A New Way of Looking at Atheism..

[genkaus]

That is what I hear and read, especially by the famous atheist propagandists such as Sagan and Harris, if there are atheists who claim to be so but not on scientific grounds then this argument shouldn’t concern them so much.

The reason it concerns us has nothing to do with the reason for our atheism. Even if my atheism is not based on scientific grounds, I disagree with the claim that some field of existence is beyond the realm of science.

How can we investigate an immaterial reality with a material tool? Science as we all know uses logic + material tools including our senses, unless you believe it is possible to see immaterial things under the microscope then that is a whole different issue.

Like I said before, SCIENCE IS NOT JUST A MATERIAL TOOL.

I think you realize that your statement is wrong, but you simply refuse to see it. Science uses observation - that is its tool to investigate the material world. Science also uses logic and reason (as you know very well by your own words) - that is its tool to investigate the "immaterial" world.

To give an example - Computer Science is almost completely conceptual or immaterial. As is the field of psychology or behavioral science. Neither the programming languages nor your desires or motivations have concrete material existence. And still they can be investigated by science.

What are the contributions of science in the realm of metaphysics? Nothing! It can’t even tell if there is a world other than the material one or not.

Bullshit. Go through the Wikipedia article on metaphysics and see how deeply science is involved with metaphysics.

Since logic as you have said is higher than science, then it is impossible for science to investigate and study logic, because if it does it would be higher than logic. This contradicts what you have said earlier that science studies everything that exits.

On the contrary, it is because science derives from logic that it can be used to verify logic against objective reality. Logical reality cannot be at odds with objective reality. If a contradiction is found, either there is an error in your deductions or in your observations. Science is the only way you have of finding out if there is an error.

As an analogy - if you write a computer program, you are using logic to determine what it should do. If you observe that it does not do what it should do, then there is an error in your logic.

This also supports the argument that atheism cannot be based on scientific foundations; it is rather based on philosophical ones.

Atheism is a belief and as any belief it can be based on anything or nothing at all. What you probably mean is that atheism cannot rationally be based on science. But then theism cannot be rationally based on anything.

What you said means you didn’t base your choice of atheism on scientific basis but on logical ones, in my argument I proved that atheism can’t be based on science, and so far no one refuted that.

Others have. Since I don't base my atheism on science, I cannot.

Concerning your atheism, you claim to base it on logic. Logically, there is a creator for every created, nothing creates itself, which makes belief in god more reasonable than atheism. This is simple logic.

Not simple, simplistic. There are two very crucial hidden premises in that argument. The complete form of your argument is as follows:

Premise 1: Everything that is created has a creator.
Premise 2: Everything that exists or ever existed has been created.
Premise 3: The entity that can be called a creator is necessarily conscious.

Conclusion: Everything was created by god.

Now for the examination of these premises:

Premise 1: This is tautologically true and therefore redundant.
Premise 2: This is incorrect. For something to be "created" there needs to exist a spatio-temporal context. If such a context is absent, the object cannot be said to be "created", by itself or anything else.
Premise 3: Also wrong. Things are created by unconscious natural processes all the time. Incidentally, this is an example of science being applied to logic.

Therefore, your conclusion is wrong.

Since you admitted your belief in immaterial thing through logic, then what on what logic did you base your disbelief in the possibility of god‘s existence?

The primacy of existence, ofcourse.

How can one say that the immaterial is unknowable while reason and even knowledge itself are immaterial?! This would be nonsensical, when I said the immaterial is outside the scope science I didn’t mean it is outside the scope of knowledge or reason, by science I mean the method of knowledge that utilizes material tools and starts from material phenomena, and that can’t be applicable to something immaterial like ideas, feelings or consciousness.

The only error here is the assumption that because science utilizes material tools and starts from material phenomena, it cannot be applicable to something immaterial like ideas, feelings or consciousness. That would require the immaterial to exist independently from the material. It doesn't.

That statement needs proof. We have knowledge about things but we didn’t acquire it through reason

Proof is in the definition of the word. Knowledge is defined as "justified true belief". It has to be in agreement with the facts and it has to be justified. There is no other way to have knowledge other than reason, whether it be our own or someone else's.

on what reason did we base our knowledge that music is beautiful?

That is not knowledge, it is an opinion. Beauty is not a matter of fact and therefore any idea about beauty is not a matter of knowledge.

Or that a certain person is boring or lovable for example?

Same as above. It is not a matter of knowledge.

Also, many ideas come to us without thinking about them, and creative people know this very well, like when you walk on the street and suddenly strikes you a new idea for a project, or a solution for a difficult problem you had, or when you are watching a comedy show suddenly strikes the idea that you need reconsider your whole path in life, such ideas didn’t come after thinking but before it, and your statement implies that all knowledge and ideas come after a process of reasoning,

The process of reasoning can be sub-conscious. That is, you may be thinking about something and still not be aware that you are thinking about it. That does not mean that the knowledge gained is not without reason and if you re-examine the process, you can usually figure out the reason and thus validate your knowledge.

