15 Year Old Atheist...

CDfm

Mickeroo wrote: »

I didn't ask you is he remembered as an atheist, nor did he suggest he was an atheist,he was a priest after all.

I just think he's remembered more for his work as a scientist, nobody would know who he is if it wasn't for his scientific achievments. I don't think it matters he was a priest.

I heard of him about him originally from a priest.

In the context that people rely on his work to support anti -God theories- that really are not there. Science is neutral or it should be.

philologos

I think it matters very much that he was a priest, it matters very much that many scientists have faith, as it seems to indicate two things.

1) These people reconcile science with their faith
2) Science is not at an ultimate opposition with faith

That's where the significance lies.

seamus

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it matters very much that he was a priest, it matters very much that many scientists have faith, as it seems to indicate two things.

1) These people reconcile science with their faith
2) Science is not at an ultimate opposition with faith

That's where the significance lies.

I don't think you can draw any conclusions from it without examining each case individually. How do you know they've reconciled their work and their faith? Many people never reconcile them and would rather pretend there was no conflict.

It's also fair to say that any scientist who would put their faith above scientific evidence would have no place calling themselves a scientist - e.g. a doctor who refuses to prescribe contraception on any basis related to his faith.

So in that regard, being a religious scientist is possible, but as soon as you reject scientific evidence on account of it going against faith, you're no longer a scientist.

philologos

seamus wrote: »

It's also fair to say that any scientist who would put their faith above scientific evidence would have no place calling themselves a scientist - e.g. a doctor who refuses to prescribe contraception on any basis related to his faith.

So in that regard, being a religious scientist is possible, but as soon as you reject scientific evidence on account of it going against faith, you're no longer a scientist.

I really don't think that your example really is effective in explaining it. The doctor is still the doctor if one refuses to prescribe contraception. They have every place to call themselves a doctor but they have elected against it on moral grounds. Just because someone has certain beliefs and acts on them doesn't mean that they aren't what they are.

Mickeroo

CDfm wrote: »

I heard of him about him originally from a priest.

In the context that people rely on his work to support anti -God theories- that really are not there. Science is neutral or it should be.

Whats it matter that a priest told you?

I think it's more ironic that his work is used to denounce god than significant,having said that i dont think the big bang is a good argument against the existence of god.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it matters very much that he was a priest, it matters very much that many scientists have faith, as it seems to indicate two things.

1) These people reconcile science with their faith
2) Science is not at an ultimate opposition with faith

That's where the significance lies.

I agree science is not in ultimate opposition to faith, I know the church accepts evolution and the big bang. I know plenty of scientists are religious, including the guy in charge of the human genome project right? I also think if science is not at an ultimate opposition with faith it should mean its even more insignificant he was a priest.

Science does not set out to disprove god or peoples faith in it,but i think it depends on the type of faith we're talking about here, new world creationists for example would have to ignore geology, basically pretend it's not real.

CDfm

seamus wrote: »

I don't think you can draw any conclusions from it without examining each case individually. How do you know they've reconciled their work and their faith? Many people never reconcile them and would rather pretend there was no conflict.

It's also fair to say that any scientist who would put their faith above scientific evidence would have no place calling themselves a scientist - e.g. a doctor who refuses to prescribe contraception on any basis related to his faith.

So in that regard, being a religious scientist is possible, but as soon as you reject scientific evidence on account of it going against faith, you're no longer a scientist.

Really Seamus - how can you support that.

Its an individual not the science who has the prejudice.

In this regard -say Dawkins uses a theory by a believer under the banner of an attack on religions he is being disingenious. It is he who has the prejudice. Take the work of Lamaitre and the support of Darwins work financially by the Church.

It is obvious that the priest let the facts do the talking. Its the professor who has the prejudice and his neutrality which can be questioned. By your logic he should be neutral.

The contraceprion issue is a red herring. A vegetarian resterant will not give you a steak.

That scientific studies are open to peer review and should tell you. Creationist science is debunked by religous scientists all the time. Not because they are Christians but because they are scientists.Its an urban myth that that is not the case.

sink

CDfm wrote: »

However what you dont point out is that social sciences use the language and methods of science but they are not sciences. I am not going to pretend that any marketing or economics work Ive done is actual science because it just isn't.

What Im saying is that it doesnt fit as a real theory and is just as provable or not as what it attempts to discredit.

Social science is not natural science and so it doesn't have the same criteria. But that does not make it any less valid or useful. We use social sciences for studying many areas such as anthropology, communication studies, economics, human geography, history, political science, psychology and sociology. Are you saying we should arbitrarily dismiss all areas of social science because they do not offer any definitive proof.

Mickeroo

CDfm wrote: »

Take the work of Lamaitre and the support of Darwins work financially by the Church.

In fairness the church did not know what Darwin was working on on The Beagle, so that's a moot point. I'm pretty sure he didn't write the origin of the species while on the voyage anyway.

