Atheists: Why are you not skeptical of some scientific data (ie. Pluto's not a planet anymore) ...?

Question

... but are skeptical about the existence of God? No one has seen or been on Pluto (many details about Pluto will remain unknown until 2015, when the New Horizons spacecraft is expected to arrive there.**). Many are certain about the atmospheric composition and size of Pluto, relying only on spectroscopic data and enormous telescopes. We don't have first hand experience on Pluto, but we assume it exists. So what is different about believing in God? Alot of people have first hand experience with God and His grace, but atheists still do not believe He exists. Puzzling....


** Space Probe Heads To Pluto - Finally. CBS News (2006-01-19).

Answer 1

The beauty of science is it changes when there are better facts. Religion doesn't.

I'll bet anyone $100.00 Jesus isn't coming back. People have delusions of God and his grace.

I know a little about diet and fitness. I don't take anything at face value unless it has backing like a university study or is in chemical abstracts.

Answer 2

There is evidence that Pluto exists, and what it's atmosphere and size and composition are.

There is no evidence of god.

About Pluto's "not being a planet anymore" as you put it; Pluto didn't change in any way.

When it was first discovered it was called a planet since it seemed more like the other planets than it did comets.

Back then they didn't realize how many things, and how many kinds of things, orbit the sun.

So they classified it as well as they could.

Now that we know more (a LOT more) about all the stuff orbiting the sun, they've improved the categorization scheme.

Pluto was always an odd-ball among the planets; it fits better in its new category.

That's all. Nothing magical happened to Pluto.

When you say "relying only on spectorscopic data and enormous telescopes" that's a LOT better evidence and reason than that for god, which is none at all.

There may be a lot of people who believe that they have an imaginary friend that they talk to and that talks to them.

That is no reason to believe the friend is real.

People believe all kinds of false things.

With no evidence, and no reason to believe, I don't believe.

Since there IS evidence and reason to believe Pluto exists, I believe it does.

The science seems shaky to you because you don't understand it.

Answer 3

You have raised an interesting epistemological question - which is - how do we know that what we know as truth is indeed true?

Now the truth of something can be verified through the *convergence principle* - which states that if the same "fact" is attained through two sources that are *independent* of each other (which means that there is *no* influence of one upon the other prior to the fact of the convergence itself), then that preported fact can be judged as the truth.


Now, how does this apply to astronomy?


For example, how do we verify that the helio-centric model of the solar system is correct rather than the geo-centric model (remember, the old system was thought to be correct when it was believed)?

The answer is, by applying the principle of convergence.


Not only have the planets and the sun been viewed and measured by ground based telescopes, but they have been observed by spacecraft travelling through the solar system - not only that, radar has been bounced off of those objects to return a time delay and relative strength signal.

So with the heliocentric model of the solar system, it is proven true because there are not two, but three (or more) independent sources verifying it.


For the same reason, Jesus said that two or more witnesses are required to verify a claim (but of course, it has to be proven first that the witnesses are truly independent and that they are not acting in collusion).


The problem with the geo-centric model is that there was only one source for that "fact" - which is simply the view that men had from Earth with the naked eye and other ground based observing instruments.



.

Answer 4

Honestly I never felt Pluto was a planet considering it's size, distance from the Sun and very eccentric orbit. My original idea was it was a Neptunian satellite that had been knocked out of it's orbit. Then scientists recently reclassified it as a Kuiper belt object which suited me just fine.

As for the rest of it, it's actually very simple. We can see Pluto, we can measure it, we can gauge it against other planets/objects, we can see the gravitational effects it has on Charon and so on. In other words, we can prove that it's real.

There's no proof for god. We can't see him or measure him in any way yet you believe that he's real? The only things we have to prove his existence is a very old book full of contradictions and personal experience. Well, those don't really count for much as a lot of people have had personal experience with aliens, Elvis and the Loch Ness Monster and there are books on these things too. Are you then saying that they're right and these things also exist? You must also believe this if you're willing to apply this proof it to your god.

Puzzling....

