…and this is a 
And just what has atheism done for us?
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: September 4, 2008 2:14 PM, by PZ Myers
As part of an exercise in shredding Steve Fuller, AC Grayling makes several felicitous comments. Fuller makes the "tired argument that modern science is the kindly gift of 16th-century religion," and claims that "atheism has done precious little for science". He's got a few good answers to that one.
And what has atheism done for science? Well, let's see: it removed the risk of scientists being burned at the stake for controverting the divinely revealed truth that "the lord hath laid the foundations of the earth so that it shall not be moved for ever" (Psalm 102, beloved of Bellarmine in his efforts to shut up the astronomers and philosophers of the era of Descartes). It removed the necessity of having to distort observations, facts, experimental results and observations to fit an antecedent doctrine as far from what observation and experiment revealed as one could possibly get. (Think about seeing the moons of Jupiter through a telescope in an age when the earth was - by order! - at the centre of the universe and man and his man-made religion was the most important thing in it, with the Pope and the Office of the Inquisition daring you to think otherwise.) In short, it liberated the mind and enquiries of mankind. Decreasing religious hegemony and rapidly increasing scientific and technological knowledge have gone pari passu during the last four centuries, in mutually reinforcing tandem: the less religion, the more science; the more science, the less religion. And this is a universal phenomenon (see the Pew polls on the decline of religion, even in the USA).
Comments
Posted by: JStein | September 4, 2008 2:29 PM
This is good stuff, PZ. Very interesting, as always.
Posted by: ryan | September 4, 2008 2:36 PM
I'm working a techno track called "I want to punch Steve Fuller in his Smarmy Face"
Posted by: kermit | September 4, 2008 2:37 PM
I've long said that religions generally have improved over the centuries to the degree that they have become secularized. My family's religion - Southern Baptists (and now McCain's?) - was contrived to maintain US slavery in the face of Northern Christian and secular abolitionist pressure. They agree now that slavery is (and always was) evil. Apparently eternal truths change over time. Or maybe, our ancestors were more prone to ethical mistakes, even though we can't hold a candle to the patriarchs' moral character. Or something like that. I couldn't figure them out when I was 12, and they don't make any more sense now.
Posted by: Alan Chapman | September 4, 2008 2:38 PM
I consider atheism as an inexorable part of a rational worldview. It serves as a constant reminder to examine things critically and objectively, to call dubious claims into question.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 4, 2008 2:38 PM
More like, what secularism has done for science. After all, many theists are rather secular when it comes to science and, despite their beliefs in the insensible, do very well at separating science from nonsense.
I mean, you really can't say that Galileo or Newton were atheists, but you can point out their secularism with respect to scientific discovery (Newton has some reserves of nonsense that interfere with empirical modeling, nonetheless).
What the fuck has religion (as such, and not as a channel for wonder and curiosity) ever done for science?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Charles Minus | September 4, 2008 2:42 PM
Being a cynic, I believe that, in all likelihood, people such as Fuller are just complete charlatans. It would be so easy to write a book like this. You don't have look up facts or back up your claims. You just sit in your chair and make things up that a certain segment of the population wants to hear. Send it to the publisher and watch the royalty checks roll in. Beats working for a living.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 4, 2008 2:42 PM
Secularism has moved science away from anthropocentrism, most famously with the matter of heliocentrism, and also in biology. Fuller still whines about the non-anthropocentric tendencies of evolutionary theory, as do other idiots.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Jonas E | September 4, 2008 2:42 PM
Help a non-native English speaker. What does "felicitous comments" mean?
Comments on cats?
Posted by: freelunch | September 4, 2008 2:46 PM
"felicitous comments" = well-chosen, cf. felicitas.
Atheists also have a sense of humor about religion and religious figures. For example, I would name the science department of Bellarmine University after Galileo if I ran the place.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 2:52 PM
Isn't it as simple as this: early scientists were religious because... what else were they going to be? The basic concepts of atheism may date back to antiquity, but they didn't really enter the public limelight until the time of the French Revolution.
If you look at the history of atheism and science, the two seem to develop in parallel, especially through the 16th through 18th centuries. As science learned more, so did atheism grow. Funny thing that.
Posted by: I am so wise | September 4, 2008 2:53 PM
The most annoying aspect of Fuller is his idiocy cast doubt and disdain down on useful, interesting pomo works.
