Evidence. Can't go there due to a prior committment

[Fred]

In my intro thread, Rhythm brought up an excellent point: "The conclusion must fit the observation, not the other way around."

I agree with this, but it has led me to question the standard claim that many atheists make re basing their stance on evidence alone or that science simply goes where the evidence leads. Would that this were so, but it just doesn't seem like that is the case. I think this idea was best summed up by Richard Lewontin in his infamous quote:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

I'm not a materialist, but I do admire Lewontin's frankness because my take on the issue long before I learned of this quote has been in accord with what he is saying and it runs directly counter to the claim made by Rhythm and many others.

I agree that is should be the case that the conclusion should follow the observation, but it seems far more prevalent to be the other way around. I have often joked that many materialists and atheists follow the ABG protocol when it comes to explaining the big questions: Anything but God!

[The Grand Nudger]

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

Science hasn't lived up to promise of better health and longevity? You cannot possibly be living in this reality and agree with that nonsense. Pick an unsubstantiated anything in science. In fact, science is entirely about substantiation. This man had a profound misconception about both our history (and the quality and brevity of our lives before science) and the basic mechanics of scientific understanding. Care to explain a big question by invoking deity? The final sentence of your post is akin to claiming conspiracy.

[Napoléon]

I have often joked that many materialists and atheists follow the ABG protocol when it comes to explaining the big questions: Anything but God!

More likely they just try to follow occam's razor protocol.

[Faith No More]

If something can't be explained, it is much more intellectually honest to say, "I don't know" rather than declare that it somehow must be due to the existence of god. There seems to be a common misconception that atheists have determined all of the answers to important questions about life with science and declared anything unanswered to be unimportant. In fact, atheists are quite content with not being able to answer a question, but never will we explain the unexplainable with god. One will find that as soon as god is removed as the answer to the unexplainable, he/she/it becomes an entirely useless concept.

[Fred]

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

Science hasn't lived up to promise of better health and longevity? You cannot possibly be living in this reality and agree with that nonsense. Pick an unsubstantiated anything in science. In fact, science is entirely about substantiation. This man had a profound misconception about both our history (and the quality and brevity of our lives before science) and the basic mechanics of scientific understanding. Care to explain a big question by invoking deity? The final sentence of your post is akin to claiming conspiracy.

I don't want to go off on a tangent right out of the box, so maybe we could just stick with the main point initially. The materialist commitment is an a priori stance that runs counter to your claim that the observation must lead to the conclusion and not the other way around. I think the best way of putting this was the wag that observed that Daniel Dennett's book would have been more accurately titled: Consciousness Explained Away.

[The Grand Nudger]

It has always been the practice of the faithful to shore up their knowledge by invoking deity towards the unknown. As the gaps in our knowledge decrease so to does the power and purvey of god. Except when people subscribe to a faith which amounts to nothing more than a snapshot in time from a less informed era.

[LastPoet]

I have often joked that many materialists and atheists follow the ABG protocol when it comes to explaining the big questions: Anything but God!

To explain those 'big questions' with god, you need to provide evidence for that god first, or such an explanation is just vacuous...

[downbeatplumb]

But there is no evidence for anything but a material world.

If i am wrong produce all the evidence so I can have a look.

I shall start holding my breath.




now.

[Erinome]

Science alone can be accredited for the human race still being here. Think of all the terrible plagues that have wiped out civilizations. Would you rather your doctor stand over you and pray smallpox doesn't kill you? Religion was needed when there was no science in the world because someone you knew and loved died nearly every day. They had to believe there was some reason for it, and without critical thinking skills, the easiest way to explain why pestilence had killed all of your children was "it's the will of God".

Thanks to science, we don't need that anymore. To believe in God requires faith and faith alone, because there is no evidence such an invisible omniscient being exists. Science is conclusions drawn from facts. If someone had murdered someone you love, and all the evidence pointed to one person, but the court would only allow people's declarations of faith that he either did or didn't do it, how would you feel? What if the majority of the people got on the stand and said they had faith that he didn't do it, and that was the only evidence admissible. Not the DNA found at the scene, nor his finger prints on the handle of the knife.

It makes me so angry when I think of all the times people have stood in the way of science in the name of their god throughout history. Just think of the progress that was stifled because of what I consider to be silly superstitious myths from the Dark Ages. Just think of what we could be curing, or where we could be going without the hindrance of religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unrealized potential due to self-inflicted wounds.