Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
There is an area of science that is rarely spoken of. This area sits outside of facts and proof, it sits in an area of imagination, of possibility, a dream state. There must first be a seed, an idea, a belief and faith that what you imagine is a real possibility. Only by visiting this place can science begin to change the world, but it must first be a non-provable, non-verifiable entity. What separates this from religion is our consciousness is greater that we can possibly believe. Religion says, "God did it!"
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” – Nikola Tesla
Science already does this. In the scientific method has it baked in. Hypothesis. It starts there, it just does not mean much until it can be tested, repeated, verified and conclusions drawn etc.
And science does study non physical phenomena all the time. Ofcourse I suppose that depends on exactly what you mean by non physical phenomena. Science has made more advancement in the last decade then it has in its first century of when the term "science" was popularized. I do agree with greater acceptance, funding, and global effort, science could get to the point where in a single decade it makes more progress than the rest of science history combined. Also again you have to carefully define the word progress. The quote is good, but it is also very subjective.
The problem with science studying the non-physical is all measuring equipment is physical. Without measurement, it isn't science.
I'd agree with you on this one. Science does a great job explaining the physical. What it can't do is study the non-physical.
It is interesting that the areas that are immune to the rigors of science, are the same areas we can't be sure even exist. Now maybe you see that as something magical; but I see that as something that demands skepticism.
What it can't do is study the non-physical.
And if it is non-physical, why should I even believe it?
rmfr
@JoC
And what non physical things are there? Depending on your definition of physical, for me everything is physical, only our thoughts, the ideas etc we create in our own heads could maybe be argued as non physical, but even that has physical links. The thought is no more if the physical head it originates from is disabled or destroyed. Thoughts are even highly vulnerable to other physical forces, alcohol, marijuana, opiates etc.
Even the god concept in our heads is highly influenced by the physical. I very very strongly do not believe in god, but I have no illusion, if someone were to expertly torture me with physical torture and drugs, I would truly believe in whichever god concept they wanted me to believe in after enough time of the torture, I would probably not even last very long. Same for the religious believers. We would do just about anything to escape the physical and mental assault.
"I'd agree with you on this one. Science does a great job explaining the physical. What it can't do is study the non-physical."
Or anything non-existent.
To everyone who reacted to "why study the non-physical?", here's my reply.
Do you realize that numbers are non-physical? Right and wrong as, well, are non-physical. Beauty is as well, non-physical. The Mind (distinguished from the brain) is non-physical. Free will is non-physical. Should we not study these things at all?
JoC,
Numbers belong to a self-contained system of logic. I agree with you in that there is no such thing as the number 1 in the physical world! But, you can't prove anything about the physical world with just numbers and math.
Right and wrong are theories on how one should behave. You are only dealing with beings that are known to exist, there being no logical means to go beyond that. That is, we would be talking about how physical humans think physical humans should behave--a very physical subject! God is not a necessary part of that discussion.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and has no objective reality beyond that. Beauty is tied to physical processes even as the color white is. They have no independent, objective existence, Plato notwithstanding.
Yes, there is good reason to study the non-physical mathematics, but you are roaming around in a closed system of logic--not the real world. A study of morality and beauty is a study of physical things because morality and beauty cannot be separated from the physical world.
Who said there is anything beyond the brain? Compare the brain to a computer, and the mind to the information on that running computer. The mind would then be the chronological states that computer is in. Hence, a study of the mind would boil down to a study of the physical brain. Outside of being an operation in the brain, mind has no meaning.
A study of free will is a study of whether we have real choices or not. Thus, it involves a study of our physical nature. Is the universe so constituted that we have no free choice? Sounds like a very physical study to me!
By all means study these subjects, but do realize that outside of mathematics you would be studying physical things in these examples you gave.
You're forcing these things to be physical things in the universe, which they're not.
Yet, they have their basis in the "physical."
rmfr
Anything that exists in the mind is just as physical as anything outside the mind.
JoC,
Is there a non-physical? Now, I'm not talking about math here! How could a non-physical thing affect a physical thing if not through some kind of force field--a very physical thing? A non-physical entity would have to get physical to affect the world of atoms and energy, which is something it can't possibly do since it is non-physical.
If there is no non-physical, then it is no shortcoming if science can't study it!
lain,
"The day that science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." -Nikola Tesla
How does one study non-physical phenomena? How does one measure non-physical phenomena? We can measure radio waves, and even gravity waves, but I have no idea how we would measure non-physical phenomena. If we are talking about non-falsifiable ideas then the day that science begins to study such is the day that science becomes a useless debating society.
Would you consider an emotion non physicial? How would you study joy, fear, anger and so on?
How about studying social interaction? these things are not really measurable, but they exist.
Emotions reflect states in the body caused by chemicals. When you study such things, you need to describe them and then explore what causes those states.
someone up this thread asked for a specific example concerning epistomology apparently in order to deepen the discussion.
