Reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder
Here are a series of sayings, going from ones we agree on to ones we are likely to differ on sharply.
- The cosmology laid out by fundamentalist Christianity is discredited by science, and is completely unconnected in content.
- Many scientists, both past and present, have been strongly motivated by their religious beliefs. When you add in scientists with quasi-religious beliefs (for instance beliefs that many physicists hold about the existence of a GUT), this number goes up sharply.
- Science's foundation was made possible by a number of religious and quasi-religious beliefs.
- There are areas of the human experience, starting with the question of how conciousness works, which are unaddressed by science and which are probably unaddressable by science. (Note, science can address questions about what a person will do, what they will report, etc. I don't believe it can ever address the feeling that you exist.)
- There are many religious people who believe that the sense of self arises from having a soul granted by God. If you believe this, then God is not a superfluous assumption.
- Atheism is not a logical consequence of science and the scientific method. Science may lead us to reject a variety of religious beliefs. But it does not address several questions which are central to science.
Now as I say, I think you are likely to disagree with my final statements. But before you proceed to lecture and disagree, I should point out that I have a pretty decent handle on how science works. The position that I have laid out above is one that I have actually thought about quite a bit, and it is what I have concluded despite the fact that the conclusion runs counter to my own gut beliefs. (I am, after all, an atheist.)
Fire away if you wish. But I think I will let this thread sit with this post. I don't really have any new points that I can think of to make on this topic...
Cheers,
Ben