Last week, I posted a long argument for why I believe pairing science and atheism is a poor strategic choice for scientists. The response to that article has I think been largely positive, but I do want to address the criticisms of it now that I have had a chance to read all the comments and posts about it.
Let me state clearly, though, that I think all of the counter-arguments are legitimate. The world is a complicated place, and I have no special insight into its workings.
Further, if any people find my arguments pejorative, I apologize. It was my intent that this discussion be conducted on a civil plane, and thus far I am reasonably pleased with the result.
Because the comments were extensive, I am going to organize them along several thematic lines.
1) Some commenters rejected my argument for the strategic separation of atheism and science on the ground that science findings imply atheist conclusions.
Let me highlight what I was getting at by defining a few terms, particularly the distinction between methodological and ontological naturalism.
Methodological naturalism is the statement that when science attempts to explain an event that explanation cannot resort to supernatural causes such as miracles. All explanation of the world in science must be physical. Anyone who attempted to publish a scientific paper arguing for the miraculous nature of an event would be laughed out of the room, as well they should. Methodological naturalism contrasts from ontological naturalism. While methodological naturalism assumes that no supernatural causes exist for the purposes of experiment, ontological naturalism states that no supernatural causes exist at all. Clearly the two are related, but they are not equivalent.
Now, I do assert that an individual who rejects the concept of methodological naturalism cannot participate in the scientific enterprise -- whether as a scientist or an observer. However, it is not necessary to accept ontological naturalism to be a scientist. In fact, we can come up with numerous examples of scientists who worked under the assumption of methodological naturalism while rejecting ontological naturalism. Indeed, nearly every scientist who lived prior to 1800 -- including Newton -- subscribed to this view.
Most atheists argue that methodological naturalism implies ontological naturalism. I apologize if I suggested that the distinction between the two is not understood by atheists. It most certainly is. For example, PZ pointed out in his criticism of my earlier post:
Once again, science is a method. It's a general set of procedures that rest on skepticism, induction, empiricism, and naturalism. Atheism is a conclusion. We look at the universe using the tools of science, and it does not fit any description of the universe derived from religious perspectives: we therefore reject religious dogma. We also see that the nature of the universe does not reflect any of the orthodox conceptions of what a god-ruled universe would look like. We arrive at the conclusion that there is no god.
Science=method. Atheism=conclusion. They're different. We also argue that a godless nature is a conclusion more compatible with scientific thinking than that ancient superstitions were accurate in the absence of evidence, but don't let that confuse you.
Basically, atheists argue that if you do enough experiments and observe the world enough and you never observe a supernatural cause, then you can reasonably state that ontological naturalism must be true. This is an argument that I agree with, but there are definitely people out there who do not accept that one implies the other. Actually I would argue that most of the religious people in the US do not accept that one implies the other.
Now, frankly, I have never understood this disconnect. The manner in which some religious people simultaneously accept methodological naturalism and descriptions of events that are quite clearly miraculous has always puzzled me. I am not certain that I understand the mental acrobatics that are involved.
However, is it really necessary that I understand? Do I have to find offensive everyone who doesn't see the world as I see it? Is it really necessary that all the people I communicate with are internally consistent according to my chosen standard? No. In fact, I think I would be a pretty boorish person if I attempted to impose this standard.
My point is that while I consider methodological naturalism sine qua non for participation in science, internal consistency with respect to the principle and other aspects of that person's values is not required. A person need not accept ontological naturalism -- an atheist conclusion based on the evidence -- to participate in science. When someone says to me, "Hey I am scientist, and I believe that Christ was actually the son of God," I take them at their word. Provided that they don't cite Christ when publishing a molecular biology experiment, the fact that I find their beliefs contradictory does not play into my analysis of that experiment.
Everyone to some degree or another has views which are not consistent, and it is not wise for scientists to adopt a standard for participation that includes internal consistency because that would sorely limit the number of eligible scientists out there.
Further, some might respond that a failure to accept ontological naturalism is dangerous for science. I retort that science has done on the whole quite well given that has been conducted by a great many people who reject this concept. Some might respond that a failure to be internally consistent is also dangerous for science. I retort that science is conducted by people, and people are on the whole pretty unimpressive. We are contradictory and ideological; we possess psychology and personal tastes such that we are hardly reliable judges of reality. Yet science has not collapsed. We struggle on in spite of our handicaps.
