|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is science atheism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.5
|
On the face of it the question is absurd. There are many theistic scientists even now - and not just Christians. Many Christian denominations have little problem with science. And yet Marc tries to argue otherwise: Message 92
So let’s look at his arguments.
quote: In reality the book was praised for it’s descriptions of biochemistry (Behe’s speciality) and criticised for it’s argument against evolution (which is not). That hardly proves atheism. Criticising bad arguments is what scientists do. And it was bad. Behe tried to save it by changing the definition of “irreducible complexity” but seems to have abandoned it since. Kenneth Miller is not an atheist but his review followed that pattern. So did the review written by Peter Atkins who is.
quote: I will repeat the point that criticism is a very important part of science, so hardly proof of anything. Behe, by the way was not sacked from his position at Lehigh.
quote: Since nobody has alleged that it was a “threat to AMY [sic] religion” that’s just a bizarre non-sequitur. Although his endorsement of an old Earth and a large degree of common descent seem to be things that you take as threats to your religion.
quote: That is not even possibly true since the Wedge Document wasn’t even written when Behe published. Although after the document was leaked, it would not be inappropriate to link the two given Behe’s (lucrative) relationship with the Discovery Institute. And his involvement with Of Pandas and People or his endorsement of Wells’ Icons of Evolution (both books targeting school education).
quote: More accurately we point out that they are not equivalent to the Wedge Document since they are not produced by any major scientific organisation and do not lay out objectives and strategies for any such organisation. The Wedge Document was produced for the Discovery Institute - the heart of the ID movement - and does those things.
quote: Of course nobody says that the authors of the Wedge Document aren’t allowed opinions. That doesn’t change the fact that the Wedge Document was intended as an official publication of the Discover Institute, nor that it sets out aims and strategy for that organisation. There simply isn’t any double standard in rejecting a false equivalence. Because it is false, and clearly so.
quote: We have yet to see any evidence of demonisation. And coming from someone who claims that the “first response” to Behe’s book was to link it to a document which hadn’t even been written it’s not something to be believed.
quote: The fact that some people don’t like the conclusions science reaches is hardly a valid criticism. Nor is it a reason to equate science with atheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Sure, but the idea that all biologists were terrified of speaking out is undercut by that fact - Behe is hardly the only biologist with tenure. We might also note that Dembski and Bruce Gordon - while not biologists were given positions at Baylor for their support of Intelligent Design.
And, of course Behe’s argument was not good, so why should anyone support it anyway ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.5
|
quote: Take a look at the plaintiffs in McLean vs Arkansas. The United Methodists were the main force opposing creationism in this case. But the Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Church and the Presbyterians were in on it, too. Then you have the Old Earth Creationists who take the Bible less literally (while still insisting that it’s true). And the Intelligent Design crew are generally in that camp, too. Behe isn’t even a creationist.
quote: Maybe Howard Van Till, Francis Collins, Rowan Williams, Kenneth Miller, Simon Conway-Morris and the many others aren’t - or weren’t - interested in debating Ken Ham?
quote: Real Bible scholars aren’t “syndicated” or generally even “high profile”. I bet you’d be hard put to name one - creationist or not.
quote: If atheism has “plenty of organisation in science” I’d like to see it. Naming scientists who happen to be atheists hardly counts. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
quote: I can think of a number of reasons. The (correct) belief that Creationism is bad theology is an obvious one. That it is also an embarrassment to Christianity is another. And why would a Christian Church want the sectarian dogma of another - that they disagreed with - to be taught as science?
quote: Atheism is nowhere near as well organised as the major Christian denominations, and if the ACLU was so powerful, why not leave it to them?
quote: Debates are pretty much just a show, as we’ve recently seen.
quote: None of those names are familiar. And a disregard for health risks is not a sign of scholarship. What academic publications do they have? (Rowan Williams by the way was Archbishop of Canterbury which makes him very high profile, but hardly syndicated).
quote: I somehow think not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.5
|
Phat, can you please save the silly scare-mongering for a more appropriate thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.5
|
quote: Arguably yes. You wouldn’t necessarily make up a God and start believing in it. You wouldn’t necessarily take up the position that there might be some sort of God. So I’d argue that if the idea wasn’t considered your position would effectively be atheism.
quote: I’d argue that the scientific default would be non-existence. Unless there are reasons to consider the existence of the thing at least plausible. Unfalsifiability is a bad thing in science and another reason for rejection.
quote: As I’ve argued above they wouldn’t be theists or agnostics in any meaningful sense either. Atheism makes more sense as a label then either of the other two.
quote: You certainly do not. In fact the arrogance is yours. Here you are declaring a belief off-limits for no reason. Agnostics seriously consider that belief a possibility so to be consistent you should condemn them too.
quote: There is nothing wrong with taking a provisional view on the available evidence or on the use of valid heuristics like parsimony. And yet here you are condemning that very thing. What gives you the right to declare this conclusion out of bounds ? The fact that theology has retreated to unfalsifiability is itself evidence that God doesn’t exist. It’s not the winning move that your view proclaims it.
quote: The idea that something that is supposed to be everywhere is hiding somewhere out of our sight seems pretty wild, too. Again, there is nothing wrong with coming to provisional conclusions on the evidence available. That you object to one particular conclusion and condemn it so strongly with no valid reason says a lot about you and nothing about the conclusion. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
quote: So you are assuming ignorance about the way the world works, too? Religious belief, I’ll add is not necessarily theistic. Nor is that degree of cultural development necessarily going to occur in a single generation. So I have to say that I don’t agree.
quote: I think you are exaggerating here, too. I think a lot of people pay lip service to “spiritual significance” without considering much of it truly significant. And, again, the ‘spiritual” is not limited to the theistic. Further, “atheism” is often extended to include the absence of the belief that a God exists, which would cover the situation perfectly.
quote: You’ve declared that holding the belief that there is no God is arrogant in itself. No matter how it’s held or why.
quote: You’re adding to your original claim:
To me, atheism is just as arrogant as fundamentalist religion or dogmatic scientism, and I have the same issues with all three None of the things you object to above are necessary parts of atheism. Even if you stick with the common definition of “atheism” as the belief that there is no God. Now, I will contend that my view is not a “faith position” unless you extend that term to include any belief that is not held with absolute certainty. I would further contend it is rational - and more rational than many of the arguments I’ve seen here to the contrary. I certainly don’t claim to “received some objective truth nobody else has” and I regard such a claim as ludicrous.
quote: So you were claiming that all atheists display that dogmatism? Because you didn’t include any qualifications - you just referred to “atheism” - and therefore all atheists.
quote: No, I don’t. I define “atheism” as holding the belief that there is no God (in deference to common use). That does not say anything about how the belief is held. Dogmatic atheism is possible, but it’s certainly not the only possibility.
quote: Under the original definition it is agnosticism, since I don’t claim to know that there is no God. However agnosticism is more commonly thought of as not taking even a provisional position on the existence of God. So that is a pretty clear distinction.
quote: I don’t think that is part of any definition of “atheism” I’ve ever seen. I take a very sceptical view of supernatural claims and I believe that is justified. False claims of the supernatural are certainly common, while stringently confirmed claims seem to be non-existent. For instance we had an extended discussion of an alleged “prophet” here, some years ago, and I have to say that the evidence gave no reason to believe that there was anything supernatural going on. Edited by PaulK, : Correct a couple of typos
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024