All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

Your computer works because 1+1=0.

 

[icehorse]

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.

Can you say more about this? From my perspective scientists have some core *values* that they hold to very tightly (e.g. valuing evidence, logic, parsimony and so on), but that seems very distinct from being religious.

 

[suncowiam]

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.

Again, my take from the article is that he's asking scientists to be more vocal against religion where it borders science. Examples are religious medicine, religious history of the universe, evolution, and so on.

I agree with you, they are ideally separate but religion tends to encroach on science a bit more with little facts. Wouldn't you agree given my examples?

 

[suncowiam]

Your computer works because 1+1=0.

I'm not sure if you are joking or being serious.

I'm a computer engineer graduate. 1 + 1 = 10 to a computer if I'm understanding what you're trying to suggest. Unless the resulting operation can only be loaded into a bit data bank so yes 1 + 1 = 0 with the carry/overflow bit in the ALU being set.

 

[viole]

I'm not sure if you joking or being serious.

I'm computer engineer graduate. 1 + 1 = 10 to a computer if I'm understanding what you're trying to suggest. Unless the resulting operation can only be loaded into a bit data bank so yes 1 + 1 = 0 with the carry/overflow bit in the ALU being set.

There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Old joke, probably

Ciao

- viole

 

[Quintessence]

Can you say more about this? From my perspective scientists have some core *values* that they hold to very tightly (e.g. valuing evidence, logic, parsimony and so on), but that seems very distinct from being religious.

Truly? In my time being and working with scientists, I think the core value shared is a love of learning and endless curiosity more than those things. Probably neither here nor there.

In the broad sense, being "religious" simply means one has a strong passion for something, but in the sense I really mean here, to be religious means one specifically has a strong drive to know and understand the world around us, or to find meaning in things. That's what all religions do - they provide a map for understanding and relating to the world, from which comes various value systems, practices and stories. You keep asking life's big questions and wanting answers to those. Any and all scientists (and really, any and all academics, regardless of whether or not they are scientists) are fundamentally religious in this way. They've got that strong drive to know and understand, to find meaning in things. Those who pursue the sciences particularly enjoy that method of seeking meaningfulness, though by no means do they need to limit themselves to that. Those who are inclined to see deep meaning tend to do so from multiple sources, because to do otherwise is... well... it's unnecessarily limiting, and why would you do that?!

 

[leibowde84]

Prove to me that He doesn't exist.

God's existence is an unfalsifiable claim. Therefore, it is absurd to ask someone to prove that God doesn't exist. You are using nothing more than a logical fallacy in order to bolster your position. And, you are also asking him to prove a negative, which is jeuvenille at best. The burden of proof is on the party making a claim of existence, whether you are claiming the existence of God, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Extraterrestrial Life, or anything else for that matter.

Can you provide a limited definition for God and support God's existence with evidence?

 

[Desert Snake]

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

...............^

Prove to me that He doesn't exist.

Then my response/.

God's existence is an unfalsifiable claim. Therefore, it is absurd to ask someone to prove that God doesn't exist. You are using nothing more than a logical fallacy in order to bolster your position. And, you are also asking him to prove a negative, which is jeuvenille at best. The burden of proof is on the party making a claim of existence, whether you are claiming the existence of God, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Extraterrestrial Life, or anything else for that matter.

Can you provide a limited definition for God and support God's existence with evidence?

Huh?

The user asked me to prove that G-d exists; then in I asked the user to prove to me, that G-d does not exist. The ''burden of proof'', is just as much on the other user, as it would be on me. You are, once again, conflating your own subjective beliefs, with ''evidence'' or objective truth, and using it as a basis for argumentation.

 

[Scott C.]

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

Scientists should not be militant against religion; they should be silent on the subject. For example, if scientists determines the earth to be 100,000,000,000 years old, then that is what they should publish. But, they shouldn't announce that science has now contradicted new-earth beliefs. Religious folks can figure out on their own how to reconcile any perceived contradictions. For some scientists, the more they research, the more they "see" the hand of God in creation. For others, they see no such thing. God will never be proved or disproved by science. God will prove himself, as he chooses to manifest himself to his children, be it individually, or collectively, with spiritual subtlety or with great and glorious manifestations.

 

[leibowde84]

...............^



Then my response/.



Huh?

The user asked me to prove that G-d exists; then in I asked the user to prove to me, that G-d does not exist. The ''burden of proof'', is just as much on the other user, as it would be on me. You are, once again, conflating your own subjective beliefs, with ''evidence'' or objective truth, and using it as a basis for argumentation.

Simple logic demands that the one making the claim of existence always carries the burden of proof. You are asking him to disprove an unfalsifiable claim.

