(split) Atheism and acceptance of science
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
- Status
And for still more convicts converts there's always Christian "Science".
That is an observation, not a proposal. And it's more common from the religious side - which is usually where the avoidance of science starts, and the ignorant incuriosity, and the confident espousal of nonsense.SAM said:
A bent toward science begins in curiosity, play, fun - and questions, always questions. Another apparently important factor is contact with nature, close and intimate experience of the inhuman world.
Really? I think its relevant. Prof Dawkins used his position as Professor of Public Understanding of Science to push atheism through books and movies where his academic position was stated as a form of authority and to emphasise that he considers that religious people should not get positions in science as well as to underline that he thinks science is incompatible with religion. His efforts to get Reiss [who is known for his work in science education] kicked out of the royal society have succeeded not because of what Reiss said, but because he is religious.
What do you suppose has been the effect of Dawkins and his ilk on science education in the US? And the attitude of the religious towards science?
What do you suppose has been the effect of Dawkins and his ilk on science education in the US? And the attitude of the religious towards science?
So you don't think the factors which affect the favoring of science are relevant to this discussion? Are all discussions now to be biased in this forum?
Last edited:
Not all religions are incompatible with science, just the ones that propose as fact ideas that are not supported by science, such as creationism.
That's a leading, loaded question. Try to ask things in a neutral manner rather than attempting to put words in my mouth and I might consider answering you.
Yes, SAM. All of them.
I think the practice of equating atheism with science is one of the leading causes of the disfavouring of science and its image in the west today. More and more, you see interest in science being equated with being a proponent of atheism. While this may win a few converts to the cult of militant atheists, its primary and lasting effects will be on the deterioration of scientific thought and investment in scientific research.
Perhaps atheists might want to consider how that plays out. This forum is an excellent microcosm of such thought processes and how they impact interest in and discussion of science.
Then please change the name to athiestforums to avoid any confusion that this is a science forum.
Perhaps atheists might want to consider how that plays out. This forum is an excellent microcosm of such thought processes and how they impact interest in and discussion of science.
Then please change the name to athiestforums to avoid any confusion that this is a science forum.
See, SAM? You can make a reasonable point when you want to.
I agree with you that there is a certain group of movement of atheists ("militant", perhaps) who tend to devalue anything they regard as "unscientific". On the other hand, it is worth noting that this is a minority of atheists. Looking from the other side, the scientists, most scientists are not concerned in their daily lives and work with issues of religion or atheism. Why? Because religious beliefs, theistic or atheistic, are outside the realm of what science does. It is true that certain religious claims are susceptible to falsification by scientific methods, but the primary underlying beliefs mostly are not.
IMO, Scientific thought and research is unlikely to be impacted much, if at all, by debates about religion. Certain people on internet forums may regard the theist/atheist debate of primary importance to science, but scientists themselves do not, as a rule.
You really need to develop a sense of humour.
We're not talking about scientists. They are already invested in science. The proof of the pudding as they say, is in the eating. Just watch the number of students signing up for science drop in the next few years [and the rise in the number of theists forced to resign their posts] I know of students who were convinced by the argument that science is incompatible with religion. And changed course or dropped out.
Last edited:
Atheism isn't really equated with science, but it is compatible, as are some religions.
Atheism is incompatible with science. It is an ideology based on the negative of an unfalsifiable thesis and decries any assumption that cannot be proved. The entire basis of science is a hypothesis of a testable, falsifiable thesis which is then tested until it can be falsified, if ever. This is the exact opposite of atheism.
I think you mean to say that atheism is not a scientific position. That is true. But this is not the same as saying atheism and science are incompatible, which seems to imply that a person cannot simultaneously endorse both ideas.
i guess that's why abiogenesis is paraded around in our classrooms, because it's supported by a shitload of facts.
It is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is.
There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis, including the following:
* research into the formation of long proteins (Ferris et al. 1996; Orgel 1998; Rode et al. 1999);
* synthesis of complex molecules in space (Kuzicheva and Gontareva 1999; Schueller 1998; see also: "UV would have destroyed early molecules".);
* research into molecule formation in different atmospheres; and
* synthesis of constituents in the iron-sulfur world around hydrothermal vents (Cody et al. 2000; Russell and Hall 1997).
talkorigins
There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis, including the following:
* research into the formation of long proteins (Ferris et al. 1996; Orgel 1998; Rode et al. 1999);
* synthesis of complex molecules in space (Kuzicheva and Gontareva 1999; Schueller 1998; see also: "UV would have destroyed early molecules".);
* research into molecule formation in different atmospheres; and
* synthesis of constituents in the iron-sulfur world around hydrothermal vents (Cody et al. 2000; Russell and Hall 1997).
talkorigins
It would be difficult to see how anyone could hold two opposing thought processes as simultaneously true. Either you believe that something is true until it is falsified or you believe that something is false until there is evidence that it is true.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The incompatibility of science and religion is hardly a major problem. Humans have an immense capacity for cognitive dissonance. Many scientists who are perfectly logical all day long throw off their lab coats after work and become devoutly superstitious.
You're going to have to elaborate on that hypothesis. I understand why someone might try to purge religious people from science, even though I disagree with their reasoning and would not support the initiative. I don't understand why someone might try to purge atheists from science so I can't speculate on how I would react. I suppose the first thing I would do in your poorly drawn scenario is ask "Why?"
Your Third-World-Refugee-Walking-Through-The-West-And-Slapping-Your-Forehead-In-Constant-Disbelief perspective is often difficult to respond to. I have no idea where you got the notion that this is actually happening to any significant extent, but it reeks of too much time on the internet. You need to get out more. Since the Religious Redneck Retard Revival began in the late 1970s, fundamentalist Christians have been increasing their presence in all of our institutions. They have not yet managed to wrest control of science education in public universities, but their status as a protected species has been enshrined there just as it has everywhere else.
In the state of Kansas they briefly succeeded in introducing evolution denialism into the public school curriculum. How can you possibly imagine that atheists have some sort of veto-proof control over science? You're being disingenuous again! You know your assertion is untrue but you're hoping our younger members will read it and fall for it before you get caught. This consistently dishonest behavior is a path to banning.
The marginalization of Christianity in America was a dream we had in the 1950s and 1960s that is now thoroughly dead, and many of us are seriously considering emigrating to Europe where it's more of a reality, despite the socialism.
Bull-fucking-shit! There is nothing the least bit representative about SciForums. We're a group of one-percenters who congregate in the silicon world because we can't find enough people like ourselves to socialize with in the carbon world. You know this quite well, and once again you're being disingenuous in order to make a fraudulent point.
How many times are you going to trot out that tired, bogus argument, hoping someone who hasn't already seen it refuted will believe you?
One of the cornerstones of science is the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect. The "entire basis of science" is that the behavior of the natural universe can be predicted from theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior--and this theory is recursive and applies to itself. In five centuries of exhaustive testing it has not been refuted. There is no more extraordinary assertion than the one that the natural universe is subject to perturbation by unobservable, illogical creatures and forces in a supernatural universe. To date not a single shred of respectable evidence has been provided to substantiate this hypothesis. Therefore we are not obliged to treat it with respect.
This is science in action. We are under no obligation to provide evidence disproving every crackpot hypothesis that comes our way. It's up to the crackpots to earn our respect. Otherwise science would grind to a halt as our energy was dissipated on crackpot control.
I liked you better when you were off sulking. Now you've become a big pain in the ass. We have to be on constant lookout for your sinister attempts to reach gullible young minds with your hogwash masquerading as reason.
- Status