|
|
|
I notice that the typical atheist post, when trying to refute a Christian (or Theist) belief is asked in a philosophical manner. The poster then switches to asking for 'scientific fact' in order to receive an answer that they will find acceptable.
Please excuse me if I laugh at this for a second. While it is a nice tactic, it is flawed for a number of reasons. First, you immediately stifle the argument by making such a request (which may be the reason it was done in the first place!). Second, you negate your own question. Third, philosophy is the grandfather of science. Philosophy is the search for wisdom, which is why PhD stands for 'Doctorate of Philosophy'. It involves the asking of a question and then achieving the answer either through logical or scientific means. It IS possible to come to a rational answer by means of logic without ever actually providing any physical proof.
Physical science is a 'new field'. New in the sense that all major contributions into providing physical evidence for philosophical questions have typically been given in the past century or so. In addition, science never actually PROVES anything. To quote the text Biology - Life on Earth by Audeskirk and Audeskirk:
So what does this mean? Well, what this means is that any scientific statement is limited by the current technology. What is percieved to be true at this current time may be ruled to be grossly wrong a year, decade or century from now.
Therefore to claim that God does not exist based on the 'current evidence' ignores every 'belief' that an atheist should have. An Atheist believes in science, and that science will eventually provide what they feel are logical answers to questions that cannot be answered at the current time. In the meantime a working hypothesis is given (a hypothesis is simply an educated guess) to fill this 'void' in knowledge.
Now, the problem with this is that the hypothesis depends on the person or persons who come up with it. In each scientific discipline there are a handful (by worldwide standards) that know enough in order to come up with a logical explanation or a hypothesis. Everyone else is too uninformed in the field to come up with a workable solution. The fact that it appears that every major scientific question has at least two opposing views shows that science is not static and rarely can agree upon anything itself. There are but a few widely accepted and rarely contested facts in science. These are called laws. Most are mathematical and limited in scope. Theories are once again widely accepted guesses, but have not been proven WITHOUT A DOUBT, and as such are still open to interpretation because AT THE CURRENT TIME, they provide us with the best explanation.
This means that most scientific questions still rely on philosophical debate to come to a reasonable conclusion. Given the fact that even experts in their respective fields rarely come to a consensus on issues that are open to interpretation, two views are often as clear as things will get.
What does this leave us with?
God exists versus God does not exist.
Current technology does not allow us to prove the existance of God, but it also does not disprove that He exists either. The atheist therefore would turn to the philosophical tactic of saying that based on the current, limited technology that He cannot exist. However the theist counters saying that there is enough logical evidence that indicates the He does.
What do we have? A stalemate. A conflict of opinions. However, this does not make the atheist correct. God can exist, we just have not proven how He can. And as far as science is concerned, that is an acceptable answer. Science CAN and DOES work on the side of the theist in this instance.
Therefore, when asking a philosophical question, EXPECT to get a sound philosophical answer, and don't whine when you get it either. The whole point of philosophy is to open one's mind, to acquire wisdom. You don't have to accept it, but at least it'll open your mind to further possibilities, which is what science attempts to do.
If you don't allow that, you are neither an atheist nor a theist, you're just IGNORANT.
