I think this is a very good summary of the atheist position. You are right: there is no direct scientific evidence for God. But what often happens with atheists, including figures like Richard Dawkins, is that they turn a blind eye to the more esoteric and mystical dimensions of life. They can fall into a rigid worldview where the demand for scientific evidence overrides the primacy of immediate experience.
There are many things in life for which there may never be direct scientific evidence, yet they exist in consciousness as vividly and meaningfully as anything else. Entertaining non-scientific, mystical, or esoteric explanations is not the same as admitting that they are true. It simply means remaining open to possibilities that science may not yet be equipped to measure or explain.
My argument against atheism is not that it is stupid. It is that, in practice, it often comes at the cost of becoming closed off to alternative explanations. None of us will be here in a thousand years to see what science eventually catches up with. So why not entertain even the strangest ideas now? Some of them may turn out to contain more truth than we currently imagine.
My explanation was very clear that I’ll believe whatever can be demonstrated to be true - reasonable people are not closed off to anything, however whacky. If something spiritual or mystical is detected by a human, it can be studied. I think you, as many have, underestimate the power of the scientific method which does not always require evidence you can put under a microscope or smear in a petri dish. Science can be applied to experience and data about experience. People claim all sorts of experiences but anytime we examine them sceptically they appear to be little more than imagination. This doesn’t make those experiences useless or meaningless. I meditate and do yoga, both of which are often claimed to involve some sort of connection with “something else”. I’ve certainly never connected with anything else other than my own mind, even when on LSD as a younger man. Being reasonable means remaining neutral about things we have insufficient evidence to fully assess. And I am neutral to everything that has not been proven false. I don’t think Dawkins has ever turned a blind eye to evidence, only whacky claims with no or insufficient evidence.
I’m not talking about turning a blind eye to evidence. My point is that RD often seems to dismiss almost anything that is not scientifically provable or empirically testable. But not everything meaningful or truth-oriented can be tested through the scientific method. There are other legitimate modes of inquiry that can help us move closer to truth, including philosophical, moral, historical, experiential, and existential forms of reasoning.
Many atheists, in my view, are hardened to a fault on this point. They are so committed to scientific verification as the only reliable path to knowledge that they are unwilling even to consider alternative ways of approaching truth. Maybe that does not apply to you personally, but I do think it applies to many others.
No, science can be applied to all those things. What specifically are you suggesting humans experience which is both experiential, not trivial and immune to scientific enquiry? And would you believe else's claim of such a thing or would you be skeptical and withhold belief until you saw evidence?
I think this is a very good summary of the atheist position. You are right: there is no direct scientific evidence for God. But what often happens with atheists, including figures like Richard Dawkins, is that they turn a blind eye to the more esoteric and mystical dimensions of life. They can fall into a rigid worldview where the demand for scientific evidence overrides the primacy of immediate experience.
There are many things in life for which there may never be direct scientific evidence, yet they exist in consciousness as vividly and meaningfully as anything else. Entertaining non-scientific, mystical, or esoteric explanations is not the same as admitting that they are true. It simply means remaining open to possibilities that science may not yet be equipped to measure or explain.
My argument against atheism is not that it is stupid. It is that, in practice, it often comes at the cost of becoming closed off to alternative explanations. None of us will be here in a thousand years to see what science eventually catches up with. So why not entertain even the strangest ideas now? Some of them may turn out to contain more truth than we currently imagine.
My explanation was very clear that I’ll believe whatever can be demonstrated to be true - reasonable people are not closed off to anything, however whacky. If something spiritual or mystical is detected by a human, it can be studied. I think you, as many have, underestimate the power of the scientific method which does not always require evidence you can put under a microscope or smear in a petri dish. Science can be applied to experience and data about experience. People claim all sorts of experiences but anytime we examine them sceptically they appear to be little more than imagination. This doesn’t make those experiences useless or meaningless. I meditate and do yoga, both of which are often claimed to involve some sort of connection with “something else”. I’ve certainly never connected with anything else other than my own mind, even when on LSD as a younger man. Being reasonable means remaining neutral about things we have insufficient evidence to fully assess. And I am neutral to everything that has not been proven false. I don’t think Dawkins has ever turned a blind eye to evidence, only whacky claims with no or insufficient evidence.
I’m not talking about turning a blind eye to evidence. My point is that RD often seems to dismiss almost anything that is not scientifically provable or empirically testable. But not everything meaningful or truth-oriented can be tested through the scientific method. There are other legitimate modes of inquiry that can help us move closer to truth, including philosophical, moral, historical, experiential, and existential forms of reasoning.
Many atheists, in my view, are hardened to a fault on this point. They are so committed to scientific verification as the only reliable path to knowledge that they are unwilling even to consider alternative ways of approaching truth. Maybe that does not apply to you personally, but I do think it applies to many others.
No, science can be applied to all those things. What specifically are you suggesting humans experience which is both experiential, not trivial and immune to scientific enquiry? And would you believe else's claim of such a thing or would you be skeptical and withhold belief until you saw evidence?