While internal consistency may be necessary for science as a whole, it is not for individual scientists. So long as we all agree that methodological naturalism is necessary, I think we will continue to do just fine. And if this is an acceptable standard for scientists, I don't see why it can't be for the public.
2) Some commenters argue that aggressive tactics are necessary for atheism to be successful. The progress achieved so far is a consequence of the tactics of Dawkins et al., not appeasers like say me.
As I understand it, people who aggressively argue for atheism are operating under the following three assumptions:
- 1) The eradication of superstitious belief including religion is a desirable outcome.
- 2) The eradication of superstitious belief including religion is more likely the more aggressively this position is argued.
- 3) The eradication of superstitious belief including religion is an achievable outcome.
With respect to number 1, I have said repeatedly that I agree.
With respect to number 2, my critics like Jason at EvolutionBlog have pointed out that acceptance of gay rights -- if they have indeed been accepted -- did not proceed by being polite and seeking consensus. First, Jason, I respectfully do not accept that analogy. The suggestion that atheists face the sort of pervasive -- and often violent -- discrimination that gays have in this culture is simply farcical.
Second, I have argued as much as I can that because people have ideology there is a nonlinearity between the vehemence of the arguments and acceptance of new ideas. Ideas that no one argues for are not accepted. This is, I think, self-evident. However, ideas that are argued for incredibly aggressive are also not accepted because people feel alienated.
I would argue that there is a two-stage process for acceptance of a minority -- whether a particular intellectual view or a true demographic group -- in society.
In the first stage, the public is made aware of the existence of a minority group. This is where things like gay pride parades are not only wise but absolutely necessary. I agree that during this stage a certain amount of vehemence in the "we're here...deal with it," vein is necessary. In this respect, Dawkins et al. are due a large measure of congratulations because they have reacquainted the public with the fact that there is a substantial minority of people in this society who are entirely secular.
However, this is not the end of the process. There is a second part of the process where that minority group is incorporated into civic governance and society as a whole. In this stage, the majority of the public begins to accept that group as valid members of society. Keeping with the gay rights analogy, I would argue that they are entering this phase. The argument over gay marriage is in my opinion an argument the incorporation of gay couples into society as full members with all the rights and privileges accorded to full members. The gay rights movement has succeeded in convincing the public that gays exist. Now they are attempting to prove that they are valid members of society. (I hope this occurs sooner rather than later, and I think it will.)
During this second stage in my social model, vehement argument is counterproductive. It is counterproductive for many reasons. One, people -- liberals and conservatives -- require a certain measure of cognitive stability. They reject things that they perceive as highly disruptive to the status quo. (This was the core argument in Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France.) Two, the public is unlikely to accept a minority social group whose beliefs completely invalidate the beliefs of the majority. Why would I agree to live in a society with someone who denies my right to exist in my present form?
Thus, while I believe that vehement argument was necessary to make the public aware of atheism initially, I do not believe that it is required presently. My suspicion is that a large number of people will dispute this point. That is perfectly reasonable. Minority social groups are not homogeneous. New Atheists as a group have always struck me as particularly heterodox. (In fact, I sometimes dispute with myself whether the term can be reasonably applied because I am not certain that such a group exists in coherent form.)
If you think that vehement argument is still necessary to advance the atheist cause, so be it. I do not believe that it is necessary, and I think that others may agree with me.
With respect to number 3 -- this may be a minor point -- but I dispute that fact that the complete destruction of religion and superstition is an achievable outcome. To quote the historian Paul Johnson from Modern Times:
What is important in history is not only the events that occur but the events that obstinately do not occur. The outstanding event of modern times was the failure of religious belief to disappear. For many millions, especially in the advanced nations, religion ceased to play much or any part in their lives, and the ways in which the vacuum thus lost was filled, by fascism, Nazism and Communism, by attempts at humanist utopianism, by eugenics or health politics, by the ideologies of sexual liberation, race politics and environmental politics, form much of the substance of the history of our century. But for many more millions--for the overwhelming majority of the human race, in fact--religion continued to be a huge dimension in their lives.
