|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists control science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
A legitimate question - my definition of atheist in this case is anyone with a political opposition to traditional religious practice in the U.S. such as, but not limited to; *The words "In God We Trust" on our money *The few tax advantages that churches receive *Public Ten Commandments displays *Most importantly, "endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights". I realize that the word "creator" and "God" are nowhere to be found in the constitution, but that phrase is in the declaration, and the liberty and limited government that the constitution is about followed it. So by the time this thread is over, there should be a much better understanding of why science really is saturated with politics ... Well, not all that saturated. I did a search of PubMed. The phrase "In God We Trust" gets no hits. "Endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights", no hits. "Ten Commandments displays", no hits. "Tax advantages" and churches, no hits. Whereas for phrases that actually have something to do with science in some way ... biochemistry, 712775 hits, evolution, 323160 hits, genetics, 2387746 hits. It seems that science is not in fact saturated with political discussion of church-state separation. For some reason science seems much more saturated with science. Strange yet true. --- As the word "atheist" already has a meaning, namely someone who doesn't believe in God, I suggest you find some other term for someone who believes in the separation of church and state. How about "constitutionalist"? or maybe "foundingfatherist"? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
A legitimate question - my definition of atheist in this case is anyone with a political opposition I see a couple of problems with your definition. First it would only apply to those relatively few atheists who are politically active in opposition to what you label as traditional religious practice. I suspect that your definition will cause you some proof problems in making your case. Very few members of NAS are on record as opposing politically traditional religious practice as you define it. But your definition would also include any number of people whose religions traditions are non-Judeo/Christian, and insist that the constitution be enforced as atheists for no good reason that I can gather. I hope Admin will reconsider his decision to disallow your definition. I'd love to watch you try to defend what appears to be an untenable position. But it probably would be prudent to stick with a definition that you have some hope of defending.
and why so many scientists are Democrats. I don't know what happened when you went to college, but I picked my field of study based on what I happened to enjoy and be fairly good at. Unless you are prepared to point to a bunch of republicans who have been kicked out of graduate programs, your arguments regarding the political identity of scientists is unlikely to lead to anything except a peek into your head. I'm looking forward to reading your explanations for this phenomenon.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
marc9000 writes:
A legitimate question - my definition of atheist in this case is anyone with a political opposition to traditional religious practice in the U.S. such as, but not limited to; *The words "In God We Trust" on our money *The few tax advantages that churches receive *Public Ten Commandments displays *Most importantly, "endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights". I realize that the word "creator" and "God" are nowhere to be found in the constitution, but that phrase is in the declaration, and the liberty and limited government that the constitution is about followed it. So by the time this thread is over, there should be a much better understanding of why science really is saturated with politics, and why so many scientists are Democrats. Well bugger me, only Americans can be atheists. That's a bit of a surprise.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
So by the time this thread is over, there should be a much better understanding of why science really is saturated with politics, and why so many scientists are Democrats. Despite my earlier snark (the creationist cretin tempted me!), there is another reason for scientists preferring Democrats over Republicans. Overall, the Republican party is anti-science. Whether actually believed or merely driven by the misguided beliefs of their constituents, Republicans take hard stances against science; eg, stem cell research, candidates' by-the-book creationist pronouncements. Democrats do not do the same. Why would any intelligent, sane, person align himself with a political party that is so doggedly and adamantly against his own profession? {ABE}Back when, I was affected by the legislature that allowed people of age 18 to vote, though I was a bit older at the time. OK, so now suddenly I was expected to choose a party. Nixon was in power at the time. So what else could I possibly choose except Democratic? I think I was the only Democrat in my family. Curiously, my ex-wife was also the lone Democrat in her family, though at the time politics was not a factor in our family. Though ironically, Nixon would have been considered far too liberal for the current Republican party, as would Saint Reagan himself. Regarding the word, "cretin". It was historically an expression of sympathy. Regardless of how sub-human that pitiful person may appear to be, he is nonetheless a fellow Christian, deserving of all the Christian consideration he should be due. Or else he implored that to the better-off Christians in order to elicit donations. Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
