Does atheism matter?

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wouldn't say they're mutual enemies. Religion likes science because they think that their God exists and that science can do nothing but prove that. On the other hand, science doesn't like religion much because of this whole idea

Religion and Science sound very personified here.

Morbert

CDfm wrote: »

While others call him an antitheist , misotheist probably also a scientific rationalist and materialist.

In the same way Huxley was called the Pope for his doctrinaire agnosticism he defined himself a term , for his evangelical atheism in that tradition Dawkins could easily be Pope II. Well if the mitre fits;)

Dawkins is not an evangelical atheist. He has explicitly said that he disowns that term.

To evangelise is to attempt to convert someone to a religion. Dawkins does not do this, as atheism is not a religion. If we stretch the definition of evangelical to include Dawkins then we must also label any politician or personal speaker as evangelical.

[edit to add] - Dawkins is also not an antitheist. He is an agnostic atheist.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Religion and Science sound very personified here.

I wouldn't say they're mutual enemies. Religious people like science because they think that their God exists and that science can do nothing but prove that. On the other hand, scientists don't like religious people much because of this whole idea


Better?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

While others call him an antitheist , misotheist probably also a scientific rationalist and materialist.

In the same way Huxley was called the Pope for his doctrinaire agnosticism he defined himself a term , for his evangelical atheism in that tradition Dawkins could easily be Pope II. Well if the mitre fits;)

Misotheism is the "hatred of God" or "hatred of the gods". How can one hate that which one doesn't think exists

CDfm

Morbert wrote: »

Dawkins is not an evangelical atheist. He has explicitly said that he disowns that term.

Most people understand the term to be someone who tries to convince others that their theist beliefs are wrong and he has made a second career of it.

He goes a bit further and if he was from Cavan would be calling theists f**kin eejits and the Parish Priest the village idiot.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Most people understand the term to be someone who tries to convince others that their theist beliefs are wrong and he has made a second career of it.

He goes a bit further and if he was from Cavan would be calling theists f**kin eejits and the Parish Priest the village idiot.

In fact no he wouldn't. He would calmly, thoroughly and eloquently explain to theists and the parish priest the logical flaws in their position.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Misotheism is the "hatred of God" or "hatred of the gods". How can one hate that which one doesn't think exists

By calling believers delusional would be one way - a tad perjorative wouldnt you say:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

You're really going to an awful lot of effort to dismiss Dawkins here CDfm. Have you read his book?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

By calling believers delusional would be one way - a tad perjorative wouldnt you say:rolleyes:

Calling believers delusional does not mean he hates their God, it means he thinks it doesn't exist

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Misotheism is the "hatred of God"

Ah shucks... here was me hoping that this form of theism revolved around using Miso paste to make Japanese dishes. No wonder I love Miso Soup so much, it's a bowl of hate... my kind of dish, and it's delicious too

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're really going to an awful lot of effort to dismiss Dawkins here CDfm. Have you read his book?

I did - he dismisses a lot of stuff in favour of science doesnt he

I wouldn't say they're mutual enemies. Religious people like science because they think that their God exists and that science can do nothing but prove that. On the other hand, scientists don't like religious people much because of this whole idea

Yes and as has been said before Darwin and science replaces the sacred scripture as the sacred revalatory text.

Since when has it been a prerequisite to be atheist to be a scientist?It isnt a prerequisite of religious belief certainly not mainstream Christian to dismiss science.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fact no he wouldn't. He would calmly, thoroughly and eloquently explain to theists and the parish priest the logical flaws in their position.

and call them delusional;)

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

I did - he dismisses a lot of stuff in favour of science doesnt he

For a man who apparently read the book you seem to have an awful lot of odd opinions about and little knowledge of what's in it

I've already corrected you I several times simply by quoting the book. Did you really read it or is it that you read it trying to find any faults you could whether they were actually there or not?

And why did you ask me his position on deism and pantheism? It's spelled out very clearly in the book.

CDfm wrote: »

Yes and as has been said before Darwin and science replaces the sacred scripture as the sacred revalatory text.

