All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

[Desert Snake]

With two fingers I can prove to you that 1 + 1 = 2. No one can debate this. It really is that simple.

Uhhh yeah.? therefore?

 

[suncowiam]

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.

Let's start getting into details because we both have fair points.

I'm not asserting all subjective beliefs are harmful or negative. But some beliefs have to have credence and reflect objective reality. For example, Kim Davis and Christianity's assertion that homosexuality is a sin. This is destructive in nature and harmful to the homosexual community. It creates discrimination and segregation. Other beliefs like swine being unkosher is questionable but harmless to society. I could care less what people eat as long as its not other people. Some vegans would argue here but then I digress. We have to draw a line against specific types of beliefs that are harmful to society and cannot be proven. It doesn't matter if those beliefs are religious in nature either. I find that reasonable, do you?

 

[suncowiam]

Uhhh yeah.? therefore?

Now you go and prove god exists before you preach to me rules that are based from him.

 

[Desert Snake]

Now you go and prove god exists before you preach to me rules that based from him.

Prove to me that He doesn't exist.

 

[suncowiam]

Prove to me that He doesn't exist.

Is this rhetoric how you deal with other subjects concerning reality?

I have to prove other things like the easter bunny and Santa Claus dont exist too? Or do you treat god with an exception that contradicts your own logic?

 

[Desert Snake]

Is this rhetoric how you deal with other subjects concerning reality?

I have to prove other things like the easter bunny and Santa Claus dont exist too? Or do you treat god with an exception that contradicts your own logic?

You're the one who brought up G-d. But, theoretically, yes, you would have to prove some stuff, or come up with a better hypothesis. Lemme guess, you don't know what you would have to prove? ahhhh see that's what happens when we argue with people ,and don't really know the subject.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, it's not rhetoric, btw.

 

[suncowiam]

You're the one who brought up G-d. But, theoretically, yes, you would have to prove some stuff, or come up with a better hypothesis. Lemme guess, you don't know what you would have to prove? ahhhh see that's what happens when we argue with people ,and don't really know the subject.

You're the one who brought up G-d. But, theoretically, yes, you would have to prove some stuff, or come up with a better hypothesis. Lemme guess, you don't know what you would have to prove? ahhhh see that's what happens when we argue with people ,and don't really know the subject.

Actually it's quite easy. Its exactly the same reason why I don't believe in the easter bunny or Santa Claus.

This debate is old and played out so many times. It is the responsibility of the one asserting to prove their claims. If I sold a potion claiming it fixes everything but can't prove it you. Wouldn't it be illogical of me then to ask you to disprove my claim? If you disagree then I will just have to end it here. Continue your belief as you like.

 

[Desert Snake]

Actually it's quite easy. Its exactly the same reason why I don't believe in the easter bunny or Santa Claus.

This debate is old and played out so many times. It is the responsibility of the one asserting to prove their claims. If I sold a potion claiming it fixes everything but can't prove it you. Wouldn't it be illogical of me then to ask you to disprove my claim? If you disagree then I will just have to end it here. Continue your belief as you like.

Well yes, theoretically you can believe anything you like, no matter how ridiculous. I'm not trying to prove your beliefs wrong, but it's funny because you must not realize how little you can actually prove to me. If you think that by logical inference, you have the upper hand, that's hilarious.

 

[suncowiam]

Well yes, theoretically you can believe anything you like, no matter how ridiculous. I'm not trying to prove your beliefs wrong, but it's funny because you must not realize how little you can actually prove to me. If you think that by logical inference, you have the upper hand, that's hilarious.

Well now, you've touched a subjective notion. Yes, I do believe that by logical inference through the same process of not believing in other mystical beings, that I am right not to believe in God. And those that believe in God but not other mystical beings are contradicting their own logic.

I wouldn't call it the upper hand. I would still call it being logical. I'm not trying to win this debate with you. I'm fine if you prove something to me as long as you approach it logically and sensibly.

 

[Laika]

Prove to me that He doesn't exist.

its very hard to do because it involves redefining the nature of reality and what is possible to exist. this is something that isn't really within the scope of the scientific method as it is not about what we know, but what can we know. I agree with the sentiments of the article and the OP that scientists should be much more vocal and militant in promoting science. but that does not automatically ential atheism. a form of naturalism perhaps. Science has been under assult from religious groups in recent decades and I would be more than happy to here the profile of science raised more in public consciousness and hear it debated.

 

[JoStories]

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.

isn't his position just as biased as those who he says should set religion aside? Militant atheism is a position just as believing in God is one. Neither should influence the actions or theories of science. If one is going to study religion, one cannot use pure science anyway. How would a pure scientific method fit research into theology? Other than a study of the historical import of same, it would not work.

