Atheism: The True Path?

[fr0d0]

Like the Greeks, I would (and have as you know from my opening debate post) argue that inductive reasoning (which is what science is) is the only truly valid form of philosophy in a real, knowledge acquisition sense. In one sense I suppose theology isn't a subject in the same way that geography isn't really a subject but I would say a "subject" is an area of study defined by people and in that sense it is.

Scientific reasoning is absolutely one astounding tool deserving of serious respect. I don't see though, how the method of reasoning defines the philosophy.

Scientific proof of God is theoretically impossible, so that's horribly wrong. As above, I need to be convinced that Science is a philosophical stance. At present I just don't see it (see reasons above).

For reasons already given (primarily because in order to affect the world something, an effect, must happen and any effect will have measurable parameters) I do not accept that reasoning as valid. It's worth noting that a scientific theory represents the highest possible explanation available to science and in no way does referring to your ideas as "theoretical" grant them anything even approaching that level of explanation.

You cant know for sure the cause, so the reasoning from science is the same for both atheism and theism, it being after the fact.

I totally agree with you about the validity of scientific theory.

Well that seems very weird to me that you can understand/ claim that science is a philosophy along with Buddhism and Christianity.

I just did a quick google and the answers.com dictionary definition of 'philosophy' states:

"Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods."

What do you think?

Here's one I prepared earlier:

Philosophy seems to have (as is usual within the English language) a correct meaning and a number of common usage meanings but, thanks to Asimov (who was one of those dratted Doctor's of Philosophy as you probably know) and his "New Guide to Science", it appears that it derives from the ancient Greeks. Asimov devotes some space to philosophy where he referred to the Greek investigations of the universe and that they called (and I quote) 'their new manner of studying the universe philosophia ("philosophy"), meaning "love of knowledge" or, in free translation, "the desire to know"'(page 8). I would argue that it is because current day philosophers seem to provide little or no direct value to the real world that much of the philosophy bandied about today is little more than academic psychobabble. The true philosophers are scientists.

That's a bit harsh (strict) in this context so I guess I would say a philosophy (in a more general sense) is something that guides your life, affects the way you think and evaluate things ... for me that is science and it is the science that has led me to atheism.

Kyu

I thought it was "love of wisdom".

This may be unfair, but I'll say it anyway. Please forgive the insensitivity.. To me it seems you're squirming to fit the answer to the question.

Science leads me to greater insight and understanding of the physical universe. It's limited to that. (there's an opening if I ever saw one!