This is a nicely put argument (and of course I agree with it 
)
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists
)http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
All purple unicorns should be martians.
Sounds like the author has no clue on more sophisticated theistic/pantheistic beliefs that don't conflict with science.
Did you read the article? I don't think you did concerning your reply. It's more like he wanted to suggest that all scientists should be more vocal skeptics towards religion. So militant, IMO, was a poor choice of word.
Basically, he states that it has been become taboo/rude to confront or debunk religion. He asserts that this should not be the case. There is nothing sacred in science. The scientific method will speak for itself because no supernatural agent, being god or the devil will influence the results.
I agree with him completely.
And I disagree with you that all purple unicorns should be martians. That's absurd.
Wow, the title of that article is misleading. The title implies a "you're either with us or against us" mentality that I can't imagine being acceptable in any context.
SO, for the record, this is the final statement in the article:
"If [upholding secularism] is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label."
Clearly what the author is trying to say, and what the title is communicating, are in conflict (I understand that authors have little to no real control over how articles are titled). Frankly, speaking as a polytheist, I absolutely agree that secularism is something to be maintained, and that religious beliefs should not grant a license to break the existent laws. The author is also NOT trying to force other scientists to wear the label of "militant atheist"; just that the label shouldn't carry any shame if the above definition is what it means. And I absolutely agree.
I certainly don't consider questioning, or even ridiculing, religion/theism as inherently "militant atheism". I reserve that label for those folks who pay lip service to the legal right to religious freedom, and proceed to harass, bully, and ridicule people (not the beliefs, the people) with the apparent intent of shaming people away from anything resembling religious thought. IOW, hate groups who use anti-theism as their primary platform of speech.
That said, of course, not all religious beliefs are created equal. It's incredibly important to keep separated those religious folk who scream "religious liberty" in an attempt to circumvent secularism to gain socio-political clout for their own particular religious organization (above all other ones, of course), from those religious folk who are as much behind secularism as this articles' author. You don't have to be an atheist to be a secularist.
SO, for the record, this is the final statement in the article:
"If [upholding secularism] is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label."
Clearly what the author is trying to say, and what the title is communicating, are in conflict (I understand that authors have little to no real control over how articles are titled). Frankly, speaking as a polytheist, I absolutely agree that secularism is something to be maintained, and that religious beliefs should not grant a license to break the existent laws. The author is also NOT trying to force other scientists to wear the label of "militant atheist"; just that the label shouldn't carry any shame if the above definition is what it means. And I absolutely agree.
I certainly don't consider questioning, or even ridiculing, religion/theism as inherently "militant atheism". I reserve that label for those folks who pay lip service to the legal right to religious freedom, and proceed to harass, bully, and ridicule people (not the beliefs, the people) with the apparent intent of shaming people away from anything resembling religious thought. IOW, hate groups who use anti-theism as their primary platform of speech.
That said, of course, not all religious beliefs are created equal. It's incredibly important to keep separated those religious folk who scream "religious liberty" in an attempt to circumvent secularism to gain socio-political clout for their own particular religious organization (above all other ones, of course), from those religious folk who are as much behind secularism as this articles' author. You don't have to be an atheist to be a secularist.
It doesn't matter how "sophisticated" any theistic beliefs are. They are still based on speculation and heresay until it can be proven. It's always subjective in essence and left open for interpretation.
Last edited:
The evidence that things beyond the physical exist are to me 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Very little that matters can be 'proven'. I have heard no better understanding of reality than what is found in the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition (and that includes materialist-atheism).
Only when approached with a scientific lens, which is inappropriate. Even the author states "...so many people are fixated on the relationship between science and religion: basically, there isn’t one."
When it comes to the physical workings of nature, I go wholly with whatever the current scientific consensus is. Religious behavior involves an individual or group's relationship with a given environment, not the exact nature of the environment itself. The Sun is a giant ball of plasma that has been burning for about 5 billion years, and will continue to do so for about another 5 billion years.
Sun is also a God, because She is honored worshiped as such by millions of people. (Not by me. Me and Sun... we kind of have this little understanding. I stay out of Her sight as much as possible, and She doesn't burn me.).
Hence, you are absolutely correct in this assertion:
However, I don't think of that as a negative thing, but a positive one.
"To me" is all I needed to assert this was subjective in essence.
Not going to dig deeper into your summary. I have no clue what you're talking about so I guess you can assume I'm ignorant of your subject. Which I'm fine with.
With two fingers I can prove to you that 1 + 1 = 2. No one can debate this. It really is that simple.
It's negative when someone asserts because of their subjective beliefs they have to discriminate and segregate against other life styles. Hence, the main point of the article.
morphesium
Active Member
More sophisticated theistic/pantheistic belief??????? More sophisticated than what????
.......beliefs that don't conflict with science??????????????????
morphesium
Active Member
I too agree with this. Got a quote thereThis is a nicely put argument (and of course I agree with it
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists
I agree with you. It was bad and probably more for marketing. However, I do think it was a good read. I don't think it was as aggressive in nature as the title suggested.
Correct.
Do you think existence is as simple as that?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I'd prefer Niel DeGrasse Tyson's view. He is first and foremost a scientist (he has stated his religious views are agnostic, and that he even tried to edit his wiki page to say agnostic instead of atheist, but it got changed back to atheist, and he doesn't find it important enough to fight it), and he just doesn't have the energy or desire to get caught up in religious labels or bickering.
I bet your definition of existence is different than mine for you to ask me that.
Here's a Google definition.
The fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Based on that, sure existence is simple to prove or not prove.
Such assertions are negative, regardless of what those subjective beliefs are. That doesn't make the beliefs themselves negative.
Then again, all beliefs are inherently subjective. It's impossible for a human being to have any truly objective opinion or belief. The goal isn't pure objectivity; it's to reduce individual bias in presenting and interpreting the data as much as possible, given linguistic limitations. As always, the only thing in the world that's binary is binary itself.
Einstein was agnostic; preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being".