CDfm

Mickeroo wrote: »

Whats it matter that a priest told you?

Science does not set out to disprove god or peoples faith in it,but i think it depends on the type of faith we're talking about here, new world creationists for example would have to ignore geology, basically pretend it's not real.

Its silly of Creationists to ignore the science. It only matters that a priest told me in that its fairly acceptable to believe the science that the OP believes.

Its ironic that the way I read science material now comes from stuff I was introduced to here.

CDfm

Mickeroo wrote: »

In fairness the church did not know what Darwin was working on on The Beagle, so that's a moot point.

Well he wasnt catholic:D

CDfm

sink wrote: »

Social science is not natural science and so it doesn't have the same criteria. But that does not make it any less valid or useful. We use social sciences for studying many areas such as anthropology, communication studies, economics, human geography, history, political science, psychology and sociology. Are you saying we should arbitrarily dismiss all areas of social science because they do not offer any definitive proof.

I am saying that the proof of God that people seek in the name of science is from the natural sciences.

Thats whats normally used to dismiss a God Belief.

I was sent a link to a you tube video by someone who posts months back to explain to me how sciencific study works and how to read the stuff properly. I cant find the link but it was fairly useful.

Ciaran500

DiarmaidGNR

I stopped believing in religion around your age aswell, it is a very enlightening time in a persons life - researching Richard Dawkins and James Randi etc. I realise you want to tell your parents that you are an atheist straight away, but if you do this they will just fob you off as a moody teenager.

Just gradually stop going to mass, if a debate breaks out between you and your parents on the subject, try not to mention the word "atheist" because that just stamps all over their beliefs. But if the disscussion gets nasty you have plenty of ammunition with those Richard Dawkins books.

In this day and age its not a big deal anyway.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

However what you dont point out is that social sciences use the language and methods of science but they are not sciences. I am not going to pretend that any marketing or economics work Ive done is actual science because it just isn't.

What Im saying is that it doesnt fit as a real theory and is just as provable or not as what it attempts to discredit.

I think you're really confused about what memetics is and how it is involved in the God question.

Memetics provides us with a plausible and consistent explanation as to why such a huge number of people can believe in God even if God does not exist. It helps us understand how and why religions take on the forms they do, without assuming the presence of a supernatural guiding force.

If God exists and Christianity is absolutely true then memetics is still a perfectly useful discipline.

sink

CDfm wrote: »

I am saying that the proof of God that people seek in the name of science is from the natural sciences.

Thats whats normally used to dismiss a God Belief.

That is because natural science studies everything tangible i.e. everything that exists. If it is not tangible it does not exist. Social science studies human interactions and behaviours and builds theories, but these theories are themselves just logical cognitive constructs that don't actually exist outside of our minds. They are built by us for our own benefit and without us they would not exist. In social science nothing is right or wrong, just more accurate or less accurate. I believe that a liberal market, low tax economy as part of global free trade and movement of labour is the optimal form of economic system. It's not a tangible belief and says nothing about the natural world. Memetics is similar, it is a model to describe and predict the movement of ideas but it does not tangibly exist, it does not describe anything in the physical reality.

The existence of god on the other hand is a physical question. God either does or does not exist. If god exists the study of god should be part of the natural sciences, if god doesn't exist, the idea of god should be studied as part of the social sciences.

philologos

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

Just gradually stop going to mass, if a debate breaks out between you and your parents on the subject, try not to mention the word "atheist" because that just stamps all over their beliefs. But if the disscussion gets nasty you have plenty of ammunition with those Richard Dawkins books.

And I thought that atheists weren't dogmatic?

Seriously though, Richard Dawkins is only an individual, be yourself.

Dades

Ahem, anyone got any more thoughts on the OP's situation? :pac:

DiarmaidGNR

Jakkass wrote: »

And I thought that atheists weren't dogmatic?

Seriously though, Richard Dawkins is only an individual, be yourself.

I only said that because I wish I knew about those books when I had the "big disscussion" with my parents, it was very difficult for me (probably 14 years old) to argue my point against my whole family with just my own logic. - I didn't win.

Corkfeen

I'm 17 now and I told parents that I didn't believe in any of it. They were fairly annoyed about it at first but they don't really care now. Just can't let uncle know as he's a priest.:eek: I'd say go for it. Spent years not going to mass though while pretending to.

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

Ahem, anyone got any more thoughts on the OP's situation? :pac:

Let's transfer those thoughts memetically!

Calibos

Jakkass wrote: »

And I thought that atheists weren't dogmatic?

Seriously though, Richard Dawkins is only an individual, be yourself.