---

Atheism is ,as we all know, a negative position towards belief in a deity or deities, claiming that the believer in god didn't base his belief on conclusive scientific grounds, and since this religious position is held regardless of science, therefore it can be considered unscientific or even a belief in a myth.

if this understanding of atheism is true, then I might proceed to my point.

we can see that the validity of the atheistic position is assumed to be taken from the validity of science, thus appointing science to be the higher judge of the validity of any claim. How did we know that science is what evaluates every single claim? we knew from the idea that everything in life is matter/energy,and science is the most reliable way to know matter, i.e. to know everything.

However, if we believe that life is not only matter/energy, that we live in two worlds physical and metaphysical, then science (i.e. material science) will still obtain its respected status, but only in the material world, because we can't enter the immaterial world with science‘s material tools.

In the case of belief in the materiality of everything in life, and the case of belief in the material and immaterial worlds together, science has nothing to say. Scientifically, we cannot know whether life is only material nor material and immaterial. Therefore, the belief that life is only material is unscientific (but not necessarily anti-scientific).

Since the belief that there is no immaterial world is unscientific, then it is unscientific to use science as the most reliable way to evaluate every claim. Therefore, atheism is an unscientific position.

I always enjoy reading arguments such as these. I appreciate the time you took to put into your argument, and I'll attempt to analyze it.

As has been stated many times, atheism is simply a statement of disbelief, but I will appreciate the fact that most atheists do support their disbelief with the use of tools such as science and logic.

To believe in something, in regards to ontological existence, without evidence is illogical, but it does not determine the epistemological value of the belief. The term, Modus ponens, comes to mind when I think about things such as this. The term translates from Latin to mean "the way that affirms by affirming" and is integral in the use of logic (the process of applying reason). All logic is based on knowledge which, of course, is subjective and very specifically temporal. An example of Modus ponens is as follows:

If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work.
Today is Tuesday.
Therefore, John will go to work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

This aspect of logic is used to both explain the existence of God, and to disprove the existence of God by means of evidence of absence. Most individuals understand that this is a leap of logic which is perpetually without ground, and thus they revert to evidence or science.

As was stated earlier, science is the study of all that exists. Genakus gave a very impressive discussion related to the material existence of objects, as well as their ontological existence via material objects. To say that science could not understand or verify the existence of something which exists - even if it is non-physical in nature - is to create a secondary definition of science. We can scientifically verify the ontological existence of things which exist in a non-material world (ie. thoughts, emotions, etc.), but where science runs into a wall is when it predicts things which have not been experienced.

Science has the ability to verify existence, but that does not mean that it knows everything which exists. To say so, is to commit Modus ponens in the worst case, or express human arrogance in the best case.

To simplify the above: One commits a logical error by using evidence of absence as 'proof' of non-existence. One also commits a logical error by stating that sciences determines the existence of everything. It is illogical to believe in something without evidence, which is why most atheists support their disbelief by the use of logic - stating that they prefer the side with the most evidence (a logical thing to do), but it is illogical for them to state that God does not exist, as they are making an illogical statement and asserting that all existence is known. Agnosticism is the logical standpoint at the end of the day.

Lastly, metaphysics really has nothing to do with the non-material world. It is a branch in philosophy which examines other sub branches such as ontology, necessity/probability, identity, modality, causation, time and space, material objects, and free will/determinism. Metaphysics is the base of physics, which is the study of the physical world. A more appropriate term for the study of the non-material world would probably be dualism with a concentration on the non-material.

Extremely well-stated and quite informative.

However, I would like to provide an addendum in defense of atheists who base their atheism on science.

While I agree that absence of evidence for something is not evidence of its absence, but you also have to consider evidence against that thing as well.

When these atheists say that god does not exist, they are talking about some specifically defined entities. For example, suppose a common concept regarding rain-god/s. He sits on a cloud. He creates lightening. He magically creates water in the sky.

Now, if only we were never able to find this entity or have no evidence of his physical presence, then yes, it would be simply absence of evidence and it would be illogical to simply claim that he did not exist. But science has given us facts that go against this god's very definition. We know that no-one can "sit" on a cloud. And we know that both lightening and rain are created by separate natural processes. All this counts as evidence against the existence of this entity. And in face of this evidence, it is logical to believe that he does not exist.

Similarly, if we consider creating everything 6000 yrs ago as a defining quality of the Cristian god, then the evidence provided by evolution does count as evidence against the existence of that thing. Simply put, if we know how something did happen, we automatically know how it did not happen.