificationism was false, because it conflicted with direct empirical evidence.

[RedAnarchist]

Grass used to be red before it turned green. (thats cow food grass, not the other variety..)

[El Che]

As a side note to this discussion directed at Redstar2000 and other athiests: Don't you find it ironic that, in order to defend atheism as hypothetical scientific hypothesis, you must defend the possibility of the existence of God? The very thing atheists deny. Do you not think it a contradiction to hold both views at once? Maybe you should switch to agnostic mode just for this thread. :lol:

[kroony]

No, not the possibility of God's existence.

The theoretical possibility that there could be evidence that pointed to the existence of God. Such as the word "God", written in every language, across the entire sky.

Now, if that existed, then we would be wrong. Obviously it isn't a very good example, perhaps some che-lives devotee can think of a better one.

[redstar2000]

Redstar2000, the point you make appears logically consistent.

Because it is.


Atheism could, in theory, conceivably, be falsified. However all of the available evidence points otherwise.

Therefore, atheism is the correct view of the real world, right?


So, the conclusion atheism is not falsifiable has some legs to walk on; just like the conclusion all planets describe orbits is also a valid and useful conclusion. Induction is useful and has its place in the scientific and philosophical world.

Huh? I think Popper would be extremely puzzled by your use of his paradigm...I certainly am.

If all the available evidence supports the proposition "the supernatural does not exist", is it logical to turn around and say that for that reason, the proposition is "not falsifiable"?

I'm not really concerned with the particular use of induction, deduction, or some combination of the two: what concerns me is the truth of the conclusion.


Don't you find it ironic that, in order to defend atheism as hypothetical scientific hypothesis, you must defend the possibility of the existence of God? The very thing atheists deny. Do you not think it a contradiction to hold both views at once?

Actually, I don't think atheism (the non-existence of the supernatural) is a hypothesis...I think it is fact supported by all the available evidence and by all of the theory of how the real world works.

I also think you are scrambling in a rather undignified manner for arguments to support an unjustifiable position.

"Agnostics", said Engels once, "are just shame-faced atheists"...and I'm wondering what is the source of your "shame"?

You personally don't "believe" in any of that supernatural crap...so why your reluctance to condemn it outright? Are you trying to avoid flak? Are you "shielding" the feelings of some godsucker or godsuckers in general? (It's said that Darwin waited so long to publish because he feared hurting his wife's feelings...)

What's your angle here? The social role of religion is quite clear...and as welcome as shit on the dinner table.

Why does it deserve any more "respect" than cannibalism?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Trissy]

Trissy, thats an interesting point about falsification not being falsifiable. However, I'm not sure it applies, since falsification is aplicable to theories in natural sciences while it, its self, is philosophy of science. An epistemological discipline centered on science. Since we don't extrapolate falsificationism beyond the subject matter it refers to, we can not apply it to its self.


I always thought that both Popper and the Vienna Circle were trying to demarcate between science/meaningful and pseudo-science/meaningless. If this is the case then the whole argument from falsificationsim and verificationsim centres on whether they can pass their own test. A pseudo-scientific theory of science to Popper is about as a meaningless theory of meaningfulness is to the Logical Positivsts.


Tristan: Falsificationism is indeed falsifiable. For example: let's say that you want to test the claim that the sky is blue, according to falsificationism. OF course, we know that the sky, is in fact blue.

If we found evidence measuring the wavelengths of the light and finding that they corresponded to "red", we would know that falsificationism was false, because it conflicted with direct empirical evidence.

I believe you have made a mistake here Arie. If you were to prove the conjecture 'the sky is blue' is false then all you would falsify is the conjecuture 'the sky is blue'. To falsify flasificationsim itself you would have to flasify a statement like 'Falsificationism is true' or 'Falsificationism is accurate'. The question we must ask is how does one falsify such a statement? If Popper were alive even he must question how we can falsify such a bizarre statement...to be fair is is about as odd and unfalsifiable as saying 'God loves me'

[Severian]

True, atheism is not a scientific theory, as we cannot design an experiment that will prove it true or false. But who said it was? Rather, atheism is a philosophical position. Since scientific theories are statements about the natural world, obviously statements about the supernatural - including its existence or nonexistence - cannot be scientific theories.

