what IS the relationship between science and Atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2010, 10:20 AM
RE: what IS the relationship between science and Atheism?
A friend of mine, a Christian minister, is having a mastectomy to save her life from a very aggressive form of cancer. That notion that she attacks all science, including the science that is leading doctors to cut off her breast, is insulting.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2010, 10:36 AM
RE: what IS the relationship between science and Atheism?
No one said anything about her and no one said that all theists attack science. But, for those who do, an attack on the scientific method is really an attack on all science. You can't pick and chose the parts that you like vs. the parts that disagree with your predetermined beliefs and say "I'm only attacking the scientific method as it relates to [fill in the blank]." It doesn't work that way. If your friend is attacking the scientific method then she is in fact attacking all science, even the parts of it that that she's ok with.

And, best of luck to your friend. Cancer flat out sucks. I sincerely hope the surgery is successful.

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
19-11-2010, 10:48 AM
 
RE: what IS the relationship between science and Atheism?
(19-11-2010 10:20 AM)Ghost Wrote:  A friend of mine, a Christian minister, is having a mastectomy to save her life from a very aggressive form of cancer. That notion that she attacks all science, including the science that is leading doctors to cut off her breast, is insulting.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

hrm...my post said "MANY theists" not "ALL theists"

which makes your post above full of logically fallacious holes.


Im quite a big fan of people like Ken Miller for example..who if you dont know..is a theist, a scientist and a staunch DEFENDER of science from attacks by other theists.
Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2010, 12:10 AM
RE: what IS the relationship between science and Atheism?
Hey, BnW.

Don't roll in with sarcasm and the-sky-is-falling statements then hide behind, "no one said all Theists attack science." You can't talk about me in the third person and entirely dismiss what I said and then pretend you were talking specifics. You said "their" and "they". That means everyone. So hate to break it to you, but YOU said all Theists.

Quote:But, for those who do, an attack on the scientific method is really an attack on all science.

Like I said, that's one argument. But what's misleading about it is that no one is calling for the abolition of science. It really isn't an attack on all science, it's an attack on certain parts of it.

It's like if I said Sharia Law and Martyrdom suck and a Muslim said that my attack on those things was an attack on all of Islam. Or if I called Israel out on settlements and apartheid and was told I was an anti-semite or that I wanted to abolish the State of Israel. Or if I call GW Bush an idiot with murderous policies for 8 years (which I pretty much did) and an American calls me a Yank hater. Sure you can say that an attack on part is an attack on the whole, but that's not actually what's happening. That's why I said it was an interesting frame.

Don't get me wrong. I don't understand how someone reconciles trusting a bone marrow transplant and not evolution. But the fact that they are trusting at least part of it means that they're not trying to wipe it all out.

Hey, Hauser.

You're assuming my post was directed at you personally. It was not.

Quote:b. the idea that in order for something to be considered true and factual..it must be DEMONSTRABLY true and factual.

Good point.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2010, 08:19 AM
RE: what IS the relationship between science and Atheism?
Ghost

Quote:Don't roll in with sarcasm and the-sky-is-falling statements then hide behind, "no one said all Theists attack science." You can't talk about me in the third person and entirely dismiss what I said and then pretend you were talking specifics. You said "their" and "they". That means everyone. So hate to break it to you, but YOU said all Theists.

First, I did not use any sarcasm in my above post. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Second, where did I talk about you in the 3rd person and dismiss what you said? Third, when I said "their" and "they" I was speaking about a specific group. So yes, I was talking about that entire group but that entire group was not all theists. I think you need to go back and re-read all my comments on the topic because I didn't do or say any of the things you are saying here. And, I'll happily cop to sarcasm when I'm using sarcasm.

Quote:Like I said, that's one argument. But what's misleading about it is that no one is calling for the abolition of science. It really isn't an attack on all science, it's an attack on certain parts of it.

We're going to disagree on this. When you pick and chose when you'll accept the scientific method, you've called into question the entire thing. How can you credibly claim that you believe in the science that allows you to enhance crop growth but say the entire method fails on climate change and evolution? How is there any credibility for that?

Quote:It's like if I said Sharia Law and Martyrdom suck and a Muslim said that my attack on those things was an attack on all of Islam. Or if I called Israel out on settlements and apartheid and was told I was an anti-semite or that I wanted to abolish the State of Israel. Or if I call GW Bush an idiot with murderous policies for 8 years (which I pretty much did) and an American calls me a Yank hater. Sure you can say that an attack on part is an attack on the whole, but that's not actually what's happening. That's why I said it was an interesting frame.

Two points on this. First, if you make any of those arguments (except maybe the W. argument), you'll most likely get the exact response you state above. Doesn't mean it's logical but you probably will. Secondly, I don't agree that these are fair analogies at all. In the science one, what you are attacking is the the methodology. For me, an attack on the methodology is an attack on the methodology. In your examples, you are hitting specific examples that may not represent the whole. They may represent the whole, but since these examples are fact driven and not process driven, then they do not have to represent the whole. They obviously can, though.

Quote:Hey, Hauser.