A legitimate question - my definition of atheist in this case is anyone with a political opposition to traditional religious practice in the U.S. such as, but not limited to None of what you have posted deals with preventing people from praticing religious traditions. NONE!! No scientist is shutting down churches or dragging people out of mosques. No scientist I am aware of is calling for a constitutional ammendment or law that would prevent people from participating in religious beliefs, ceremonies, or rites. What you have cited is scientists refusing to hire bad scientists. That's it. Why should universities be forced to hire scientists who push pseudoscience? Can you give us one good reason?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
Just two examples - the link shows a few more. They get caught every once in a while, but considering the shouting down of the examples of discrimination the movie "Expelled" exposed, it's probably safe to say that penalties for discrimination by the scientific community are about as rare as a speed limit violating driver receiving a ticket for every time he speeds. Discrimination is everywhere. It's the entire basis of how people are hired. When I start looking for jobs four years from now I'll be discriminated against on the basis of where I've published any papers, who my supervisor was, which university I studied at, and so on. It's not enough to show that discrimination happens, you need to show that it's bad discrimination. A scientist who supports intelligent design has shown themselves to believe in non-scientific claptrap over scientifically evidenced theory. That's a problem. In a physicist that might be okay, for a biologist it's a failure fundamental in their ability to do their job. The problem isn't religion, it's believing in drivel. Just as bad as arguing for the phlogiston theory of fire.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
*The few tax advantages that churches receive Poor persecuted churches. That is terribly unjust that they have so few tax advantages. [/snark] You are pretty deeply deluded there, marc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
None of what you have posted deals with preventing people from praticing religious traditions. NONE!! No scientist is shutting down churches or dragging people out of mosques. No scientist I am aware of is calling for a constitutional ammendment or law that would prevent people from participating in religious beliefs, ceremonies, or rites.
The contrary is not true, however. Fundamentalists have been trying to shut down the teaching of evolution in schools through a variety of means. Edited by Coyote, : SpeelingReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
So who is to blame for the poor reception that ID supporters get within the scientific community? Quite frankly, it is the ID supporters themselves.
Let's say that I am sitting on a review board that decides which professors get tenure within the science department. Now, tenure is something that is earned. This isn't something you get merely for hanging around for a few years. Professors earning tenure are expected to be active researchers, to bring money into the department through research grants, and to supply research opportunities for graduate students. As you review the applications for tenure you find that one of them is far below standards. This applicant did show promise during his postdoc years, but once he moved out from under the shadow of his mentor he just stopped doing science. The papers he has published while at your university for the past 5 years are all based on work he did as a postdoc. You ask his colleagues about the research he is doing and they all report the same thing. He isn't scheduling any lab time that they are aware of. You then ask about his students. As it turns out, he has only had one student go through his lab in the last 5 years, and that student really didn't do any lab work. He currently has no other grad students working for him. Even worse, the applicant has brought in very little grant money, maybe a 20th of what other professors are bringing in. You also notice that he has a book listed on his CV. It is a pro-ID book. So here we have a professor who isn't doing research, isn't graduating students, and isn't bringing in grant money. So why should this person get tenure? Quite frankly, he shouldn't. You can take the ID book off of the CV and you still have a candidate that isn't anywhere close to meeting the standards set for tenure. Do you know who I am describing? Have you heard of Guillermo Gonzalez, author of the book "The Priveleged Planet"? He wasn't doing research. He wasn't graduating students. He wasn't bringing in grants. When they denied him tenure at Iowa State do you know what he did? He accused them of discriminating against him because of his pro-ID views. It never crossed his mind that it wasn't because of his pro-ID views. It was because he was not doing science. It was that simple. So when I hear complaints about discrimination against ID proponents my eyes do roll. ID supporters have shown time and again that their only ploy is to falsely play the persecution card. They don't have science to back them up, so they have to go with theatrics. ID supporters are their own worst enemies because their actions tell us all we need to know. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
A legitimate question - my definition of atheist in this case is anyone with a political opposition to traditional religious practice in the U.S. such as, but not limited to; *The words "In God We Trust" on our money *The few tax advantages that churches receive *Public Ten Commandments displays *Most importantly, "endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights". The word you should be using then, is secularist. Yes, science is a secular activity, controlled by secularists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4257 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
A legitimate question - my definition of atheist in this case is anyone with a political opposition to traditional religious practice in the U.S. such as, but not limited to; *The words "In God We Trust" on our money *The few tax advantages that churches receive *Public Ten Commandments displays *Most importantly, "endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights".
