(split) Atheism and acceptance of science

Status
Not open for further replies.
And an interest in science has always had to battle any theisms the neighborhood takes seriously

Actually the biggest hurdles in science have come not from religion, but from the existing scientific dogma and establishment.

Which is well exemplified by your story [a Sufi story, no less]
 
SAM said:
Actually the biggest hurdles in science have come not from religion, but from the existing scientific dogma and establishment.
No.

The existing scientific dogma and establishment, which at its worst still is science and enables research etc, dies with the existing dogmatics.

The constant erosion and crippling effects of institutionalized religion do not disappear with the death of any particular clerics. Nor do they sow the seeds of their own destruction - religious dogma and precept survive very well, regardless of their effects on discovery etc.
 
No.

The existing scientific dogma and establishment, which at its worst still is science and enables research etc, dies with the existing dogmatics.

So you agree that in their lifetime, the ole boys club has a repressive effect on new ideas
The constant erosion and crippling effects of institutionalized religion do not disappear with the death of any particular clerics. Nor do they sow the seeds of their own destruction - religious dogma and precept survive very well, regardless of their effects on discovery etc.

History is the best indication that this is false. By and large, theist societies are more open to exploration of the unknown and less inhibited by existing notions of what is appropriate to study. Its why some of the most radical ideas in science, ones which outlive existing scientific dogma, have come from theists. This is what the scientific establishment will now see less of, as atheism becomes synonymous with science/
 
fragglerocker said:
I never once said that abiogenesis had been proven, or even proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which is all science ever does.
then why knock biogenesis from its rightful place as an irrefuted scientific law?
I have also pointed out that there is absolutely zero respectable evidence for the existence of supernatural creatures, and therefore we are not obliged to treat them with respect in a place of science like SciForums.
if you read my posts you'll see that i agree with you.
I have never claimed that living matter sprang out of nothingness.
my mistake, poorly worded response.
what i meant was consciousness and life, which aren't "things".

evolution is a theory that seems to fit what we know.
macroevolution is the question.
does the fossil record really depict macroevolution?
or are we essentially putting snapshots where we think they go?
 
SAM said:
So you agree that in their lifetime, the ole boys club has a repressive effect on new ideas
Of course. See Thomas Kuhn.

But that's mostly a good thing - screens out the bs. Kuhn talks about "normal science", that proceeds within the established paradigm - that's what yields most of the benefits (including most of the discoveries that put increasing pressure on the inadequate paradigm).
SAM said:
By and large, theist societies are more open to exploration of the unknown and less inhibited by existing notions of what is appropriate to study. Its why some of the most radical ideas in science, ones which outlive existing scientific dogma, have come from theists.
Bullshit. Atheistic and heretical individuals have made disproportionate contributions to science, historically, even within theistic societies. That is true now, as well. The correlation between dominance by strongly theistic religious establishment and scientific advance, in a society, is negative now, and has been for centuries - since modern science developed.

Although you could make it more plausible by revoking your earlier insistence that the great panoply of non-Abrahamic successful, stable, longlived societies were none of them atheist - you would open up the possibility that the stagnant ones could be identified as the atheistic ones. (I doubt it would work, but it's at least a chance for your argument).
 
Atheistic and heretical individuals have made disproportionate contributions to science, historically, even within theistic societies.

Only because the religious institutions were created that provided them with opportunity and the environment in which they could produce. Turn it around and you'll see people being fired from their positions for being theists, even when their contributions to science are acknowledged.

Which is yet another reason why atheism is incompatible with scientific progress. How many times have we heard seemingly educated atheists on this board proposing that intelligence is an atheist phenomena and that theists should be prevented from practising science? How many atheists have you seen challenging this premise? Or even acknowledging that removing someone from their position because of their religious beliefs is not what science is about?
 
If I had a religious belief that atoms were little heavens and that smashing them was genocide, would I be qualified to work at a particle accelerator? In the same sense, believing in creationism disqualifies one to work on issues of evolution. No one ever claimed that intelligence is an atheist phenomenon, only that atheism is an intelligence phenomenon.
 
Oh is that why Reiss was asked to step down? Because he made irrational statements about atoms? Is that why Dawkins suggested he should give up his Orders? Because it was affecting his scientific contributions? Is that why Dawkins likened his appointment to a Monty Python sketch? Do you think Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins and Francisco Ayala should be retired?

Simply having a few atheists in charge starts to make life intolerable for theists:

Secularist elite will not tolerate faith in politics

Humanists call for faith funding cuts

Harman snubs 'prejudice against Christians' plea


Even when theists take the opposing viewpoint
Teach kids atheism at school, say academics

For anyone who wants to live in a free diverse society, the choice is clear.
 
I don't know enough about that specific case, but it's a fact that creationists are using insidious wedge techniques to force their irrational ideas into the education system.
 
Unlike Dawkins who only spends all his time promoting science= atheism.

Now thats one man who should be asked to step down for contaminating science with his beliefs.
 
Science does not "support" any belief which is not empirically testable.
 
You changed your post before I posted, thus distorting the meaning of my post. When I said "It does.", I was responding to "Science does not support any belief".

Then you added "...that is empirically testable". So I changed my post.
 
Which beliefs does science support? Or has supported? How did you empirically establish the absence of the Jewish god?
 
The efficacy of prayer can be tested, that's one thing. The claims for the role of God in the creation of mankind can be tested. The internal logic and statements of the bible can be examined and compared to historical facts. All kinds of things about religion can be empirically tested.
 
Thise sound like theist beliefs. Still waiting for science supporting the belief in the absence of God, tested empirically
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top