Answer 5

It depends on the data. We are skeptical based on the evidence we're presented with. The better the evidence, the less skeptical we are. That's how science works. That's how it's supposed to work.
We're skeptical about the existence of God because there is absolutely NO evidence at all that God exists. None. There is no evidence that God is anything but a fictional character made up by ancient men to explain things that they didn't understand.
"There is no domain of human knowledge or endeavor that is more open to scrutiny than science; it is the very nature of science that it be honest, fair, and aboveboard, ready at all times to admit it's errors and revise it's theories, and when scientists are caught faking their laboratory results, in support of doubtful hypothesis, they know they have bought their careers a one-way ticket to oblivion. Without the checks on it's practices, science would be doomed to failure: serious researchers would be few and beleaguered, and we would have no polio vaccine, no space flights, no television, no computers, not even plastic garbage bags." (Tim M. Berra)
Scientists are always ready and willing to admit when they're wrong, or if a mistake has been made. Religion, on the other hand, will not. It will deliberately and consciously tip results to favor it's beliefs, and ignore, or reject any results contrary to it's beliefs. People have even been known to say that legitimate evidence was "planted" by Satan to "trick" us.

Answer 6

There are pictures of Pluto through telescopes, just as there are pictures of Neptune and the Asteroid Belt. We also don't have first hand data on other planets, such as Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune, just pictures transmitted by fly-by satellites. So, by your logic, they may not exist. Then again, the only data we have on the sun is from satellites, spectroscopic data, and the fact that people see it during the day time.

Just because some people have experienced God's grace doesn't mean that their experiences are meaningful to everyone else. Some one can swear they were abducted by aliens, but that doesn't mean that everyone finds it meaningful, too. Just as not everyone finds meaning in Mozart's music or Picasso's paintings.

Answer 7

"Alot of people have first hand experience with God and His grace"

People also claim to have had experiences with other gods, too. There are plenty of Muslims out there who say they've had experiences that prove, without a doubt, that Allah exists. Same with Hindus and every other religion. What about them?

And I don't understand your point with the Pluto thing. If it turns out that science has it wrong with Pluto, it'll admit its error and make the necessary changes. That's what makes science so great. Anything in science could be wrong; in fact, any decent scientist would WELCOME it if someone could explain why something is wrong. That's not the case with religion; that's the difference.

Answer 8

Science is always evolving as better and more accurate methods of discovery are invented..

Science is not stagnant new things are always being discovered to prove old hypotheses or suggest new ones..

Religion and the bible on the other hand has remained relatively unchanged for hundreds of years.. (I say hundreds because over the years different bibles were compiled including and excluding books)..

Your question would be the same as me asking why do religious people not question the inconsistancies in their "holy books" why do religious people call blind obedience faith.. Why do religious people assume the words supposedly written hundreds if not thousands of years ago are true.. Can it be proved that the exact words found in the bible are the exact words supposedly written 2000 years ago.. Is the original text available to prove without a doubt that what a religious person reads in a bible is the exact words written by the exact hand of the supposed author?

Both sceince and religion have unanswered questions... In sceince the ultimate goal is to answer all the unanswered questions.. In religion all the unanswered questions are automatically refered to the "Because that's the way the chosen deity(s) did it." box..

Just like early civilizations explained the not understood with a deity or legend modern religion continues to lump sum explain...

Sceintific study explained to us many of the things early civilizations attributed to a deity(s) it is there for logical to think that as sceince continues to improve with invention of instruments more and more will be explained until everything attributed to a deity is explained..

Answer 9

Gee, a, mam, but we are skeptical about Pluto (not that it makes any difference; we could call Pluto a ham sandwich and it would still be out there) . One of the things about being an atheist is that we have a healthy dose of skepticism about everything---and have rejected myths and fairy tales as the guiding light for our lives. Again, as far as Pluto goes, astronomy and all the sciences invite, in fact require, skepticism. Scientists, the sciences, are not afraid of skeptical inquiry...

Answer 10

This is so ridiculous that I can barely type.

We do not "assume" that Pluto exists. We KNOW it exists because we can see it using telescopes. If you can build a telescope that can see God, then you can make the comparison.

As for whether or not Pluto is a planet, I really couldn't care less about what you choose to call it.

Answer 11

1st off Pluto does exist. We didnt make it up out of no where.

2nd.. the fact that Pluto use to be a planet.. and is not anyone does NOT interest me in the slightest... Its still there.. Nothing happened to it Man just does not consider it a planet anymore.
now if it shrunk .. heh.. or completely disappeard .. then that would be interesting