Have some scientists been too fanatical?

Hi, I am a christian. Some of you automatically hate me or have instantly stereotyped me as a fool who believes in santa claus and such. I would also agree that if I said I was an aethiest, some would also stereotype me or possibly hate me. I find both to be both morally and intellectually wrong.I feel that a phenomenon is occuring where more and more people are lashing out against christians. I also feel that a lot of christians have provoked this by ignorant arguments and a self righteous attitude. I know from self experience that a lot of times I want to tell someone trying to represent what the bible says and more importantly what it means to just stop talking. I can see why many feel the need to vigorously voice their opinions. However, I feel that many from the scientific community have trouble calling them for what they are, opinions...I feel this is a big mistake because if anyone should call fact a fact and opinions or theories for what they are it should be scientists.With so many citizens priding themselves these days to be keeping up with the cutting edge of science, I feel that its the scientists responsibilty to delicately put why they feel that a god must not exist. This is just how I feel about people that portray themselves as authorities in theism should delicatly present their beliefs.Reguarding the big bang, I feel that there has to be a massive amount of speculation to arrive at a position that that was almost positively the way our universe began or took shape as we now see it. Also to imply that God can not be real is just as far fetched as believing in a singularity for many people on both sides of the spectrum. After all, No one has seen this singularity only what they believe to be evidence of it. The same can be said for a lot of christians reguarding God. I personally have never seen God or heard his voice yet I believe based on my personal interpretation of data and life experience, not blind faith. I understand that scientists seek to explain as much as they can through scientific method but arent they using a bit too much philosophy too these days.Some people are so passionate and vocal about their great understanding of the universe and why there must not be any god, that they remind me of the fanatics holding signs and damning people to hell. My question is if anyone is embarassed by some scientific authorities on how they've handled their opinions just like I am embarassed by some christians and their opinions.Edited by sinamatic, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the Have some scientists been too fanatical? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Yes.E.g., William Provine:
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent." Added in edit:

​

William Provine is a historian of science and evolutionary biology, so not a scientist. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

But that's not the position of the scientific community at large:"Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist."

No way.I might think that some of your ideas are foolish. But that does not make you a fool. I probably have some foolish ideas of my own. This language of "lashing out" and "fanatical" is a bit over the top. Some atheists make reasoned criticisms of religion. And some may tinge their criticisms with some emotion. But I rarely see the kind of angry rage suggested by terms such as "lashing out" and "fanatical".We also need some perspective here. Christian apologists have been criticizing non-Christians, and doing so in strong and often emotional undertones. The volume of criticism of atheism that comes from Christians far exceeds the volume of criticism of Christianity that comes from atheism.Personally, I'm a free speech kind of person. So I don't see a problem with Christians criticizing atheism or with atheists criticizing Christianity. I am one of those who says that science is not capable of determining whether there is a God. However, by its nature, science leads one to be skeptical of unevidenced claims. That is why many scientists are skeptical of religion. But it is never up to a scientist to argue that God does not exist. It is up to an atheist to argue that. Whether or not the atheist is a scientist is not relevant to the point. My personal take on science, is that a scientific theory is never a description of the world, even if it might appear to be so. A scientific theory is a framework for scientific research. Scientists support a theory based on how well it works as a framework for research. Whether or not it accurately describes the world has little to do with why scientists use particular theories. But what does "real" mean?Many theologians will say that God is supernatural - outside of nature. For many scientists, "real" implies being part of nature. So why would you object to scientists saying that God cannot be real? Can't you just interpret that as agreeing with the supernaturalists? Yes.I have occasionally criticized Jerry Coyne on his blog. Coyne says that science is incompatible with Christianity. But that cannot be correct, since there are many scientists who are Christians. To be clear, I don't have a problem with Jerry Coyne criticizing Christianity - that is just an exercise of his free speech. But he should not be co-opting science as supporting his position. Science says nothing about whether there is a God. Individual scientists have a lot to say on that, but science in itself has nothing to say on the subject.Edited by nwr, : fix typos

Isn't he more of a historian than a scientist? He seems mostly focussed on the history of science, but that doesn't make him a scientist, surely?