Scientific theories are not the only kind of useful or accurate statement about the world. The scientific method itself is not a scientific theory....that doesn't mean it's worthless. It is a (not the only) useful way of investigating the world. A method of creating and testing scientific theories, not a theory itself. Its value is demonstrated by its results: our knowledge of the universe has increased, and many applications of science are of practical use.

Atheism, as I'd define it, is not a belief in the nonexistence of gods Since it cannot be proved or disproved, such a belief would have to be based on faith. Atheism is disbelief in the existence of gods....if there is no evidence for something, it is only sensible not to believe in it.

[El Che]

From Redstar2000.


If all the available evidence supports the proposition "the supernatural does not exist", is it logical to turn around and say that for that reason, the proposition is "not falsifiable"?


It is not enough to say that "all the available evidence" supports atheistic claims (which it does not, incidently. What it does is fail to support theist claims which is not the same thing.) and that atheism could, possibly, be proven wrong. Anything is possible Redstar. There are no absolutes. What you must also consider is the nature of the "evidence" its self. There have been many sightings of the "supernatural" but they fail to falsify atheism. Why? Because for science this is not enough. The phenomenon must be repeatable when ever the scientist wishes to test it. If it is dependent on some exteriror "entity" its useless as far as science is concerned. It does not qualify for falsification.

Given all the available information, the proposition atheism is not falsifiable is the only logical conclusion.

My only "angle" is coherance and clarity of thought.

P.S: I apologise for the delay in the reply.

Severian

I generally agree with you post. However your definition of atheism is incomplete.

1- Strong atheism, an explicit rejection of the existence of any deity, because it is considered an impossibility. This involves positive assertions and explanations of the natural world that don't require a deity.

2- Weak atheism, a lack of belief in any deity, because it is considered that there is not enough evidence to support its existence. This is related, but not equivalent, to agnosticism, which states that a person cannot have knowledge on the existence nor the inexistence of any deity, or, as is usually used in modern culture, neutrality on the issue.

[redstar2000]

It is not enough to say that "all the available evidence" supports atheistic claims...and that atheism could, possibly, be proven wrong. Anything is possible, Redstar. There are no absolutes.

Anything?

Seduced any elf-maids lately?

How long does it take to heal from being gored by a unicorn, anyway?

What did "Jesus" have to say for "Himself" the last time you had a chat with "Him"? Is the "Rapture" on schedule?

"Anything" is quite clearly not "possible".

Also, e = mc squared appears at this time to be an absolute. There appear to be others.

That there is no such thing as the "supernatural" likewise appears to be an absolute.

Not only is there no reliable evidence in its favor, but there are a large and ever increasing number of natural phenomena that we can explain without recourse to the "supernatural".

The trend has been so overwhelming that no reputable scientist even looks for supernatural explanations any more!

Why look for something that's never found?


My only "angle" is coherence and clarity of thought.

I don't believe you.

More precisely, it is "possible" that you are speaking the truth...but my experience in these kinds of discussions strongly suggests that people who try to avoid a clear condemnation of superstition have other motives besides "coherence and clarity of thought".

And they are not "good" motives.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[El Che]

From Redstar2000

I don't believe you.

More precisely, it is "possible" that you are speaking the truth...but my experience in these kinds of discussions strongly suggests that people who try to avoid a clear condemnation of superstition have other motives besides "coherence and clarity of thought".

And they are not "good" motives.



Its is insulting that you make accusations and second guess my motives like this. It is offensive and you have no right to doubt my sincerity.

[SonofRage]

ugh, this always happens when someone reads Popper for the first time :D

[El Che]

It is bulling tactics Redstar. Agree with me or else. It is completely unjustified and unjustifiable.

[redstar2000]

It is offensive and you have no right to doubt my sincerity.

Offensive it may be, but I have every right to doubt whatever I damn well please.

When some godsucker claimed that "God restored his sight" in another thread, I said that he was probably a liar.

