All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

[Riverwolf]

Yes, I have to agree with you. Having internal beliefs that have not resulted in action is not harmful to society. However, individuals that want to act on their beliefs should first validate their beliefs. Good or bad is within context of the individual, of the organization, of the culture, of the society...

Without a validation process which religion tends not to have outside of faith (which is not a process!), then I see no merit to accept religious doctrine. I'm not suggesting that every belief goes through the scientific method, but it has to go through some process. In Kim Davis's context, it did go through the US legal process, yet she still defies the judgement and declares her religious process as the final measure.

Then we're in agreement.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Does that make a difference in this context though?

I would hope clear thinking and logic always matter in discussions. But it could be that I'm too used to discussions about atheism boiling down to people conflating "doesn't believe god exists" with "believe god doesn't exist" or making similar mistakes. What really matters is that the article is just simply wrong. It is absolutely not true that in "[n]o ideas, religious or otherwise, get a free pass" in the sciences or that "science holds no idea sacred". Nor is it true that "the more we learn about the universe, the more purposeless it seems" (actually, the opposite is true). Also, the "[f]ive hundred years of science [that] liberated humanity" were intricately linked to religion:
Galileo and the Origin of Science

Ideology is ideology. I don't care if it is religious or not. If the 20th century showed anything, it's that political ideologies can be just as destructive as religious. I am wary of, and tend to find worrying, any militant doctrine/ideology/belief system, be it religious, atheist, political, environmental, economic, etc. There are enough scientists who adopt militant attitudes which hinder scientific progress without encouraging a wholly specious and irrelevant additional stance on religion. For one thing, it results in articles by a "militant atheist" entitled "All Scientists Should be Athiests" in which we find the author saying that no idea gets a free pace; this means that atheism shouldn't get a free pass but subjected to the (inaccurately described) scientific process. Only the author asserts that "commitment to open questioning is deeply tied to the fact that science is an atheistic enterprise." So atheism doesn't just get a free pass, apparently it is the foundations for the sciences (it isn't, as science emerged out of a particular set of sociocultural conditions that relied heavily on the Christianity of the time).

In general, I'll admit that I would prefer working with scientists who are militant atheists rather than fundamentalists, and that I believe science to be sufficiently ingrained such that it has long sense shed the need for the religious impetus underlying its emergence. I gladly admit that the relationship between science and religion is now mainly one of religion trying to be consistent with science. And I certainly agree with the authors opposition to Kim Davis' actions and agree with his support with gay marriage. But I very much disagree with the clear hypocrisy of a cosmologist (these are they guys who get as close religion as is possible, and it is in cosmology that we find anti-religious bias motivating untestable theories alongside equally unscientific motivations) who states that science doesn't privileged any idea whilst asserting that it is an atheist endeavor.

 

[Milton Platt]

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

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This is a nicely put argument (and of course I agree with it )

In my opinion, there are no atheist opinion leaders anymore. The atheist movement set something in motion before, and now is that motion. It is one thing to make a fancy argument denying free will is real as Kraus does, but quite another thing to not understand how choosing works in daily life. Kraus and the other atheists, they all lived in a rich culture where people actually accepted freedom is real, and acknowledged each other emotions. In day to day life Kraus doesn't live not understanding how choosing works. But the new generation of people on colleges, they really have no clue about how choosing works anymore in their daily life, due to the atheistic previous generation of intellectuals. They are really lost, now is the time of the atheistic hordes.

 

[icehorse]

Sorry for the slow response, I'm on the road:

Of course not. The default understanding of religion and religiosity in Western culture is extremely ethnocentric and not a good basis for understanding the phenomena of religion in global or comparative terms. The English speaking world (aka, Western culture) pretty much things that all religion has characteristics similar to Abrahamic religions, and in particular, Christianity (or specific denominations thereof), even though this is not the case.

It seems we need a richer vocabulary. We need something like "religion-type-A", and "religion-type-B" in order to have more cohesive conversations. That said, I'll stick to my guns and say that - on the basis of enrollment - most of the world's most popular religions share a belief in a god or many gods, correct?

