No. You would have to presume a few things for that to be true:
That there is an explanation for consciousness, that an explanation of consciousness garnered from another source would be truthful, and also that science would not be able to explain consciousness.
Aside from that, the original point still stands. You could say perhaps that science fails in this regard as it actively seeks to explain these things, but not atheism.
As science is a continuous, evolving search for wisdom, I think it would be premature to say that it too has failed.
I agree with Robert's post. The fact is that Atheism still has a lot to explain. Science still has a lot to explain. There is so much in the world, in the universe, that science still cannot explain. I wouldn't say that atheism has outright failed or that atheism fails. But I believe that it takes just as much imagination and speculation to believe in man-from-dust evolution as it does to believe in religion or intelligent design divinity. There are huge gaps and holes in the science, and I think it is wrong for our public schools to teach some of these scientific theories as FACT when they are merely theories. And I believe that it is wrong for our public schools to imply the notion that all religions are wrong and that GOD doesn't exist. I know it goes on because I work with faculty and I've eavesdropped on the science department's lunchbreak discussions in the faculty lounge that sort of ridicule their students' who still believe that man was created by GOD. If many of the atheists weren't so elitist, they'd stop ridiculing people for still being spiritual and still believing in religion and GOD. Why? Because, so far, they've done a poor job of proving their own theories. They can't even digest global warming statistics and data objectively or predict the next day's weather accurately let alone explain the origin of mankind.
nice posts Sense-A & Robert,
what do you think of being spiritual(kind of intune wtih consciousness) but not religious with no belief of a god.
the cutting edge science what trys to explain, gods, past events,unnatural events on earth, is mostly ignored by mainstream science,. mainstream science always ignores things that it cant explain, usually with ridicule :|
I don't really know what you mean by "mainstream science". Would you be able to explain this for me?
The idea that science "always ignores things that it can't explain, usually with ridicule" seems to be blown way out of proportion in this subforum.
There is a general rejection in the scientific community of hypotheses that are unfalsifiable if that's what you mean.
The concept of God is one such hypothesis. There is no means by which it could be falsified by its very nature.
Scientists in general (as we are wildly generalizing) do not completely rule out the possibility of there being a God. It would be unscientific to do.
They just simply state that currently, there is no evidence to support the existence of a God, that there is some evidence to the contrary, and that the initial question is inherently flawed, philosophically speaking.
In regards to your statement, I would say that mainstream science is continually trying to explain the unexplained.
I presume by ridicule, you are alluding to creationism. Many people see creationist ideology as a threat to free-thinking. There is certainly contempt for the concept in the scientific cummunity. It's a psuedo-science in its current form and that is being generous. Furthermore, the criticisms of evolution brought up by these people generally demonstrate a complete lack of understanding in relation to the theory.
I have noted that the criticisms of it here tend to display an obvious misunderstanding of what it means and the definitions for it.
mainstream science is the the science that is show on tv as fact, and is taught in educational institutes across the globe
as 1 little example, their is a thread in ktl about ancient aliens a tv show on history channel, i know you go for a (more mainstream) scientific view,. i would have like to have seen some of your comments in that thread,. but i didnt think you would post in their,. as the information brough up seriously contradicts mainstread / educational science ( yes i know the topic is a pseudo-science) but facts/evidence should not be affected by belief systems,. that i feel is where mainstream science kicks in with ridicule to discount such discoveries that go against what is being indoctrinated..
as the impact would totally change our way of life ( consume/build/destroy)
it is impossible for 'pseudo-science' to get in to mainstream anything with out being heavily ridiculed..i agree with most of the ridiculing, but the information cant be dismissed with out checkign it out, even for jokes.
i do rule out the possibility of their being a god,. but i dont rule out the possibility that thier is a source of our consciousness,. that helps us manifest this reality (quantum stuff)
the whole problem with the god thing is. people definitions of the word vary so much,.
i dont pray to anyone - i meditate on my self.
i dont look for hope in anything - i stay positive and the energy manifests in positive experiances around me
god - my conscious
what would all our consciousness's together be called? lol the matrix? :s
what people see as god, could be explained by science,. if they put more research/time into things that contradict mainstread ideology,. ie ancient astronought theory
on your last paragraph, i do not think science is free thinking at all.
as science (the way its taught in the education systems) is taught to your left sided hempishere, which does not promote free thinking in the slightest.
Every single culture in the world developed an awareness of GOD. Civilizations on every continent that were isolated from each other. The Old World and the New World. Columbus sailed to South America and they had never seen white men before but there they were worshiping GOD. How did every civilization independently become AWARE of GOD? Spirituality is IN us. It wasn't a lie or a concept that was passed along. Just my opinion.
