|
xssve -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/20/2012 6:17:47 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
Atheists appear to be unable to reason abstractly. I did not realize this. I thought atheists intellectuals for example were simply trying to make our understanding of things more precise.
Yes, abstraction in the larger sense is taking a set of processes, empirical or hypothetical, and constructing a symbolic model that explains and is predictive of, the behavior of that process or processes, including grouping similar processes, taxonomy.
Solids, liquids, gasses, metal salts, mammals, etc.
Science is based on the analysis of empirical processes, using independently replicable/confirmable experimental data - all mammals are warm blooded.
The result is an empirical, independently testable abstraction, a theory.
Religion is based on unproven hypothesis, and selective interpretation of random data.
The result is a set of hypothetical abstractions that are often untestable, and no Two people get the same results, which is necessary to establish empirical validity, and predictive validity is indicative of empirical validity.
i.e., monitoring precipitation and temperature patterns around the Arctic circle is more predictive of storms in the Midwest than whether gays marry or not, and in the case of the former, the more data you add, the more predictive the model becomes, which tends to confirm the validity of a global weather system model, utilizing empirical data sets, and the methodology used to create it - in the case of the latter, adding data only confuses the issue further, and makes it less predictive.
Now if you had said: "atheists have no imagination", you might have formed a testable hypothesis with some possibility of at least partial verification. As is, you have merely constructed a syllogistic fallacy.
But the real flaw in your hypothesis is that one must be an atheist in order to do science, which is patently and demonstrably false, there are plenty of religious scientists, possibly even a majority of them, it's simply that they cannot include hypothetical, untestable, and uncontrollable variables into their experiments without strictly specifying that they are doing so, and how (generating a hypothesis) and other scientist are welcome to remodel that experiment in order to confirm the results and test the hypothesis without being accused of heresy or burned at the stake (theoretically).
With a little effort, you can replicate the experiments of Copernicus, a Catholic cleric who lived Four centuries ago, if you still think the world revolves around you.
In centuries of doing it, no one has ever been able to confirm the existence of the hypothetical god variable, or describe any of it's attributes or behaviors, which leaves it a a purely abstract and untestable hypothesis, which means it cannot be controlled for in an experiment - that's just the state of things as they stand at this date in time; atheism ain't got nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