You're assuming my post was directed at you personally. It was not.

You can't talk about Hauser in the third person and entirely dismiss what she said and then pretend you were talking specifics.

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
22-11-2010, 09:26 AM
RE: what IS the relationship between science and Atheism?
Hey, BnW.

Quote:Second, where did I talk about you in the 3rd person...
Quote:I think Ghost is right.

Quote:First, I did not use any sarcasm in my above post.
Quote:That's why the science on climate change is universally accepted without any religious groups raising any objections at all to it. --> Climate change, for reasons I do not understand, seems to challenge their view of god's supremacy.

Quote:...and dismiss what you said?
You used sarcasm to undermine my premise. ..."that's why they"... You then introduced several examples that opposed what I said.

Quote:Third, when I said "their" and "they" I was speaking about a specific group.
Yes. Theists.

Quote:So yes, I was talking about that entire group but that entire group was not all theists.
That's a fine clarification now, but in your original post there was no indication whatsoever that you were talking about a limited section of the group. Kinda like if someone says 'you people'. What is the limited section of the group that you are refering to?

Quote:I think you need to go back and re-read all my comments on the topic because I didn't do or say any of the things you are saying here.
Except for where you said exactly what I said you did.

Quote:And, I'll happily cop to sarcasm when I'm using sarcasm.
Quote:You can't talk about Hauser in the third person and entirely dismiss what she said and then pretend you were talking specifics.

Quote:We're going to disagree on this. When you pick and chose when you'll accept the scientific method, you've called into question the entire thing. How can you credibly claim that you believe in the science that allows you to enhance crop growth but say the entire method fails on climate change and evolution? How is there any credibility for that?

How can we disagree on something we're both saying. I've said twice that this is one argument. Third time now.

I also said that I don't understand how someone does it.

But the fact remains, you can PERCEIVE that as an attack on all science, you can FRAME it as an attack on all science, but that's not actually what's happening.

For example, pretty much every industrial corporation on the planet (save some stand outs like Interface) and most neo-conservatives deny climate change and attack the science invovled. But nobody says they're attacking all science. "3M has launched an attack on science!" It's not a frame that is applied to them.

Also, at least in some cases, the claim can be made that some Theists attacking evolution, say, aren't attacking science as a methodology, but are attacking people's findings; much like corporate climate change deniers.

Quote:First, if you make any of those arguments (except maybe the W. argument), you'll most likely get the exact response you state above. Doesn't mean it's logical but you probably will.

Yay! I made good analogies! BnW understood that I was using them to illustrate how one can take a critique/attack on one part of a thing and frame it as an attack on the entire thing even though that's not what's happeneing!

Quote: Secondly, I don't agree that these are fair analogies at all.

D'oh!

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2011, 09:50 AM
 
RE: what IS the relationship between science and Atheism?
(15-11-2010 03:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Well, yes. If someone makes a specific claim about a deity, science can refute that claim - for example, that the Shroud of Turin was the shroud used to cover Jesus' body. Technically, it could also prove said claim, but I doubt that it will.

Even if the Shroud of Turin was the shroud used to cover Jesus, that would not provide any credibility or proof to Jesus being the Son of "God" or that Jesus created any miracles.

Carbon dating could be used to prove the shroud a fake, but even if the dates did line up it would not prove anything other than the age of the shroud.

Imagine if there really was a person called Jesus and that he managed to fool people into believing some tricks were in fact miracles for the purpose of giving weight to claims that he is the Son of "God" and then he was crucified and wrapped in a shroud. Finding the shroud, proving it's age and somehow proving it is "the" shroud would somehow prove that the miracles were miracles and not just tricks and that Jesus was in fact the Son of "God"?

All science can provide with such little evidence is an approximate age of a sample that is taken. All the faithful can provide is faith.
Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2011, 10:51 AM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2011 10:54 AM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: what IS the relationship between science and Atheism?
Just felt like adding something to this

"So saying, from the tree her step she turned, but first low reverence done,as to the Power that dwelt within, whose presence had infused into the plant sciential sap, derived from nectar, drink of gods." Milton, Paradise Lost

Science has a meaning outside of the field, that meaning is knowledge. Many atheists tend to reach their atheism through knowledge. There are of course dimwitted and uninspired atheists, but those are not who we wish to correlate ourselves with. This is just a part of the book I like, and it is discussing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil after Eve has ate from it. I think Milton has a wonderful double meaning for this here. He was alive during a time Catholicism reigned, the 1600s, and was himself skirting the lines of blasphemy. He makes mention of things like Copernicus' theories (this being before the round earth was considered an established fact) within the book.

The double meaning to me would be that the original parable of Christian doctrine blames our scientific desires for the world's suffering. Humans employ the scientific method before they understand what science is, as they observe and try to understand the world from birth.

The idea that, if you state evolution is false and attack the method that it was derived from, then you are attacking all of science is essentially true: in that you are attacking the method with which all scientific knowledge is gained both past and present. This attack is indirect, but attacking the scientific method hurts possible future scientific research, even in fields they might not wish to attack. Because this method must be used everywhere.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: