RE: Atheism the unscientific believe.
July 24, 2015 at 12:49 pm
(This post was last modified: July 24, 2015 at 12:53 pm by Aristocatt.)
A few issues with this account.
Fallacy of Composition.
The example of water need not always apply. Take for example the constant expansion of the universe, or radioactive decay.
Implicitly you assume Dualism, a philosophical hypothesis must be true.
This is currently a pretty big philosophical debate and has nothing to do with science. Suffice it to say science has yet to confirm Dualism, but the very claim of dualism makes it a bad hypothesis since it is close to untestable. So in this part you make a philosophical assertion to make a point about the "anti-scientific" nature of atheism.
Consciousness existing in every cell is a ridiculous assertion.
Consciousness as far as we know from the materialist perspective requires many specific cells organizing in a specific way to provide a certain perspective of our perceptions that allows us to disassociate our actions and body from those of other objects and actions. This is the theory you assumed away in part 2.
From the Dualist perspective, consciousness is not typically asserted as an essential quality of life.
Based on your assertions, if we assume them to be undeniably true and scientific(they aren't), we would actually have to call the vast majority of theists anti-science as well.
Fallacy of Composition.
The example of water need not always apply. Take for example the constant expansion of the universe, or radioactive decay.
Implicitly you assume Dualism, a philosophical hypothesis must be true.
This is currently a pretty big philosophical debate and has nothing to do with science. Suffice it to say science has yet to confirm Dualism, but the very claim of dualism makes it a bad hypothesis since it is close to untestable. So in this part you make a philosophical assertion to make a point about the "anti-scientific" nature of atheism.
Consciousness existing in every cell is a ridiculous assertion.
Consciousness as far as we know from the materialist perspective requires many specific cells organizing in a specific way to provide a certain perspective of our perceptions that allows us to disassociate our actions and body from those of other objects and actions. This is the theory you assumed away in part 2.
From the Dualist perspective, consciousness is not typically asserted as an essential quality of life.
Based on your assertions, if we assume them to be undeniably true and scientific(they aren't), we would actually have to call the vast majority of theists anti-science as well.