"My bad"? :lol:


It is bull[y]ing tactics Redstar. Agree with me or else. It is completely unjustified and unjustifiable.

Or else what? What "terrible things" will I do to you if you don't agree with me?

Firing squad? Labor camp? Have you beaten up? Have you restricted or banned from Che-Lives? :lol:

It is impossible for one person to "bully" another on a message board.

All that can ever be done is to demonstrate that an argument is evasive or dishonest and to speculate about the possible motives for that.

Readers are always free to reject or disregard such efforts...and, mostly, that is what they do.

But your posts have aroused my skepticism.

You flatly denied being a godsucker and I took your word for it. But you seem to be unusually persistent in trying to carve out some intellectually respectable "niche" for superstition...and that makes me suspicious.

Naturally, I could be completely wrong...that's certainly happened before.

But I just have this sense about you that you're not really "coming clean" about your perspective.

If I'm wrong, so be it. But I don't think I'm wrong about this.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[cubist]

redstar its not being wrong, its more the others questioning in the wrong context,

application of fact and theory is a complex idea, only the presentation of the existance of the subject of theism can disprove all other claims, science "atheism" can never disproove theism, becuase it all ready assumes that theism is wrong. but your right to say that atheism is soley falsifiable by the evidence of exactly the opposite of atheism a GOD in his true form.


correct me if i have the wrong end of the stick


QUOTE
It is not enough to say that "all the available evidence" supports atheistic claims...and that atheism could, possibly, be proven wrong. Anything is possible, Redstar. There are no absolutes.


but all availible evidence does support atheistic claims, for example the historical evidence that coincides with things in the bible is just history it doesn't support god it just says this was written after those points in history.

Nothing can proove gods existance other than god him/herself. faith is about self justification and doesn't rely on any fact being evident at presentation of the ideology.

which would you trust, mans theory supported with scientifc evidence or an old book, a feeling of well-being and some supposed miracles.

[El Che]

Redstar2000:

If I'm wrong, so be it. But I don't think I'm wrong about this.


And you don't care either. You should try and improve your arguing skills beyond baseless accusations, personal abuse and mindless label mongering. I expected no better of you.

[redstar2000]

And you don't care either.

True, I can't say I've ever lost much sleep over making a mistake. The only certain way of avoiding error in argument is "intellectual celibacy".


You should try and improve your arguing skills beyond baseless accusations, personal abuse and mindless label mongering.

Perhaps...though usually they are sufficient to "win" most arguments. :lol:


I expected no better of you.

Then I didn't disappoint you, did I? ;)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[El Che]

I'm sorry to disappoint you Redstar but I will not be bullied.

[cubist]

el che your not being bullied, your still allowed to think aren't you you still believe you are right don't you? redstar may be opinionated but this is a fucking debate forum for people who politically think alike no-one said anything about agreeing in philosophy and scientific interpretation. your whinging about bullying i am sorry to say makes me want to slap you with a wet fish.

having re-read the whole thread redstar doesn't agree with you and is giving a fucking good argument against you, thats it. no one likes loosing but it happens.#

amd if you take offence to this i am sorry.

[El Che]

Cephas I'll "whine" whenever I damn feel like it. I know when I'm being insulted and I know how to respond. If you don't mind being accused of having hidden agendas that is your business not mine.

[cubist]

Cephas I'll "whine" whenever I damn feel like it. I know when I'm being insulted and I know how to respond. If you don't mind being accused of having hidden agendas that is your business not mine.

maybe

let me clarify

your allowed to whinge when you want

and

redstar2000 is allowed to question the motives of any human when he wants.

redstars questioning merely shows him as skeptical just becuase he is skeptical doesn't mean we all agree with him. if he is wrong he is wrong if he is right he is right it makes little "real" diference in life its only redstar.

its not like hes tainted your CV

[El Che]

Again if you take insults to your integrity lightly that is your business.

[Severian]

Originally posted by El Che+Mar 25 2004, 05:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Che @ Mar 25 2004, 05:01 PM)1- Strong atheism, an explicit rejection of the existence of any deity, because it is considered an impossibility. This involves positive assertions and explanations of the natural world that don&#39;t require a deity.

