RE: Atheism. The UNscientific belief (part two)
November 9, 2015 at 10:59 am
(This post was last modified: November 9, 2015 at 11:13 am by Whateverist.)
Re the title of the OP: Is it scientifically naive to look toward science for evidence of God's nonexistence? All one can really do is find evidence against any empirical claims that religion makes. So long as religion contents itself with a non-empirical domain it is safe from the scrutiny of science. But what empirical claims are really essential to a religion?
Lots of religions have an origins tale to tell. But it shouldn't be too hard for a religious person to be modern enough to shrug and admit no one really knows what there was at the most remote of times. That relates both to cosmic origins and human origins.
Then there are the claims some religions make about an afterlife. Here too I don't see why a modern religious person can't shrug and admit it is a mystery.
Of course very few Christian people in my experience are so humble in their perceived epistemic position. If the humble ever do inherit the earth there will be very few xtians counted among their number.
Lots of religions have an origins tale to tell. But it shouldn't be too hard for a religious person to be modern enough to shrug and admit no one really knows what there was at the most remote of times. That relates both to cosmic origins and human origins.
Then there are the claims some religions make about an afterlife. Here too I don't see why a modern religious person can't shrug and admit it is a mystery.
Of course very few Christian people in my experience are so humble in their perceived epistemic position. If the humble ever do inherit the earth there will be very few xtians counted among their number.