What is fanatical about that? Ok, it is a reasonably strong statement, and I would replace "has clear consequences" with "strongly suggests the following consequences", but fanatical? Please explain.

Hi! I am an atheist. I apologize for the length, but your post was rather excellent and I felt the desire to address as much as I could. There have been far too many wise theists for me to make such a hasty generalization. I agree. There has been a growing opinion that christianity should not be free of the same kind of criticism that political and scientific ideas receive. Many Christians view this overt unashamed criticism as 'lashing out' very readily. For instance this was deemed too controversial.Perhaps you could find some examples of this 'lashing out' so that I can see what you are talking about better. Is it like the way Jessica Ahlquist's community lashed out at her for having the audacity to ask her school to obey the law? Or Damon Fowler? Or is it just discussing a topic without holding it in the same reverence as you do? Again, examples might be useful. A lot of the time, scientists say things which are dismissed as 'opinions' when in fact they're not. For instance you lump 'opinions or theories' together as if they were remotely comparable. I don't think that's entirely fair. Theories aren't opinions. If you want to devalue theories while retaining an understanding of them, you might prefer 'guess' or the ever popular 'conjecture', rather than 'opinion'. Because in a sense, they start out as guesses. But there is comparisons with evidence that have taken place before it gets much in the way of support. People tried putting it gently, without causing much fuss. And they got ignored. Meanwhile, unscientific notions were getting put into school classrooms, 'God' was being inserted into pledges, money and crosses and commandments were displayed on government property. And children were being neglected to death because of a legal exemption in the case of the duty of a parent of a specific religion in times of a health crisis.I don't see why scientists should treat the matter with kid gloves if they should choose not to. They are after all, free. Why should they be burdened with this responsibility to be kind to the religious? When has scientists being delicate to religious sentiments ever benefited humanity in the past? Surely, since religion was friendly with science until they started disagreeing, it's religion's duty to make amends and start playing nice. Then, when science has accepted the apology maybe then we'll see a nicer more polite discourse.I'm kind of kidding, of course - but also slightly serious. The problem as highlighted above, is that simply saying that god doesn't exist is seen as outrageously militant or extreme - so to what benefit to atheists to start stepping on eggshells? And especially consider this: Many recent deconverts report that vocal and unavoidable criticism (coupled sometimes with the disappointing response from religious leaders to those criticisms) are key to their losing their religion. It seems inevitable that the vocal criticisms will continue - it seems to be working.I say that the level of discourse that is generally permitted when criticising communism should apply to theism. Would you agree? And political debates can become quite heated, and it often gets unkind. I, of course, disagree with your perception of speculation. It's what the maths says. It's what the evidence shows. What need to speculate? There is speculation over some details, but the broad picture is an inescapable conclusion. I don't think the present fashion amongst scientists is to believe that the singularity is real, it's just like any other singularity in the mathematics of physics, it just shows the incompleteness of our model. As any physicist will tell you, what happened before a certain point is unknown, the maths predicts a singularity - but isn't that just nonsense? Is the maths useful for the big picture, but it gets some of the fine detail wrong? Quite likely - hence quantum physics, and the long time search to marry it with relativity. I hear this a lot, but in my experience of talking with theists there are multiple points upon which they exercise a certain degree of 'blind faith'. One example might be the virgin birth. As a Christian you are quite likely to believe that Mary was a virgin.But based on what? Matthew's word? But who is Matthew? We don't know. He probably wasn't called Matthew, that much we do know, and along with some approximate times, that's about it. And he seemed to be about long after Jesus existed. By an author keen to show Jesus fulfils prophecy. Who wrote in a language other than that which would have been spoken in the accounts as written. Without access to the original writing (just copies of copies of copies).Now - if someone wrote an email to me and told me I could take a slice of a nice bit of a Nigerian bank account if I'd facilitate the moving of the money through my own account - I'd have to take his story on blind faith or disbelieve it.So why believe Matthew? I can only see the same kind of blind faith in my Nigerian Attorney being at work to describe it. Indeed, at least I have the Nigerian Attorney's email address. Philosophy is the search for truth and wisdom. Part of that process is the acquisition of knowledge. The scientific method is the method of choice in acquiring knowledge. Scientists are doing philosophy all the time. Rationalism, empiricism, verificationism, induction, abduction, deduction and so on and so forth.I always support people in their endeavour to become more philosophically astute. Why? Are they holding signs? Are they threatening to torture anyone? Are they strongly implying that someone might torture them if they disagree?Other than the fact that they are passionate (which is a good thing), and vocal (which is their right), where are the similarities? No. There are probably examples of scientists who have embarrassed themselves with their handling of their opinions. Francis Crick springs to mind, but I have the faint memory of some other fiascos in the past.