 

[MARCELLO]

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".

And his next reincarnation Stephen Hawking says the same.

 

[Yerda]

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

The word religion seems to refer to particular variants of fundie madness and advocacy based on scripture.

I disagree that science has an inherent atheistiness but that's not really the focus despite the title. I thought the article was good and makes some points that need making.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A number of academic conferences, from one held at Cambridge University in 2001 to another at the same place (different college, same university) in 2005, but in particular one held at Stanford in 2003 resulted in the publication of a volume which shares the name of the 2003 conference: "Universe or Multiverse?". The volume, as academic volumes do, consists of papers by specialists in fields (astrophysics, cosmology, particle physics, etc.) and was published by Cambridge University Press in 2007.

The volumes editor (Bernard Carr) notes the following in this introduction:

"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable...
For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science. This view has been expressed forcefully by commentators such as Sheldon Glashowm Martin Gardner and George Ellis, with widely differing metaphysical outlooks. Indeed, Paul Davies regards the concept of a multiverse as just as metaphysical as that of a Creator who fine-tuned a single universe for our existence...To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design."

Turns out that some pretty hardcore atheists adopt religious-like views that are equated to religious views, and at times because favoring "aesthetic considerations" comes with the unscientific benefit of seeming "to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design."
Of course, some physicists have relied on modern cosmology and physics to argue for a theist cosmology using scientific arguments typical of theoretical physics, mathematical physics, and cosmology, as in e.g., Amoroso, R. L., & Rauscher, E. A. (2009). The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse: Formalizing the Complex Geometry of Reality (Series on Knots and Everything Vol. 43). World Scientific.
Basically, scientists in the most (so-called) fundamental fields (the natural sciences and in particular those which concern particle physics, theoretical physics, cosmology, etc.) aren't anywhere near close to the kind of warranted position that they should, given their scientific perspective, be any sort of atheist (or theist, or whatever-ist, other than e.g., creationist or similarly definitely non-scientific perspectives).

 

[Yerda]

For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science. This view has been expressed forcefully by commentators such as Sheldon Glashowm Martin Gardner and George Ellis, with widely differing metaphysical outlooks. Indeed, Paul Davies regards the concept of a multiverse as just as metaphysical as that of a Creator who fine-tuned a single universe for our existence...

It's kinda funny that (some) scientists are often assertive in their dismissal of philosophy (See Dawkins, Tyson, Hawking for instance) while essentially doing metaphysics. Popular works about universes from nothing, multiverses, many-worlds strike me as fundamentally metaphysical in nature, at least in so far as I understand metaphysics. I'm not saying it's bad to write metaphysics just that you probably shouldn't scoff at the uselessness of philosophy while you do it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

Many are, but without exceptions like Lemaitre and Planck we'd still believe in static universes and classical physics

 

[leibowde84]

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

I liked the article, and agree with it for the most part. We, as a culture, need to allow the evidence to direct our beliefs rather than allow our beliefs to dictate what evidence we find valid. Religious beliefs are not fact, and they should be challenged whenever possible. There is no harm that comes from scientific discovery and discussion. And, the only reason why religious people would have a problem with this would be the fear that their beliefs are incorrect.

 

[Quintessence]

Main impression I got form the article was "man, this writer has a funny idea of what it means to call something sacred." S/he talks about ideas as being sacred, which is just... well... that's not particularly what the core of sacredness is about in world religions. It's about recognizing and appreciating the value of something. And in doing that, it in no way requires that one does not question that thing. This quote in particular struck me:

Because science holds that no idea is sacred, it’s inevitable that it draws people away from religion. The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems.

Really? I think the author would be better speaking for themselves on that accord. Science not only drove me towards my religion, but is a major component of my religion. Further, I can think of few vocations that are more inherently religious than that of a scientist. Just not religious in the narrow/conventional sense that most people in my country seem to have stuck in their brains.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Many are, but without exceptions like Lemaitre and Planck we'd still believe in static universes and classical physics

Planck was a classical physicist who somewhat disapproved of Einstein's "new physics", and Einstein fought tooth and nail against modern physics at the quantum scale, against quantum mechanics, against nonlocality, and even developed general relativity in part to remove the nonlocality of classical mechanics. Not long after 1926, and certainly before EPR (1935), Einstein was largely considered a relic, clinging to classical conceptions that no longer applied. Einstein was the exception. Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli, Von Neumann, Fermi, etc., were the rule (insofar as there was a rule).