Atheists control science

quote:

---

An Ecumenical Christian minister, Bakker has said there is no real conflict between religion and science. He has advised non-believers and creationists to read the views put forward by Saint Augustine, who argued against a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis.[7]

---

It is a claim that always switches according to the argument. Stephen Jay Gould has made the same statement. Sometimes Christians say that, sometimes atheists say that. Yet throughout the NAS, throughout The Scientific American, throughout so much evolutionist/atheist literature out today by the above named authors, and other Christians (such as myself) say that science and religion are very much in conflict. The truth is, if science would stay within its bounds, they wouldn’t conflict. But since science is controlled by atheism, they do conflict.

He is no atheist, and he was instrumental in causing a rather major revision of scientific thought, and therefore this one instance alone completely and utterly refutes marc9000's point. If marc9000 disagrees I suggest he contact Dr Bakker himself for guidance.

This one instance alone? One exception to a rule completely voids a general rule? Not very logical.

I'd say that degree of atheism in the NAS is quite surprising, whist the proportion in the general population of scientists is pretty much what I would have expected - science is not dominated by atheists. So now it's marc's task to show how this distribution manages to control all of science.

The NAS is where the political power is. We’ve already learned that the NAS is not a Democracy. “Quite surprising” - very good! I may bring those two words up again after the next round of replies.

marc9000 writes: Shermer has little, if any scientific credentials, yet he writes for the Scientific American. According to Wikipedia, Shermer has a master's in experimental psychology, a PhD in the history of science, and is the author of a number of lay-level science books.

Darn, and I thought I learned something here in the past - I guess not. You see, I was going by memory of what I was told 2 1/2 years ago on another thread;

Message 27

Dr. Adequate writes: Shermer is not a scientist, let alone a prominent one. He's noted as a skeptical activist, not a scientist.

You were participating in that thread and didn’t correct him. He is participating in this thread and didn’t correct you. So I guess whether Shermer is a legitimate scientist or not is switchable depending on the subject I’m discussing. One thing I’d bet you and Dr Adequate would heartily agree on however, and that would be if there was an ID supporter with the exact same credentials as Shermer, he would be no scientist.

About the desirability of removing religious superstition from our understanding of the world in which we live, that's just good science, not atheism.

That’s the “new atheist” philosophy, and that’s the crux of the issue. It used to be that those in the scientific community recognized science for what it was, only a part, often a small part, of a complete understanding of the world in which we live. It used to know its limits – it used to know that science had nothing to say about the never ending questions of life, death, love, and meaning. The scientific community used to know that religious traditions of mankind have significant things to say about things that science does not. That was a time when “there was no real conflict between religion and science”.

Now the scientific community is “advanced” enough to think that anything other than naturalistic science is nothing but superstition. Other significant things now mean nothing – they must be removed. Now science is in conflict with religion. And it’s religion’s fault, for not bending and shaping itself enough to conform to the latest atheistic proclamations about all of reality.

What bothers you about science isn't that it's controlled by atheists, because it isn't. What bothers you about science is that it isn't controlled by religious fundamentalists.

What bothers me is that it’s no longer controlled by people who know what its limits should be. It used to be that scientists were reluctant to give offence to religion. Why make trouble, why offend people who largely make the scientists livelihood possible? Today, they’re offended by those very people, the ones who get in their way concerning new abortion techniques, cloning, or many big government mandates that give science more and more political power and money.

You said that Shermer had no scientific credentials.

I said that wasn't a scientist.

Percy said that he had scientific credentials.

Of course I didn't correct him. He's not wrong. Nor is he disagreeing with what I wrote.

What you have shown is that pseudoscientists are using political pressure to force people to hire them, or pay out when they refuse to hire a pseudoscientist. I really don't see anything wrong with not hiring or firing a scientist who refuses to use science. That is the way it should be. When your beliefs compromise your science then you are no longer a scientist.

But different people have different definitions of what a pseudoscientist is. Some think Michael Shermer is a pseudoscientist. But since the NAS is in control, it defines someone like Michael Behe as a pseudoscientist. And so Michael Shermer is in!

marc9000 writes: Finally, the National Academy of Science. It's a non-profit U.S. government organization, begun in 1863. Yes it is, just like the National Institutes of Health which fund grants in the biological sciences.

No, it isn’t “just like” the National Academy of Sciences. The National Institutes of Health, the.National cancer institute, national library of medicine, national eye institute, etc. are more narrowly focused on one secular subject, the National Academy of Science covers science much more generally, and is much more political in its operations. Its members serve as “advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine".