Posted by: Bogans | September 4, 2008 2:58 PM
Atheism specifically, as opposed to the broader idea of secularism, is fundamental to science because if we allow God as an explanation all useful inquiry ends. What causes cancer? God. What makes our bodies work? God. What keeps the Earth turning? God. etc. etc.
Posted by: Steve | September 4, 2008 2:59 PM
Grayling's comments seem desperate, I think. Are events 400 years ago where atheism played no discernible role the best that our distinguished professor of philosophy can do? This supports an idea I've been mulling over for some time: that atheism is to reason and scientific advancement what fundamentalism is to religon. It is something that happens when zeal overwhelms thought.
Steve F.
Posted by: Holbach | September 4, 2008 3:00 PM
Atheism conjures up all that religion is not. It is thinking and living without recourse to insane imaginary gods and nonsense rituals that only detract from clear rational thought and a life devoid of non-existent intrusions of ghostly apparitions. Once these irrational thoughts and actions were sloughed off I had more time for great reading of the sciences which explained the nonsense with more thoroughness and common sense, and the absence of that crap in my head led to more and farther ranging of interests that religious indoctrination stifled. My only regret is that atheism has not dawned in my life at a much earlier time; foresight is such a tragic consequence of sad hindsight. Atheism is my life, and will be when death renders it fulfilled and moot.
Posted by: Adam | September 4, 2008 3:01 PM
I'm reading Rodney Stark's "The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success."
"The so-called Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century has been misinterpreted by those wishing to assert an inherent conflict between religion and science. Some wonderful things were achieved in this era, but they were not produced by an eruption of secular thinking. Rather, these achievements were the culmination of many centuries of systematic progress by medieval Scholastics, sustained by that uniquely Christian twelfth-century invention, the university. Not only were science and religion compatible, they were inseparable--the rise of science was achieved by deeply religious Christian scholars." (Random House Trade Paperbacks ed., 2005, p. 12.)
He later says the reason Christian scholars led science is because Christian theology compels the "how" questions.
He says all the ancient greeks achieved in the end "was nonempirical, even antiempirical, speculative philosophies; atheoretical collections of facts; and isolated crafts and technologies--never breaking through to real science." (P. 18.)
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 4, 2008 3:04 PM
Where "rational thought" is defined as the willingness to believe tripe such as that a god who is one being made of three beings creates a son who existed for all time to die (but not really) in order to redeem all people for an act of disobedience by their many-times-great grandparents.
Yeah, if only science could justify that line of BS!
Posted by: Paper Hand | September 4, 2008 3:05 PM
Interesting. I'm reading a book right now on the discovery of the dinosaurs, and it discusses the way that the early geologists' beliefs in Genesis clouded their research. For example, the discovery of prehistoric creatures was reconciled, more or less, with Genesis by assuming multiple creations and catastrophes. Which meant that no extinct creatures could ever have coexisted with humans (an interesting contrast with modern creationists!) - which meant that several geologists worked hard to explain away, for example, humans and mammoths being found together, or stone tools covered by stalagmites, that had to have taken far more than 6,000 years to form. One interesting quote from the time, by someone who was skeptical of those claims:
Posted by: Paper Hand | September 4, 2008 3:06 PM
He was, however, in the minority, and his critiques were not published until after Buckland's death.
Posted by: Jason Failes | September 4, 2008 3:09 PM
Man, I hate the "tired argument that modern science is the kindly gift of 16th-century religion", not just because it isn't true, but because the people making it never follow through on the reasoning to see how it works completely against their position.
Ok, first let's assume (falsely) that science began in 16th century Christendom.
Let's also assume that Biblical assumptions served as the starting point for scientific thinking.
So, Christian culture, Christian science, Christian scientists.
What moved science away from Christian assumptions to where we are now, oft lamented as "atheistic science""?
Four hundred years of evidence.
If science had started anywhere else, Christians would complain that it was biased against them from the start.
Instead, they claim we "owe them one" for crawling out from under their theology rather than from under someone else's.
But what we have really is a natural experiment.
No other religion has been as thoroughly tested, and as consistently refuted, as Christianity.
Posted by: RBH | September 4, 2008 3:11 PM
Who's the "He", Paper Hand? Unsourced quotes are irritating.
Posted by: steve | September 4, 2008 3:12 PM
Myers-san! You are a scientist, no? Why not do an analysis - a deconstruction if you will - of ideas like "a god who is one being made of three beings creates a son who existed for all time to die ...". Reason out some of the meanings to it, and by all means, try to understand it in its historical context (Hellenistic mystery cults). You may not agree with it, but at least you can try to understand it.