For whatever reason, some people require religion. I do not understand this reason, but given the ubiquity of religion I can only conclude that it is intrinsic to the human species. And I find it difficult to believe that this intrinsic trait can be completely eradicated. Stalin and Mao tried and failed, and they employed means that are significantly more aggressive than any we could tolerate.
How is this related to my arguments about pairing atheism and science?
If you accept the fact that you are dealing with a group of people -- the religious -- that are not going anywhere, you begin to realize that someday an accommodation must be reached. For the foreseeable future, there are going to be religious people in the US. I guess that I am arguing that atheists and religious people need to come to some understanding because they are likely to be in the same country together for a long time.
3) Your argument was itself high-brow. Science is high-brow because the majority of the public does not understand it.
Point taken. My argument was indeed high-brow. But remember that John Dewey understood the people to whom his argument was addressed. In his essay, he was addressing liberal intellectuals in the Northeast, and he was appealing to their prejudices.
I intentionally appealed to the prejudices of an intellectual audience. In this sense, my argument was indeed high-brow.
The issue of science being high-brow is a difficult one, but I think it comes down to an issue of communication. For now, only an elite minority understands science. But hopefully that will not always be the case. And I argue that the stricter the criterion we establish for participation, the more that it is likely that science will remain an elite enterprise. If anything, the fact that science is perceived as high-brow should add steam to my argument. This is something we need to fix, not something we need to exacerbate.
That being said, I do sympathize with arguments that we shouldn't dumb down science. I rant repeatedly on this blog about how journalism often is dishonest in its presentation of science to the public for this very reason.
There is clearly a dynamic tension in scientific discourse between popularity and accuracy. Many atheists assert that it is impossible to be accurate about science while ignoring the implications of scientific finding towards religion. I assert that it is possible to be both popular and accurate without emphasizing these implications. On this point, it is possible to agree to disagree. The purpose of my earlier post was to explain that emphasizing the implications of particular scientific findings will have some likely social consequences.
4) Your post showed a US and a Christian bias. Other countries and religions see this problem differently.
Point taken. I am only familiar with this issue in the US, and I am primarily only familiar with this issue with respect to Christianity.
I do not doubt in the slightest that this issue has been solved in different ways in different countries. The fact that countries like the UK seem to have come to a understanding on the subject gives me a great deal of hope that a political solution can be reached in this country.
***
There you go. I have attempted to address the criticisms of my earlier post as best I can and as well as I have understood them. For New Atheists out there who believe that I have misrepresented your views, I encourage you to correct me. Both New Atheists and their critics have a tendency to talk past one another, and I think that this is a tendency that can only be corrected by truly listening. Likewise, in some cases, this debate has degenerated into acrimony. I hope this can be avoided in the future because fundamentally I think we are all on the same team.
- Log in to post comments
There's a subtler point about the counterproductivity of vehement argument nowadays. The main reservoir of recruits to atheism is college students with an iconoclastic bent.
However, once the initial argument is done, then it's not very idol-smashing to be an atheist anymore. Punk rock was very fuck-the-system in the 1970s, but now it's accepted as part of the musical background, and anyone who tried to express their rebelliousness by being a punk rocker would be looked at as quaint rather than threatening. Ditto for atheism's appeal having dried up.
I'm not arguing for fashionableness, in anticipation of that charge. Like the post says, once you've achieved the hard part of your goal, then you move on to something else while the wrinkles are being worked out.
There are pragmatic and moral reasons why this thesis is correct.
First, it is ignorant to expect everyone, even those with exceptional intellect, to believe that God does not exist. Given that, if we expect other people to give us money to do research, it is simple civility to keep our mouths shut about religion. Simply---shut mouth, get money.
Second, To believe that our individual beliefs are superior to others is immoral, or at the least self-serving. We do not tolerate that behavior in others--the word narcissism comes to mind-- and we must not tolerate it in ourselves.
Science at its best is UNBIASED. To show or speak our biases is to show the world we are not true scientists.
Jake,
I find your articles on this topic very reasonable. People may disagree about whether that is a good thing or not, I suppose.