As as far as public schooling, aren't our curriculums all standardized anyways? Mcgraw Hill can decide that GOD doesn't exist, put it in a science book and every public school from maine to california will be teaching out of the same science book. And the professors live in an elitist culture where they flock to any mumbo jumbo as long as it is exlusive from any common knowledge.
To me, there is NO question that GOD exists. There is DIVINE order to everything. The very things that science discovers as tries to understand isn't just some coincidental order out of fucking chaos. There is a divine architecture to the universe we live in. Explain it with science if you want. GOD isn't a white man with a beard. We know that. GOD can be love, some sort of flowing positive energy that organizes the universe, ...one must define for himself. But I think it is naive and premature to just say "there is no GOD" or think that just because mankind discovered gravity or decoded .000000001 percent of the dna code that all of a sudden you jump the gun and say GOD doesn't exist. Just because you UNDERSTAND more about the universe around you than scientists did 200, 500, 1000 years ago doesn't mean that your increased knowledge of the universe decreases the chances of there begin divine order to everything. 1000 years from now in the year 3000 science may have discovered more and more and more and we will understand more about our universe but we will still only know a fraction. And don't tell me that molecules and atoms are just evolutionizing and ordering themselves over millions of years. Science talks about entropy entropy entropy how shit just dissolves into chaos in a closed system. Yet contradictive to the SCIENTIFIC law of thermodynamics the universe keeps becoming more organized in my opinion. Science is so complex yet so basic and unpolished in the grand scheme of explaining away the universe. Albert Einstein admitted there was a GOD. Many great scientists admitted it.
If I were to become conspiratorial I would say that the New World Order WANTS people to lose faith in GOD. It is what the fucking communists wanted. To control you, these dictators know that you cannot have the inspiration and power of GOD. So I am willing to believe that there are those people in the world who will do what they can to spread atheism and to destroy people's faith in GOD. God is not your master, the government is!!! Or at least that is what they want to convey.
Once again, I think you are missing the point to a degree. The ancient alien concept is like the God concept. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It couldn't be researched without a significant bias being placed on any study (I'm simplifying things here, but I hope you get the point).
Science doesn't dismiss things as such. It seeks to elucidate new information within its own methodology.
As for your comments on science education, if you think school kids can be taught science in any other way I would love to know how. Let's be realistic here.
If you think research scientists and science students at school are the same thing, or for that matter, that post graduate science students are taught in the same way and teenagers, then I can understand why you might think that "science is not free thinking at all".
Robert, i never said teach the kids psedu-science, i said science(and the whole education system) is designed for the left hemipshere of the brain, where repeated things are the truth, their is a distinct lack of creativity, and self expression, its a rigid structure on logic, hierachial structures,.
science backs up materialism, it never tries to explain things that doesnt fit into that model
i know schools,colleges,unis',anthropologists/archeologists are not the same level..wtf sort of thing was the robot? lol
their are differant levels..
ie at school ur taught to deal with this materlialisitc bullshit and not question it, as that is the way.. if u go college or uni, you might get to learn how you can be educated in career so you can get higher materialistic shit. so on and so forth,
cutting edge science just about makes mainstream news,. then its another 5-10 years before it is brought into the academic arena..then another 20-30 years before its in schools..
how was science taught in the mayan age., or the khemetian age?
how about in mesoptamia?
the structure is the problem.
Define the rigid structure of mainstream science as you see it for me please. I would be interested to know what has led you to think that science dulls creativity and self expression, because I can think of many examples to the contrary.
I guess you already know the process, but for those who are above and beyond I'll repeat the only way you can make any scientific development:
1) think of a theme you want to research
2) study all possible literature
2) develop a hypothesis
3) develop a method for testing that hypothesis in a way that, if anyone repeats it, gets same result as you
4) test the hypothesis; only acceptable results are confirmed or refuted
5) find similar studies and compare your results to them
6) write a conclusion - that's where you can write your pet theories
And that's it. Anything that doesn't follow these rules is not scientific. There are a load of variations for different types of works (original research, case study, yadda yadda) but in the essence they all follow those same guidelines. Now, sure, it does stiffle your creativity in a way, but it needs to be, as it's the only way to prove something beyond doubt. And when you avoid those rules, you get creationist type hacks.
"The Devil is not the Prince of Matter; the Devil is the arrogance of the spirit, faith without smile, truth that is never seized by doubt. The Devil is grim because he knows where he is going, and, in moving, he always returns whence he came."