Steve F.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 3:13 PM
So, Christian culture, Christian science, Christian scientists.
And Christian rock! Woot!
Abstinence, crackers and rock 'n roll!
Sorry. :-)
Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 4, 2008 3:15 PM
I'll confess to not having time to read the Grayling piece just now (so maybe he answers my question), but I have to echo Glen Davidson's comments: in what way did atheism per se promote these and other scientific advances? Were the crucial ideas, and observations to back them up, being advanced by explicitly atheist scientists? Was there a church/science fight at every turn, with the science side being led by unbelievers? (Hint: the answer is "No, not as a generalization". Even my small knowledge of history comes up with a number of devout scientists -- even clergy -- who did important work. Eg: the reverend English gentlemen who pioneered modern geology in the early 19th century).
The key word here is not "atheism", but "secularism", ie, that whatever you or I may believe about Things Unseen, we agree that the things we do see are to be explained in terms of other things we see (though the "seeing" may be mediated by fancy equipment), and those explanations are not to be determined by reference to religious dogma or texts.
Grayling is, however, correct that this process requires the diminution of the worldly power of religious institutions. I think atheism accompanies secularism, but is not identical with it.
Posted by: Adam | September 4, 2008 3:18 PM
I'm not being a troll--I'm with you on most things, PZ (not the Garrison Keillor thing, if you'll recall). But Stark sounds convincing, though I don't know enough about the history of science to read him critically. Yet.
"The Christian image of God is that of a rational being who believes in human progress, more fully revealing himself as humans gain the capacity to better understand. Moreover, because God is a rational being and the universe is his personal creation, it necessarily has a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting increased human comprehension. This was the key to many intellectual undertakings, among them the rise of science." (Stark, p. 12.)
Posted by: Paper Hand | September 4, 2008 3:26 PM
Oops, sorry. The quote was by a man named Rev. John MacEnery.
The book is The Dragon Seekers by Chrisopher McGowan.
Posted by: Tim H | September 4, 2008 3:26 PM
Stark's "Victory of Reason" (see #15 above) probably wouldn't be worthwhile as even an exercise in critiquing if the above quote is typical. Yes, the Greeks didn't have much use for empirical science, but the Christian church based their dogma on a mangled version of the Greek system, namely neoplatonism. The church never asked the "How" questions because they already had their answer-god. They flirted with Aristotle for a bit under Aquinas, but quickly went back to their Plotinus.
The more accurate description of the relation of church to science was set forth by Nicholas of Cusa around 1440CE in his essay whose title says it all- On Learned Ignorance.
Posted by: Sastra | September 4, 2008 3:29 PM
Steve F #13 wrote:
I don't think this analogy works, because it seems to imply that 'the existence of God' is a scientific theory which has made successful predictions and is part of the scientific consensus. Therefore, atheists cannot advance in science, because they fail to accept one of the major tenets of -- what? Biology? Cosmology? Science per se?
The actual existence of God is irrelevant to every science theory I can think of -- until we get to pseudoscience. Do you have a specific example of a legitimate theory where 'God' is included?
Otherwise, you're just comparing passions -- or what you think of as passions.
Posted by: Richard Smith | September 4, 2008 3:30 PM
@Adam (#15): He later says the reason Christian scholars led science is because Christian theology compels the "how" questions.
It wouldn't, of course, have anything to do with Christians' tendency towards xenophobia, and squelching of any dissenting points of view. I'm sure the book gives a good description of how supportive the Christian church was towards Galileo.
Posted by: Richard Harris | September 4, 2008 3:31 PM
Without atheism, there's always the possibility that goddidit, or set things up that way, so science might not be the only way to the truth. By rigorously excluding god-meddling, fully scientific explanations can be pursued, and perhaps achieved, at least up to a certain level. I mean, an explanation of the origin of the fundamental constants hasn't yet been achieved, but physicists can work on it. Newton just said god made gravity, if I remember correctly.
Belief in gods removes some of the incentive to find real explanations. That just has to be bad.
Posted by: E.V. | September 4, 2008 3:31 PM
Other than purely anecdotal evidence, no deity has ever revealed him/herself in any scientifically measurable way other than hearsay.
Increased human comprehension leads to the reality that religion and the concept of deities is a human construct. God is revealed to be superstition and wishful thinking.