That's me. the Roman Catholic Atheist I hope you realize that list contradicts itself
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
The word you should be using then, is secularist.
One of the problems with labels is that others have used the same labels in the past with meanings that don't necessarily agree with ours (or maybe with yours, but we'll see). Yes, science is a secular activity, controlled by secularists. Wikipedia has two related articles: Secularity (formed from the adjective, secular, meaning: "worldly" or "temporal") and Secularism. These are two different words with subtly different connotations, but whose differences are important to our discussion. Obviously, "secular" is an adjective describes a condition, whereas "secularism" (like so many other "-isms") denotes a philosophy or advocacy based on the adjective, "secular". Quoting from the Secularity article (my emphasis bolded):
quote:The article goes on to list usages of "secular", including some uses by religions within those religions. So then, most certainly, science is a secular activity. But "controlled by secularists"? From the Secularism article:
quote: I'm sure that many of us here would agree with those two lists and secularism would seem reasonable to us. However, it is also true that the work of secularists in the late-19th and early-20th centuries was to promote a secular society, which required the loosening of religion's hold on government -- now secularist groups in the West are mainly working to maintain the existence of a secular state, which the USA has been from the beginning. Now, the loosening of religion's hold on government is what marc9000 is claiming that scientists are trying to do, so the question is whether that is indeed what scientists are doing. Which could hinge on just exactly how we define "secularist", whether as an advocate for a secular society or as a participant in a secular activity, which science most certainly is. I see science as a secular society and scientists in general as secularists only in so far as they engage in a secular activity and would fight to keep that activity secular, defending it against attacks from religionists and IDists who want to inject their religion into science. If there are scientists who want to work towards reducing the influence of religion in society, then they do so as individuals. Though it should be expected of all USA citizens (even if they have never taken the oath) to protect and defend the Constitution from domestic enemies who attack our secular state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I see science as a secular society and scientists in general as secularists only in so far as they engage in a secular activity and would fight to keep that activity secular That's the meaning I was intending to convey by it. Though I suspect there are a good number of secularists in the government-religion separation sense in the science community too. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
It is true that the politicians may make only the primary decisions, and delegate secondary decisions to scientists. However, that only happens because the politicians have decided that the scientist can generally be trusted as the most capable of making these decisions. And it’s time for the politicians to recognize that the times are changing. There is a new type of atheism that has organized only recently, and is quickly gaining acceptance in science. The Wall Street Journal has called it New Atheism, its definition can be found all over the net. Here is a common definition;
quote: Militant Atheist Definition and Examples Atheism itself isn’t necessarily hostile to religion, but New Atheism is, and more and more atheists seem to be joining its ranks, inspired by its 21st century popular champions like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Stenger, Provine, Weinberg, etc. These guys have been around a long time, and have been only tolerated, or skeptically recognized until recently, but they’re getting to be admired. Their increasing appeal as a license to forget morality, justify big government spending, and charm the young ladies is all working in their favor. We saw this, in message 9;
dwise1 writes: Why are so few scientists Republicans? It's very simple. Scientists are both intelligent and sane, two qualities that are incompatible with the wing-nut travesty that the GOP has now become. Let's face it, who in their right mind could even consider voting Republican? Since statistics show that only 6% of scientists are Republicans, the above statement probably reflects the overwhelming opinion of those making decisions about scientific employment and (to a significant percentage of the population) morally troubling decisions like embryonic stem cell research, cloning, the effects of abortion, etc. It's actually not the Republicans who have changed, it's the Democrats who have changed.____________________________________ [NOTE - I have about 6 messages to respond to tonight - I'd appreciate no cut-in's until I'm done. Only another hour or two.]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: There is also not a shred of evidence that ANYONE but atheists, with the complete approval of their "religious" allies (theistic evolutionists, Deists, etc.) make all decisions concerning publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science. Could you tell me exactly who is excluded from this process then - is it just the agnostics that have anything to complain about? The excluded are the many Christians who are not always allies with the naturalism that the scientific community is committed to. The scientific community that "does not allow a divine foot in the door". (Lewontin) Or the scientific community that should "weaken the hold of religion" (Weinberg)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024