A question concerning scientific, materialistic, atheism...???

Question

This is a serious question, not a malicious one.

It seems to me that many atheists (not all) hold science to be the only form of genuinely true knowledge. Science in this case being that which can be measured, weighed, observed, tested, etc. (Philosophically it is called empiricism).

However, it seems to me that those whom claim this are not aware of the contradiction they are making. To claim: "science is the only valid or true form of knowledge" is not itself scientific claim. We cannot put the value of scientific knowledge itself "under a microscope" as it were. We cannot evaluate the value of scientific knowledge itself, in any material way. Don't those whom hold that scientific knowledge is the only valid form onf knowledge necessarily exclude the value of scientific knowledge by their strict restriction of "valid" or "true" knowledge?

Thoughts?

Ok, sorry for the grammer issues.

I see this is a confusing issue here. I'm not speaking of scientific knowledge as a whole.

Rather the claim: "the only form of knowledge which is valid or true is that which is garnored by scientific means"

THAT CLAIM is not garnored by scientific means. If they claim is not garnored by scientific means, then would not the atheists have to concede that there are other valid forms of knowledge: logic, metaphysics, epistemology, mathematics, etc.

Does that help to clear things up?

The point I'm getting at is I don't think there is only one true form of knowledge but many. I owe that idea to my studying of philosophy.

There are those that hold empiricism (scientific knowledge) to have a sort of monopoly over truth. I'm just trying to point out the inconsistency in actually holding that notion to be true.

I'm so glad some of you got it!

^.^

Answer 1

As an atheist outside the normal mold I would like to offer some thoughts.

Scientific knowledge is, by definition, a process and not an end result. It is clear that we lack sufficient data to really make valid theories concerning such matters as cosmology.

No offense is meant to science here... indeed quite the opposite. The continuing search to expand our understanding of the universe must first be predicated by the simple admission that we are not even close to this goal.

Consider the matter of the Newtonian conception, as it contrasts the Einsteinian conception of basic laws and principles.

Newton believed, because he did not have sufficient evidence to postulate otherwise, that there was such a thing as an absolute time and space, and that the universe functioned rather like some kind of enormous clock, where this action here resulted in this reaction there. He was unable to conceive of the notion of action at a distance, or that effects could be transmitted without an apparent medium. He had as part of his logical framework the underlying idea that there could be some real concept of simultaneous action, and that this could be quantified in some way.

What Einstein hinted at, working after the equations of Maxwell revealed that light was not some kind of fluid or material thing, was that a) there could be no real way to determine the simultenaity of given events... the inability to define simultenaity led relentlessly to the ideas of relativity, and Newton's staid clockwork version of the universe was revealed for a kind of delusion. With Einstein we stepped away from a set of theories, some of which were valid and valuable, and some of which could be discarded to make way for new thought.

Science then is a process, with no assumption of an ultimate final comprehensive answer to the puzzles of our universe.

What religious people seem not to grasp in all this is that it doesn't contradict science to believe or not believe in god. Belief is irrelevant. We may actually come up to some great clue as we probe the universe that reveals the answer to this question...

Answer 2

Actually, I happen to think that scientific knowledge makes itself more and more valuable thanks to the following improvements in the past two centuries:

Electricity
Fiber optic cables
Telephone
Internet
vaccine for polio, black plague, meningitus, mumps, measles, crop rotation, pesticides, genetic engineering, astronomy, cosmology, space exploration, etc.
Cars planes, boats, elevators, nylon, plastic, stem cell research.

Science saves lives. Let me put it this way: Without science, billions of people would be dead today. Most of the Romans died around the age of 25, and they were innovators for their time. The value of scientific knowledge is infinitely apparent to anyone who lives in a modern society

What has faith and personal revelation given us? While they may inspire the arts and discussions on human psychology, they do not explain the natural world -- that's their limitation.

Here's a few science quotes that I find interesting:

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?
Carl Sagan

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.
Carl Sagan

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
Carl Sagan

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]

The major religions on the Earth contradict each other left and right. You can't all be correct. And what if all of you are wrong? It's a possibility, you know. You must care about the truth, right? Well, the way to winnow through all the differing contentions is to be skeptical. I'm not any more skeptical about your religious beliefs than I am about every new scientific idea I hear about. But in my line of work, they're called hypotheses, not inspiration and not revelation. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 162. ]

P.S. I also have a problem with you calling atheists materialistic, buddy. We all live in a free market economy and acquire goods. Like the computer you asked this question on.

Answer 3

It is useful, from a strictly logical perspective, to avoid absolute statements such as "____ is the only true source of knowledge." So, yes, the strict logician must agree with you. (I do.) The good empiricist will try to avoid this trap.

However, the claim of relative value can be expressed. Is science a much better form of acquiring knowledge than religion? YES. Is science a much better source of truth? YES. The case supporting science over religion has become so overwhelmingly solid, especially since the Enlightenment, that we often tend to forget that it's better to avoid the absolute statements. Scientists are usually the first ones to mention that their discoveries are only provisional, and will only elevate guesses to theories as the evidence becomes (generally) conclusive.

Good question!

Answer 4

I agree!

While science cannot prove the existence of God, it cannot disprove Him either. There are a lot of philosophical proofs for the existence of God. Philosophical proofs are good proofs but it doesn't have to be scientific.

To Tardis Girl, I think materialism here is being talked about philosophically. It means that matter is the only reality.

Answer 5

i am willing to concede that this is not a malicious question but it certainly is not serious either. science demonstrably generates reliable knowledge about nature, precisely because the knowledge generated is not held to be absolutely true - it is tested repeatedly. if you know of another method of generating such knowledge, perhaps you should do everyone a favour and explain it.

Answer 6

what's the clever reward to mankind having 4000 plus religions, quite a few that have been, and specially cases nonetheless are, at conflict with one yet another? a faith that led to the better than 1000 years of the darkish a while? Is there something of fee in faith, or is it abject hatred? seem at something with a slender sufficient attitude and it could grow to be something poor. definite, good works are performed by making use of excellent people interior the call of this faith or the different, yet atheists additionally do good works of their very very own call (invoice Gates may be the main recognizable call), or extremely oftentimes, anonymously. could all Christians relatively stop doing good works if Jesus grew to become into shown to be a sham? i like to think of no longer!

Answer 7

Actually, science knows it's limits. With concepts like Godel's incompleteness theorems and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (especially observer effect), the limits to knowledge are well characterized.

"My wife should be home at five." is not scientific knowledge. It is knowledge, nonetheless.

Answer 8

knowledge is the key and the only way to get somewhere..
train your brain I would say the more the better no strings attached.. no limits ..its freedom ,science conflict questions solutions its awareness .. awareness the true meaning of freedom and believe

Answer 9

CCC 159 - Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

Source(s):
Catechism Of The Catholic Church
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt3.htm#art2

Answer 10

I'd say this: nonscientific knowledge is essentially revalation, revalation is personal, and so does not cross the boundary to other people. Including that runs you pretty rapidly toward solipsism.