4 ms·

All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

8 points by ScotterC 11y ago

gay_genocide 11y ago
Why? they all worship invisible beings.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
michaelsbradley 11y ago
Persons of deep faith have been, are, and can be great scientists. See, for example, Scientific Geniuses and Their Jesuit Collaborators[1]. Not to mention that the author's field (physical cosmology) was deeply influenced by a Catholic priest-scientist[2]. There are numerous other examples spanning the last few centuries, including our own. Faith and reason ought to go together and are entirely compatible with one another – at least that's the Catholic view, not new but recently articulated by Pope St. John Paul II.[3] [1] http://www.strangenotions.com/scientific-geniuses-and-their-jesuit-collaborators/ http://www.strangenotions.com/scientific-geniuses-and-their-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre [3] http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/doc... [&] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio
- gay_genocide 11y ago
  I didn't mean to be disrespectful to either the religious or militant athiests. The idea that one group's "rationality" is somehow holier than the other gave me a chuckle. I read the linked article as more of a sociological statement.
dekhn 11y ago
Article summary is incorrect. The author does not propose that all scientists be militant atheists. Also any scientist worth their salt eliminates no hypothesis consistent with the data, and thus cannot eliminate the hypothesis that there is a supreme being capable of constructing the results of all experiments to cloak its existence (this is a very improbable hypothesis, of course, but that's not a justification for formally rejecting it).
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
See https://www.webguyinternet.com/users/stimpfam/science-history-and-god https://www.webguyinternet.com/users/stimpfam/science-histor... TL;DR (even though it isn't very long): Science cannot find (direct) evidence either for or against the existence of God. It can't do this even in principle. Atheism is therefore the product of a philosophical view, rather than a product of the scientific evidence. A scientist, then, should not take a dogmatic view on this, especially not a militant one. If a scientist does so, he/she should recognize that it is unconnected to science. [Edit: clarity.]
- michaelsbradley 11y ago
  Are you familiar with the work of Fr. Robert Spitzer[1] in this area? From Nothing to Cosmos: God and Science http://www.magiscenter.com/pdf/FNTC_Study_Guide.pdf http://www.magiscenter.com/pdf/FNTC_Study_Guide.pdf Science, God and Creation [video] http://www.magiscenter.com/science-god-creation-video/ http://www.magiscenter.com/science-god-creation-video/ New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833 http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions... Introducing Bernard Lonergan’s Philosophical Proof for God http://www.strangenotions.com/tag/bernard-lonergan/ http://www.strangenotions.com/tag/bernard-lonergan/ (scroll down for the link to part 1 of the series) His arguments largely build on the assumptions that General Relativity accurately describes the macro-scale universe and that the telescope data backing the Lambda-CDM model[2] are being interpreted correctly. However, that's a starting point familiar to most who work in the field of physical cosmology, so I don't think they're unreasonable assumptions to start out. Also, his arguments are certainly not beyond criticism, but Fr. Spitzer is intellectually honest and overall he offers a great deal of good food for thought. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(priest) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(priest) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
anigbrowl 11y ago
Militant atheists are just as annoying as militant religionists. If someone tries to lay a religious argument on me I will mention that I don't believe, but only in the sense that I'm opting out of the divine premise and so I'm indifferent to arguments that depend on it. I see no point at all in trying to persuade the other person to share my belief - it wastes my time and will only make them feel angry or upset.
drallison 11y ago
Amen to the article. Science is more than a belief system. Dekhn is incorrect to say the Article summary (that is the post title) is incorrect. The relevant paragraphs from the article are: Similarly, when religious actions or claims about sanctity can be made with impunity in our society, we undermine the very basis of modern secular democracy. We owe it to ourselves and to our children not to give a free pass to governments—totalitarian, theocratic, or democratic—that endorse, encourage, enforce, or otherwise legitimize the suppression of open questioning in order to protect ideas that are considered “sacred.” Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend. If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.