I'd agree that the common misunderstanding of the "religious" approach appears "antithetical" to the sciences. I also recognize that it is a common misunderstanding that applies extremely poorly in global or comparative terms, or even much outside of particular segments of Christianity that are big fans of mythological literalism and being faith-based. In more broadly comparative terms, religion really isn't any more "antithetical" to the sciences than the arts are as a whole. They're different approaches to understanding, and it is only rigidity in worldviews (i.e., there is only one right map of the territory) that causes incompatibility, not the approach itself.

It's interesting you feel religions don't demand evidence, and that sciences somehow do. I'm not sure I'd characterize it that way on both accounts. Sciences don't "demand" evidence as much as have particular standards for what types of evidence are acceptable for its methods. The arts, of which religions can be said to be a form of, have less restrictive standards for evidence and reasoning. Artfulness like poetic allegory is allowed to enhance meaningfulness of the stories and such, rather than being limited to boring, dry, and stale descriptions that are terrible at evoking emotion and inducing a sense of deep meaning or gnosis. But I'm probably getting sidetracked here.

If by "the norm" you mean I've broken free from the telescopic understanding most Westerners have of religion and substituting that with a more global and comparative understanding, then yes, though I'm hardly in the place that a proper scholar of religion would be on expertise in that. That you think I sound more like a philosopher and scientist than a religious person is perhaps a testimony to how you regard religion, yes? All of those things are me. I have the most formal eduction in the sciences, but I'm all of those things. Eh... just call it a Druid thing, I guess.

Hmmm, "religion as art" is an interesting idea. I'd join that discussion in a separate thread!

As for science's standards for evidence, again maybe it's just a semantics thing? I totally agree that science has certain standards that are used to judge whether some given evidence is "good" or "bad". But that has to do with whether the evidence in question can become predictable and/or repeatable. All of the modern technology we enjoy is ultimately based on evidence that is predictable and repeatable.

I suppose we could say that we have a lot of evidence that Beethoven's music often causes positive emotional reactions in people. And I'd agree that - at this point in time - scientists can't really explain why that is. But despite what I lot of people think, true scientists never claim to have all the answers.

So, overall, given the definitions I'm using (which I'd guess are the first ones listed in most English dictionaries), I'll stick with my claim that science demands good evidence, and religion does not.

 

[icehorse]

In my opinion, there are no atheist opinion leaders anymore. The atheist movement set something in motion before, and now is that motion. It is one thing to make a fancy argument denying free will is real as Kraus does, but quite another thing to not understand how choosing works in daily life. Kraus and the other atheists, they all lived in a rich culture where people actually accepted freedom is real, and acknowledged each other emotions. In day to day life Kraus doesn't live not understanding how choosing works. But the new generation of people on colleges, they really have no clue about how choosing works anymore in their daily life, due to the atheistic previous generation of intellectuals. They are really lost, now is the time of the atheistic hordes.

In your post, whenever you say "atheist" do you mean "militant atheist"?

If so, on the one hand you say there are no opinion leaders any more, but then you discuss Kraus. As for college students, do you have examples of what you're talking about? I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just not quite sure what you're saying?

 

[leibowde84]

Maybe I'll try putting it to you as an example. If I say I clearly once saw the ghost of a soldier in a civil war uniform; is that evidence for the existence of ghosts? I say yes, it is evidence for the existence of ghosts (but perhaps not compelling evidence to anyone else but me).

That merely begs the question, "what made you so sure that it was actually a ghost?"

 

[George-ananda]

That merely begs the question, "what made you so sure that it was actually a ghost?"

I understand we can not be 100% sure of our senses. If I trust my senses and judgment the most I can ever say is that it is highly likely that I saw a ghost,

We have been debating the meaning of the word 'evidence'. Do you understand in a murder case there can be 'evidence arguing for' and 'evidence arguing against' the same thing? They love that on TV crime shows. You are confusing 'evidence' with 'certainty'.

 

[leibowde84]

I understand we can not be 100% sure of our senses. If I trust my senses and judgment the most I can ever say is that it is highly likely that I saw a ghost,

We have been debating the meaning of the word 'evidence'. Do you understand in a murder case there can be 'evidence arguing for' and 'evidence arguing against' the same thing? They love that on TV crime shows. You are confusing 'evidence' with 'certainty'.

