Are most atheists really radical empiricists?

Question

I am not bashing atheists here, so please don't go there. When I have directed any questions to atheists that hint about the existence of God or the limitations of science, about 80% of the time I get a response something like, "If there's no scientific proof or evidence then there's no reason for me to believe..." It suggests that their agenda is to wipe out all forms of dogma, and by definition "dogma" is a belief held despite insufficient grounds (not much more than an opinion to empiricists). This insistence on believing only what solid observations can support seems paramount to both atheists and the most radical empiricists, so I'm wondering if it's the case that atheists are really radical empiricists.

Further clarification:

atheist: A person who does not believe God exists.

empiricist: A person who relies soley on external observation (as opposed to both introspection and observation) to determine reality.

~~~~

Defintion of empirical from ebsters collegiate dictionary:

"originating in or based on observation..."

--and the term "empiricist" is in relation to this term in its common usage, particularly in the sciences.

~~~~

Now I can see radical empiricists and those whose "faith" is soley in logic have been drawn to this question, so make sure all of you invalidate my question by picking out words telling me I'm using a wrong term, etc. I guess atheists, logisticians, and radical empiricists are asking the only valid questions. Unbelievable.


~~~~

Andymc: Unbelievable rhetoric in what you say. It may be "logical" to disbelieve God exists but it is not necessarily "correct" unless you believe the world is 100% logical!

EXCELLENT point taken from another question of similar relevance:

"Even numbers and scientific facts are manipulated to someones desires."

~~~~

Answer 1

The short answer to your question is Yes. Why believe in something if there is no evidence to support (or more importantly, to refute) such a belief? There are far better things to do with one's time. It can be shown that the usefulness (i.e., predictive power) of any theory derives exclusively from its refutability, and it immediately follows that an irrefutable theory is useless. That means that evidence is the key. And, yes, to wipe out all forms of dogma is very much part of the agenda -- we want people to use their brains effectively. One quibble: I'm not sure that the use of the word "radical" adds much to the sense of your question.

Answer 2

Empiricism, as a philosophy, is about deducing knowledge from sense-based experience.

If someone considers that they have no sense-based experience which is sufficient and necessary to deduce the existence of 'god', then it would be reasonable to call that atheist position an empirical one. But it is very wrong to say that it has no use for introspection.

Answer 3

i'm guessing you're being humorous right here yet... (enable me first say that i do no longer in any way advocate Pedobear or his ideologies - heck, i do no longer even understand him or his ideals) What i think of he became attempting to place across is the very outspoken atheists who make an ardent attempt to place across to others that God would not exist, consistent with possibility alongside the strains of the Dawkins character. no longer that that style of habit is radical yet relative to the save-to-themselves, do no longer-hassle-different-persons-approximately-what-to-b... atheists, those characters might look radical. As for why you are not getting it, what is going to we anticipate from a double-planker besides? i'm kidding, i've got in no way snowboarded and use 2 sticks myself. Peace, bill

Answer 4

Scientific belief is based on observation and experiment. External observation is just half the story.

Answer 5

You just can't get away from the fact that it is logical and correct to disbelieve that God exists if there is no evidence to prove that he does. It's a basic philosophical tenet-it means that atheism is the logical default.

Answer 6

If we weren't talking about the whether or not god exists, you would be in total agreement with atheists.
For example, if someone said that there are giant, invisible, fire-breathing dragons circling the earth at each pole, you would (hopefully) not be saying "well, I can't prove that they aren't. it sounds like it could be true".
No. You would say "no, that's just silly. nobody can believe that without some kind of evidence".
The only reason you don't agree with atheists in this circumstance is that it's regarding "god".
There's my two cents...

Answer 7

Atheists = blind empiricist

All evidence points to intelligent design, except they are to conceited, and arrogant to accept this.

[017:072] And whoever is blind in this world (i.e., does not see God's Signs and believes not in Him), will be blind in the Hereafter, and more astray from the Path.

[010:036] And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, God is All-Knower of what they do.

Answer 8

Wrong on your definition of empiricist, in fact it takes but a second to realise you are wrong. What is a theory except a product of reflection?

Answer 9

I prefer realist. First off, look how the religious define their god. He is all knowing and all powerful... Yet they cannot see that a god with these traits would never need to kill his own creations.

Answer 10

uh-oh you just opend up a floodgate i hope you have insurance for flooding