8 points by ScotterC 11y ago

gay_genocide 11y ago

Why? they all worship invisible beings.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

michaelsbradley 11y ago

Persons of deep faith have been, are, and can be great scientists. See, for example, Scientific Geniuses and Their Jesuit Collaborators[1]. Not to mention that the author's field (physical cosmology) was deeply influenced by a Catholic priest-scientist[2]. There are numerous other examples spanning the last few centuries, including our own. Faith and reason ought to go together and are entirely compatible with one another – at least that's the Catholic view, not new but recently articulated by Pope St. John Paul II.[3] [1] http://www.strangenotions.com/scientific-geniuses-and-their-jesuit-collaborators/ http://www.strangenotions.com/scientific-geniuses-and-their-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre [3] http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/doc... [&] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio

gay_genocide 11y ago
I didn't mean to be disrespectful to either the religious or militant athiests. The idea that one group's "rationality" is somehow holier than the other gave me a chuckle. I read the linked article as more of a sociological statement.

dekhn 11y ago

Article summary is incorrect. The author does not propose that all scientists be militant atheists. Also any scientist worth their salt eliminates no hypothesis consistent with the data, and thus cannot eliminate the hypothesis that there is a supreme being capable of constructing the results of all experiments to cloak its existence (this is a very improbable hypothesis, of course, but that's not a justification for formally rejecting it).

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

See https://www.webguyinternet.com/users/stimpfam/science-history-and-god https://www.webguyinternet.com/users/stimpfam/science-histor... TL;DR (even though it isn't very long): Science cannot find (direct) evidence either for or against the existence of God. It can't do this even in principle. Atheism is therefore the product of a philosophical view, rather than a product of the scientific evidence. A scientist, then, should not take a dogmatic view on this, especially not a militant one. If a scientist does so, he/she should recognize that it is unconnected to science. [Edit: clarity.]

michaelsbradley 11y ago
Are you familiar with the work of Fr. Robert Spitzer[1] in this area? From Nothing to Cosmos: God and Science http://www.magiscenter.com/pdf/FNTC_Study_Guide.pdf http://www.magiscenter.com/pdf/FNTC_Study_Guide.pdf Science, God and Creation [video] http://www.magiscenter.com/science-god-creation-video/ http://www.magiscenter.com/science-god-creation-video/ New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833 http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions... Introducing Bernard Lonergan’s Philosophical Proof for God http://www.strangenotions.com/tag/bernard-lonergan/ http://www.strangenotions.com/tag/bernard-lonergan/ (scroll down for the link to part 1 of the series) His arguments largely build on the assumptions that General Relativity accurately describes the macro-scale universe and that the telescope data backing the Lambda-CDM model[2] are being interpreted correctly. However, that's a starting point familiar to most who work in the field of physical cosmology, so I don't think they're unreasonable assumptions to start out. Also, his arguments are certainly not beyond criticism, but Fr. Spitzer is intellectually honest and overall he offers a great deal of good food for thought. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(priest) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(priest) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

anigbrowl 11y ago

Militant atheists are just as annoying as militant religionists. If someone tries to lay a religious argument on me I will mention that I don't believe, but only in the sense that I'm opting out of the divine premise and so I'm indifferent to arguments that depend on it. I see no point at all in trying to persuade the other person to share my belief - it wastes my time and will only make them feel angry or upset.

drallison 11y ago

Amen to the article. Science is more than a belief system. Dekhn is incorrect to say the Article summary (that is the post title) is incorrect. The relevant paragraphs from the article are: Similarly, when religious actions or claims about sanctity can be made with impunity in our society, we undermine the very basis of modern secular democracy. We owe it to ourselves and to our children not to give a free pass to governments—totalitarian, theocratic, or democratic—that endorse, encourage, enforce, or otherwise legitimize the suppression of open questioning in order to protect ideas that are considered “sacred.” Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend. If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.