How does this granting agency work? First, Congress decides how much money they are going to give to these granting agencies. They also decide who is going to run the agency (currently, it is the outspoken evangelical Dr. Francis Collins who previously ran the NIH Human Genome Project). This is the input that taxpayers have. They decide, through their representatives, how much money is going to go into the system and the leadership within the NIH. Once that money is received by the NIH they will decide which areas of research they would like to focus on most, and then advertise for Letters of Intent. If the scientist meets the requirements for NIH funding as judged by the LoI, then they are allowed to submit a research grant. In the grant they will describe the work they have already done, the hypotheses they will test, and the experiments they will use to test the hypotheses. They will also submit a budget. These grants will be judged by a group of peers who are not chosen based on their religious views, but rather as their reputation as scientists. Right now, about 5-10% of these grants will be funded.

I realize there are established procedures for many activities in scientific/government organizations. I’m suspicious of humans that “serve as advisors”, humans that are more and more willing to give offence to religion as they attempt to make science the all encompassing worldview that they seek for it. Defined procedures can be heavily tweaked in politics, and as we’re learning, in science.

Nowhere on these grants do you list your religious affiliation. I really, really doubt you could ever determine a scientist's religious beliefs by reading a grant. To prove this, I give you this challenge. I have picked a paper at random which can be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC199179/ I haven't even read it, and I do not know the authors. Your challenge is to read the paper and determine the religious beliefs of the authors. If you fail to do so, then your claims about discrimination are moot. There is simply no way to determine a person's religious belief by their science, at least for those who are actually doing science.

If I can’t determine religious beliefs of certain authors, then it’s NOT POSSIBLE for them to discriminate against someone, or some scientific idea that they don’t like? If that were true, we could save ourselves a lot of time and money with the legal system. All we’d have to do is ask the accused if they committed the crime. If they say no, drop the case. Your logic is flawed in comparison to that of Razd.

Your second challenge is to describe what types of experiments would be in a grant for research in intelligent design.

When I have many opponents, I don’t do long, drawn out, off topic challenges.

That’s the “new atheist” philosophy, and that’s the crux of the issue. It used to be that those in the scientific community recognized science for what it was, only a part, often a small part, of a complete understanding of the world in which we live. It used to know its limits – it used to know that science had nothing to say about the never ending questions of life, death, love, and meaning. The scientific community used to know that religious traditions of mankind have significant things to say about things that science does not. That was a time when “there was no real conflict between religion and science”. Now the scientific community is “advanced” enough to think that anything other than naturalistic science is nothing but superstition. Other significant things now mean nothing – they must be removed. Now science is in conflict with religion. And it’s religion’s fault, for not bending and shaping itself enough to conform to the latest atheistic proclamations about all of reality. ... What bothers me is that it’s no longer controlled by people who know what its limits should be. It used to be that scientists were reluctant to give offence to religion. Why make trouble, why offend people who largely make the scientists livelihood possible? Today, they’re offended by those very people, the ones who get in their way concerning new abortion techniques, cloning, or many big government mandates that give science more and more political power and money.

I think the real problem is that religion used to control science in the western world, and that control is increasingly slipping away.

The fundamentalism we are seeing this past century seems to have developed as a result of this loss of control.

But the Enlightenment and other events occurred, and there is no going back to rule by religion in the western world (although some might think otherwise).

What bothers me is that it’s no longer controlled by people who know what its limits should be.

You mean like Pope Urban VIII did?

marc9000 writes: My terms are that "science" is the scientific community, and that "control" means decisions that are made regarding publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science Then it should be noted that the government is composed mostly of religious people, not atheists.

But the NAS is composed mainly of atheists/agnostics, and they don’t always answer to government.

In other words, {NAS} does what it wants, with no input from the taxpayers who support it.

What input should they take from taxpayers, and how should that be done?

It's time for politicians and 90% of the general public to wake up to just how "new atheist" the scientific community has become.

My point is that the government is asleep at the switch, that the National Academy of Sciences is composed mostly of atheists, and they’re showing themselves more and more to be “New Atheists”, and the public deserves more representation from their government than does a radical special interest like new atheists.

You'll have to support your contention that the people responsible for this discrimination were atheists.

The “Duck Test” takes care of it. That’s what the National Academy of Sciences and the courts do with the religious label of those who promote Intelligent Design.

marc9000 writes: "Gradual illumination of men's minds", or children's minds? He said 'men' so I'm guessing he meant that.

