Monday, October 20, 2008

Why is Atheism Necessary?


Human knowledge has expanded immensely in the last fifty years, and this by the purely scientific method, the materialistic method, and the questioning attitude.


The value of these findings when they can be converted into practical applications in industry are well known to all. We have added nothing to our store of knowledge except by the exercise of our mentality and reason.

The application of the scientific method to the workings of the mind has made more progress in explaining the mindin the brief period of fifty years than philosophical deductions hadmade in the past two thousand years. Every new fact that has been discovered has fitted into the mechanistic scheme of the universe, and not one new fact has been disclosed that suggested anything beyond nature. The theistic interpretation of the universe has been completely discredited by the scientific investigations. Science has brought to theconfines of invariable laws multitudes of problems that had hitherto been supposed to point to "spiritual" interference. Theology has been driven out of the open spaces of reason and still persists in clinging to the twilight zone of the present unknown, only to be driven from its precarious position constantly by our increasing knowledge and with increasing rapidity from shadow to shadow.

The Necessity of Atheism by David Marshall Brooks p 151

That's why.

10 comments:

rick b said...

Have you seen the movie "expelled" No intelligence allowed, The new movie by Ben Stein?

BEAST FCD said...

Ben Stein is a joke. He thinks Creationist Scientists are being persecuted by Real Scientists, and that evolution inspired fascism, nazism and the works.

I prefer Bill Maher's Religuous instead.

Beast FCD

Interested said...

As it happens, I will be watching the movie tonight so I will let you know what I think. I really have no background on it so I am open to first impressions.

rick b said...

I just saw it yesterday for the first time,
beast can say Ben is a joke, but Ben did show the "Scientists" not being able to give an answer to how did life start. they all use the single cell was here, but could not explain how it came, so they say, maybe crystals. maybe crystal meth, then they said, aliens seeded the planet, yet could not explain how aliens came about.

then when Ben asked dawkins at the end of the movie, put a number on the odds you do not believe God is real, he did not want to, then when he did, he could not say with 100 percent, it was 98 percent. what a joke, your so called "smart" scientists were left fumbling and had no real answers.

also, in case your not aware, Ben is not a christian, he is a non-believing Jew. rick b

BEAST FCD said...

Dawkins was being intellectual honest, and I concur with him.

The philosophy behind "non-falsifiability" is that there is a chance, however remote, that the most absurd claims may be true. However, when the evidence for such claims are equivalent to zero, we can savely say that these claims are invalid,but not to the extent of "proving" they don't exist, because you cannot prove a negative. Apparently a lot of Christians can't get this simple fact right.

Again, I don't think any of these Scientists have said that science has all the answers. It doesn't. Scientists are magnanimous enough to admit that, but stupid Christians are apt to take this as a sign of weakness and say science is weak. This is absolutely not true, judging by the advancements it has gifted to mankind.

Beast FCD

Interested said...

Okay I saw the movie. I really did not know what to expect so I was surprised to learn that Ben Stein seemed to be making a case for ID. However, as I continued to watch, I began to agree in part with his premis. No one should be fired for presenting an idea. Science uses a method for finding fact.
1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results

Each step requires detailed observation and variable controls. When these steps are not followed the research is said to be skewed and the result unreliable. I see no problem with applying science to ID. I would enjoy seeing a well done study.

Interested said...

One other thing...I thought that Dawkins was a bit arrogant but that is is style. In his, and other scientist defense, not having all the answers is quite logical. Science does not have all the answers nor does it claim so. Science accepts what logical science shows through discovery and experimentation. When new discoveries occur new facts emerge and science adjust to accomodate the new data. My disbelief is not based on the fact that I KNOW there is no god; it is based on the absence of DATA to substantiate his existance.

BEAST FCD said...

Interested

I think Dawkins isn't arrogant; at least not as abrasive as Hitchens.

But Dawkins drives home his points efficiently and methodically, and that may actually be perceived as arrogance.

Beast FCD

Interested said...

I agree that Dawkins comes across much less harsh than Hitchens. I think he (Dawkins) is perceived as arrogant by many who disagree with him. Those of us who agree and understand his positions are not offended.

BEAST FCD said...

Hi Interested:

Just did an analysis of the Republican ticket.....With elections so near, maybe you might want to do a post on this?

Beast FCD