Unfalsifiable atheism
There are always better explanations for unexplained phenomena than god: fraud and faulty sensory perception cover most of the bases, but mostly, if I see a Madonna appear in a field to bless me, the first thing I'd suspect is brain damage. We have clumsy, sputtering, inefficient brains that are better designed for spotting rutabagas and triggering rutting behavior at the sight of a curvy buttock than they are for doing math or interpreting the abstract nature of the universe. It is a struggle to be rational and objective, and failures are not evidence for an alternative reality. Heck, we can be fooled rather easily by mere stage magicians; we don't need to invent something as elaborate as a god to explain apparent anomalies.
That last point does imply, though, that there is one path that could convince me of the existence of god: major brain damage. I don't think that wacking me in the skull with a ball-peen hammer counts as evidence, however.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/eight_reasons_you_wont_persuad.php
Of course 'faulty sensory perception' pertaining to appearances of the risen Christ is a vastly underwhelming and implausible explanation given what is currently documented (or rather, not documented) in psychology regarding group hallucinations, as Licona has shown in his new book.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why PZ Meyers is so shy in the face of science. After all, if braining him with a ball peen hammer leads to new discoveries, then that sounds like a win for both atheists and theists alike!
ReplyDelete"That last point does imply, though, that there is one path that could convince me of the existence of god: major brain damage."
ReplyDeleteI don't get it. So why doesn't he already believe in God?
Why is brain damage a better explanation than the existence of God?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, the proofs of God from science are less compelling than traditional metaphysical arguments, but the sort of resistance atheists show to theistic explanations is a lot of baloney.
So all of science must likewise be built upon "clumsy, sputtering, inefficient brains that are better designed for spotting rutabagas and triggering rutting behavior at the sight of a curvy buttock than they are for doing math or interpreting the abstract nature of the universe."
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that he takes away all ability to trust our brains when it comes to science. But if atheists want to slit their own throat, why should I stop 'em?
No comments from any of the usual godless suspects... Suppose that means they are content to let PZ speak for them.
ReplyDelete