5 ms·

All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

6 points by mightybyte 11y ago

sp332 11y ago
You've never heard God mentioned at a conference because the religious people are hiding from bigots like you. Plenty of scientists have seen a connection between faith and science and if you can't, it's probably your own fault.
- NN88 11y ago
  I judge the religiosity of the scientist by the field they're in. Social sciences and economics get more leeway than say...physics or chemistry. Then you have a few in the middle like biology or math.
  - sp332 11y ago
    Ad hominem arguments are of course irrelevant. A person's work should be judged on its merits.
- unmole 11y ago
  > I have never heard the word “God” mentioned in a scientific meeting. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature The second part is key here. Whatever connection 'plenty of scientists' see between faith and science, it has no place at a scientific conference. That aside, calling someone a bigot or some other label in order to distract from the actual topic at hand is hardly productive. Like he says at the end: > If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.
  - PascLeRasc 11y ago
    > Whatever connection 'plenty of scientists' see between faith and science, it has no place at a scientific conference. I'm assuming that you mean that non-science has no place at a science conference. Scientists who see a connection between faith and science will see that as science, which is why it's as important to them as a type of protein folding or particle decay might be to someone else.
    - jeremysmyth 11y ago
      Scientists who see a connection between faith and science will see that as science Only if such a connection is documentable, predictable, hypothesizable, and reproduceable. Calling anything else "science" is diluting the word. (apologies to string theorists: https://xkcd.com/171/ https://xkcd.com/171/ )
  - sp332 11y ago
    Scientists still talk about food, art, ethics, and so on. They just avoid talking about religion.
- deciplex 11y ago
  > You've never heard God mentioned at a conference because the religious people are hiding from bigots like you. They probably should. Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is. If you can apply one set of rules to determine, say, the efficacy of some new drug undergoing testing, but another set of rules to how you believe the universe works, then you don't really understand either.
  - PascLeRasc 11y ago
    > Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is. Can you go into more detail about what this means?
    - deciplex 11y ago
      If you are religious, then you either think that religion is a valid alternative to science for certain problems, or that testable predictions are not important in some domains. Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important. All else being equal, good scientists will possess neither of these qualities.
      - sp332 11y ago
        Science only has bearing on testable, repeatable hypotheses. History, for example, isn't science even though it tries to deal in objective truth. "Testable predictions" aren't everything.
        deciplex 11y ago
        To the extent that history is the organization and interpretation of known past events, no it is not science. But, neither does it need to be, since it is not factual discovery - it is not dealing in objective truth, rather cataloging known truths. However, the part of historical study that concerns itself with gaining knowledge about the past is absolutely science, and it can and should make testable predictions. If you read historical accounts of Mongolian invasions of Eastern Europe, you might expect and predict that Eastern Europeans would have a genetic heritage that is partially shared with present-day Mongolian people - and indeed that turns out to be the case. If they didn't, we would have reason to believe the historical accounts are exaggerated or even false. In other words, "history" might not be science depending on your definition, but anthropology certainly is. Any statement you make about reality, or a model for reality, should have a consequence in anticipated experiences. If it doesn't, you haven't gained any knowledge.
PascLeRasc 11y ago
This person seems like they are unwilling to accept a different idea of how religion and science could be connected than the one he's come up with (essentially, that our universe exists in a test tube and a God interfering is bound to the same laws that we observe ourselves to be). This whole article deserves a "citation needed" marking.
- deciplex 11y ago
  Can you offer up some examples where religious "reasoning" directly improved our understanding of the world?
anoncoder 11y ago
To suggest that "Planned Parenthood provides fetal tissue samples from abortions to scientific researchers" is even remotely true is, well, sad. I saw the videos. That's some sick stuff. If this is one of your arguments for objective science, then count me out.
- jdarais 11y ago
  True, he seems to be displaying the same characteristics he criticizes religious folks for by assuming the values and beliefs he derives from his culture are self-evident.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
A_COMPUTER 11y ago
His gay marriage example is instructive of the weakness of this type of argument. Marriage is purely a social institution, so what does science have to say on the subject, anyway? Well, he appeals to equality. If we have these laws, they should be applied equally. Ok then, what's the scientific argument for equality? He takes these things as axiomatic, which, presumably, means that these are the types of things he should most militantly be examining. What if self-described militant atheists like Krauss took their atheism seriously and considered fundamental values, whether they come from a sincere belief in a deity or not, to be essentially the same, since they basically are if there's in fact no God? They would have to look closer at values and see if there was perhaps a social or personal utility to having certain types of values. Study them, and figure out what makes certain values work well and which ones implode. Create some kind of explanatory model of values. If you will, come up with a "scientific" way of analyzing values. One might even put some effort into examining value systems for consistency, figure out if they have side-effects or study what types of outcomes they optimize for, and make a good one for the outcome you desire. Just don't tell Krauss that this is what philosophy does, because he thinks philosophy is dumb and a waste of time.

