pinoyatheist
Welcome to a pinoy atheist's point of view.
godI remember some atheist vs. theist debate in Luneta (Rizal Park) in
Manila. An old timer atheist always uses the argument that science
have replace religion and that science can prove that God doesn't
exist.
The debate always ends up unfruitful. Well, it's always a stalemate.
In the atheist camp, the argument always bogs down. The argument goes
in a full halt whenever the topic about atoms shows up. Maybe the
atheist also doesn't have too much comprehension with science and
atheism itself. Another issue is when empirical observation clashes
with faith. How on earth will you explain something empirically when
this something is a by product of faith?
I also met this guy who told me that his atheism is base primarily
because of science and not philosophy. For him, science is enough to
debunk the explanation about God. I asked him how you can demystify
God using science. Well, he said, "The story of Noah's ark is an
incredible story and science have prove that Noah's ark doesn't
exist. Therefore there is no God. End of Story.
The problem with atheism in the Philippines, Filipino atheists assume
that science is enough to challenge the existence of God.
So you think it's that easy huh? Guess again.
The problem with science geeks is that they thought by uttering
scientific claims by Oppenheimer, Darwin, Einstein, Carl Sagan, or
other scientific minds out there you can easily disprove the
existence of a god. Guess again. Oh boy. Because of this, most
theists (especially Christians) accuse atheist of worshipping
science.
Let us bear in mind that most scientific minds in this century were
not atheists. Let see what these great minds would say. Well, I know
that Carl Sagan was an agnostic. How about Charles Darwin? Well
according to his letter in 1879: …"I am, also, induced to defer to a
certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully
believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is.
The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond
the scope of man's intellect."
Also on his letter in 1876 written candidly for his wife and
children, "…I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such
abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things in
insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
Einstein believes on a certain god-concept since he's a pantheist.
Let us not forget when Einstein said, "Religion without science is
cripple, while science without religion is lame."
The late Stephen Jay Gould calls for the principle of NOMA or Non-
Overlapping Magisteria. Accordingly, if religious authority
overlapped on the explanation provided by science, it will generate
mutual enmity. But if religion is taken in a broader sense, either as
a philosophical theism free of superstitions or a grounded on ethical
norms, then there is no conflict. According to Gould, science is the
search for facts and the law of nature. Religion is a spiritual quest
for ultimate meaning and for moral values that science is powerless
to provide. This reflects on what Immanuel Kant and David Hume when
they said, "science tells us what is, not what ought to be."
Let us also look at the theist's camp. According to Pope John Paul II
scientific inquiry support rather than hinder faith in Christian
revelation and Catholic doctrine. Now here's another shocker. Strong
cores of scientists are believers. In 1914, the sociologist James H.
Leuba surveyed scientists and found out that 42 percent believe in a
personal God. The same survey was done in 1996 and researchers found
out no appreciable change in the number of "believing" scientist –
about 39 percent (Larson and Witham 1997). Some scientist refers to
the "God particles" or the mind of God. Some even says that science
supports the scriptures and can even summon proof of God's existence.
They even wrote books justifying science and theology, example of
this is Robert Jastrow, former director of NASA's Goddard Institute
for Space Studies and author of the book God and the Astronomers.
Some Christians even wrestle to re-interpret Darwinism and the
evolution theory to the concept of the Fall of Man, Atonement and the
Original Sin.
They also use science to demonstrate the existence of this God.
Creation science proponents such as Henry Morris and Duane Gish even
created museums to provide some needed documents and materials to
their "scientific" claim. Or how about William Dembski , Paul Nelson
and those prominent advocate for Intelligent Design (ID)?
Science is a tool for free inquiry. Atheist uses this tool to provide
some light on questions. But it doesn't promise to be absolute. Truth
in matters of science is provisional. Belief in god requires no
proof. Proof has no meaning; it is faith that counts. Either you
believe or you don't that's the only question. Scientific truth is
contingent upon an objective natural world and therefore it lies on a
different epistemological plane than does philosophical truth – which
the question of theology set, as Bentrard Russell said, "The
scientific temper is cautions, tentative and piecemeal; it does not
imagine that it knows the whole truth, or even that its best
knowledge is true." And again he said, "…final truth belongs to
heaven, not to this world."
Natural science cannot prove the nonexistence of anything at all. As
Dr. Eugene Scott, executive director of the National Center for
Science Education said, "science throws a little light into the abyss
of the unknown, but not enough answer perhaps the most philosophical
question of them all."
Think about it.
Pinoy Atheist
Manila. An old timer atheist always uses the argument that science
have replace religion and that science can prove that God doesn't
exist.
