Science, Atheists and Theists

Don't forget to Like, Comment, Subscribe and Share for more content inshaAllah.

[paulmensah]

I'm learning so much from this one man. I admire how knowledgeable he is

[Nomadic]

To understand this you need a high level of understanding, its just going to go over most people's head

[babarasul]

hey man, weird question 😅 I like your pakol hat, is there any place I can get it online?

[derrickhennessey]

He did put all those words together, so good for him. Problem is that he made a number of claims that he did not even attempt to prove. Science needs a moral anchor? The brain is a result of random processes? Theism provides a framework for science? None of these claims were/are supported by anything. The best part about science is that it does not need a supernatural anchor or mechanism. God does not even enter the equation. I suspect this is why theists have such a hard time with science. Science provides a path to truth about the natural world that theism can’t. Science isn’t against theism, it’s even worse than that, science doesn’t care about theism.

[theoreticalhabitat]

This is Alvin Plantinga's 'evolutionary argument against naturalism.'

[edejong]

This guy proves that science and religion don't mix. He doesn't know what science is nor how evolution works.

[neku]

We believe in a God they believe in random chance.

[AbuMusaAlBurtughaalii]

Not theism, Islam. Christianity and Al other religions still won't give you that to the standard that islam would.

[johnton]

This preaching person should be so much thankful for a people who built a country in which is he living, to all working class hero´s scientist and engineers.

[tufail]

This is Plantinga's famous EAAN (Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism), but has not much to do with religion per se.

[Muslim_moha]

No one with a knowledge of Western philosophy, from Hume and Kant to Nietzsche and Bergson, could be much surprised by the conclusion that scientific knowledge must be in part subjective, and also incomplete because phenomenal only. The limitation lies within the human sensory apparatus, which can hardly be adequate to full comprehension of the whole of cosmic reality. Why should we suppose that our senses or even our brains, fitted for living in a particular environment, should be capable of grasping and visualizing all this? Reason, employing mathematical abstractions and other tools, can take soundings of nature sufficient for practical advantages; but if by "understanding" we mean an adequate model or picture of everything, this must probably always elude us. In Kantian terms the "thing in itself' is not accessible to the categories of the understanding, while the intuition or imagination can only contact it fleetingly and imperfectly. This is the fate of man, who though marvelously endowed is not God. Ultimately, perhaps, this conclusion was the greatest consequence of the new science. It left man even at the peak of his grandeur, amid the greatest of his triumphs, shorn of his overconfident "titanism" and aware that after the best that science can do, vast mystery must always remain and there is abundant place for a religious attitude toward the universe.

- Roland N. Stromberg

[TurinTuramber]

Science does need a moral framework. Still doesn't make God real.

[kareemabdelsaid]

For every atheist that tells science doesn't need a moral anchor, tell that to schools that mandate research ethics courses. I can benefit from a class relief😅

[jonathanichen]

Tell we why science needs a moral anchor? Does the concept of thermonuclear fusion have morals?
Does the concept of animals surviving and reproducing because of its genes have morals?

[profkingthing]

"Science needs a moral anchor" is not the answer to your query. Our lack of intuition regarding general relativity or the quantum world speaks to the limitations of the human mind.

[Science_-]

Nope, atheism can provide a scientific framework for doing science.

1. By asserting that there are no supernatural things in existence, we can immediately rule out explanations that necessitate that.

2. Asserting that we can come up with our own morals means we can all agree on something and if it needs modification, we can do that too. There is no scripture so no need to reinterpret anything

3. You will find more meaning by telling yourself that you are living in a mystery. That we actually do not know how things work and we can learn by investigating.

[MayankSharma-vzof]

Let's say this muslim guy is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

[jeffrey]

We'll put but I don't think science needs morality. And any observations we make that are flawed as he described can be equally said of theism

[ll-qnke]

Historically, theists were at the forefront of science simply because everyone was religious and There was no alternative...

[davidsuttie]

Every day experience! I know if I put my foot of the brake pedal of my car I know through trust ( not faith) that the car will slow down. I now through experience if I let go of a ball that it will fall to the ground.
We have reason to do science because it gradually throws light on everyday experiences ands let's invent new experiences.
Unlike religion, which claims it knew everything thousands of years ago and will not listen to new explanations, science does not and never will claim to know everything. Why should we. But we certainly know more than we did 1600 years ago when your religion made claims which are so obviously not true or realistic but must never be questioned. How is that reasonable!?