In this controversy, neither side automatically takes remarks from the other side at face value. When ID proponents claim that religion and ID are separate, do you chide atheists for not automatically accepting it?

Yeah, when the Republicans start supporting government funded scientists more regularly, maybe they'll win more scientist's votes.

That could be a hard sell, since the Republicans seem to have a much better understanding of the U.S. financial problems.

I knew it wouldn't work! From my message 44;

marc9000 writes: [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.]

From here on, I won't respond to anymore individual messages. I'll group anything else I have to say in a general message. If someone doesn't like it, they can cry to Dr Adequate or Coyote, not to me.

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 is defined as one who is militantly opposed to theism, theists, and religion. Militant atheists have an extreme hostility towards religious theism that entails a desire to see religion suppressed by force. The label militant atheist tends to be used interchangeably with fundamentalist atheist, new atheist, and anti-theist.

A more accurate definition might be:
New atheism: the same as the old atheism.

Old atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair was far more militant than most of the new atheists.

Sure, the new atheists criticize religion. But they are pussy cats, compared to the things that fundamentalist Christians are saying about atheists.

Since statistics show that only 6% of scientists are Republicans, ...

As far as I know, there is nothing preventing Republicans from enrolling in graduate study programs in science. For some odd reason, they seem to prefer to enroll in business schools.

Hi Marc,

Dr Adequate already explained your misunderstanding about Shermer, but just to be perfectly clear, it was incorrect to state that Shermer has "little, if any, scientific credentials," and it was incorrect to conclude that having scientific credentials is the same as being a practicing scientist. Shermer is not, as far as I know, currently engaged in active scientific research. He's currently a promoter and popularizer of science.

marc9000 writes: It used to be that those in the scientific community recognized science for what it was, only a part, often a small part, of a complete understanding of the world in which we live. It used to know its limits – it used to know that science had nothing to say about the never ending questions of life, death, love, and meaning. The scientific community used to know that religious traditions of mankind have significant things to say about things that science does not. That was a time when “there was no real conflict between religion and science”.

Science is engaged in understanding the natural part of our world. Anything supernatural is the realm of religion and mysticism. Your problem is that you want your religious opinion about the natural world given as much respect as the understanding provided by scientific research. But when it comes to theory and technology it became obvious a long time ago that advances come from science, not religion.

--Percy

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

By my count, you posted five messages before anyone else posted, and then a couple more after a single interruption. Your objection, given that nobody here owes you anything seems pointless.

From here on, I won't respond to anymore individual messages.

A completely appropriate action to take, in my view.

I was hoping though that you would get around to making the case that NAS is dominated or controlled by political and militant atheists.

I feel like you're assuming that anyone that doesn't support "Creation Science" is by default falling under your atheist umbrella.

I know many Christians in the biology field and others, many who have published very reputable papers. Are these not "real Christians" because they do not believe the earth is young and accept evolution as the accepted and most proven explanation for life's diversity?

I think they would take issue with this.

"Since statistics show that only 6% of scientists are Republicans"

Most Republicans I know seek out "Business" and a few other fields like it, they tend not to have interest in science. Perhaps this is more of a case of the way people think and not exclusion.

One seeks out science because they have a passion for it. There is little money to be made for the average scientist.

Different types of minds I assume. Much like "Liberals" tend to seek out law also.

Different mind types would focus on different fields would you not agree?

Why do you think Republican means Christian?

“New Atheism” is, and more and more atheists seem to be joining its ranks,

Hardly, the opposite is true. Humanism is part of new Atheism and pushes nothing but peace.

Someone posting an image on facebook mocking something in the bible is not "hostile".

Unless of course you're talking about atheists fighting for their rights in schools and government as an "Attack". Someone getting the same rights or taking away a special privilege no one else has is not an attack.

I feel the last sentence may sway the topic, if it does I'm sorry

You do know that as well as atheists not being exclusively American, that science happens outside America too don't you?

The Higgs Boson is the same in France as it is in Chicago. And weirdly, it's the same whether looked at by an agnostic a Muslim, an old atheist, a new atheist, an aggressive atheist, a mildly amused atheist, a rather disappointed atheist or a politician.

It genuinely doesn't care. It seems very likely that it would be the same even if a fundamental Christian - of whatever flavour you prefer - looked for it.

How do American atheists determine the science practiced by neighbour here in England who's looking into the genetic basis for addiction?

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.