Posted by: Ian | September 4, 2008 3:34 PM
modern science is the kindly gift of 16th-century religion
Isn't that like saying that monotheism is the kindly gift of axial age polytheism?
Posted by: Tim H | September 4, 2008 3:35 PM
Adam, let me give you a hand with seeing through Stark. The christian god does not believe in human progress. According to christianity humans are bad and have no ability to progress- they can only wait until the second coming. And the second coming is going to happen so soon (within this generation according to Jesus)(christians have been expecting the second coming in the next 50 years for the last 2000 years-you'd think they would get a clue) there is no time for progress.
Please keep posting the quotes, though.
Posted by: E.V. | September 4, 2008 3:41 PM
Adam, look up reification.
Posted by: Lancelot Gobbo | September 4, 2008 3:42 PM
"Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse."
Pierre-Simon de Laplace
Says it all for me!
Posted by: Steve | September 4, 2008 3:43 PM
Tim H doesn't get it right, I think. What happened was that educated elites understood, as did Augustine, that God revealed himself through nature as well as through revelation.
In the 12th and 13th centuries, the church imbibed Islamic thought, much of it Aristotlian, and Islamic science as well (algebra, arabic mathematical notation, optics, medicine, etc) and then developed it extensively in its universities (Paris, etc.) into what is now known as scholasticism. From people trained in scholasticism such as Kepler, Copernicus, and Galileo came the revolutionary stirrings that led to modern science. So the environment that led to modern science was Christian with a very healthy dose of Islamic thought.
Steve F.
Posted by: Sastra | September 4, 2008 3:44 PM
Is that Christian image of a God who believes in human progress a companion to the Christian image of God who believes that humans need to return to obedience, renounce the world, and understand only God?
Once again, the Bible/Christianity is the ultimate Rorschach ink blot, which looks like whatever you read into it.
Posted by: Daniel | September 4, 2008 3:46 PM
Atheism is just honesty, to myself and to other people who ask if I believe in magic. Religious people can make any argument they want but at the end of the day there is no proof that there is anything supernatural.
Posted by: Onkel Bob | September 4, 2008 3:48 PM
An oldy but a goody from Professor Grayling in response to Eagleton's review of the God Delusion. You'll need to scroll down to Apparently It's Emetic.
Posted by: E.V. | September 4, 2008 3:53 PM
Fixed it for you, You want to try that again without the reveal/revelation redundancy?Posted by: Jared | September 4, 2008 3:54 PM
Dear Adam @24
I'll break down his argument into formal logic
1) God is rational
2) God believes in human progress, revealing himself as humans gain capacities to understand
3) God created the universe
A) Since God is rational and created the universe, it too must be rational
4) There was an idea that the universe is rational
B) Because the universe was thought to be rational, science was possible
In response to the premise 1, perhaps you should brush up on your literary references in the Christian Cannon of your choice. The deities spoken of in these books are NOT rational. They are vengeful, merciless, petty, cruel, murderous, bigoted, and very much like an ill-tempered and very powerful child.
In response to premise 2, one would think that this deity, being immensely powerful, would have the gift of understanding genetics so as to speed up the process of human evolution as it is portrayed to be (linear and teleological). Evolution is not teleological.
In response to premise 3, I do not need to refute this one as it is non-proven, and very frequently demonstrated to be unlikely.
No premises of conclusion A are thus true, the universe may be rational, but it does not require this deity to have created it nor for this deity to be rational.
For premise 4; the idea of a rational universe is not required to begin scientific inquiry, in fact, if the universe were truly rational without extreme quantities of investigation and elucidation, scientific inquiry would not be necessary.
Conclusion B is thereby based upon entirely false premises and cleverly disguised apologetics. A rational universe requires neither religion nor science because it is easily understandable and rational. Religion explains via fictional stories whereas science explains via repeatable observation and experiment. The only way to get this to work is by excluding the hidden logic and not following the reasoning to its conclusion.
Posted by: tjh | September 4, 2008 3:54 PM
Many of the above comments, including the original post, risk plucking events and people out of their historical context and placing them in modern debates around atheism and religion. The reason a lot of historians of science are frustrated by the 'science versus religion' dichotomy is that it is both grossly simplistic and inaccurate when applied to the actual historical context and events. Citing Galileo is a shallow example, as most of the detailed historical scholarship that exposes the political and cultural background to his trial shows.