I feel that the distinction between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism is extremely important. Yes, many people consider it to be inconsistent or incoherent for someone to be a methodological naturalist and still be a theist, but so what? Why should anyone care what another person's ontology is, or whether it is consistent or coherent? What difference does it make, if that person doesn't allow dubious ontological beliefs influence his judgment about scientific matters?
To me, it is important to distinguish between pragmatic truth (with a lower-case "t") and Truth (with a capital "T"). When one is making day-to-day decisions about such things as: how to respond to global warming, whether to vaccinate children, whether to pursue nuclear power, etc. you want to use the best science available. We know we don't know everything, so we make the best decisions we can, taking into account what we know as well as our uncertainty. I believe that society needs certain standards for making informed decisions about technical matters. But this is all about pragmatic truth. What you don't need for practical decision-making, is any kind of grand "Theory of Everything" or any notion of "Truth" with a capital "T".
The pursuit of a grand synthesis that explains everything is perhaps a motivator for science, but it isn't, strictly speaking, necessary. It is possible to make progress in one small area of science so that you can make better-informed decisions in that area without having any idea how that area fits in with any grand unified theory. If a person's overarching "theory of everything" is string theory, or the belief that the universe is a huge computer, or the belief that we are all living in the Matrix, or the belief in God, or pantheism, I don't see what difference it makes. We insist that people don't bring this extra baggage into their scientific decision-making, and otherwise, they are free to believe what they like.
Believe whatever you like in your spare time, but leave it behind when you work with me to address pressing scientific problems, or when you want to pass laws that will affect those with different ontologies. That's the kind of society I want to live in.
I think it's inaccurate to describe the focus of the so-called New Atheism in terms of "[t]he eradication of superstitious belief including religion". People should be free to believe whatever nonsense they like, and nobody's arguing otherwise. Rather, the goal as I understand it is more modest: namely, to remove theism from its privileged pedestal in society and relegate it to the ranks of other unsupported beliefs such as UFOlogy, past-life regression, flat-Earthism, and so forth. When Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer on matters of public policy, that was a scandal. When her husband consulted Billy Graham, that was considered OK. It's that latter perception -- that theistic religion has some special claim to insight or moral authority -- that the New Atheists seek to change.
If you really "intend the discussion to be conducted on a civil plane," you could apologize for your implicit accusation that your opponents are "excommunication people from the scientific enterprise." That remark was both inflammatory and inaccurate.
As well it should, since contrary to your claim, it is not a case of accepting methodological naturalism and rejecting ontological naturalism -- it is instead a case of being inconsistent in the application of methodological naturalism. Belief in miracles means the rejection of methodological naturalism as it is defined. If one says "I believe in doing experiments, but I also believe that Jesus turned water into wine", the problem is not (just) a rejection of ontological naturalism, but also a rejection of methodological naturalism in the case of Jewish mystics and dinner parties.
As far as I see it, one can consistently accept methodological naturalism but reject ontological naturalism only if one is a Spinozan deist (or a believer in Leibnizian "pre-established harmony"). If you believe that miracles are possible, that the supernatural can impinge on the natural world, then you don't believe in methodological naturalism, period.
Great discussion you have provoked with these posts. Your arguments are well structured and clear, as usual. You talk about the fact that science is a method - I agree - atheism is a conclusion - ok, I might also say that, given that conclusion it becomes a way of apprehending aspects of the universe based on belief (belief that there is nothing to believe in, belief that there is no supernatural realm, belief that proof by the scientific method is the only worthy basis upon which to feel or behave), it is a feeling - but it is not the method by which we draw our conclusions - so what is religion? I would say it is also a way of apprehending aspects of the universe that is predicated on belief - which I would classify as a feeling. I would also say there is another realm of religion which atheism does not share - it is a practise. One might look upon the belief realm of religion as the private realm - you can say what you want, you can confess, kneel, pray, do good works, read the book, ignore the book, commit murder, meditate, face Mecca - those are all practises - they do not say anything one way or they other about the content of one's heart or mind. That is the realm of belief. One believes in private, even if there are other people doing the same thing as you are - but one very frequently practises in public, which gives one a sense of community (on the positive side) or the illusion that one's belief is strong because it is shared by many others (which is a delusion as that action does not actually reveal the content of one's heart or mind. Nor does it change reality -for example, more people believing in Santa Clause does not make him, Mrs. C, the elves, and the workshop suddenly spring into being at the North Pole).