I'll give an example atheists often offer me.
1. they say they deal in emperical evidence as their summary of the "scientific method".
2. they also say they believe in abiogenesis.
My first question is who observed abiogenesis? The answer is nobody did. Yet they claim they know abiogenesis was the beginning of life.
From that example we might gleen some insights into what is meant by scientific knowledge. One insight might be that despite what atheists claim, we don't have to observe what we know.
Yes? No? Maybe?
@Apollo Re: "One insight might be that despite what atheists claim, we don't have to observe what we know."
I noticed in that post you certainly do throw around the word "they" quite a bit (referring to atheists, I do believe). As if you are placing every atheist everywhere into some sort of general belief pool. Well, for the sake of being blunt, that was a mistake.
Let's take your example of abiogenesis as a sample, shall we? Now, personally, I really had no real knowledge of abiogenesis until AFTER I became an atheist and joined this site. Despite my deep interests in nerdy science stuff, abiogenesis was never one of those things that caught my attention. Therefore, it has/had absolutely no bearings whatsoever on my being an atheist. Simply was never a factor. Granted, having read a bit more about it since joining this site, I find it to be a fascinating subject. Cool stuff. Still, it has nothing to do with why I am an atheist.
Next, I have a couple of friends who are atheists in the real world outside this site. One of those friends in particular is an awesome guy, and a whiz at fixing cars and automotive stuff. Doesn't know much of anything at all about advanced sciences or philosophy, though. (And, quite frankly, he really doesn't care.) Just a simple guy with a heart of gold and ton of common sense about him. If you were to mention abiogenesis to him, he would likely look at you and go, "What the fuck is that, and what the fuck does it have to do with my not believing in a god?" Two totally fair and reasonable questions, I would say. Sure, there are atheists out there who study subjects such as abiogenesis and are total geniuses and absolutely swear by their studies and scientific methods to support their positions on atheism. So what? But for you to say "they believe in abiogenesis", and that "they deal in emperical evidence as their summary of the "scientific method"". as if that applies to every single atheist across the board? That is completely inaccurate and totally absurd. Nice try, though. Thanks for playing. Johnny, tell him what his consolation prize is.....
(Edited to insert proper name, because obviously I cannot read so very well.)
Tin-man,
You're funny. The OP asked about epistomology, so I responed concerning epistomology. You don't like the topic, don't respond. The "they" didn't refer to all atheists, it referred to atheists who are a bit more educated than you are.
Moreover, the atheist who refered me to this site claimed that abiogenisis and evolution proved god didin't exist and that all athiests were science based so couldn
t be mistaken about anything, and they all knew about evolution and abiogenisis. You have helped me prove him wrong. thanks. And there is nothing wrong with being a grease monkey, so keep enjoying all that cool stuff.
@Apollo Re: "Tin-man, You're funny."
Really? How am I funny?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5QAHzu_kAc
Tin-Man,
That's hilarious. Now how about the topic: "the Problem with Epistomology" as per the OP?
Oh, I get it - All you have to offer is bombast bluster and blather.
@Apollo Re: "The "they" didn't refer to all atheists, it referred to atheists who are a bit more educated than you are."
Phew! Oh, praise Jesus! I shore wurnt wantin' to be ass-sociated with any of them more smarter and more educateder atheists! We simple folk half standurds an' all, ya know. An' I shore be happy I cud be of help in sittin' yer friend strate. Heck, me an' yew cud make a reely gud teem.... *fist bump*....
Tin-Man,
Yep, more blather, and nothing of substance.
@Apollo The creation of amino acids has for example been recreated in the laboratory. As far as I am aware, the only stumbling block remaining is recreating the origin of ribosomes.
@Tin-man
Not my quote. Readdress your snark appropriately.
@quip
Yep, already on it, big guy. Snark has been redirected to appropriate recipient. My apologies for the mix-up. I really should get better glasses. *chuckle*
wow, tin-man, now you're being ganged up on, now. problem is who can tell which is which, can you? I never trust an AR user without a photo for the profile; it smacks of integrity. HAR!
@MB Re: "wow, tin-man, now you're being ganged up on,..."
Nah. In all fairness, Mr. quip just got caught in the crossfire due to my having a brain-fart. His warning shot was justified. As for Apollo, I was just entertaining myself. I rather enjoy a good tit-for-tat from time to time, but it can sometimes be difficult finding a worthy fencing opponent. I was just testing the waters. Having a bit of fun. Some folks get way too serious on here sometimes. *chuckle* Thanks for having my back, though. *grin*
@arakish
"Only definition 1 would be acceptable with the listed stipulations."
That's a functional view of reality, which serves a valuable (acceptable) purpose, obviously.
Though one cannot ultimately prove this to be the case. Take mathematics which governs our universe (the closest we have to an absolute) cannot ultimately be proven to be true. Are you familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorems?
Pages