randomc

Atheism will not deal with religion whithin any context other than the scientific philosophical framework. This constitutes a belief in that framework. Either way, in the eyes of the public it could be argued that it is (i realise i am a representative sample of one, but the point of this thread is to discover if there is a need to change public perception of science). Sayanora, filtering process? How do you define a scientist? Is an elitist Nietzschen superman the only definition or could a smelly hippy whith a 3rd class degree qualify? More people doing the boring stuff and easy stuff would free up time for the more capable scientists. Quality is not necessarily more important than quantity.

yes, but this is because atheism is the belief that only science can provide answers. I am not supporting belief in the supernatural here BTW, i am pointing out that in a political climate were people are supposed to be able to believe what they like, promoting atheism as a part of science is detrimental to the of science. Teaching people that athiesm is the only scientificaly convincing alternative is different from telling them that if they accept science they must except atheism.

The philosophical framework of science does not assume that something doesn't exist just because it hasn't been observed. A theory or hypothesis must be falsified before it is dismissed. A lack of verification is not grounds enough on its own for the dismissal of a theory or hypothesis. Whats the problem? Incidentally, he said 'science does not preclude the existence of a god' and nothing about one existing whithin the current philosphical framework of science. Apart from this mis-direction, the problem here is that you have taken a phrase that is already fairly ambiguous out of context, thus adding further ambiguity. This combined with your having phrased your rebuttal in the form of a question has the effect of turning the unfairly manipulated quote into a proposition propounded by the author, thus apparently requiring defence, if consistancy is to be maintained. This kind of semantic messing about is interesting and all, but it doesn't really contribute anything does it?

Claiming that science has a religious stance is ridiculous - science is information, it has facts. People have religions. Science could and should be regarded as intellectual property, and this is where the conflict lies, because no minority group, let alone any religious group has the right to claim ownership of science. I will say it again: the relationship between atheism and science is parasitic. Atheism gains everything and science gains nothing. There is no conflict between Atheism+science and religion, there is conflict between atheism and religion. But this is not why i started this thread. I wanted to discuss the promotion of science, something which should be of interest to us all. My argument - in this context - against atheism is simply that it is likely to put potential students of scientists off. Even those of you who are atheist should be able to agree that it is a harsh philosophy (compared to other beliefs), and as a representative view of science is not particularly good for the image and hence the popularity of science. Just because i criticise, albeit vaguely, richard dawkins and atheism -and i think its important to look at the context in which i did so- it does not make me a creationist, or even religious at all.

A scientist can. An atheist can't. In the UK atheism is just another belief. it is not looked down on here, at least not in any significantly generalised way. If anything atheism is regarded above other beliefs in the UK because of its association with science and technology. This is beginning to annoy some religious groups (not just christianity and other entrenched religions, but also newbies and revivalists like Gaia theorists and druids, which are growing in number) and it is likely that this will progress to the point where we have the same problem with creationism and other specifically anti-science groups as you have in the US. I am really not attacking anybody's right to believe in whatever they like, i'm interested in discussing a pragmatic solution to what is likely to become a problem. I think that perhaps my point is fairly specific to the UK and possibly other bits of Europe.

no i'm not a creationist. i'm more or less agnostic, depending on how you define it. and i'm not trying to provoke another 'my beliefs are better than yours' debate, although in hindsight dawkins was a stupid example to use. He has obviously contributed enormously to evolutionary theory, and probably significantly in his role as the professor of public understanding at oxford. I'm not trying to slander the man, or particularly to attack atheism, i just want to point out that the role of science whithin society, and correspondingly the public perception of science, is undergoing a lot of change at the moment and that leaders and public figures in the scientific community are responding like a religion would respond - by shouting loudly about 'truth' and not compromising. In a democratic society a religion (or anti-religion) has no right to priveleged truth, and logically correct arguments - in a human context - are nothing more or less than religion (or anti-religion). Basically, science and the technologies that result from science are quintessentially important to the current and future standard of life, and must therefore be protected and nurtured. Atheism is one of the root causes of hostility, and its relationship to science is basically parasitic, so lets get rid of it - at least publicly. BTW, I live in the UK and am writing this as i see the situation here. what relevance it has in the US i don't know

Have just read 'A Devils Chaplain' by Richard Dawkins. What a nice chappy. Now unless i am missing something (possibly a swastika) his appointment as professor for the public understanding of science at oxford university is a bit politically naiive, assumimg that you agree that recruiting new scientists is the aim of such a position, and that his hardcore atheism is how large sections of the public perceive science. Atheism is not easy to swallow for the vast majority of people, so promoting it as part of science is just dumb. Some questions: 1)Why are science and atheism allowed to remain synonymus in the perception of the public? Science is not dependant on atheism after all, and publicly flouted atheism creates conflict and is likely to put people off pusuing a career in science. 2)Any suggestions for a solution? Maybe a more corporate style of organisation would give control over image. 3)Is atheism the norm amongst professional scientists? Dawkins accuses (rightly as it happens) 'alternative' therapies of hi-jacking science; but science - at least in the eyes of the public - has already been comprehensively hi-jacked by atheism. I meant to put this thread in the 'general discussion' thread. sorry!

out of interest, how would you define the diffrerence between, as you categorise it,physics/chemistry as apposed to biology and others.

ok so how do you get rid of biology and related sciences then.this is an enormous amount of informaion to account for.

surely the subjectivity is in the individuals need for an explanation... life is a consequence of physical laws, no matter how improbable those laws (whichever version u choose to accept) appear to be. But anyway, why try to diss the biologists... they are amongst the guys and gals who classify and research, they tell you who you are and why you choose to behave in such a reprehensible way to people that are, ultimately, defining the reasons you can be bothered to open your eyes to science in the first place. these are the true scientists.

do you mean red-top brit tabloid official... maybe you should keep your science and your philosophy in perspective

not sure about an 'absolute' definition, but how about a state of delayed entropy via recycling of emitted energy