I like what Stephen Shapin's textbook, 'The Scientific Revolution', has to say (and what it shows) on this topic. In particular, he shows how many of the key ideas in early modern scientific thought - about the role of observation, authority and mechanistic schemas - emerged in an environment that was not hostile to religion and where there was very little religious interference (especially in protestant England).
The other idea that is being ignored here is that there is something about Christian theology, in particular in the way in which its god is separated from nature, and his relationship to earthly authority, that, while not 'supportive' of scientific advancement, in some way leads to secularization and secular ways of investigating nature. This is particularly powerful when one looks at protestantism, which led to further breaks between the state and the way in which earthly authority is organized and the church and spiritual authority. This is not to say that Christianity supported secularization, but there is a strong argument that its structures and theology in some ways 'unconsciously' pointed the way to a more secularized state, to enlightenment (the British, Scottish and German enlightenments were intertwined with religion and by no means hostile to it) and, eventually, to the movements from which modern atheism evolved.
So don't be too quick apply modern arguments and debates about religion to history. It is ugly and highly dubious historically. I know that it is nice to constantly think of religion and religious people as the pantomime villains of history, but that simply isn't a good way of thinking about history, or remotely accurate.
Posted by: o|o | September 4, 2008 3:59 PM
Has anybody experienced the following? I just received a spam message over Skype from a sender by the name of Christian Resistance containing some anti-islamic propaganda and a link to some site, www.truth something - can't remember, I was a bit unsettled and was considering if I should reply with some tirade, I blocked him instead and killed the message, I should've CTRL+C CTRL+V probably.
The user seems to be UK based.
Posted by: Holbach | September 4, 2008 4:01 PM
Adam @ 24
You can quote insane scripture, insane authors, and insane hearsay, but this will not give credence to your imaginary god which was spawned in the human brain to attempt to answer where it all came from long before you were born so that you could perpetuate the never-ending pathetic and sorry state of irrational beliefs. Why does this produce such an irreducible mental blockage to think otherwise? This is so simple as to be almost ludricous to repeat, but without our brains the idea of imaginary gods would never have formed. There was no god who appeared before humans and said,"Do not think of me, for here I am in the flesh to save you the effort of forming all this insane bullshit to prove that I exist." There was nothing, no idea of gods until the human brain developed over time by that marvelous action of evolution, which you and your brain could not dictate to. Only when your brain was sufficiently formed did it have the power to dictate the irrational crap that all religions are molded from. You only have to prove to me that your imaginary god exists by bringing it down to appear before us, and saying to all of us, "Here, have a cracker." I need say no more.
Posted by: Steve | September 4, 2008 4:02 PM
Hi Sastra. Thanks for the comment. When I said that "atheism is to reason and scientific advancement what fundamentalism is to religon," what I meant is that both are extremes where reason plays second fiddle, as it were, to passion and zeal.
Science, of course, is the systematic exercise of reason, implementation, and review. Secularism (and atheism) can contribute to it as well as distract from it (as was the case with Lysenko, Stalin's favorite scientist). Similarly, religion can both contribute or distract from it depending on how open or closed it is at the moment.
In both Christian and Islamic cultures, belief in God became the vehicle for the spread of Hellenistic rationalism and philosophy, leading to the widespread perception of God as a lawgiver AND to the idea that God could be known through reason. This lead to (a) a belief that there were universal laws and (b) that they could be found. Clearly, there is more to it than this, but these two things were essential groundwork for the emergence of science.
Steve F.
Posted by: Rich C | September 4, 2008 4:03 PM
I just want to write and thank you for taking the time and effort to create your blog. I'm learning a great deal in reading your work as well as looking up the references to other info.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 4, 2008 4:04 PM
tjh wrote:
That "something about Christian theology" might be because it is so absurd and contrary to reason that people with a rational bent tend to push it away and find other ways to deal with the world.
Posted by: Qwerty | September 4, 2008 4:04 PM
Posted by: Bogans | September 4, 2008 2:58 PM
"Atheism specifically, as opposed to the broader idea of secularism, is fundamental to science because if we allow God as an explanation all useful inquiry ends. "
I agree. This is why Intelligent Design is soooooo unscientific. Why inquire into the nature of ANYTHING if you think it is so complicated that someone or something designed it. And we all know who the creotards think as to whom the designer is.
I am NOT a scientist, but even I can figure this out.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 4, 2008 4:06 PM
BTW, (from Rasmussen reports, 3 Sept 08)
Women prefer H.Clinton to S.Palin by 57% to 35% : +22% !