 

[Desert Snake]

Simple logic demands that the one making the claim of existence always carries the burden of proof. You are asking him to disprove an unfalsifiable claim.

facepalm.

 

[leibowde84]

facepalm.

So, you don't understand the unreasonableness of asking someone to prove a negative? And, you also don't understand that the claim "God exists", without defining or explaining the limitations of what God is, is an unfalsifiable claim? I would suggest researching the art of argumentation and the basic rules of logic. And ...

"facepalm"

 

[Desert Snake]

So, you don't understand the unreasonableness of asking someone to prove a negative?

It isn't a negative, that's what you aren't understanding. Also, you don't understand is that asking me to prove that G-d exists is unreasonable.

And, you also don't understand that the claim "God exists", without defining or explaining the limitations of what God is, is an unfalsifiable claim? I would suggest researching the art of argumentation and the basic rules of logic. And ...

"facepalm"

Why would I care if it's an unfalsifiable claim? What does that have to do with my claim? I already know it's unfalsfiable, who cares?

 

[leibowde84]

It isn't a negative, that's what you aren't understanding. what you don't understand is that asking me to prove that G-d exists is unreasonable.


Why would I care if it's an unfalsifiable claim? What does that have to do with my claim? I already know it's unfalsfiable, who cares?

The point is that it is unreasonable and seemingly disrespectful to ask someone to disprove an unfalsifiable claim. It is literally taking away any chance of a rational discussion.

 

[leibowde84]

It isn't a negative, that's what you aren't understanding. what you don't understand is that asking me to prove that G-d exists is unreasonable.


Why would I care if it's an unfalsifiable claim? What does that have to do with my claim? I already know it's unfalsfiable, who cares?

Asking to prove something doesn't exist is asking to prove a negative. You don't agree with this?

 

[suncowiam]

...............^



Then my response/.



Huh?

The user asked me to prove that G-d exists; then in I asked the user to prove to me, that G-d does not exist. The ''burden of proof'', is just as much on the other user, as it would be on me. You are, once again, conflating your own subjective beliefs, with ''evidence'' or objective truth, and using it as a basis for argumentation.

Its the same reason as I can't prove to you that a purple eye monster with three toes and a pink mustache does not exist. You know this and you are playing the technicality of this argument.

So, with reasonable boundaries that can be subjectively placed concerning sample size, locality on Earth, in our dimension, and so on and so on... I can reasonably assert with logical inference that God and other mystical beasts do not exist. You understand the technical details and so do I. So there, you have the upper hand in the discussion for me to say I cannot prove to you that God nor a purple eye monster do not 100% unequivocally exist. I'm going to politely exit out of this conversation.

 

[Desert Snake]

Asking to prove something doesn't exist is asking to prove a negative. You don't agree with this?

Yes, I KNOW that the user cannot prove that. What they can do is present evidence, though, to the contrary of my beliefs. Now, that is why , I asked IN CONTEXT of the users previous question. The debate changes, in that context.
/and that is the users context, not mine/

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, I KNOW that the user cannot prove that. What they can do is present evidence, though, to the contrary of my beliefs. Now, that is why , I asked IN CONTEXT of the users previous question. The debate changes, in that context.
/and that is the users context, not mine/

Asking to support an argument that anything, God or anything else, exists is completely reasonable. If you respond with, "prove that thing doesn't exist", that is unreasonable, as it is asking to prove a negative and, further, when the initial claim is unfalsifiable, it isn't a valid claim to begin with.

 

[Desert Snake]

Asking to support an argument that anything, God or anything else, exists is completely reasonable. If you respond with, "prove that thing doesn't exist", that is unreasonable, as it is asking to prove a negative and, further, when the initial claim is unfalsifiable, it isn't a valid claim to begin with.

Using your format, 'deity does not exist', is not a valid claim. You are once again, applying your subjective belief, to the argument, in a manner that doesn't work. Simply because the user does not believe in a deity or the possibility of a deity, does not make it 'fact', logical, inferred, or anything else.

 

[leibowde84]

Using your format, 'deity does not exist', is not a valid claim. You are once again, applying your subjective belief, to the argument, in a manner that doesn't work. Simply because the user does not believe in a deity or the possibility of a deity, does not make it 'fact', logical, inferred, or anything else.

1. I am a theist, so I do believe in God.
2. Deity does not exist is also an unfalsifiable claim, to the best of my knowledge. But, asking to prove that something doesn't exist is also asking to prove a negative, which is why no one can prove that God does not exist.

In both, God must be sufficiently defined though in a way that specifies and limits exactly what the term is referring to.