To begin, we must understand 'theism' and 'deism' and what their differences are.
Theism: the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods.
Deism: the form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of reason without reference to revelation.
Thus, theism includes deism, but not vice-versa. This has grown in such a way that theism has become associated with using revelations instead of reason, which is incorrect, as theism can use either or both to support the position of the existence of God.
Thus, atheism, in its purest form, is not a religion, nor is it an ideology. It is simply the argumental position of the nonexistence of God.
What is faith? What is belief? What is the difference between them?
Faith: loyalty or allegiance to a person or cause.
Belief: any cognitive content held as true.
Since atheism is not a person or a cause, loyalty to it (remember it is just an argumental position - an idea) does not constitute faith. However, if it is held to be true by any person whomsoever, it is considered a belief. This is a major point of objection by atheists who refuse the terminology being used as it puts them in equal distance from the question of the existence of God with theists, to whom they object.
Next, we must understand that most, if not all, arguments of atheists do not refute the existence of God, but instead challenge the truthfulness of theologies. Examples include the infamous problem of evil, which does not reject the existence of a God, but certain traits granted to him by some religions.
The main argument for the nonexistence of God is that of skepticism; we have no empirical data that can be scientifically tested to give a definite answer, therefore God does not exist! This argument is rubbish, primarily because it would mean that either we should stop believing the many things that science cannot (at least yet) prove definitely, which would be everything outside formal science (or at the very least all non-applicable theories), or accept the fact that this argument is being extremely biased against God.
Moreover, there is a need for God in science, specially in the field of physics. Questions like how did the energy of the universe come to be if it cannot be created or destroyed? Questions like how is it the gravitational constant of the universe is so 'fine-tuned'?
Also, if we consider modern medicine, what we are capable of doing today is miraculous to people just 1000 years ago. Tell them swallowing a pill less than a centimeter in diameter will cure them of their disease, and they would probably hail you as either a madman or a wizard. Albeit hard to believe and illogical at first sight, phenomena like the dual nature of light being simultaneously wave-like and particle-like is true, so the absolute dismissal of something that might sound illogical is logically wrong.
As much as I love and respect science, Stephen Hawking's doctors told him that he should be dead decades ago. Yet somehow, miraculously he is still both alive, and atheist.
Theism: the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods.
Deism: the form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of reason without reference to revelation.
Thus, theism includes deism, but not vice-versa. This has grown in such a way that theism has become associated with using revelations instead of reason, which is incorrect, as theism can use either or both to support the position of the existence of God.
Thus, atheism, in its purest form, is not a religion, nor is it an ideology. It is simply the argumental position of the nonexistence of God.
What is faith? What is belief? What is the difference between them?
Faith: loyalty or allegiance to a person or cause.
Belief: any cognitive content held as true.
Since atheism is not a person or a cause, loyalty to it (remember it is just an argumental position - an idea) does not constitute faith. However, if it is held to be true by any person whomsoever, it is considered a belief. This is a major point of objection by atheists who refuse the terminology being used as it puts them in equal distance from the question of the existence of God with theists, to whom they object.
Next, we must understand that most, if not all, arguments of atheists do not refute the existence of God, but instead challenge the truthfulness of theologies. Examples include the infamous problem of evil, which does not reject the existence of a God, but certain traits granted to him by some religions.
The main argument for the nonexistence of God is that of skepticism; we have no empirical data that can be scientifically tested to give a definite answer, therefore God does not exist! This argument is rubbish, primarily because it would mean that either we should stop believing the many things that science cannot (at least yet) prove definitely, which would be everything outside formal science (or at the very least all non-applicable theories), or accept the fact that this argument is being extremely biased against God.
Moreover, there is a need for God in science, specially in the field of physics. Questions like how did the energy of the universe come to be if it cannot be created or destroyed? Questions like how is it the gravitational constant of the universe is so 'fine-tuned'?
Also, if we consider modern medicine, what we are capable of doing today is miraculous to people just 1000 years ago. Tell them swallowing a pill less than a centimeter in diameter will cure them of their disease, and they would probably hail you as either a madman or a wizard. Albeit hard to believe and illogical at first sight, phenomena like the dual nature of light being simultaneously wave-like and particle-like is true, so the absolute dismissal of something that might sound illogical is logically wrong.
As much as I love and respect science, Stephen Hawking's doctors told him that he should be dead decades ago. Yet somehow, miraculously he is still both alive, and atheist.
"we have no empirical data that can be scientifically tested to give a definite answer, therefore God does not exist! This argument is rubbish"
ReplyDeleteWhat can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
"Moreover, there is a need for God in science, specially in the field of physics. Questions like how did the energy of the universe come to be if it cannot be created or destroyed? Questions like how is it the gravitational constant of the universe is so 'fine-tuned'? "
2000 years ago, one such question was 'What causes thunderstorms and natural disasters?'. And, not surprisingly, the people back then jumped to the conclusion of...God. Just because we don't know the answer to certain questions does NOT make it sensible to jump to conclusion of God.
"Also, if we consider modern medicine, what we are capable of doing today is miraculous to people just 1000 years ago. Tell them swallowing a pill less than a centimeter in diameter will cure them of their disease, and they would probably hail you as either a madman or a wizard. Albeit hard to believe and illogical at first sight, phenomena like the dual nature of light being simultaneously wave-like and particle-like is true, so the absolute dismissal of something that might sound illogical is logically wrong."
Well the idea formerly considered 'illogical' proved its effectiveness and explained the logic behind it. So why can't i see such proofs supporting the idea of a deity?
Yes it can be dismissed, but its dismissal cannot be taken as absolute truth without faith.
DeleteTo what causes thunderstorms and natural disasters the answer is still God since he is the overall creator of the system we live in, we have only discovered the methods of the system.
You can't see proofs of a deity because for a deity to create what you can physically sense he has to be something else.