All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

[Politesse]

If a scientist thinks Science requires them to have not just a anti-religious ideology but a political agenda to suit, I'd say they are on very perilous ground for someone who wants to make a stable career as a scientist. Not assuming on what you don't know is part of the scientific paradigm. Avoiding recognition of things you ought to know is even worse, and I'd say the black box where most militant anythings store their private doubts about their own ideology is a pretty big one.

 

[leibowde84]

Now I don't understand.......where in this discussion did I jump to the conclusion of God.

It was another poster. It wasn't you that jumped to the conclusion of God being responsible for the cause of the Big Bang.

 

[George-ananda]

It was another poster. It wasn't you that jumped to the conclusion of God being responsible for the cause of the Big Bang.

Ah...makes sense; you had me confused with someone else. I also believe God is responsible for the Big Bang but I didn't jump to that conclusion. In my case, it was a series of precise reasoning steps.

 

[Underhill]

We are all aware of errors and limitations of the senses and memory. Senses and memory may not be perfect but they are far from useless. We could not live our lives without some faith in their general reliability.

Sure, but there is a difference between general reliability and seeing something odd one time and distinguishing exactly what it was.

 

[icehorse]

Just curious. What exactly is a "spiritual anti-theist?"

Well I guess spirituality is a tough idea for everyone to pin down, but for me it means (at least), that I acknowledge and appreciate the wonderful and awesome and immeasurable. Things like love, and beauty and the arts and the cosmos and nature...

Anti-theism means I'm not neutral on (most), theistic religion, I think it's a negative force, something to be marginalized.

 

[George-ananda]

Sure, but there is a difference between general reliability and seeing something odd one time and distinguishing exactly what it was.

I agree again. I would not draw much from one event. But a body of events analyzed for quantity, quality and pattern can provide something meaningful to consider.

 

[Underhill]

I agree again. I would not draw much from one event. But a body of events analyzed for quantity, quality and pattern can provide something meaningful to consider.

Depending on the events. The problem with religious sightings is that people around the world really wants to see these things. So Catholics tend to interpret everything as Jesus or angels as one example.

 

[George-ananda]

Depending on the events. The problem with religious sightings is that people around the world really wants to see these things. So Catholics tend to interpret everything as Jesus or angels as one example.

That's why I say consider (not just dismiss or just accept).

An example would be various things called 'ghostly phenomena'. I have heard enough strong cases that I believe there is something real going on that is antithetical to the materialist worldview. That would only make for only step 1) in my overall thinking.

 

[Underhill]

That's why I say consider (not just dismiss or just accept).

An example would be various things called 'ghostly phenomena'. I have heard enough strong cases that I believe there is something real going on that is antithetical to the materialist worldview. That would only make for only step 1) in my overall thinking.

I remember Carl Sagan wrote a great deal about this. He points out that the vast majority of people who have these experiences are those who believed in them to begin with. He said it is virtually unheard of for a skeptic to see a ghost, angel or alien.

 

[George-ananda]

I remember Carl Sagan wrote a great deal about this. He points out that the vast majority of people who have these experiences are those who believed in them to begin with. He said it is virtually unheard of for a skeptic to see a ghost, angel or alien.

I think Sagan's argument is wrong and there is a flaw in his argument. I've been studying these things for decades now and I'd like to have $20 for every time I have heard something to the effect....'I never believed in ghosts until,,,,,,' I know many of the major players in research of such things have said that they have 'never believed in such things until.....' Sagan would not consider these people skeptics/non-believers in the analysis you are discussing above. Before an experience the average person is not yet 'thought out' the subject in a disciplined thinking manner. And by definition a skeptic/non-believer has never had a convincing experience so who is he talking about; just the few people he knows personally?

 

[Politesse]

I remember Carl Sagan wrote a great deal about this. He points out that the vast majority of people who have these experiences are those who believed in them to begin with. He said it is virtually unheard of for a skeptic to see a ghost, angel or alien.

Social research does not support him there. Actually, the majority of believers in the paranormal were "converted" by experience; they may have encountered the paradigm before, but not related to it the same way they did after the encounter.

 

[Milton Platt]

If a scientist thinks Science requires them to have not just a anti-religious ideology but a political agenda to suit, I'd say they are on very perilous ground for someone who wants to make a stable career as a scientist. Not assuming on what you don't know is part of the scientific paradigm. Avoiding recognition of things you ought to know is even worse, and I'd say the black box where most militant anythings store their private doubts about their own ideology is a pretty big one.

Science is just a methodology which tries to ascertain the correct answers about the natural world (the only one confirmed). It is not about politics or anything else. It is a system for understanding the universe around us.

 

[Politesse]

Science is just a methodology which tries to ascertain the correct answers about the natural world (the only one confirmed). It is not about politics or anything else. It is a system for understanding the universe around us.

I totally and whole-heartedly agree.

Which is why I think this argument that scientists must be politically active on antireligious grounds is extremely suspect.

 

[Sees]

I remember Carl Sagan wrote a great deal about this. He points out that the vast majority of people who have these experiences are those who believed in them to begin with. He said it is virtually unheard of for a skeptic to see a ghost, angel or alien.

Sagan is great in general and I wish we still had him - but he was completely talking out his rear-end there As far as demonic possession cases go then it would fit.

 

[Desert Snake]

But subjective opinion is not verifiable and is not considered fact. It is merely opinion.

Uh, therefore? Atheism is an opinion, it is an declaration. It has to be in order to be used as a counterpoint to theism. Any usage outside of the opinion/claim context, and atheism loses any relevance to whether theism is correct or not.

 

[Milton Platt]

Uh, therefore? Atheism is an opinion, it is an declaration. It has to be in order to be used as a counterpoint to theism. Any usage outside of the opinion/claim context, and atheism loses any relevance to whether theism is correct or not.

It is simply a rejection of the theistic claim that there are gods. It is not a statement that there could not ever be one. There is of course "hard atheism" which does make such a claim, and in that case there is a burden of proof.

 

[MARCELLO]

Though scientists needn't to be an atheist ,I cannot recall any of them rather than Mendel of beans experiment

 

[Underhill]

Social research does not support him there. Actually, the majority of believers in the paranormal were "converted" by experience; they may have encountered the paradigm before, but not related to it the same way they did after the encounter.

You have any actual numbers to back this up? I was raised in an evangelical church. The vast majority of people I knew had either been raised in the church or had an 'experience' that amounted to a preacher telling a good story and calling them up front. Not exactly what we are talking about....

 

[Underhill]

Sagan is great in general and I wish we still had him - but he was completely talking out his rear-end there As far as demonic possession cases go then it would fit.

See above post.

 

[Underhill]

Social research does not support him there. Actually, the majority of believers in the paranormal were "converted" by experience; they may have encountered the paradigm before, but not related to it the same way they did after the encounter.

Even if we stretch this to mean alien abductions and what not, his point is that these people were not among those who would say there were no aliens. They may have been on the fence, unsure of their feelings on the subject. They see something in the sky and bam, they are believers.

It's a hard thing to prove of course. It makes a better story if you portray yourself as a diametrically apposed to the idea prior to your 'experience'.

I even ran a poll among our atheist group, all 1200 members. None of them had any experience of this sort.