promoting science

[randomc]

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!

[admiral_ju00]

I take it you're a creationist yourself?

 

Papers, books and speeches given by Creationists or those who are heavily influenced by religion, especially on the matter of Evolution are quite comical to read, but it is not science.

 

Therefore, you have people like Dawkins who don't hide their feelings when it comes to the creationism.

 

Dawkins has some great books(among other works) published, I suggest you read more of them.

[randomc]

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

[admiral_ju00]

I guess that usually(it would seem) that when someone proclaims oneself an Atheist, he/she is looked down upon by the rest of the crowd. That can generally lead one into a defensive position in order to stay afloat, more or less.

 

It would be the same situation in most(if not all) industrialized societies, so the things you see in UK, also play out in much the similar way 'round other major areas.

[Kbzon59]

Can a scientist pray?

Seriously.

[Kbzon59]

The figt between religion and science is no reason to be scared of thje latter. One has to undersatnd taht they are separate matters. Thats it. They dont quarrel inside people's mind. Let's not use such as a excuse for society's understimating of science: People dont learn science because they dont want to and becuase public education shows science as an elite club where only the smartest and geekest 1% of the population are welcomed> Everyday science has been l;eft aside.

[randomc]

Can a scientist pray?

Seriously.

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.

[Kbzon59]

Maybe the problem for the religious groups about the prevalecence of science is the fact that sceince is getting "too public".

In a way, science is a slap in the face of some religions. So when a scientist fields a theory adn has open field to expose it, unlike religious propaghanda the religiosu leaders feel offended.

I am just expressing an opinion.

[admiral_ju00]

religious propaganda

 

Heh, I like that. Have used the term myself quite frequently

[Mr_Mediocre]

There is a magazine called `creation' or something like that, and it is basically a bunch of hardcore christians (of some denomination or other) refuting (with no references, just heresay) a stack of basic scientific hypotheses/beliefs, such as `how the eye evolved' and `the age of the earth' and many many others. In fact age of the earth is usually the most difficult to reconcile, and leads to a great divide between theologian and scientist. There is apparently a passage in the bible that says that god created the earth as an `old' earth (jeez, talk about hedging your bets!).

 

Nearly every first year geology lecturer would have had the `pleasure' of some nutcase student jumping up in the middle of a lecture on paleontology and demanding to know why creation is not being taught instead. (Yes, I have witnessed this myself).

I am not opposed to the idea of A god, just the rigorous (yet somehow divided) interpretation of a book that was written by several people a long time ago, and copied and distorted over the ages.

 

I think that most folk live with a nice, not too deeply explored, marraige of science and religion. The people who unashamedly flaunt either one as being COMPLETELY correct, and the other a pot-pourri of lies and deceit are displaying narrow-mindedness and an unwillingness to budge from their viewpoint. As these types of voices are usually the loudest, then the perception in the enemy camps becomes one of noisy, ignorant malcontents who are too wrapped up in their own beliefs to allow room for a little flexibility.

 

At my uni, there are two professors that I know personally who actually preach at their respective churches. One is a professor in chemistry and the other a professor in physics (head of department). Both are semiretired (in Australia, you don't usually get the `professor' title until after about 30 yrs research in your field and MANY publications, 100's), world experts in their fields and very well renowned and respected, I might add. They talk about their churches in a broad sense but are never drawn into the science religion debate. So I wouldn't say atheism is the norm, but in the general population, you may find a higher PROPORTION of atheists amongst scientists than in other professions.

 

As far as overcoming the divide? You could become a rich man if you found a quick easy way to do that. One thing that works for me is to say to one faction

 

Q. "So what makes you think *insert belief system* is wrong?"

A. "Because it goes against *insert irreconcilable difference* that is taught by MY belief system.

Q. "How do you KNOW your belief system is correct"

A. (1) Because so many other people believe in it. (2) It is WRITTEN (3) It makes sense to me etc etc

Q. Has religion been wrong in the past?

A. Yes

Q. Has science been wrong in the past?

A. Yes

Q. Then what makes you think that you live in such a special time that all of a sudden YOUR belief system is COMPLETELY right?

A. Duh...?

Q. What I'm trying to say, mate, is that you come across as pretty arrogant and ignorant when you preach SO FERVENTLY for the correctness of a restricted (or at least incomplete) belief system. It seems you know very little about *insert opposing belief system*. History has shown us that zealots are not usually remembered as great people. Einstein spoke of God often and is recognized as one of the greatest scientific minds ever spawned.

A. *individual answers may vary*

 

This usually marks the end of the conversation, unless the Answer person is so full-on about their belief system that they pretend you said nothing and keep running you round with the same ol tired back and forths. Tme for another drink then...

 

Cheers, MM

[Kbzon59]

While I am not a creationist, isnt it much easier for religious people to accept, say, that god created earth and austrolopithecus africanus and that god itmslef created evolution? Why the senseless radicalism?

[JaKiri]

Atheism is the religious stance of science.

[Mr_Mediocre]

Other way around, I think. The premise upon which most christain religions rely doesn't permit this view (evolution). It starts with Adam and Eve and the rest is written. It is actually much easier for us as scientists to say that God created evolution, as science does not preclude the existence of a God.

 

The senseless radicalism (ironically) sort of makes evolutionary sense. Consider when people were still living in small groups...a few families. The fanatically believing member(s) will be more agressive and forceful in asserting his viewpoint and would be more likely to rise to some position of power in the tribe be it chief or witchdoctor or whatever. And everyone knows the chiefs get all the chicks. Some cultures (even today) have deliberately nurtured this aspect of their genetic makeup by actively teaching, from a young age, that there are dire penalties for NOT being fanatical and aggressive about their belief system (not naming any particular culture(s)).

