3 ms·
Well many atheists claim that being an atheist is a qualification for being a serious scientist. Sam Harris wrote a pretty poorly thought out piece in the NYT a
by jswinghammer 16y ago
Well many atheists claim that being an atheist is a qualification for being a serious scientist. Sam Harris wrote a pretty poorly thought out piece in the NYT about how a person who is otherwise qualified was not a good candidate because of their faith.
- ohyes 16y agoAs someone who has education in science, but never 'got religion' as a child, I see atheism as the null hypothesis. One way of formulating it would be: "There is(are) no all-powerful supernatural entity(ies) which has(ve) influence over my daily life." No one has given me sufficient evidence that would go against this and contradict the null hypothesis, so I continue to not believe in God(s). That said, I don't think that believing things that are not scientifically proven/provable disqualifies one from performing scientific research. I'm know I have plenty of opinions/beliefs/biases that I couldn't back up for the life of me. It is part of being human and having been raised in a given environment. But it is important to be aware of your own biases in any endeavor.
- Someone 16y agoYour logic would apply equally well with theism as the null hypothesis ("There is(are) an all-powerful supernatural entity(ies) which has(ve) influence over my daily life, but (s)(t)he(y) have been playing a game called science for the past few centuries") I think agnosticism would be the better choice for a null hypothesis.