Theists versus atheists: are conflicts necessary?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2011, 02:58 PM
 
Theists versus atheists: are conflicts necessary?
A Paper by: Ludwik Kowalski, Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University
New Jersey, USA

Abstract

Mathematics is like theology; it starts with axioms (initially accepted truths) and uses logical derivation to justify consecutive claims. Science is different; here claims are justified by reproducible experimental observations, not by pure logic. This does not interfere with peaceful coexistence and mutual respect between mathematicians and scientists. The situation can be contrasted with relations between some self-appointed theologians and self-appointed scientists. No one benefits from the endless “we know better” conflicts. Is it possible to avoid such conflicts? The topic was discussed over the Internet, as illustrated in this article. (Continues)
Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2011, 06:46 PM
RE: Theists versus atheists: are conflicts necessary?
I like this guy. I was amazed and quite overjoyed at how thoughtful and respectful the comments were (although I didn't much care for the boxing comment). It's encouraging. Theists and Atheists. My two favourite loveable knuckle heads. I hope you two do learn how to get along. But seriously, this guy and many of the posters elucidated things that I've thought for years, but in far more concise ways. Good stuff. Good find, Gassy Kitten.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2011, 09:56 AM
RE: Theists versus atheists: are conflicts necessary?
I find I'm agreeing with many of the comments posted. If all theists kept their beliefs out of the scientific/political realms, there would be no need for any conflict between atheists and theists.

"Remember, my friend, that knowledge is stronger than memory, and we should not trust the weaker." - Dr. Van Helsing, Dracula
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2011, 10:14 AM
RE: Theists versus atheists: are conflicts necessary?
At first my skeptical detector got trigged but the more I read, the more sense it made.

This writing is a warm plea for secularism!

Now I understand that, for a correct theistic debate, i must first ask whether
A: The God the believe in is physical
B: They want to share their idea's or they want me to subject to their idea's

Peace has to come from both sides but I want to concur...

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2011, 10:54 AM
RE: Theists versus atheists: are conflicts necessary?
I didn't read the article, but to address the original question: I would also have no problems with theists (whatever a person chooses to believe is their own business) if they would stop impeding scientific progress. I have a mom with cancer, a sister who got diabetes at age 15 and a grandma who died from diabetes. And I look online for the most promising cures... that's right, stem cell research.

But of course we all know a embryos have souls.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Buddy Christ's post
09-04-2011, 11:18 AM
RE: Theists versus atheists: are conflicts necessary?
I'm sorry but I think this guys entire argument is completely and totally ridiculous. From the article:

Quote:Scientists should agree not to deal with spiritual claims, such as existence of God or gods, and theologians should agree not to deal with material claims, such as the age of our planet or the reality of global warming.

Obviously, atheists are are not going to have a problem with this argument at all. I can't definitively speak for anyone but myself but it is my sense that the average atheist could care less if someone else believes in god, provided that those beliefs stay in church and don't influence public policy or scientific debate. So, this guys entire contention is that if religious folks just agree that their views of the world have no real bearing on real life and could just sit in the corner and discuss amongst themselves at the kids table while the adults figure everything out for them. I realize that is now how he phrases it but, if I believe in the bible, and the creation story and the flood I would be highly insulted at the idea that my opinions have no relevance in scientific discussion and on topics like the age of the Earth and global warming.

This is complete and utter bullshit is what this is, and completely dismissive of the entire religious side of the argument.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2011, 12:18 PM
 
RE: Theists versus atheists: are conflicts necessary?
YOU HAVE
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
IN YOUR SIGNATURE
<3333333 I FUCKING LOVE YOU BnW

BUT
I don't really get what you're worked up over. Religious figures have a view on science and their opinion is important, only, not if they're inputting religion. If they disagree with stem cell research and have an argument that doesn't involve something regarding a soul, which is something that doesn't have a shred of evidence, then they will be heard.

When adults are at the table talking about politics, wondering what should be done about world hunger, the children should not be allowed to say and enforce "Nothing, the easter bunny will give them chocolate and santa will bring them presents."
Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2011, 12:39 PM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2011 01:42 PM by BnW.)
RE: Theists versus atheists: are conflicts necessary?
I'm not worked up about it, but I think his argument is bullshit. And, I think you misunderstood my point. This guys position is if we can all agree to certain boundaries then we we can get along without and confrontations. But, that's just ridiculous. The entire reason we have these conflicts is because people do not agree on these boundaries.

Speaking generally, religion has a very clear view on the origins of man and life on Earth, why global warming can't be true, etc. Not every person who believes in god adheres to these positions, obviously, but you are not having these conflicts with religious people who, for example, accept the scientific foundation of biological evolution. A theist who flat out believes that god created the world and everything on it in six days is never, ever going to agree to the boundaries set forth by Professor Emeritus Ludwik Kowalski. Telling them that the way to end conflicts is for them to just pretend that their beliefs are not supported by "real" science and they should take their view to theology class only is also not going to work because they will not sit quietly back while evolution is taught in schools.

So, Kowlaski's entire argument is basically "hey, if you people just agree to keep your beliefs out of our way then there is no need for conflict". That's just a bull shit position.

Oh, and on a completely unrelated note to any of this, my wife is finishing up her masters at Montclair. Not relevant but I thought I'd throw this out there. I never heard of this guy before this article, though, so I can't comment on him beyond what he wrote here.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
09-04-2011, 12:56 PM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2011 01:08 PM by Efrx86.)
RE: Theists versus atheists: are conflicts necessary?
A small excerpt from Dawkins's "The God Delusion":

And whatever else they may say, those scientists who subscribe to the 'separate magisteria' school of thought should concede that a universe with a supernaturally intelligent creator is a very different kind of universe from one without. The difference between the two hypothetical universes could hardly be more fundamental in principle, even if it is not easy to test in practice. And it undermines the complacently seductive dictum that science must be completely silent about religion's central existence claim.The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice - or not yet - a decided one. So also is the truth or falsehood of every one of the miracle stories that religions rely upon to impress multitudes of the faithful.

[...]

The very idea is a joke. You can bet your boots that the scientific evidence, if any were to turn up, would be seized upon and trumpeted to the skies. NOMA is popular only because there is no evidence to favour the God Hypothesis. The moment there was the smallest suggestion of any evidence in favour of religious belief, religious apologists would lose no time in throwing NOMA out of the window. Sophisticated theologians aside (and even they are happy to tell miracle stories to the unsophisticated in order to swell congregations), I suspect that alleged miracles provide the strongest reason many believers have for their faith; and miracles, by definition, violate the principles of science.


I know the topic is "theists vs atheists", not "religion vs science", but the article seemed that way to me.

The God excuse: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument. "God did it." Anything we can't describe must have come from God. - George Carlin

Whenever I'm asked "What if you're wrong?", I always show the asker this video: http://youtu.be/iClejS8vWjo Screw Pascal's wager.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2011, 07:48 AM
RE: Theists versus atheists: are conflicts necessary?
All you need to know is right here.

Oh and, BnW:
Quote:This guys position is if we can all agree to certain boundaries then we we can get along without and confrontations. But, that's just ridiculous. The entire reason we have these conflicts is because people do not agree on these boundaries.

So his argument is bullshit because he's suggesting we resolve the conflict and live in harmony by respecting boundaries that we don't respect right now and that are the source of the conflict. That's... that's a special kinda logic.

"Suggesting a cease fire is bullshit. We're at war!"

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: