Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
It's worth noting that if Dawkins finds a question he can't answer he'll either 1.) Respond with a sarcastic comment or 2.) Ignore it completely.
I'd ask Dawkins this question: "Science is built on induction, which entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Whenever science is unable to prove that something exists, it merely states that the object might exist but that there is no scientific evidence supporting that claim. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find so how, exactly, can a scientist claim that God doesn't exist? I've yet to see a scientist openly claim that aliens don't exist because they've never seen one."
|
First of all: there are plenty of philosophical problems associated with using science to determine the truth. This is well known and accepted. And it is pointed out very frequently. What is pointed out less frequently is that
it's the best we've got. Certainly there are difficulties with science, but it is certainly massively superior to the process of say, divine inspiration (a process which is utterly indistinguishable to an impartial observer to the process of
making crap up). So by all means be critical of science's ability to get at the truth; just apply such stringent requirements equally across the board: do not apply double standards and let off
"other ways of knowing"<sup>TM</sup> too lightly.
Second: The existence or not of aliens is not on a par with the existence or not of a god. There is at least some evidence for the possibility of life on other planets, that evidence being; life on
this planet. It is generalizing from an extremely limited sample size (i.e. 1), but all that the "extra terrestrial life" hypothesis is saying is ultimately "more of the same, elsewhere". It is nothing more than a rather tentative application of induction. Since we know that life on this planet evolved, and suspect that similar conditions and materials exist elsewhere in the universe, it remains a possibility. It is reasonable to not wish to draw premature conclusions. It is a genuinely open question.
Third: "Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find so how, exactly, can a scientist claim that God doesn't exist?", this argument in one form or another (i.e. the shift of the burden of proof) seems to be the favorite argument of very many theists:
You can't prove that I'm wrong, therefore I must be right (or at the very least on 50:50 odds). Of course this is the ultimate point in the wide range of "mock religions" that the OP wondered about. Whether it involves
orbitting teapots,
Invisible Pink Unicorns or
Flying Spaghetti Monsters, the point is always the same: the inability to refute an assertion is not enough to establish its veracity. Stated otherwise:
"Just because there is no answer one is justified in giving, does not mean that one is justified in giving whatever answer one will" (Daniel Harbour). Or to answer your question more clearly; atheists are not claiming the non-existence of a god
despite the lack of evidence, but
because of it.