The simultaneous acceptance of methodological naturalism and the supernatural is, however, not particularly puzzling to me. Science is a method - as you say - It observes natural phenomena, forms and then tests hypotheses by rigorous standards set beforehand, it operationalizes its phenomena and demands that all evidence be judged on those terms, it begs others to repeat those tests and not come up with the same results, and it declares its conclusions in terms of probability (or it's supposed to). So what is religion? We could say religion is a conclusion like atheism - one accepts certain precepts a priori and does whatever they say to do. But what if we say religion is a method? One observes nature through it too, one can form hypotheses, but rather than setting a test for proof beforehand religion declares certain phenomena outside the realm of testing and says - here's the answer, being a member of this club demands that you accept this answer without a test, without any evidence other than what I've told you. Your efforts instead of going toward rigorous proofs go toward the battle to maintain your faith or to practise when you don't have it.
If science demands that "all explanations of the world must be physical," this is understandable in the abstract but there are phenomena in the world that not only defy explanation now but defy our ability to test them. We are not ever going to live in a world where all the questions are answered because then we would need neither religion nor science (-and what the hell would we do? Go to the movies all day?) So aren't those who declare that science is inseparable from ontological naturalism belying their own credo? If all scientific explanations must have a physical basis and if all explanations have not been tested, upon what are they basing that assumption?
I take some issue with the idea that atheists are not in any way oppressed. I can't state a single year of school in which I was not beaten senseless by Christian Youth Group members who took issue with my opinions. Atheists in the Muslim world are routinely beaten and often killed. Moreover in the US we are treated as second class citizens and almost legally recognized as morally inferior. Now I'm not saying this is as extreme as the effects of homophobia but I'd hardly dismiss it.
Jake-
I'm baffled by this comment. First, absolutely nothing I wrote in my post suggested that I view the social situation of atheists today as comparable to the historical discrimination faced by homosexuals. Your comment here is completely irrelevant to any point I was making.
Furthermore, I said next to nothing about gay rights in my analogy. I though my point was clear when I wrote:
I was talking about social acceptance, not rights. I think it's undeniable that people's level of tolerance of and respect for homosexuals has gone up enormously in the last twenty years. I was addressing the question of how they achieved this progress. Kindly avoid the straw men in the future.
Second, your next few paragraphs mostly concede all of the points I was making with my analogy. You seem to agree that loud, angry protests of the “We're here, deal with it” sort have an important role to play in gaining social acceptance for a despised minority. In particular, you seem to agree that such vociferousness was relevant in achieving the progress made by homoesexuals. You even go on to praise Dawkins for waking people up with his rhetoric.
It's unclear to me why I shouldn't declare victory at this point. You made every one of my points. The only place where we disagree is in whether atheism has reached stage two in your model (I would add that I don't accept your two stage model of social development; I think if the minority group stops its vocal activism, it will quickly go back to being ignored. Thus, stage two never comes. For the remainder of this comment, however, I will go along with it).
I can't imagine how you come to the conclusion that atheists have reached stage two. Polls routinely show that atheists are among the most despised groups in America. Large percentages persist in saying they would never vote for an atheist on that basis alone. There is nowhere in the country where a politican would be hurt by slighting atheists, and there are many parts of the country where such slights are expected. An atheist who expresses disapproval at the idea of having “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, on the grounds that it unfairly links good citizinship with theism, is viewed as an extremist or worse. I could go on. It seems pretty clear that atheists are decidedly at stage one.
I see other problems in your discussion. The gay rights movement did a lot more than just persuade people that gays exist. They also changed the social environment from one in which it was acceptable to ridicule homosexuals into one where it was totally unacceptable to do so. To take a trivial, but illuminating, example consider that in the late seventies and early eighties one of the most popular shows on television was Three's Company. I don't know if you have ever seen the show, but suffice it to say that homosexuals were, on a weekly basis, presented as effeminate freaks deserving only of ridicule from real men. Such a portrayal would be utterly impossible today.
That's precisely the sort of social change atheists are looking for. In today's culture it is perfectly acceptable to ridicule and demean atheists. The question is how to change that state of affairs.