Men prefer S.Palin to H.Clinton by 49% to 45%
(guess who they find more attractive)
and all this despite the fact that Palin is new, fresh, charismatic...
And there is no evidence for now that Obama's lead over McCain has decreased since the begining of the RNC.
So the only "evidence" for now that she's such an asset for McCain is in the right-wing noise machine's talking points.
Posted by: Sastra | September 4, 2008 4:06 PM
The Christian Church had a major advantage when it came to the growth of science and democracy: the political and intellectual philosophy of the New Testament is unworkable. You cannot run a government based on the words and teaching of Jesus, because he was speaking to an oppressed people who were patiently awaiting the Kingdom of God, where they would be rewarded for their meekness and poverty. You can't run anything on that sort of impractical advice -- nor can you progress.
So, scholarship and theory could be -- had to be -- imported from other sources, including the Greeks. They, too, were "part of God's revelation."
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 4, 2008 4:08 PM
Sorry to polute this thread with my post #48, it was meant for another thread...
Posted by: Chris Tucker | September 4, 2008 4:12 PM
I love living in Boston, it's right next to Cambridge, and right there, on the banks of the River Charles (Love that dirty water!) is MIT.
The City of Cambridge, in it's liberal wisdom, has named one of its streets near MIT thus:
http://www.grabup.com/uploads/730627f1495670da98c964e4c28f3125.jpg
Safe for work. Unless you work for Bill Donohue or Governor Palin or some other of that ilk.
Posted by: E.V. | September 4, 2008 4:13 PM
Please cite specific examples.What straw man thread were you reading? Please provide evidence to your claims. You seem to have glossed over some relevant facts.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 4, 2008 4:17 PM
Richard Harris wrote:
Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about something like that at the Beyond Belief conference. There's a YouTube video link on my blog here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/08/consequences-of-belief.html
Or, you can just look up "Neil deGrasse Tyson, Beyond Belief, Newton" on YouTube.
Posted by: Adam | September 4, 2008 4:17 PM
Tim H, EV, Sastra, Jared, and Holbach, thanks for the comments, but I don't think I made Stark's point clearly. His point is not that the bible or the christian god promoted science, but that the perception of the christian god did.
I agree that science helped us crawl out from under the religious rock, but Stark says that ironically, it was Christian religion itself (not Greek or Eastern philosophy or Islam) that started us crawling. See Steve's comments.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 4:19 PM
The Christian image of God is that of a rational being who believes in human progress,
Yeah, well, when will he get around to believing in flying cars and fusion power?
Posted by: Alan Chapman | September 4, 2008 4:20 PM
"The Christian image of God is that of a rational being who believes in human progress..."
There is nothing rational about blind obeisance and wishful thinking, and such things are an impediment to human progress, as is the facilitation of violent proclivity from behind a veneer of pompous piety.
Posted by: Holbach | September 4, 2008 4:22 PM
Adam @ 54
Never mind what Stark says. Speak for yourself. What do YOU say and think?
Posted by: Tulse | September 4, 2008 4:25 PM
tjh:
I could just as easily say that protestantism's focus on individual relationship with God and the denigrating of experts on religion worked against the notion of understanding as a collaborative enterprise that involves trained individuals, and thus worked against science. Certainly the modern fruits of protestantism are hardly friendly to science.
One can spin theories as one likes, but as presented your claim sounds grand and hollow.
Posted by: H.H. | September 4, 2008 4:27 PM
Steve at #44 said:
Well, then you are just wrong. Atheism is far from a passionate "extreme" devoid of reason. Either you don't know very much about atheism or you are purposely misrepresenting it. Atheism is the extremely reasonable view that faith-based appeals to supernatural deities have consistently failed to muster the necessary evidence and support, thus making theism invalid and irrational. Now, many moderate theists who like to consider themselves rational people engage in a bit of projection and accuse atheists of being "zealous" or "irrational," but it's hollow rhetoric. Just shallow minds taking shelter in the fallacy of the false middle.Posted by: Luke | September 4, 2008 4:28 PM
Steve F. wrote:
atheism is to reason and scientific advancement what fundamentalism is to religon
I agree. Fundamentalists take religion to its logical conclusion by believing in the whole deal unequivocally and acting upon this belief, and atheists take reason and rationalism to its logical conclusion by rejecting stupid, baseless ideas like religion.
Posted by: Sastra | September 4, 2008 4:29 PM
Steve #44 wrote:
I think you are confusing atheism as a metaphysical position with atheist ideologies. Any ideology -- religious or non-religious -- when held too passionately, can get in the way of reason and sense.