6 points by mightybyte 11y ago

sp332 11y ago

You've never heard God mentioned at a conference because the religious people are hiding from bigots like you. Plenty of scientists have seen a connection between faith and science and if you can't, it's probably your own fault.

NN88 11y ago
I judge the religiosity of the scientist by the field they're in. Social sciences and economics get more leeway than say...physics or chemistry. Then you have a few in the middle like biology or math.
- sp332 11y ago
  Ad hominem arguments are of course irrelevant. A person's work should be judged on its merits.
unmole 11y ago
> I have never heard the word “God” mentioned in a scientific meeting. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature The second part is key here. Whatever connection 'plenty of scientists' see between faith and science, it has no place at a scientific conference. That aside, calling someone a bigot or some other label in order to distract from the actual topic at hand is hardly productive. Like he says at the end: > If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.
- PascLeRasc 11y ago
  > Whatever connection 'plenty of scientists' see between faith and science, it has no place at a scientific conference. I'm assuming that you mean that non-science has no place at a science conference. Scientists who see a connection between faith and science will see that as science, which is why it's as important to them as a type of protein folding or particle decay might be to someone else.
  - jeremysmyth 11y ago
    Scientists who see a connection between faith and science will see that as science Only if such a connection is documentable, predictable, hypothesizable, and reproduceable. Calling anything else "science" is diluting the word. (apologies to string theorists: https://xkcd.com/171/ https://xkcd.com/171/ )
- sp332 11y ago
  Scientists still talk about food, art, ethics, and so on. They just avoid talking about religion.
deciplex 11y ago
> You've never heard God mentioned at a conference because the religious people are hiding from bigots like you. They probably should. Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is. If you can apply one set of rules to determine, say, the efficacy of some new drug undergoing testing, but another set of rules to how you believe the universe works, then you don't really understand either.
- PascLeRasc 11y ago
  > Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is. Can you go into more detail about what this means?
  - deciplex 11y ago
    If you are religious, then you either think that religion is a valid alternative to science for certain problems, or that testable predictions are not important in some domains. Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important. All else being equal, good scientists will possess neither of these qualities.
    - sp332 11y ago
      Science only has bearing on testable, repeatable hypotheses. History, for example, isn't science even though it tries to deal in objective truth. "Testable predictions" aren't everything.
      - deciplex 11y ago
        To the extent that history is the organization and interpretation of known past events, no it is not science. But, neither does it need to be, since it is not factual discovery - it is not dealing in objective truth, rather cataloging known truths. However, the part of historical study that concerns itself with gaining knowledge about the past is absolutely science, and it can and should make testable predictions. If you read historical accounts of Mongolian invasions of Eastern Europe, you might expect and predict that Eastern Europeans would have a genetic heritage that is partially shared with present-day Mongolian people - and indeed that turns out to be the case. If they didn't, we would have reason to believe the historical accounts are exaggerated or even false. In other words, "history" might not be science depending on your definition, but anthropology certainly is. Any statement you make about reality, or a model for reality, should have a consequence in anticipated experiences. If it doesn't, you haven't gained any knowledge.

PascLeRasc 11y ago

This person seems like they are unwilling to accept a different idea of how religion and science could be connected than the one he's come up with (essentially, that our universe exists in a test tube and a God interfering is bound to the same laws that we observe ourselves to be). This whole article deserves a "citation needed" marking.

deciplex 11y ago
Can you offer up some examples where religious "reasoning" directly improved our understanding of the world?

anoncoder 11y ago

To suggest that "Planned Parenthood provides fetal tissue samples from abortions to scientific researchers" is even remotely true is, well, sad. I saw the videos. That's some sick stuff. If this is one of your arguments for objective science, then count me out.

jdarais 11y ago
True, he seems to be displaying the same characteristics he criticizes religious folks for by assuming the values and beliefs he derives from his culture are self-evident.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

A_COMPUTER 11y ago

His gay marriage example is instructive of the weakness of this type of argument. Marriage is purely a social institution, so what does science have to say on the subject, anyway? Well, he appeals to equality. If we have these laws, they should be applied equally. Ok then, what's the scientific argument for equality? He takes these things as axiomatic, which, presumably, means that these are the types of things he should most militantly be examining. What if self-described militant atheists like Krauss took their atheism seriously and considered fundamental values, whether they come from a sincere belief in a deity or not, to be essentially the same, since they basically are if there's in fact no God? They would have to look closer at values and see if there was perhaps a social or personal utility to having certain types of values. Study them, and figure out what makes certain values work well and which ones implode. Create some kind of explanatory model of values. If you will, come up with a "scientific" way of analyzing values. One might even put some effort into examining value systems for consistency, figure out if they have side-effects or study what types of outcomes they optimize for, and make a good one for the outcome you desire. Just don't tell Krauss that this is what philosophy does, because he thinks philosophy is dumb and a waste of time.