On 'scientific' atheists.
So many atheists get off on the idea that their view of the world is inherently superior to that of theists, to the point of absurdity.
For example, the trigger for this post was the following comment, "A thousand years ago you can ask why it rained, and the answer would be god - but now we know better." - Jack, http://blog.wired.com/letters/2006/11/from_chris_lamp.html
Allow me bring up another example before resoving the first: Lets say our hypothesis is that talking to plants makes them grow better. After conducting a series of experiments, we determine first that this effect exists, then that the content of the speech is not correlated to the additional growth, and finally that growing the plants with an additional amount of carbon dioxite equivalent to the amounts given off by talking to them.
Given this knowledge, does talking to plants make them grow better?
A. No, carbon dioxide makes them grow better.
B. Yes, as a result the carbon dioxide released from the speaker's breath.
Just because we know the *reason* for the effect, this does not change the cause. It is still true that talking to the plant will make it grow better.
The same is true of this silly remark about the rain. Just because we know for a fact that rain comes from clouds, does not preclude G-d or any other 'supernatural' force from being involved at any stage of the process.
If you say the red sea was parted before Moses by gusts of wind, which were the result of a two colliding weather fronts, as a result of the altered course of the gulf stream as a result of el nino as a result of... it is still a miracle that there was a dry path to cross when the Israelites most needed it.
The beauty of science is not that it has all the answers, or that they are all correct, but rather its slow march towards truth. Science eventually gets there and understandings are expanded, challenged, reevaluated, and refined.
It is neither illogical nor unscientific to believe in G-d, or gods, or to be an atheist. But considering the lack of repeatable experimental evidence, an open-minded researcher ought to be vehemently agnostic.
For example, the trigger for this post was the following comment, "A thousand years ago you can ask why it rained, and the answer would be god - but now we know better." - Jack, http://blog.wired.com/letters/2006/11/from_chris_lamp.html
Allow me bring up another example before resoving the first: Lets say our hypothesis is that talking to plants makes them grow better. After conducting a series of experiments, we determine first that this effect exists, then that the content of the speech is not correlated to the additional growth, and finally that growing the plants with an additional amount of carbon dioxite equivalent to the amounts given off by talking to them.
Given this knowledge, does talking to plants make them grow better?
A. No, carbon dioxide makes them grow better.
B. Yes, as a result the carbon dioxide released from the speaker's breath.
Just because we know the *reason* for the effect, this does not change the cause. It is still true that talking to the plant will make it grow better.
The same is true of this silly remark about the rain. Just because we know for a fact that rain comes from clouds, does not preclude G-d or any other 'supernatural' force from being involved at any stage of the process.
If you say the red sea was parted before Moses by gusts of wind, which were the result of a two colliding weather fronts, as a result of the altered course of the gulf stream as a result of el nino as a result of... it is still a miracle that there was a dry path to cross when the Israelites most needed it.
The beauty of science is not that it has all the answers, or that they are all correct, but rather its slow march towards truth. Science eventually gets there and understandings are expanded, challenged, reevaluated, and refined.
It is neither illogical nor unscientific to believe in G-d, or gods, or to be an atheist. But considering the lack of repeatable experimental evidence, an open-minded researcher ought to be vehemently agnostic.