I just wanted to pop over here and write something brief about this, mostly to jog my own memory for later.
I’ve been working on a series of articles for here about religion, atheism, spiritualism, and where my current beliefs sit on all of this. That’s all a bit complicated, but suffice to say I’m probably what you’d call a “wavering skeptic.”
Anyway, I’ve been participating in a lot of the discussions on reddit regarding atheism and such. And I now think I have some understanding of the reasons many who embrace the Scientific Method tend towards atheism (or at least agnosticism): that being the concept of Arguing from The Null.
The Null Hypothesis is very important to the Scientific Method. Most of the truly interesting science happens when you test against the null, and H0 is perhaps the most radical idea anybody has ever invented. And I think a lot of theists don’t fundamentally understand the perspective of the Argument from The Null. You are either for something, or against something. It’s impossible that you could be arguing from a neutral position, a position that allows any valid theory to be proffered, tested, debated, buried in soft peat for three months, recycled as firelighters, and then perhaps even accepted.
I forgot just how awesome H0 really is. Thank you, arguing on reddit.