What classic new atheism. A defining example! Wonder why you don't mention the USSR and atheism as well
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Real Scientists vs New Atheists/Scientism on the Importance of Philosophy
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
What classic new atheism. A defining example! Wonder why you don't mention the USSR and atheism as well
By generally assuming materialism for one thing!
I caught that too hahaha. New atheists only care about their point being right, not if they're consistent lol.
exchemist
Veteran Member
I think his point may be that that one unreasonable conclusion deserves another - he's pulling your leg.What classic new atheism. A defining example! Wonder why you don't mention the USSR and atheism as well
It is not reasonable to conclude "much of modern science is logically unsound" , just as it is not reasonable to conclude that religion generally causes terrorism.
I really don't see how they're challenging any of my perceptions. How does someone like Dawkins challenge anything I believe??
Yes. I actually dont consider math and spoken language separate literally. In math rules are created when confronted by paradoxes to work around them. In languages paradoxes are not an issue. "all Cretans are liers and i am a Cretan". What language rules there are do not allow for "all cretan are lying, and i am a cretans" Thats just mangled language. Which i like to do!!!! But what is poetry but mangling literalism of "normal "acceptable proper pronunciation as deemed by any point in time.
Sorry your field is interesting to me, i couldnt resist my babbling about it. . Oh and the grelling nelson paradox is a very curious paradox indeed. Matched in naive set theory called the Russell paradox.
PuerAzaelis
Unknown Friend
Exactly.What classic new atheism. A defining example! Wonder why you don't mention the USSR and atheism as well
Woberts
The Perfumed Seneschal
How is that logically unsound? Science deals with things that can be tested repeatedly.
Materialism has no supernatural elements, meaning that it is what science uses.
PuerAzaelis
Unknown Friend
Oh.I think his point may be that that one unreasonable conclusion deserves another - he's pulling your leg.
It is not reasonable to conclude "much of modern science is logically unsound" , just as it is not reasonable to conclude that religion generally causes terrorism.
There are too many fora at RF. I can't read this fast.
Dawkins is barely a craftman, And a stupid one at that. In the world of construction he world be a concrete j@¢k@$$!!! Although if i grew up anglican and raised as a believer i too might be an atheist! !! Who knows what trauma that inflicted on him as a small child!!!!! Even in science many find him just stupid and off his rocker.
exchemist
Veteran Member
It is not illogical to set out limits to the scope of enquiry in a field of study. In fact it is highly logical to do so.
In the case of science, the limits are that it searches only for natural explanations for natural phenomena. Thus it does not deal with supernatural ideas or ideas to do with subjective experience. These are dealt with by other systems of thought, not by science.
This has been implicitly the case since the birth of modern science after the Renaissance.
exchemist
Veteran Member
I think that's unfair. He is, or was, a good biologist.
But that does not make him a good philosopher, nor does it give him any insight into the nature and purpose of religion - on which subject he has made a right nitwit of himself, it seems to me.
Oh he is a shop mechanic stating the obvious. Much of science is simply filling in the blanks. Now jane goodall a whole different creature of a scientist. The real deal.
Dawkins logic is hey the ark is x by y by z dimensions we know factually not all the animals can fit into that even 2x2 therefore there is no god. Thats not science or even understanding the topic. Thats the level he works at. So what?!! !
Most people confuse academic or formal philosophy -- the philosophy done by actual philosophers -- with informal or street philosophy. Street philosophy has no rules. It's mostly about what or how you feel about things, and anything goes when it comes to that.
Formal philosophy has one -- and really only one -- serious rule. Whatever you say must be supported by airtight logical reasoning. Put differently, formal philosophy pushes the limits of what can be supported by logic alone.
That approach seldom, if ever, produces much in the way of reliable science, but it does tend to do at least two things. First, it tends to debunk assumptions. Second, it tends to uncover new questions about things. Historically, those questions have sometimes led to the creation of a science.
Formal philosophy has one -- and really only one -- serious rule. Whatever you say must be supported by airtight logical reasoning. Put differently, formal philosophy pushes the limits of what can be supported by logic alone.
That approach seldom, if ever, produces much in the way of reliable science, but it does tend to do at least two things. First, it tends to debunk assumptions. Second, it tends to uncover new questions about things. Historically, those questions have sometimes led to the creation of a science.
I assume there's a point here?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
No, they really are dead.....
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Please explain why the credentials of the scientists on the right are not valid and why there work in their fields is not valid.
How does divergent opinions about philosophy make them not “real” scientists?
Altfish
Veteran Member
USSR and atheism??What classic new atheism. A defining example! Wonder why you don't mention the USSR and atheism as well
The state religion is Orthodox Christianity - something like 40% are Russian Orthodox, only less than 10% are non religious.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Are you sure about this? It seems far too narrow a definition of formal philosophy.
Philosophy - Wikipedia
Well in the mid 1800s a scientist had an idea that was, over 150 years developed by science. It was the deciding factor in allowing the allies to win WW2 and in the last 30 years has totally changed the perspective of just about every person on this planet, including you That idea was the computer.
And Dawkins has helped refine the scientific understanding of evolution. May not mean much to you but many medicines are developed using that knowledge.
What classic new atheism. A defining example! Wonder why you don't mention the USSR and atheism as well
Russia is not atheist but has a vast majority of religious belief.