2- Weak atheism, a lack of belief in any deity, because it is considered that there is not enough evidence to support its existence. This is related, but not equivalent, to agnosticism, which states that a person cannot have knowledge on the existence nor the inexistence of any deity, or, as is usually used in modern culture, neutrality on the issue.[/b]
Interesting distinction. I&#39;m not sure, though, why "explanations of the natural world that don&#39;t require a deity" belongs in the "strong atheism" column. If you show that natural phenomena don&#39;t require a deity, this debunks attempts to prove the existence of God. It doesn&#39;t disprove that existence, however. It isn&#39;t necessarily an attempt to do so....heck, scientists who are religious believers do the same thing, they look for naturalistic explanations of the world.

If you agree with most of my post, why are you still trying to prove that "atheism is not falsifiable"? Again, it&#39;s not a scientific theory, so it doesn&#39;t have to be.


Originally posted by [email protected]

El Che

You should try and improve your arguing skills beyond baseless accusations, personal abuse and mindless label mongering.

Perhaps...though usually they are sufficient to "win" most arguments.


Redstar speaks truly: baseless accusations, personal abuse and mindless label mongering are indeed how he wins most arguments. Eventually the other party gives up in disgust.

[kroony]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 11:48 PM
I believe you have made a mistake here Arie. If you were to prove the conjecture &#39;the sky is blue&#39; is false then all you would falsify is the conjecuture &#39;the sky is blue&#39;. To falsify flasificationsim itself you would have to flasify a statement like &#39;Falsificationism is true&#39; or &#39;Falsificationism is accurate&#39;. The question we must ask is how does one falsify such a statement? If Popper were alive even he must question how we can falsify such a bizarre statement...to be fair is is about as odd and unfalsifiable as saying &#39;God loves me&#39;
I believe you have made a mistake here Arie. If you were to prove the conjecture &#39;the sky is blue&#39; is false then all you would falsify is the conjecuture &#39;the sky is blue&#39;. To falsify flasificationsim itself you would have to flasify a statement like &#39;Falsificationism is true&#39; or &#39;Falsificationism is accurate&#39;. The question we must ask is how does one falsify such a statement?

Maybe I&#39;m wrong but I&#39;ll make a fist of it anyway.

The sky is blue. There is no need to employ falsificationism or anything else to validate that statement.
Now, Falsificationism would be false if it predicted that something was wrong when it, in fact, is patently true.

How could one "prove" that the sky wasn&#39;t blue other than by looking at it? By comparing the light wavelengths to a colour chart. IF the wavelengths were below a certain level, this would have somewhat dire implications for falsificationism -- because it would claim something as false which we knew to be true. The proposition "things can be provisionally accepted until disproved" would be falsified. Do you see where I&#39;m going?

[cubist]

kroony interesting thought do you know why the sky is blue, i got told once in physics but i have forgotten its about how sunlight refracts i think&#33;&#33;

[El Che]

Severian,

I do indeed agree with your post. The reason for this thread is that Redstar claims, in the dozens of threads on religion that he has participated in, that atheism is scientific. To back this up he offers some gibberish about "burden of proof", "default options" and of course a healthy dose of bullying. Apparently no one has the sense or the balls to call him on his bullshit.

That definition of atheism isn&#39;t the best. To put it simply, I would define strong atheism as the positive claim of the non existence of any deity.

[redstar2000]

Redstar speaks truly: baseless accusations, personal abuse and mindless label mongering are indeed how he wins most arguments.

No sense of humor, Severian? Or just a desire to "make friends" at any cost?

Can you say opportunism? Of course you can.

(You made some good attacks on Buddhism, by the way. You do show considerable ability on occasion...too bad you got hooked up with the SWP-U.S.)


The reason for this thread is that Redstar claims, in the dozens of threads on religion that he has participated in, that atheism is scientific. To back this up he offers some gibberish about "burden of proof", "default options" and of course a healthy dose of bullying. Apparently no one has the sense or the balls to call him on his bullshit.