There are other problems:
This comes straight from Mars. Regarding your question, atheists are not trying to deny anyone the right to do anything. As far as I am concerned religious folks are free to exist in whatever form they like. Atheists are no more denying the right of religious folks to exist than homosexuals are denying the right of straight folks to exist. In both cases the sort of social acceptance that is being sought is the kind where everyone just minds his own business and does not try to use the power of government to enforce their preferred view of things. I'm not sure what your point was in asking this question.
Jason you insist on using the gay rights analogy, so figured I'd comment on it.
Homosexuals didn't gain social acceptance by strongly and loudly claiming that heterosexuals were wrong and that heterosexuality was essentially based on ignorance and irrationality.
Would you not agree that doing so would have only hurt their cause?
Dawkins and the 'New Atheist' movement, whatever that is, are doing exactly that with regards to atheism. I can respect what they're trying to achieve, but I think Jake and Nisbet have a valid point in questioning whether their methods are achieving their aim or simply alienating and further polarizing.
No, they did it by strongly and loudly claiming that homophobes were wrong and that homophobia was essentially based on ignorance and irrationality.
Graham-
First, as I just got through explaining to Jake, I was not talking about gay rights. I was talking about social acceptance of gays, which is not the same thing.
Second, Gregory is exactly right.
And third, it's a difficult question whether Dawkins's strong rhetoric helps or hurts, since it's difficult to get hard data by which to measure his effect. Homosexuals turned off a lot of people by calling so much attention to themselves, as I noted in the blog post that Jake linked to. But it would seem they won over more people than they lost by doing so. I suspect it is the same for atheists. Sure, some people who might have been sympathetic to the cause will be turned off by Dawkins' writing. But I believe that number is small relative to the number of people who will be moved to look at religion more critically in the light of his writing.
My apologies, I did mean social acceptance, not rights - as the relevance of my comment would indicate.
Gregory may be right but this isn't what Dawkins and Co. are doing. They are doing what I referred to in my comment. That is the problem here. What Dawkins and other 'new atheists' are doing is basically preaching a 'with us or you're wrong' attitude.
That doesn't exactly encourage acceptance now does it?
Homosexuals may have turned off some people before gaining acceptance, but they weren't ridiculing heterosexuals for their way of life and demanding they admit they were wrong - they were simply asking that their own choice be accepted. Like I said, that's different to what Dawkins is doing. There is an arrogant elitism to Dawkins' and the 'new atheist' approach. I for one would have called myself an atheist before I read Dawkins. I now consider myself an agnostic after analysing his fundamental argument and believing it flawed. Although apparently according to the new atheists I can no longer call myself agnostic. What I really am is a 'weak atheist'. Again, I rest my case.
As far as I can see Matthew Nisbet seems to be the only one even attempting to gather data on this. What surprises me and interests me is the emotional and vitriolic opposition anyone who questions Dawkins' tactics seems to come under.
I think that Troy is right, that there is anti-atheist bigotry in the United States and elsewhere. So there is room for a campaign for acceptance of atheists in analogy with acceptance of homosexuals. Where the atheist/homosexual analogy is strained is in claiming that acceptance of atheism is comparable to acceptance of equal rights for homosexuals. Those are completely disanalogous (if that's a word; my text editor claims it isn't, but I'm not going to be pushed around by a mere algorithm).
Jason tries to make them analogous by casting them both in terms of truths about the world: the incorrectness of homophobia is a fact about the world comparable to the incorrectness of belief in God. I think that's a really weak analogy.
Tulse writes: If you believe that miracles are possible, that the supernatural can impinge on the natural world, then you don't believe in methodological naturalism, period.
Methodological naturalism is not a belief. It is a method for investigating the world.
Daryl, perhaps I was packing too much in to a shorthand phrase -- try this: "If one believes in miracles, then one doesn't believe that methodological naturalism provides the only rational way of investigating the world."
I want to thank you for bringing this discussion in to the twenty-first century. It had really become a monotonour shouting match between medieval religious fundamentalist and 19th Century vulgar materialisrts. Boring, as you point out, the universe is so much more interesting.