Since when has it been a prerequisite to be atheist to be a scientist?It isnt a prerequisite of religious belief certainly not mainstream Christian to dismiss science.

No one said it was a prerequisite. It does help though. A good example of how:

---

An atheist scientist is trying to prove the existence of the nucleus of the atom.

Method:
Carry out Rutherford's experiment

conclusion: The nucleus exists

---

---

Now a theist scientist is trying to prove the existence of the nucleus of the atom.

Method:
Carry out Rutherford's experiment

conclusion: I don't know if the nucleus exists because God might have manipulated the stream of alpha rays.


Also, dismissing science is not a pre-requisite of belief but if you don't want to you have to develop an "allegorical" view of the bible, ie acknowledge that a lot of it is simply wrong but don't reject it on that basis because you really really want the bits that haven't been proven false/wrong to be true

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

and call them delusional;)

Indeed he would. He would then go on to explain exactly why they are delusional as he does very well

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

For a man who apparently read the book you seem to have an awful lot of odd opinions about and little knowledge of what's in it

I've already corrected you I several times simply by quoting the book. Did you really read it or is it that you read it trying to find any faults you could whether they were actually there or not?

And why did you ask me his position on deism and pantheism? It's spelled out very clearly in the book.

And besides that you're acting as if this whole idea of atheists not having to be 100% sure is entirely new to you but it's one of the main points in the book. Did you really read it?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

For a man who apparently read the book you seem to have an awful lot of odd opinions

I read it and have read around the topic but Im not hung up on him as a major thinker. You werent aware of Huxley.

No one said it was a prerequisite. It does help though. A good example of how:

Let me ask you this when have the mainstream christian churches come out and attacked critical thinking in the natural sciences.

Before you answer historically La Maitre and the Big Bang was honoured by the Catholic Church for his work and Einstein was a fan and the ethics of harvested embryionic stem cell research would be a real cop out because you do have other controls on science and medicine.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And besides that you're acting as if this whole idea of atheists not having to be 100% sure is entirely new to you but it's one of the main points in the book. Did you really read it?

Are we discussing Atheism or Dawkinism?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Let me ask you this when have the mainstream christian churches come out and attacked critical thinking in the natural sciences.

Before you answer historically La Maitre and the Big Bang was honoured by the Catholic Church for his work and Einstein was a fan and the ethics of harvested embryionic stem cell research would be a real cop out because you do have other controls on science and medicine.

They wouldn't come out and attack critical thinking, I'm sure they love critical thinking. The problem is that they don't apply it to their beliefs. They approach science with an unfounded assumption, that their God exists, and until his existence is proven that assumption can lead them wrong. It might not do them any harm but I don't think it would do them much good either.

Imo the best religious scientists are the ones who leave their beliefs at the lab door and pick them up again when they leave

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Are we discussing Atheism or Dawkinism?

You're the one who keeps bringing him up With a surprising lack of knowledge of the man for someone who has apparently read the book.

Could you tell me a few parts of the book that you particularly disagreed with and why you disagreed with them?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They wouldn't come out and attack critical thinking, I'm sure they love critical thinking. The problem is that they don't apply it to their beliefs. They approach science with an unfounded assumption, that their God exists, and until his existence is proven that assumption can lead them wrong. It might not do them any harm but I don't think it would do them much good either.

Imo the best religious scientists are the ones who leave their beliefs at the lab door and pick them up again when they leave

So it is irrelevant to critical thinking in science and is part of the polemic myth making. You conceded elsewhere that reliance on Occam impeded DNA research and Im sure where quantum physics goes confuses lots of scientists.

La Maitre was elevated for his work by the Church and his belief in God did not impede his work. So at best you can only call it neutral to critical thinking.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

So it is irrelevant to critical thinking in science and is part of the polemic myth making.

ummm, no it's not irrelevant to critical thinking in science. It can effect their critical thinking because they're making an unreasoned assumption. I'm just saying that the best ones manage to separate their religion from their science, not all do and that's when you get proponents of intelligent design

CDfm wrote: »

You conceded elsewhere that reliance on Occam impeded DNA research and Im sure where quantum physics goes confuses lots of scientists.