A brilliant "summary" of my position, El Che. After that, no one has to even bother to read my posts any more. You&#39;ve told them "all" they "need to know".

But even if "the whole world" agrees that "redstar2000 sucks" -- that doesn&#39;t save your position.

You want to "live and let live" with reactionary superstition? Fine. But, be warned, they will not reward your tolerance with a big wet kiss&#33;

As far as they are concerned, your feeble effort to find some intellectually respectable shelter for superstition is just a shabby deceit to disguise your own atheism...and eligibility for a stake right next to mine.

You think "I" am "a big bully"? If things go really badly over the next three or four decades, you might actually experience the "sublime joy" of having your sorry ass hauled before a religious court to "explain" your agnosticism.

Marx once made an off-hand remark at the end of a letter to Engels that went something like "humanity will choose between socialism and barbarism".

If, in the course of the twistings and turnings of history, the barbarians "win" for a while, do not think they will "appreciate" your assistance.

They won&#39;t.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Trissy]

The sky is blue. There is no need to employ falsificationism or anything else to validate that statement.
Now, Falsificationism would be false if it predicted that something was wrong when it, in fact, is patently true.

How could one "prove" that the sky wasn&#39;t blue other than by looking at it? By comparing the light wavelengths to a colour chart. IF the wavelengths were below a certain level, this would have somewhat dire implications for falsificationism -- because it would claim something as false which we knew to be true. The proposition "things can be provisionally accepted until disproved" would be falsified. Do you see where I&#39;m going?


Your first fault is to say that things can be patently true. For a falsificationist things can never be said to be true (let alone patently true), only that they are the most accurate decriptions of phenomena we have at the present time. The whole point of epistemology is that we try to explain why certain things are true. As far as I am concerned science is based upon certain premises which have not and cannot be proven, and as soon as you make assumptions you cannot say that something is &#39;patently true&#39;. You run the risk of becoming merely a dogmatic scientist/philsopher who demands total blind faith.

Your second mistake is to say that if you falsify a conjecture then you falsify falsificationism itself. As I said before all you have succeeded in doing is falsifying the orignal conjecture. After this you must try to put forward a better conjecture that is both falsifiable and withstands falsification.

Finally the proposition "things can be provisionally accepted until disproved" has no specific criteria for falsification. The whole point of falsification is that you are as precise as possible and that you state something that is clearly at stake when you attempt to test it. The proposition "things can be provisionally accepted until disproved" has no such risk in it and is as such meaningless. What possible evidence can I put forward to falisify such a general statement?

[El Che]

Religious beliefs are matter of personal sensibility. I denounce religious persecution as barbarism.

[cubist]

if religion was soley personal i would agree el che, however as all relgions have structure in society and classed hierachy and as there is historical evidence to proove barabaric acts i have to say no your wrong

[God of Imperia]

Believe what you want, but respect another&#39;s freedom

[cubist]

yes i wish to refer to redstar here

respect others opinions? will you respect me if i believe in ELVES and unicorns even though they are unproven to exist?

[God of Imperia]

yes, why not? if you choose to believe that, then why shouldn&#39;t I don&#39;t respect your opinion?

[redstar2000]

If you choose to believe that, then why shouldn&#39;t I respect your opinion?

Because all opinions are not created equal.

Some opinions are thoughtful and well-considered. Other opinions are the rantings of nutballs. Many are "in between".

"Good" opinions -- the ones that may reflect reality with considerable accuracy -- are worthy of respect.

Lousy opinions -- those of racists, for example -- are worthy only of contempt&#33;

You certainly have the "right" to believe in elves -- in fact, there&#39;s no way anyone can stop you from believing in elves if you really want to.

But if you voice such an opinion, people will -- correctly -- regard you as a nutball.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[God of Imperia]

So we agree? You can believe what you want, even in elves. People should respect your opinion, but what they think of you is something diffrent.

[redstar2000]

So we agree? You can believe what you want, even in elves. People should respect your opinion, but what they think of you is something diffrent.

No, we don&#39;t agree. The opinion "believes in elves" is unworthy of respect.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas