4 ms·

Since this is a thread about his personal preferences, I will add my personal commentary of them. He seems to hold very strong opinions about certain things, b

Since this is a thread about his personal preferences, I will add my personal commentary of them. He seems to hold very strong opinions about certain things, but it appears (at least to me) that not a lot of thought went into forming these. Some are just arbitrary ("Not all my shirts are red or purple, but many are. I like those colors.") and some are just wrong ("I am an Atheist, for scientific reasons"). He's a very interesting fellow though (obviously a genius in his work) and has contributed a lot to the free software movement. It's nice to see what he's up to lately. [gonvaled replied to me below; and my reply here] I'm not commenting on his belief (or lack thereof), simply from whence it came. I make that comment regardless of the fact that I am either a theist or an atheist. My research consists of developing QFT/QM numerically for simulation, so I can say there is no law of nature that supports his statement that atheism stems from any scientific reason. Dirac's equation? Nope. Creation-annihilation operators? Nope. Did I miss an equation somewhere? Science explains how nature works and provides predictive capacity; that's it. Do you disagree with that? Furthermore, I didn't list any criticism of Richard (as I have none); in fact I gave him two compliments: "genius" and "he's interesting and I like following what he's up to".

belorn 13y ago
> no law of nature that supports his statement that atheism stems from any scientific reason. when people talk about scientific reasoning, I assume it also includes the scientific method. As such, atheist and it tend to agree that any prevailing theory should be abandon as soon as a better theory is suggested. This however is strictly contrary to faith, in that faith is the constant belief no matter what other theories exist. (also see The God Delusion for an expanded version, and other arguments of scientific reasoning and atheism.)
- gonvaled 13y ago
  It is more fundamental than that: religion does not offer any falsifiable claims. It is not that we do not apply the scientific method to it. It is that, by design, religion is out of bounds of the scientific method.
  - olalonde 13y ago
    > It is more fundamental than that: religion does not offer any falsifiable claims Most religions offer plenty. In the Bible for example, age and creation of the world, the great flood, praying can cure you, God punishes bad people, etc. The claims that have been falsified are nowadays interpreted as "metaphorical" stories.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      The claims are not really falsifiable, because when you're dealing with a literal deus†, any premise of the scientific method - such as, floods affect the ecosystems and leave evidence - is invalidated. †As in deus ex machina.
gonvaled 13y ago
EDIT: I read your sentence as "regardless of the fact that I am neither a theist or an atheist". So my comment here is a reply to that sentence, which is probably not what you implied. Sorry to disappoint you, but you are probably an atheist. An atheist does not believe that god does not exist: an atheist does not believe, period. An atheist recognizes that reason can not answer that question. That the question "does this invisible, untouchable thing exist?" has no meaning whatsoever. The only difference between an atheist and an agnostic, is that the latter is utterly concerned with the impossibility to prove the existence/non existence of god. An atheist accepts that fact as self-evident, and goes on with his life. You are right that atheism does not stem from science (atheism predates the scientific method by some millennium). But the scientific method reinforces the atheist point of view.
drcube 13y ago
The gods most people believe in break almost every natural law we know. There are most definitely scientific reasons to be an atheist. That's besides Occam's razor and "the stage is too big for the drama" and all the other science inspired reasons not to believe.

belorn 13y ago

> no law of nature that supports his statement that atheism stems from any scientific reason. when people talk about scientific reasoning, I assume it also includes the scientific method. As such, atheist and it tend to agree that any prevailing theory should be abandon as soon as a better theory is suggested. This however is strictly contrary to faith, in that faith is the constant belief no matter what other theories exist. (also see The God Delusion for an expanded version, and other arguments of scientific reasoning and atheism.)

gonvaled 13y ago
It is more fundamental than that: religion does not offer any falsifiable claims. It is not that we do not apply the scientific method to it. It is that, by design, religion is out of bounds of the scientific method.
- olalonde 13y ago
  > It is more fundamental than that: religion does not offer any falsifiable claims Most religions offer plenty. In the Bible for example, age and creation of the world, the great flood, praying can cure you, God punishes bad people, etc. The claims that have been falsified are nowadays interpreted as "metaphorical" stories.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    The claims are not really falsifiable, because when you're dealing with a literal deus†, any premise of the scientific method - such as, floods affect the ecosystems and leave evidence - is invalidated. †As in deus ex machina.

gonvaled 13y ago

EDIT: I read your sentence as "regardless of the fact that I am neither a theist or an atheist". So my comment here is a reply to that sentence, which is probably not what you implied. Sorry to disappoint you, but you are probably an atheist. An atheist does not believe that god does not exist: an atheist does not believe, period. An atheist recognizes that reason can not answer that question. That the question "does this invisible, untouchable thing exist?" has no meaning whatsoever. The only difference between an atheist and an agnostic, is that the latter is utterly concerned with the impossibility to prove the existence/non existence of god. An atheist accepts that fact as self-evident, and goes on with his life. You are right that atheism does not stem from science (atheism predates the scientific method by some millennium). But the scientific method reinforces the atheist point of view.

drcube 13y ago

The gods most people believe in break almost every natural law we know. There are most definitely scientific reasons to be an atheist. That's besides Occam's razor and "the stage is too big for the drama" and all the other science inspired reasons not to believe.