Should science be only for atheists

Your intelligent enough to know divisive behavior is counter-productive to intellectual pursuit...friend.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Obviously, theists ought to be welcome to contribute to science.

On another note, I will point out that most atheists... particularly of the kind that infest the internet (including these boards), have an only slightly better intellectual grounding for their atheism than most theists do for their theism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is that really how you would characterize the presence of atheists on the internet? As an infestation? Such a description carries with it quite a negative connotation. But then you go on imply that neither theists or atheists have a respectable intellectual grounding for their beliefs. One might glean from this that you believe that you are more enlightened than both camps. Care to elaborate?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

:worship::worship:

I believe we have found GOD!

 

Surely one can be of science and also have no religious beliefs in God, but still consider that there is or was a God, perhaps in the form of Aristotle's Prime Mover?

 

Yeah I guess "infest" was a bit too strong, though I will confess annoyance at them!

I was merely trying to point out that there are certain sorts of viewpoints that one sees openly expressed on the internet much more so than in other venues, and philosophically unsophisticated atheism is one of them.

(other such viewpoints and people include 9-11 conspiracy theorists, Ayn Rand devotees, Ron Paul supporters, etc.)

Why do I find them annoying to the point that I characterize them as an infestation? Because they tend to end up in every conversation about God on internet forums, and then the same old shopworn debate happens that always happens. Their brand of atheism is somewhat philosophically naive, and generally isn't all that well-thought-out. Worse, they usually don't have the requisite background in philosophical methodology to have a reasonable discussion. And on top of that, they tend to be young men who think very highly of their own intellects, so you get a lot of Dunning-Kruger effect when you try to talk to them.

Well, I didn't mean to categorize all atheists or all theists under the same umbrella (thats why I distinguished "standard" atheists). Basically I'd rank them like this, from least to most intellectually respectable:

4. Standard theists. Folks who just believe in God because they were raised that way, etc.. They might come to a debate armed with a couple vague arguments in favor of theism that they learned from their youth pastor or whatever, but they are basically unreflective or at least unreasonable.

3. Standard atheists. Reached atheism by some pretty basic reasoning that we're all familiar with. They at least have an argument with a bit of plausibility behind their views, but they don't realize how difficult these issues actually are. They are often devotees of the work of the Hitchens and Harris type authors. These are the ones most apt to characterize belief in God as "stupid" or believers as "irrational sheep" and so on.

2. Enlightened theists. These ones have thought deeply about the most sophisticated and subtle arguments for and against the existence of God and have come out as believers. They realize the depth and complexity of the issue and do not trivialize the debate by making it seem easy or simple.

1. Enlightened atheists. Just like enlightened theists, except they are atheists! They would never be so naively overconfident to think that the arguments for theism can be brushed aside with the level of philosophical sophistication possessed by the Standard Atheist. I rank these guys ahead of enlightened theists just because I think the arguments in favor of atheism are successful.



Its just uncommon to find an appreciation of the subtlety of the existence of God debate on the internet. You either have to settle for a boring and sophomoric discussion, or commit yourself to writing novel-sized posts for pages and pages and pages amidst obnoxious overconfident atheists (and some theists!)

 

Welcome to the New Atheism. I am old (63).

And Victor Stenger is about 10 years older:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/VWeb/Home.html

You might have missed the new and better arguments of Rav's and mine, even going beyond Stenger's "looking everywhere" method. Just look at the recent posts about religion, even now, and you will find the gist and the rest.

The internet forums are the place for prolonged discussion; it's more "live and let live" on the outside, unless someones asks me.

 

Thank you for your well-reasoned response. I do indeed understand where you are coming from now.

 

I am all down with that . If you ask Me Science was born out of religious thought. The Mother of invention . Those stinking Protestants really rocked the boat. How dare they go against the Catholic Church like they did .
That Jesus he sure looked at things different. To think a bastard kid could think him self the son of God . What kind of nerve is that. Tesla attributed some of his discoveries to bible study . It is my belief that abstract thought will help a person brake barriers of routine thought process and there by working as a tool to explore avenues ignored before. Like a trigger effect . Even if it is not related directly to your scientific work i believe abstract thought can lead to better usage of your imagination and this could lead to discovery by braking routine. Think of all the discoveries made by accident.

 

Religious thought which, no doubt, stems from philosophical thought. As with all things, philosophy is the beginning of all thoughts and by categorising them you just tighten it's focus. Also, I don't believe that science was born of religion as I have already stated that scientific thought was born of philosophical inquest.

 

Sounds like a person trying to justify their worthless degree to me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Wow! How nice of you to give a degree to an 18 year old. May I ask what level of education I attained? Was I a doctor of philosophy in your little fantasy?

 

Okay -- a person who's trying to justify the worthless degree they will get.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh, and he sees the future too! Wow mate, you sure know how to make yourself look foolish. Your excellence in the field of idiocy must be world renowned.

If I had an award for you, it would be for making my day. Way to make me fell superior, buddy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree with your statement . We theist contribute and have contributed for the advance of science. Science is a study of mechanism of natural processes Our spirituality can be independent during the study of nature,

 

Your spirituality can only be independent during the study of nature if you don't catch yourself of contradictory teachings within your holy script. A science teacher of mine was an avid believer of evolution, the big bang etc. but was also a theist and it never seemed to get in her way of believing and studying science.

It really does depend on the person, but I do believe that science with a hidden religious agenda, whether it be to disprove or prove theistic beliefs is bound to end badly as the science becomes warped with emotion.

 

It really does depend on the person, but I do believe that science with a hidden religious agenda, whether it be to disprove or prove theistic beliefs is bound to end badly as the science becomes warped with emotion.[/QUOTE]


Can you accept that my faith in God and in Jesus , makes me more respectful to nature on how complicate it has been put together, In other words . Science reinforces my faith in God.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Let's not forget the islamic scientific tradition, which for a long time was very advanced while europe was still in the dark ages. And the fact that the western scientific tradition itself is based on the works of scientists who were christians. Modern science owes a lot to those people, and atheists would do well to recognise that, instead of being arrogant jerks (not all of you).

 

Is this suitable for general philosophy??

 

Mod Note:

People, the purpose of this thread is not to review and/or debate the contribution of atheists and theists to the practice of science.

Let's get the thread back on topic...