The debate always ends up unfruitful. Well, it's always a stalemate.
In the atheist camp, the argument always bogs down. The argument goes
in a full halt whenever the topic about atoms shows up. Maybe the
atheist also doesn't have too much comprehension with science and
atheism itself. Another issue is when empirical observation clashes
with faith. How on earth will you explain something empirically when
this something is a by product of faith?
I also met this guy who told me that his atheism is base primarily
because of science and not philosophy. For him, science is enough to
debunk the explanation about God. I asked him how you can demystify
God using science. Well, he said, "The story of Noah's ark is an
incredible story and science have prove that Noah's ark doesn't
exist. Therefore there is no God. End of Story.
The problem with atheism in the Philippines, Filipino atheists assume
that science is enough to challenge the existence of God.
So you think it's that easy huh? Guess again.
The problem with science geeks is that they thought by uttering
scientific claims by Oppenheimer, Darwin, Einstein, Carl Sagan, or
other scientific minds out there you can easily disprove the
existence of a god. Guess again. Oh boy. Because of this, most
theists (especially Christians) accuse atheist of worshipping
science.
Let us bear in mind that most scientific minds in this century were
not atheists. Let see what these great minds would say. Well, I know
that Carl Sagan was an agnostic. How about Charles Darwin? Well
according to his letter in 1879: …"I am, also, induced to defer to a
certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully
believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is.
The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond
the scope of man's intellect."
Also on his letter in 1876 written candidly for his wife and
children, "…I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such
abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things in
insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
Einstein believes on a certain god-concept since he's a pantheist.
Let us not forget when Einstein said, "Religion without science is
cripple, while science without religion is lame."
The late Stephen Jay Gould calls for the principle of NOMA or Non-
Overlapping Magisteria. Accordingly, if religious authority
overlapped on the explanation provided by science, it will generate
mutual enmity. But if religion is taken in a broader sense, either as
a philosophical theism free of superstitions or a grounded on ethical
norms, then there is no conflict. According to Gould, science is the
search for facts and the law of nature. Religion is a spiritual quest
for ultimate meaning and for moral values that science is powerless
to provide. This reflects on what Immanuel Kant and David Hume when
they said, "science tells us what is, not what ought to be."
Let us also look at the theist's camp. According to Pope John Paul II
scientific inquiry support rather than hinder faith in Christian
revelation and Catholic doctrine. Now here's another shocker. Strong
cores of scientists are believers. In 1914, the sociologist James H.
Leuba surveyed scientists and found out that 42 percent believe in a
personal God. The same survey was done in 1996 and researchers found
out no appreciable change in the number of "believing" scientist –
about 39 percent (Larson and Witham 1997). Some scientist refers to
the "God particles" or the mind of God. Some even says that science
supports the scriptures and can even summon proof of God's existence.
They even wrote books justifying science and theology, example of
this is Robert Jastrow, former director of NASA's Goddard Institute
for Space Studies and author of the book God and the Astronomers.
Some Christians even wrestle to re-interpret Darwinism and the
evolution theory to the concept of the Fall of Man, Atonement and the
Original Sin.
They also use science to demonstrate the existence of this God.
Creation science proponents such as Henry Morris and Duane Gish even
created museums to provide some needed documents and materials to
their "scientific" claim. Or how about William Dembski , Paul Nelson
and those prominent advocate for Intelligent Design (ID)?
Science is a tool for free inquiry. Atheist uses this tool to provide
some light on questions. But it doesn't promise to be absolute. Truth
in matters of science is provisional. Belief in god requires no
proof. Proof has no meaning; it is faith that counts. Either you
believe or you don't that's the only question. Scientific truth is
contingent upon an objective natural world and therefore it lies on a
different epistemological plane than does philosophical truth – which
the question of theology set, as Bentrard Russell said, "The
scientific temper is cautions, tentative and piecemeal; it does not
imagine that it knows the whole truth, or even that its best
knowledge is true." And again he said, "…final truth belongs to
heaven, not to this world."
Natural science cannot prove the nonexistence of anything at all. As
Dr. Eugene Scott, executive director of the National Center for
Science Education said, "science throws a little light into the abyss
of the unknown, but not enough answer perhaps the most philosophical
question of them all."
Think about it.
Pinoy Atheist
So
Daily gags!
Friends
with the rising uproar - I'm scared in a way, terrified actually. I'm scared in a good way though. It's what...
... 
In Praise of Kobe (I'm not the only one) - Link .
... Cal Thomas on Palin - I largely agree with this old nemesis. I sense an undercurrent of uncomfortablene... ...
... Those who came to my world
Enjoy the following sites!