 

Also, fanaticism may have been necessary in order for tribes to survive against others who were led (and bred) by aggressive fanatics.

 

Cheers, MM

[randomc]

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.

[Skye]

science does not preclude the existence of a God.

How, exactly, can God exist within the philosophical framework of science?

[randomc]

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?

[Sayonara]

Einstein spoke of God often and is recognized as one of the greatest scientific minds ever spawned.

He is recognised as one of the greatest scientific minds ever because of the science he worked on, not because of his personal beliefs.

 

 

Other way around, I think. The premise upon which most christain religions rely doesn't permit this view (evolution).

What has evolution got to do with anything (in the sense of Christianity vs science)?

- It is not representative of "science"

- It does not contradict Christian scripture

- Any godly being worth its salt would have built it in to life anyway, unless it was a sadistic twat

[Skye]

Yes, we haven't disproven God. I haven't seen any evidence of Him existing either, so that's a moot point for me.

 

My problem(s) are though: I don't see how God can be falsified. I don't see how God can fit in with the assumption of determinism that's necessary for empiricism. I don't see how we can show that God exists within an empirical framework (partly because of the lack of determinism). I don't then see how we can understand the working of God using empiricism.

[Mr_Mediocre]

Okeedoke. I'll go in order of appearance and try to be succinct.

 

Skye, I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. Science does not preclude the existence of "a" god is a reflection on the flexibility of science. No GOOD scientist could say that a god of some sort doesn't exist because, as you pointed out, the hypothesis of the existence of a god can't be falsified. I wasn't saying that god fits into the current framework of science. We can't say for sure, though, that as we learn more the scientific process MAY give some answers. Thanks for the defence randomc, but in vigorous defence of my offending sentence: I didn't think it was too ambiguous...YOU understood it just fine....

 

Sayonara, I was merely pointing out that Einstein was an example of a great scientist with a religious bent. I wasn't commenting on what he was famous for. Your last three points were jokes, right? Not being nasty or anything, just checking. If you are being serious then I'll post another reply.

 

For the record, I don't believe science has a "religious stance". If you are looking for away to please everyone, randomc, and get record numbers of students into science, then I truly wish you the best. But I don't think that science is as unattractive to god-fearing folk as you may think. I do understand where you are coming from, however. Fortunately, (as far as I know) atheism alone and of itself, is not taught in science in school or uni, as atheism (disbelief in, or denial of the existence of God or gods) is inherently unscientific.

 

Cheers, MM

[atinymonkey]

Fortunately' date=' (as far as I know) atheism alone and of itself, is not taught in science in school or uni, as atheism (disbelief in, or denial of the existence of God or gods) is inherently unscientific.

 

Cheers, MM[/quote']

 

Theology is taught in schools. Atheism is less unscientfic (as you put it) than theism.

[Skye]

My point here is that I don't see how these gods are to be treated by science (for the reasons in post #18). Even if we found some way of determining that gods existed using science, I think it could only be in 'it can't be explained by science' kind of way. To put it another way, if science could describe a 'god', would it really qualify as a god anymore?

 

Now the important thing here is that I'm not stating that if you go along with this, then gods don't exist at all. It's entirely possible that things exist that can't be explained using science. They would exist in a broader philosophy.

 

Anyway, as far as Dawkins goes, I'd have to say his appointment is based entirely on the fact he has sold so many pop sci books.

[Mr_Mediocre]

I think we could still classify a scientifically understood god as a "god".

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=God

 

I have faith in science. There are things that couldn't be imagined 50 yrs ago that are everyday hum-drum stuff for us now. We never really know what is around the corner.

That's the coolest part about it.

 

I haven't read any Dawkins even though there is a book on the shelf (the blind watchmaker). I might have a look.

[Sayonara]

Sayonara, I was merely pointing out that Einstein was an example of a great scientist with a religious bent. I wasn't commenting on what he was famous for.

The implication was fairly clear.

 

 

Your last three points were jokes, right? Not being nasty or anything, just checking. If you are being serious then I'll post another reply.

No, I most certainly was not joking.

[Sayonara]

randomc, I don't see what Dawkins' views on religion have to do with his ability to carry out duties in the role of Professor for the Public Understanding of Science.

 

Presumably, one would expect such a person to have an excellent understanding of science, and the ability to make that information accessible to the widest possible audience. His track record suggests that he is eminently qualified.

[randomc]

randomc' date=' I don't see what Dawkins' views on religion have to do with his ability to carry out duties in the role of Professor for the Public Understanding of Science.

 

Presumably, one would expect such a person to have an excellent understanding of science, and the ability to make that information accessible to the widest possible audience. His track record suggests that he is eminently qualified.[/quote']

 

 

I am not critisising Dawkins as a scientist or as a teacher of science. Its his appointment to such a role that i wanted to discuss. Public perception of science is obviously of paramount importantance in terms of the recruitment of new students, and to appoint somebody who holds extreme beliefs (let me clarify something: To the public in general atheism is a belief, and the most elegant argument is unlikely ever to persuade them otherwise, simply because most people will try to reject something that is counter-intuitive and difficult to grasp) is not a good way to promote science, which given the exposure of the position should be a consideration when choosing people for such roles.

Dawkins success is to some extent a measure of his public destruction of religion. And he is endorsed by the scientific community to do so.