You keep acting as if you won a massive victory when I "conceded" that Occam's razor doesn't always lead you in the right direction. I never said it did and always knew that it didn't. I don't know why you keep bringing it up

CDfm wrote: »

La Maitre was elevated for his work by the Church and his belief in God did not impede his work. So at best you can only call it neutral to critical thinking.

At best it's neutral, at worst it biases everything they do

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Could you tell me a few parts of the book that you particularly disagreed with and why you disagreed with them?

That there are fairies living at the bottom of his garden.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

That there are fairies living at the bottom of his garden.

Ah so you've seen the quote that he quotes pretty much everywhere he goes and that I heard years before I read the book and that I've quoted in this very thread.

And that you seem to have missed the point of because he didn't say there were fairies at the bottom of the garden

Anything else?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

ummm, no it's not irrelevant to critical thinking in science. It can effect their critical thinking because they're making an unreasoned assumption. I'm just saying that the best ones manage to separate their religion from their science, not all do and that's when you get proponents of intelligent design

With respect Sam these are fringe groups who outside the Creationist/Evolutionist Debate cares what they say. Its a myth that they are significant. Legends in their own lunchtimes.

You keep acting as if you won a massive victory when I "conceded" that Occam's razor doesn't always lead you in the right direction. I never said it did and always knew that it didn't. I don't know why you keep bringing it up

I dont I just use that as an example that reliance on probability is a theme which arises in your arguments.

At best it's neutral, at worst it biases everything they do

They are a fringe group like the Amish affect you?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Anything else?

Well Sam you are a fan and no doubt you find him totally historically accurate in a way I dont.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

With respect Sam these are fringe groups who outside the Creationist/Evolutionist Debate cares what they say. Its a myth that they are significant. Legends in their own lunchtimes.

I didn't say they were significant, I gave one example of how religious beliefs have effected people's scientific objectivity. It mostly doesn't thankfully because religious scientists tend to be smart enough to separate their religion from their science but my point here is that for a religious scientist to be effective he has to leave his beliefs at the door and behave as if he wasn't a believer.

CDfm wrote: »

I dont I just use that as an example that reliance on probability is a theme which arises in your arguments.

Until the existence of god is proven one way or the other probability is pretty much the only thing that an argument can rely on

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Well Sam you are a fan and no doubt you find him totally historically accurate in a way I dont.

you didn't read the book did you? I won't hold it against you if you tell me you didn't, it's just that it's kind of becoming clear you didn't

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you didn't read the book did you? I won't hold it against you if you tell me you didn't, it's just that it's kind of becoming clear you didn't

I did and am not a fan especially of the politics side which I really disagree with and is possibly why I am hostile to it. I dont really agree on the 7 points as you might gather as I think its simplistic because its an extension of the probability thing which doesnt fit well with me. I did revisit memes which I think is a fairly good and underused abstract concept but that was more to do with Robin.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I didn't say they were significant, I gave one example of how religious beliefs have effected people's scientific objectivity. It mostly doesn't thankfully because religious scientists tend to be smart enough to separate their religion from their science but my point here is that for a religious scientist to be effective he has to leave his beliefs at the door and behave as if he wasn't a believer.

It wouldn't really as he/she would still look at what is.

Until the existence of god is proven one way or the other probability is pretty much the only thing that an argument can rely on

Probability being a science and science being continually updated should give you an open mind -the posibilities being infinite.

Oh and on Occams Razor (as Occam wrote it) God is an absolute;)

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

I did and am not a fan especially of the politics side which I really disagree with and is possibly why I am hostile to it. I dont really agree on the 7 points as you might gather as I think its simplistic because its an extension of the probability thing which doesnt fit well with me. I did revisit memes which I think is a fairly good and underused abstract concept but that was more to do with Robin.

Which politics side? I don't remember much about politics in it. Could you be more specific?


And again, your view of belief is far more simplistic because and would exclude about 98% of the planet's population