But atheism as a metaphysical position -- rejecting the existence of the supernatural -- has not, and will not, get in the way of scientific process or progress as long as naturalism is held as a tentative conclusion, based on the evidence.
On the other hand, theism -- the belief that the universe is, in some way, fundamentally supernatural or magic -- will get in the way of both scientific process and progress unless strict care is taken to keep the Things of God separate from the Things of the World, when it comes to anything science can say something about.
Belief in God was the "vehicle" for the spread of Hellenistic rationalism and philosophy only because God had successfully been remade into the image of Hellenistic rationalism and philosophy. And as Jared at #40 pointed out, the Aristotlean scholasticism -- with its belief in Reasons's ability to think out truth -- had to be discarded in order for science to develop. Aristotle and his Catholic disciples 'knew' that the planets orbited in perfect circles, because that was consistent with how God would work. They didn't have to measure or test.
Posted by: Andy from Sweden | September 4, 2008 4:41 PM
I just ask why when I come across idiots.
Why did your god create us?
Why did he make us doubt him?
Why is there hell?
Why are people sent there?
Why aren't everyone a christian
Why are you so stupid? I actually know somethin aboute that last one.. parents, your not really good for your children....
Posted by: The Chemist | September 4, 2008 4:45 PM
To Quote the Great FORTRAN,
Secularism/=Atheism.
Much of the ideological groundwork for secular humanism was not laid down by atheists, since much of it was laid down before atheism was formalized as a distinct ideological entity.
Atheism is simply the idea that there is no God or supreme being. None of the laws regarding freedom of religion, nor any of the foundations of science, have their basis in that idea.
What has atheism done for us? Well, considering the limited nature of many ideologies that can be described in one sentence, not much by itself. Whether that makes it right or wrong as a truth statement is another issue.
Posted by: Tulse | September 4, 2008 4:56 PM
Science is not philosophically defensible without atheism, as empiricism and the induction of natural laws have no basis if the observable universe and its laws are changeable at the whim of a supernatural being.
Posted by: Tim H | September 4, 2008 4:57 PM
"The crawling out from under the rock" was done not only in defiance of the church, but using contrary methods. The church did not base its teachings or methods on the reasoning of Plato or Aristotle, but the mysticism of Plotinus. (Both Plato and Plotinus would be truely freaked out over what the church made of it.)
Science requires reason. Church doctrine explicity (Paul, Tertullian, Augustine) rejects reason and embraces faith. The church, and its perceptions, stood in the way of science and still does. (Again, minor exception for Aquinas.) Stark is wrong.
Suggsted reading- "The Closing of the Western Mind" by Charles Freeman, and of course "History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell.
Thanks for the reply.
Posted by: Patches | September 4, 2008 4:58 PM
Because religion aims to leave you satisfied with a non-answer. When faced with holes in their ideas, they resort to making things up to fit their worldviews and then demanding they be accepted as valid explanations despite having no basis outside of that person's imagination (think Kent Hovind's ice canopy).
Secular science seeks to understand. Religion merely seeks to reinforce.
Posted by: Pepa | September 4, 2008 5:01 PM
Let's all pay dues where the dues are due! Atheism and religion have travelled hand-in-hand when it comes to scientific progress. To grossly overgeneralize, atheism liberated the mind while religion pulled the carriage: let's not forget that, allbeit restrictively and under close scrunity, religious establishments funded and supported scientific research for centuries. Remember Mendel? I can think of no other establishment than the holy church that could have so effectively controlled the masses in the ages before we knew that germs cause disease.
Next subject, Dr. Myers: what has religion done for science?
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 4, 2008 5:05 PM
Quiet_Desperation wrote:
As soon as he figures out why he bothered to destroy the tower of Babel, but yet let us go to the Moon.
Posted by: rickflick | September 4, 2008 5:06 PM
Several references to the Greek origins of thought in science and religion require a footnote.
The Greeks spent hundreds of years exploring the intellectual landscape before Plato and the idealists arrived on the scene. In particular the anatomists and hedonists, Anaxamander and Zeno came up with a great start in the direction of observational philosophy. The Islamic cultures also gravitated toward empiricism and served as a reservoir of science during the Christian era. As the Christian era dawned, the Platonic forces overwhelmed the empirical tendencies of the Greeks. Under Christian domination for centuries, the empiricists who struggled under the table, kept hope alive until the enlightenment.