I am not confusing "evidence" with "certainty". I am pointing out that there would be evidence, subjective in this case, that would lead you to believe you saw a ghost. That is what I asked for.

You keep on making the erroneous claim that I am demanding absolute proof, but I am merey asking for supporting evidence. Your example of court room dramas is perfect. If we are contemplating two competing claims, we must evaluate the evidence and see where that evidence directs us.

 

[George-ananda]

I am not confusing "evidence" with "certainty". I am pointing out that there would be evidence, subjective in this case, that would lead you to believe you saw a ghost. That is what I asked for.

Sorry, I re-read this three times and am not clear on what this is trying to say. If my best guess is correct on what you meant then I would say 'we use our senses all the time to collect subjective evidence'.

 

[leibowde84]

Sorry, I re-read this three times and am not clear on what this is trying to say. If my best guess is correct on what you meant then I would say 'we use our senses all the time to collect subjective evidence'.

Of course we do. Often, that evidence can even be "verified" through outside sources. But, without supporting evidence, this subjective evidence should be met with scrutiny and skepticism, as the human mind/brain/senses, as you stated, often is misleading. There are so many underlying/subconsious biases that we don't realize we have. These often lead us to consider flawed experience as evidence for something it is not.

 

[George-ananda]

Of course we do. Often, that evidence can even be "verified" through outside sources. But, without supporting evidence, this subjective evidence should be met with scrutiny and skepticism, as the human mind/brain/senses, as you stated, often is misleading. There are so many underlying/subconsious biases that we don't realize we have. These often lead us to consider flawed experience as evidence for something it is not.

OK, we agree on the above. But certainly we can't function without putting a great deal of value in our imperfect senses. That's why I consider quality, quantity and consistency of the evidence when considering 'beyond the normal' phenomena. Enough quality evidence can convince me beyond reasonable doubt that something is going on that verifiable science does not understand.

 

[Nakosis]

I'd suggest the article be re-titled
All Scientists Should Be Militant Secularists

 

[Underhill]

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".

That does not mean, as I have heard many religious types claim, that he was a believer. Reserving judgement is rational.

It is also politically correct (only a fool would come out of the closet as an atheist in those days). Reading some of the founding fathers papers, they sound a lot like Einstein on the subject of god. After all, not believing has always been a precarious position among the public, even today.

 

[Underhill]

OK, we agree on the above. But certainly we can't function without putting a great deal of value in our imperfect senses. That's why I consider quality, quantity and consistency of the evidence when considering 'beyond the normal' phenomena. Enough quality evidence can convince me beyond reasonable doubt that something is going on that verifiable science does not understand.

Sorry for butting in, but I wouldn't put much stock in the human senses and most of all memory. Court room testimony proves that memory and the senses are inherently flawed. Without looking try to tell me what the person in the next room is wearing and I would be surprised if you could do it reliably 1 in 10 times.

 

[Nakosis]

Ideology is ideology. I don't care if it is religious or not. If the 20th century showed anything, it's that political ideologies can be just as destructive as religious. I am wary of, and tend to find worrying, any militant doctrine/ideology/belief system, be it religious, atheist, political, environmental, economic, etc.

I like this but I also wonder who are we without our ideologies?

I have some principles, they are my principles and I understand they are not universal.

Science shouldn't be based on morality, but morality should not be based on science either. I don't think,

 

[Gambit]

This is a nicely put argument (and of course I agree with it

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

 

[leibowde84]

OK, we agree on the above. But certainly we can't function without putting a great deal of value in our imperfect senses. That's why I consider quality, quantity and consistency of the evidence when considering 'beyond the normal' phenomena. Enough quality evidence can convince me beyond reasonable doubt that something is going on that verifiable science does not understand.

Does not understand yet, though. That is why I am perplexed by jumping to the conclusion of God.

 

[George-ananda]

Does not understand yet, though. That is why I am perplexed by jumping to the conclusion of God.

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

 

[George-ananda]

Sorry for butting in, but I wouldn't put much stock in the human senses and most of all memory. Court room testimony proves that memory and the senses are inherently flawed. Without looking try to tell me what the person in the next room is wearing and I would be surprised if you could do it reliably 1 in 10 times.

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.