The scientific enterprise is now so complex and varied that it is dangerous to generalize about what �scientists� as a group do or think. Even more could be said about the varieties of religious experience. It is important to remember that the goals are different before making claims about their supposed incompatibilities.
The goals of science, in most Western people�s minds seem to be of two orders. Some point to the technological advances our scientific knowledge has empowered. Others refer to a quest of some sort of certainty about phenomena, Truth or some such. I don�t count the political goals some seem to confound with science such as �destroying all religions�.
Religions have many other goals. I am most familiar with Buddhism, which takes as its primary goal the liberation of all sentient beings. Liberation, in this case, means a mind free of delusions and egoism, that only desires the well-being of others. Other goals, such as making atom bombs or enabling google search, are considered irrelevant, basically just meaningless activity. In a famous incident, the Buddha was asked to clarify Basic Questions such as does the universe have an origin, is it finite or infinite and other such. He refused to answer, saying that thinking about such questions is irrelevant to the task at hand, progressing on the path to liberation. On the other hand, the Buddha�s goals are irrelevant to most science.
So it basically seems like a useless argument. I think your blogs have directed things in a more fruitful direction where we might begin to ask if science and religion in fact have something to offer each other.
Believing that heterosexuals are wrong on a point of fact is not a defining characteristic of homosexuality.
I still believe, as I have said in my response to your argument (to which you do not respond here), that there is something wrong with the premise: Of your definition of what "camps" exist and what they seem to think. This stems, possibly, from Matt and Chris's original characterizations, or perhaps from other sources.
Atheism and Science are related. So are Atheism and Religion. So are Golf and Excellent Lawn Care. But you can't say "I'm going Golfing" when you are going to mow the lawn, and you can't say "I'm going to write about atheism" then write about cell transport proteins. Do you understand why this is important as a critique of your argument? I am probably not making myself too clear.
What I tried to do in my response was to define what I think most actual scientists "are" or "do" in relation to these questions of para-scientific or non-scientific issues. I focused on the strange, (bigfoot, mormons, etc) but something like this could be said of any area that scientists tend to get involved in. Human rights, or certain kinds of politics, for instance.
In other words, when a scientist happens to make the argument that science supports an atheistic interpretation of the world, the scientist is actually being an atheist at that moment, not a scientist. Science does not address atheism.
This is, in fact, pretty much in agreement with most of what you said in your post. The problem is, your definition, in which you pigeon hole everyone into the two camps, has ramifications, political, social, and personal. And I think it is wrong.
Cheers,
GTL
Tulse,
I think that's closer, but I still don't completely agree with it. One can believe something without claiming that one has a convincing, objective reason for believing. So belief in miracles does not imply that the person knows of any alternative method for investigating the world.
I guess if someone feels that they know that miracles happen, then that means that they believe that there are sources of knowledge besides scientific investigation. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there are other methods of acquiring knowledge. It could be something sat in your lap.
Jason,
I am willing to accept that I misinterpreted you response as referring to gay social acceptance rather than gay rights, and for that I apologize. However, I am a bit skeptical that the two can be separated. I think this is why I think they were lumped together in my mind. Rights and social acceptance in this society seem inextricably linked to me.
You may certainly declare victory on the grounds that I don't disagree. Dawkins et al. performed a valuable service. However, I really do disagree that atheists are not accepted in this society.
Maybe this is because I have never personally experienced anti-atheist discrimination, nor have I witnessed it. People will probably hasten to point out that my experiences are anecdotal, but think about it this way. Every African American person I know, regardless of place of birth or income, has faced some small measure of discrimination. That have at least one bad story. Wouldn't you expect at least once for me to have experienced it if it is really as ubiquitous as you say?
Further, I reject the notion that unelectability is evidence of discrimination. Libertarians aren't electable in this country, but they are not discriminated against.
Nor do I consider public unpopularity in polls sufficient evidence. Polls reveal that people hate people who work at health insurance companies or drug makers. Yet they are not considered the subjects of discrimination.
I am going to be honest that I think in this country the issue is being hyped. (Troy I do acknowledge that in other countries -- particularly Muslim theocracies -- the matter is rather different. I was not referring to life in the Muslim world in either of my posts.)
