Science requires observable evidence. And as far as I know, they don't have it yet. But considering they've only been looking for a short time in the scheme of things...and our technology is still pretty limited, it's way too early to rule out the possiblity. After all, we exist...so it is possible. Eco mentioned the odds, but I don't know if he was correct or not.
There is certainly evidence to consider in this question besides actually finding aliens. The size of the universe, the frequency of Earth-like planets, and that we are made of some of the most basic and common elements in the universe all suggest that life is not rare. There may even be life on Europa. Then we must consider whether or not intelligence is common. We have basically no data on that front, but there's certainly no reason to think that intelligence is a particularly uncommon evolutionary development. Creatures on Earth have been developing higher and higher intellect for millions and millions of years. Intelligence is clearly a mutation that is successful when it develops. It seems no great stretch that life is common in the universe. There is no reason to think it unique to this planet.
Now, that's not "proof", but it is evidence.
Would the same concept be applicable to a God then?
I am shocked, SHOCKED, to discover that this thread was really about god! Yes, a god might exist. No, the specific gods that religions assert definitely do not exist, as the descriptions of their actions and attributes directly contradict observable phenomena. To worry about any gods in our day to day lives, or to assume that they have anything to do with us or care what we do, is as rational as worrying about aliens. If they show up, then we should worry. Until then, we should not. The people who claim that either has already made themselves known are delusional.
Alright. So essentially then...would this mean that any claim linking Science and atheism is bunk? That Atheism is rejection? Agnostic would be the correct scientific position? My understanding of atheism is that it is a rejection of God or a deity. A rejection would seem that it requires a failed experiment on deities.
Atheism is not believing religious people when they say they know the truth. That's actually all it is. Atheist says to religious person, "you claim a bunch of things, but they're not actually true". That scientific learning has done great work in disproving the assertions of religious people has caused the two to link in some regards. Knowledge of geology, for example, demonstrates that there was no worldwide flood. Knowledge of biology demonstrates that creation myths are incorrect. Knowledge of plate tectonics shows that earthquakes aren't caused by angry gods punishing people for sins. Knowledge of viruses and bacteria shows that sickness isn't a punishment from a vengeful deity or a curse from evil spirits.
Religious ideas were the science of their day. People took what they knew about the world (including mistaken fears about supernatural things) and applied them to the natural world. That's why Zeus throws the lightning. Someone up there doing it explains why it happens. They had no idea about the actual mechanisms of clouds and electrical charges. Our knowledge now contradicts their ideas. So, as I said above, we have no data at all about the possibility of magical deities, because we have never encountered one to observe.
Scientific knowledge disproves things people have asserted about gods or the supernatural. We know there are no Olympians because we went up to the top of Mt. Olympus and looked for them and they weren't there. No one really suggests that they're invisible, or that it's only symbolic that they live on Mt. Olympus. The assertions about them clearly state that they live there. The same is true for assertions about the Abrahamic god. Its identity at the Abrahamic god includes traits like biblical creation, the efficacy of prayer in healing, and the idea that the world is kept running directly through this god's intervention. The world would literally stop spinning if this god stopped telling it to spin. But then we discover why it really spins. We discover that the sun doesn't go around the Earth. We discover that prayer doesn't do much against germs. So this god is without the attributes that make it this god. So the people who claim that this god exists and talks to them... they don't have any evidence to back that up. So they're probably wrong. Just like anyone who told you that Zeus was real and talked to them. You would rightfully point out to them that there is no one living on top of Mt. Olympus.
Atheism is not believing in supernatural stuff. It relates to science because of the common reasons that people take an atheist position is because supernatural stuff really seems like it doesn't exist. No one can ever seem to find it. No vampires, no Zeus, no evil spirits, no unicorns, no healing via prayer, nobody made intrinsically miserable by not belonging to one religion or the other, no prophetic knowledge in holy books... none of it. Science disproves the supernatural by learning what's really going on. Learning what's really going on precludes the intervention of gods, demons, or whatever. So, there is no singular experiment, but there is the continual disproving of every single supernatural assertion that anyone would care to make.
Does this make a little more sense now?
I am glad you got to your real question before I found this thread. I do hate all that beating around the bush.
Yeah, disguising the real question was not very effective. Probably everyone knew what the OP was really about. Otherwise, this would be in the science forum, not the philosophy forum.
You're right in that "hard atheism", a definitive denial in the existence of any kind of deity is irrational. Atheism is a somewhat nebulous term though and is used to cover all sorts of different beliefs, positions and statements. Many of them are entirely compatible with agnosticism.
Almost no one does that, though. Almost no one claims that unknown forms of life are impossible. There could be magic aliens out there, and some of them might have godlike characteristics. But when someone asserts that they are here, and have done specific things, then it is quite rational not to believe the person who is asserting that, especially when they have no evidence. And there is evidence that suggests that whatever they're claiming these god aliens did has a natural explanation that is consistent with the observable facts.
There is also the practical factor to consider. In reality, absolutely nothing is 100% certain. We could all be in the matrix and so nothing we "know" is actually true. Day-to-day, we ignore these extreme possibilities, basically because we'd go mad otherwise. That's doesn't make it unscientific, it's just an assumption that is so common as to not needing stating.
On the same basis, I'm not convinced that working on the assumption that there isn't some kind of all-powerful divine being out there controlling everything is necessarily an unscientific assumption as far as day-to-day activities are involved while recognising the theoretically possibility in the context of philosophical discussions like this one. We don't say "1 + 1 = 2 unless a god says otherwise" even though it's technically true. That doesn't make saying "1 + 1 = 2" wrong.
The other practical factor is that what an individual actually does if they accept that there could be (or have been) some kind of undefined divine being out there somewhere, with an unknown set of characteristics, desires and wishes isn't actually going to be all that different to that of an individual who denies such a possibility outright.
Indeed. When someone argues that some god might exist as proof that their god does exist, it doesn't really make their argument. I certainly don't KNOW that there are no gods out there. But I certainly haven't met one. And the people who claim that they know aren't making a very good case. So, accepting the idea that gods can exist (which we all should), doesn't really affect how we live. If it's only if we accept the idea that specific gods do exist and do care what we do (which we all should not do) that our lives change.
And as you say, arguing that all knowledge is just beliefs or that no knowledge can really be certain because we can't be completely 100% sure just so that we can't disprove their specific god is just nonsense. I don't need to be certain that it is more dangerous for me to cross a street against the light than with it. I have enough probability to reasonably inform my decisions every time I'm going to cross a street. I should do it when the light is green, not when it is red.
eace
