All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

[outhouse]

Sounds like the author has no clue on more sophisticated theistic/pantheistic beliefs that don't conflict with science.

Sounds like you have no clue what the author was saying and why.

If they don't contradict scientific findings or bias, then it is a non issue.


Context is that religious bias screws up real scientific work, and we should all make sure theism has no place AT ALL in the study of nature.

There is nothing to debate here.

 

[George-ananda]

If they don't contradict scientific findings or bias, then it is a non issue.

So why be a militant atheist then??

 

[outhouse]

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.

My problem is I see both sides and find it a bit cowardly to not address the heart of the matter. He is an atheist.

Like me, he just doesn't like the term or name due to the negative stereotypes and the right wing nutter atheist that give atheism a bad name. I just prefer to man up and accept I know gods do not exist.

He has to be more political then I do, and he can reach more of his audience, with an agnostic claim. I don't hold it against him.

I was asked to lecture on biblical history, and when I found out it was because I was being used a tool for an atheist agenda.

It was a bit of a turn off because to the professor, I was more useful as a tool against theism, more so then the accuracy of my statements

 

[outhouse]

So why be a militant atheist then??

Good question.


Twofold

First militant atheism is a term that can be perverted into a negative when it is not a negative.

It guarantees there wont be any theistic mistakes.

 

[Yorutenchi]

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.

What about atheism is a declaration? What is the declaration? For me it is the declaration that you have not provided evidence for god. I cannot believe in something without evidence. That is my declaration.

 

[Politesse]

Good question.


Twofold

First militant atheism is a term that can be perverted into a negative when it is not a negative.

It guarantees there wont be any theistic mistakes.

If you're just replacing them with other mistakes, who cares? Letting ideology guide your work will always be unscientific. "Science" doesn't care if your bias is theistic or atheistic.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Scientists should be concerned with discovering the world as it is not with spiritual or religious matters.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Scientists should be concerned with discovering the world as it is not with spiritual or religious matters.

The implication being that the world at is does not involve spiritual or religious matters (and that scientists can distinguish what the world as is consists of from what it doesn't, which was dramatically and drastically demonstrated to be false with the advent of quantum mechanics).

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

The implication being that the world at is does not involve spiritual or religious matters (and that scientists can distinguish what the world as is consists of from what it doesn't, which was dramatically and drastically demonstrated to be false with the advent of quantum mechanics).

Im saying that whatever your religious affiliation might be, your love for discovering the world must be at the forefront than what your religion or worldview says.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Im saying that whatever your religious affiliation might be, your love for discovering the world must be at the forefront than what your religion or worldview says.

Alas, the vast majority of worldviews have rendered such discoveries inherently impossible. Thus the tens of thousands of years before the development of empiricism.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Alas, the vast majority of worldviews have rendered such discoveries inherently impossible. Thus the tens of thousands of years before the development of empiricism.

i have actual personal evidence that deism or agnosticism isnt true but i stll value these views and regard any scientist who adheres to them. its all about science anyway not about you.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

i have actual personal evidence that deism or agnosticism isnt true but i stll value these views and regard any scientist who adheres to them. its all about science anyway not about you.

I wasn't concerned with me, or even the modern era, but the tens of thousands of years humans have existed and the standard worldviews. Also, I'm a scientist and agnostic so you must value my view (extraordinarily kind of you, given that you don't know what my view is).

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

I wasn't concerned with me, or even the modern era, but the tens of thousands of years humans have existed and the standard worldviews. Also, I'm a scientist and agnostic so you must value my view (extraordinarily kind of you, given that you don't know what my view is).

Do you really think that greaco-roman paganism made it impossible for aristotle to make scientific discoveries? or any other 'philosopher' for that matter?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Do you really think that greaco-roman paganism made it impossible for aristotle to make scientific discoveries? or any other 'philosopher' for that matter?

I know for a fact that Aristotle impeded scientific discovery for over a thousand years by postulating a theory of motion that he could have empirically falsified with ease had empiricism not been something that not only was seen as at best pointless and at worst worthy of execution. I have this rather annoying distaste for reading works in translation and as a result I added classical languages as a secondary major and continued to learn ancient languages and study ancient history (particularly with respect to natural philosophy or "proto-science", probably because I felt this somehow justified my neurotic tendencies to spend significant time and money studying ancient history and dead languages). Thankfully, I'm not the only scientist who has deemed Aristotelian mechanics worthy of attention (even if most others can't actually read classical Greek), and physicists like Petkov and Susskind even model their monographs and journal articles on Galileo's crushing refutation of Aristotle's ridiculous "scientific" discoveries that delayed physics for a millennium.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

I know for a fact that Aristotle impeded scientific discovery for over a thousand years by postulating a theory of motion that he could have empirically falsified with ease had empiricism not been something that not only was seen as at best pointless and at worst worthy of execution. I have this rather annoying distaste for reading works in translation and as a result I added classical languages as a secondary major and continued to learn ancient languages and study ancient history (particularly with respect to natural philosophy or "proto-science", probably because I felt this somehow justified my neurotic tendencies to spend significant time and money studying ancient history and dead languages). Thankfully, I'm not the only scientist who has deemed Aristotelian mechanics worthy of attention (even if most others can't actually read classical Greek), and physicists like Petkov and Susskind even model their monographs and journal articles on Galileo's crushing refutation of Aristotle's ridiculous "scientific" discoveries that delayed physics for a millennium.

i personally dont think anything is ridiculous scientifically but rather that his views might differ from ours and its our responsibility to discover the world in a different light. who knows perhaps the 'big bang' or the 'multiverse' hypothesis might be a joke from now on. but we shouldnt make fun but go to discover the world as it is instead.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

but we shouldnt make fun but go to discover the world as it is instead.

Aristotle impeded attempts to "discover the world as it is" for 1,000+ years. He repudiated empiricism in favor of logically deriving theories he could have demonstrated to be false the way elementary school children can and are sometimes taught to. So what exactly was your point about his (non-existent) "scientific discoveries"?

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Aristotle impeded attempts to "discover the world as it is" for 1,000+ years. He repudiated empiricism in favor of logically deriving theories he could have demonstrated to be false the way elementary school children can and are sometimes taught to. So what exactly was your point about his (non-existent) "scientific discoveries"?

He discovered how speech works and the true nature of physics. Ofcourse there were many mistakes such as earth being the center of the universe but its just his view from contemporary antiquity that he believe to be true not what we should believe and take serious. But the persuasion aspect is absolutely amazing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

He discovered how speech works

No, he didn't. In fact, that remains an area of contention.

and the true nature of physics.[/QUOTE
He failed to adequately define the most basic forms of physics, but did succeed in ensuring that anybody who held his views would likewise fail.

Ofcourse there were many mistakes

So far, all you've described are historical mistakes you've made about what Aristotle did.

 

[Desert Snake]

What about atheism is a declaration? What is the declaration? For me it is the declaration that you have not provided evidence for god. I cannot believe in something without evidence. That is my declaration.

That isn't what atheism is. Atheism is not conditional on what I present as evidence for 'god';

that doesn't even make sense.

 

[Yorutenchi]

That isn't what atheism is. Atheism is not conditional on what I present as evidence for 'god';

that doesn't even make sense.

Yes it does. My lack of a belief in your god is because the evidence brought to me is not adequate. It makes perfect sense because that is the reality.