God as a scientific thesis
Shalom Rabbi. More than once in discussions with atheists they raise the claim that the existence of God should be a “scientific question” a. That is, an empirical thing that can be pointed to. From their perspective, everything that is not under the scientific lens (“empirical”) does not exist or, as one atheist said to me, “show me a graph” b. They completely dismiss philosophical thinking as meaningless nonsense.
What is the answer to these claims? (In a Facebook discussion on the subject of people, I tried repeatedly to prove to Bar Plogta that he was wrong and misleading, but he insisted that only what can be seen in the laboratory exists and that nothing exists outside of it.)
If only an empirical claim is acceptable, they can throw all of science in the trash. All laws of nature are generalizations that start with the observation of a particular case and continue through a completely philosophical process. The fundamental principles of science are all philosophical and not empirical: the principle of causality, induction, action at a distance (locality), and so on and so forth.
And what about morality? And our inner experiences? None of these have an empirical basis.
And what about the question of trust in the senses themselves? Isn’t that a philosophical assumption? Empiricism itself is a philosophical thesis.
By the way, this discussion itself is philosophical.
In the philosophical world, many have already understood the childishness of this positivism-empiricism, but among atheists, many enjoy holding onto the horns of the altar and not letting reality confuse them.
By the way, the chances of you convincing someone from this sect are zero. If there are any “religious” fanatics with whom there is no way to talk, it is the atheists.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