Hi sinamatic, and welcome to the fray. There is a difference between having foolish ideas\opinions\beliefs (eg - that the earth is young), being someone who has been fooled\misinformed\deluded, and being a fool. So you would agree that a person who is not well informed on a subject should NOT talk about it as if they were an expert? Science is agnostic, it studies how things happen, not why they happen. You can ask "why is the sky blue" and get lots of scientific answers to how this occurs, but why the earth was created in such a way that it has a blue sky is not answerable by science.I am a deist. As such I study how god/s made the universe. Curiously, I find that it seems to be Christians claiming this occurs, rather than actual behavior observed. What I see is replies to foolish ideas\opinions\beliefs being taken personally. Do you have a degree in Physics? If I had to pick someone, I would put Dawkins in this category when he pursues his atheism but implies that his status as an evolutionary biologist gives him authority to speak as other than a common person.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : NOTEdited by RAZD, : ...

.Edited by RAZD, : dblpost

You're right, of course. My bad

Well, I'd consider it "fanatical" because it's just plain wrong IMHO. Naturalistic evolution is a theory about change in populations over time - it has nothing to do with the existence or lack thereof of deities, life after death, meaning in life, and to an extent, human free will. I mean, c'mon, does the thesis that allele frequencies change in populations have anything to do with gods? Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Yes, it shows that possibly the most magical aspect of 19th C reality, as in human life, is merely a natural phenomenon. I don't know - what are "gods"?And what is "life after death"? Sounds rather oxymoronic to me.And "free will"? Again, I'm not sure what that actually means.By first realising that human life is simply an organic chemical process, it is easy to start disassembling such nebulous and woolly concepts and to realise that they are simply unnecessary ill-defined extras.Of course, you are free to add them as extras...

First it's necessary to state (even though I'm sure you are already aware) that there is a difference between what science says and what scientists say.I happen to be a Christian and so I believe there is a GOD.Other people believe there is no GOD.Scientists come in all flavors, for example the scientist that developed the Big Bang theory (or as he called it, the primeval atom) was Abbe George Lematre, a Christian priest. The theory has been tested over the last 85 years and is well supported by the evidence.What science can say are things like "all of the evidence shows the universe is very old and anyone who claims it is 6000 years old is simply wrong" or "the evidence conclusively shows that the flood as described in the Bible stories never happened and anyone who claims that it did is simply wrong".Science can make statements like the two above because there is overwhelming evidence that those two statements are factual.Scientists can say they are 100% sure that God does not exist but science is mute on the subject. What science can say is "So far no one has presented evidence that shows any likelihood that God exists."

1. The origin of the human species was a natural phenomenon.
2. Therefore, gods do not exist.I just don't see the logical connection there. Nor do I. But here's the point: the theory of evolution is simply a theory about biology - how populations change over time. It has nothing to do with religion. To say that a clear consequence of evolution is that no gods "worth having" (whatever that's supposed to mean) exist is simply not true, IMHO. People believe in gods for all sorts of reasons, and no, evolution can't cover all of those reasons. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.