Almost implying that OP is just being the stereotypical rebelious teenager being 'led' by others instead of 'being himself.' I thought OP very eloquently made clear at the very beginning that this was not the case

Do you tell religious teens when they question aspects of doctrine to 'just be yourself'. No, you tell them that this is the infallible word of God and its not up for debate.

philologos

Calibos wrote: »

Almost implying that OP is just being the stereotypical rebelious teenager being 'led' by others instead of 'being himself.' I thought OP very eloquently made clear at the very beginning that this was not the case

Look, we have a poster telling him to use the words of Richard Dawkins to convince his parents. It's quite simple one should speak to their parents as themselves. Surely that is rather obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out?

Calibos wrote: »

Do you tell religious teens when they question aspects of doctrine to 'just be yourself'. No, you tell them that this is the infallible word of God and its not up for debate.

Funny that you mention Christianity and personality in the same bundle. Yes Christianity does allow people to be themselves.

God has given different gifts to people who follow Him and this allows for people to really shine with faith in Him:

Ephesians 4:11 wrote:

The gifts He gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of the ministry, for building up the body of Christ.

Also Christianity is a personal faith, it allows you to seek God on a personal level and to find out what God has in store for you. So yes it's radically different than spouting out Richard Dawkins to ones parents.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Memetics is not a natural science and cant be proven by empirical tests - so it is a nonsence as i understand scientific arguments against God beliefs.

I'm not an expert in memetics but my understanding is that it is part of human behavioural science (the study of human behaviour), and while nothing is "proven" by empirical tests it can be studied using empirical test as anything else can.

It is not nonsense, nor is it trying to study something paranormal. Nor does it really have anything to do with arguments against god. Even if religion is totally true it is still a series of memes.

coffee_cake

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

I only said that because I wish I knew about those books when I had the "big disscussion" with my parents, it was very difficult for me (probably 14 years old) to argue my point against my whole family with just my own logic. - I didn't win.

I'm not sure there's much to argue logic wise, it's a belief you just either have or don't.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not an expert in memetics but my understanding is that it is part of human behavioural science (the study of human behaviour), and while nothing is "proven" by empirical tests it can be studied using empirical test as anything else can.

It is not nonsense, nor is it trying to study something paranormal. Nor does it really have anything to do with arguments against god. Even if religion is totally true it is still a series of memes.

So its antropology then

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Look, we have a poster telling him to use the words of Richard Dawkins to convince his parents. It's quite simple one should speak to their parents as themselves. Surely that is rather obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out?

Funny that you mention Christianity and personality in the same bundle. Yes Christianity does allow people to be themselves.

God has given different gifts to people who follow Him and this allows for people to really shine with faith in Him:

Also Christianity is a personal faith, it allows you to seek God on a personal level and to find out what God has in store for you. So yes it's radically different than spouting out Richard Dawkins to ones parents.

It is some what ironic that you say Christianity allows people to be themselves, that the OP shouldn't use arguments from other people, and then you quote from the Bible ...

How is what you just did any different to the OP saying to his parents this is what I believe and to support me here is a good quote from Richard Dawkins.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

So its antropology then

Yes, though technically it could be applied to any species with culture and language

Zillah

Anthropology is significantly more broad in it's definition, however. But yes, memetics wouldn't mind sharing a taxi with anthropology and sociology if they were heading to the same party. Unlike myself and Wicknight.


Now, let's all sit back and wait for Dades to give each of us a whack across the knuckles.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

Ahem, anyone got any more thoughts on the OP's situation? :pac:

I think I know the Church that OP and his parents attend. I would avoid mentioning Dawkins out of fear of exorcism:D

Seriously OP, I am fairly relaxed about my religious beliefs once they are respected which is why I can post etc comfortably on A & A on issues. Forming your own beliefs is part of growing up. Dawkins doesn't have a great grasp of theology & is in there for the argument.If you don't believe its a decision you make yourself based on your own standard of proofs.

I would have a very hard time if someone asked me to dismiss evolution and the big bang.

It seems to me that some posters have said they went along with stuff until they hit the age where they were doing their own thing. So its a bit of a balancing act.FFS -I will be at work tomorrow telling people what they want to hear cos its how I earn a living.Thats life and you have to compromise some at times.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

It is some what ironic that you say Christianity allows people to be themselves, that the OP shouldn't use arguments from other people, and then you quote from the Bible ...

How is what you just did any different to the OP saying to his parents this is what I believe and to support me here is a good quote from Richard Dawkins.

Key differences:

1) I'm not using the Bible to speak to my parents, nor do I intend to, they're pretty clear that I am a Christian anyhow.

2) I was elaborating how personality and Christianity go hand in hand and showing the looseness expressed by Biblical authors in relation to roles in the church does that rather adequately I think.

Context is everything.

Besides, quoting Richard Dawkins is only adequate if you put him up on a pedestal to declare him an authority on atheism. I doubt his parents would consider him an authority really anyway, I certainly don't. A few atheists I know disagree with the Dawkins strategy anyway and rightly so.