So give the Greeks more credit. They really tried.
Posted by: The Chemist | September 4, 2008 5:12 PM
@ Tulse,
Your statement (#64), is neither wrong nor right.
Science is not philosophically defensible with any current secular understanding of human fallibility, and our lack of understanding of consciousness and knowledge adds to that.
Science is not airtight, not even as a clean process where everyone follows the rules the way they're supposed to. It is a distinctly anthropic pursuit, with distinctly anthropic goals and means. Doing what humans do is not a "rational" affair. It is dependent on highly subjective priorities.
Empiricism is evaluated in terms of observation. We still have no clue what it actually means to observe something. To illustrate my point, I refer you to a TED talk by Daniel Dennett. (Even if you disagree with me, do watch it, I found it rather fascinating- like most TED talks)
Science is the best system we have for seeking knowledge of the natural world, whether it's "defensible" is rather irrelevant.
Posted by: The Chemist | September 4, 2008 5:14 PM
Oh forgot, the TED talk I was referring to is here.
Posted by: Sastra | September 4, 2008 5:18 PM
Pepa #67 wrote:
Certain variations of religion successfully managed to re-formulate its specific claims into vague, secularized, irrelevant, or untestable assumptions, thereby allowing the religious to put religion to the side when doing science, using it only for a generalized "inspiration and motivation."
Yay!
Posted by: DaveL | September 4, 2008 5:21 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It is entirely misguided to ask what atheism has done for humanity. The reason for withholding belief in falsehoods is the avoidance of error. No further justification is needed.
Posted by: Steve | September 4, 2008 5:30 PM
Hi Sastra. Many thanks for another thoughtful post!
You say that you think I am "confusing atheism as a metaphysical position with atheist ideologies". You argue that "atheism as a metaphysical position" won't get in the way of science.
I'm tempted to agree with you, but metaphysics rather easily becomes ideology, as history repeatedly shows. This means that a metaphysics should be chosen wisely, ideally with insight into scientific process thrown into the mix. Science, of course, is stubbornly agnostic when it comes to questions of metaphysics.
Consider the idea of "atheism as a metaphysical position -- rejecting the existence of the supernatural". This, an enlightment perspective extracted from the methodologies of the physical sciences of the 18th century, has not only repeatedly lead to ideological excess - communism, eugenics, social Darwinism, and modern "scientific" racism come to mind - but also seems to distill into a modern framework the whole of the medieval passion for the idea that there is only one truth and that everyone has to be made to fit into it, the scientist as priest, if you will.
And, furthermore it betrays an 18th century clockwork universe perspective at odds with modern ideas of emergence, evolution, and quantum mechanics. Its limitations, scientifically and philosophically, readily become apparent when you think about what is meant by "being above nature", the meaning of the term supernatural. Is our consciousness "supernatural"? It is if we take the perspective that only material things exist.
If we accept that there are things that emerge from nature - for example, Richard Dawkins's memes, or your and my consciousness, then it is clear that "supernatural" things exist.
The alternative is that "natural" be redefined to include such things as consciousness, but then God, whom you've tried to kick out the front door, comes back in the window. God, of course, is a set of concepts derived from our experience with consciousness.
Steve F.
Posted by: Jon W | September 4, 2008 5:53 PM
Steve,
What does it mean for consciousness to be above nature? You compare it to an abstract principle (Dawkins's memes), and then go on to say that consciousness is a non-material phenomenon as if everybody knows this is true.
Posted by: E.V. | September 4, 2008 5:54 PM
Steve. F
Skatje pointed out that all first year philosophy students have to bring up quantum mechanics as a justification for metaphysics.
As a cartoon in the New Yorker onced captioned, "I say it's spinach, and I say to hell with it!"
Posted by: efrique | September 4, 2008 6:01 PM
brought peace?
Posted by: H.H. | September 4, 2008 6:05 PM
Eugenics is a consequence of rejecting the supernatural? Wow, someone's been drinking deep of the Expelled kool-aid.Posted by: dubiquiabs | September 4, 2008 6:06 PM
Could Greyling be bobbing for a Templeton Foundation grant?
Compared to whom? You might want to start by looking up the history of geometry, and then move on to its applications by Archimedes and Eratosthenes, measuring circumference of the Earth, distance to the Moon & such.
To call Lysenko, Lepeshinskaya et al., scientists in this context is rich. They were ideologues who beli