With respect to maintaining vehemence to maintain acceptance, I disagree on substance. I argued that by definition a group cannot transition into acceptance and maintain a sense of radicalism. The two are in my mind mutually exclusive. (You see the stigma that is attached to far Left individuals in the Democratic party. Social acceptance is predicated on moderacy.)
With respect to atheist denying the right of religious people to exist in their present form, of course some atheists do. Some atheists do these things, and it was to them that my posts were directed it. (I am not implying that you do this.) By arguing that religious people are stupid, that they are misled, that they should not have the right to participate in decisions on civil government (think religion in schools), atheists are making their views seem mutually exclusive in this society with those of religious people.
That rhetorical statement was intended to emphasize the vast distrust with which the majority of people in this country hold atheists who make such vehement arguments.
Just to point out that I can fully understand how someone can see Atheism as being widely accepted I'd like to point out my current situation. I grew up in California's "Bible belt" of kern county. Its the kind of place with six or seven churches on every street. I couldn't even mention that I was an Athiest in mixed company without pretty much immediate verbal assault. I now live very near Santa Cruz, arguably one of the most diverse and accepting places on earth. I can easily see how someone growing up here could think that anti-atheist sentiment is practically non-existent. Its much the same that someone growing up in California can't understand the degree to which African Americans are still second class citizens in many parts of the southern United States. Of course the difference is that I can always shut up. The point is I shouldn't have to. I'm not saying we need to stamp out theism, but we need to start standing up for ourselves.
Actually, no.Jason makes analogy between homophobia and anti-atheist sentiment and/or bigotry.such sentiments are considered acceptable, by and large, in most societies today, much the same way homophobia was considered acceptable 20-30 years ago.He makes claims not about the correctness or incorrectness of belief in God, but rather about the acceptability of bigotry toward atheists comparable to the acceptability of homophobia.
PS.How do you make claims about "correctness" of a social phenomenon anyway, when not arguing about its existence?
So you've abandoned your previous position and taken up the position with the legitimate arguments, yes?
No? NO? You haven't abandoned your position when confronted with evidence of its incorrectness?
Somehow, I'm not surprised.
This is incorrect.
Think about what you're saying for a moment. If 'supernatural' was a descriptor that could be applied to real things, science would be excluding accurate descriptions of phenomena for no good reason, a priori. We'd be crippling our ability to understand reality by arbitrarily rejecting part of it, screwing up our explanations for any phenomena that were affected by it.
Science deals in everything that we can observe, and all of the things that affect everything we can observe. The 'supernatural' is outside of that, is outside of reality. It's what is unreal.
Science excludes the unreal as an explanation for the real for good reason.
Libertarianism is a political position. Atheism isn't - belief in a deity isn't actually relevant to one's position on sociopolitical issues in this country. Not voting for a Libertarian constitues rejection of their political opinions. Not voting for an atheist, regardless of their political opinions, is making atheism the issue.
Caledonian writes:
Methodological naturalism, or the scientific method, is a particular tool for investigating the world. To use a particular tool does not require adopting the belief that every fact about the world can be discovered using that tool.
Speaking of the scientific method, you keep making claims about it that are unfalsifiable. They are not scientific claims, they are at best tautologies.
No, methodological naturalism is the consequence of recognizing that we can't list what's part of the natural world, we can only update our list as we discover new aspects of nature.
Seriously, if we observe a phenomenon, how would we go about deciding whether it is natural or supernatural? Our ability to understand it by referring to familiar principles can't be it, because science has examined all sorts of new phenomena, and they're all part of nature.
Jake, can you give us an example of any phenomenon that science both recognizes as real AND recognizes as supernatural? More to the point, can you offer an example of a phenomenon science recognizes as real but rejects the study of because it's supernatural?
Define God first. If God is defined as impersonal agency that underpins reality and explains why any reality exists, and why THIS reality exists, rather than another logically possible one, then science can't tel us anything, since science by definition deals with the phsicl universe, from the beehive activity of the atom to the biggest supergalaxies.
Defining God that way, there is, can be, no "god hypothesis", since any being(s) beyond the physical universe would by definition be beyond human comprehension. Anything outide the universe is by definition non-physical, and therefore forever beyond hypothesising. But of course, religious people try to have it both ways by claiming that God is knowable, and has human attibutes.