promoting science

[JaKiri]

As I said before, Atheism is the only really scientifically valid viewpoint.

 

Yes, science doesn't preclude the existance of god, but science doesn't preclude the existance of ANYTHING, so that's hardly a useful argument.

[randomc]

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.

[JaKiri]

yes, but this is because atheism is the belief that only science can provide answers.

 

No it isn't.

[Sayonara]

You said yourself that "recruiting new scientists is the aim of such a position".

 

Since you are implying that having Dawkins fill the role will strengthen the filtering process, I still don't see why it's a problem. You don't "recruit" new scientists by selling them super-friendly dumb science that panders to randomly selected beliefs or attitudes.

[randomc]

No it isn't.

 

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.

[randomc]

You don't "recruit" new scientists by selling them super-friendly dumb science that panders to randomly selected beliefs or attitudes.

 

This is an argument from personal incredulity, and as an assumption about the promotion of science is exactly what i am trying to find out about.

How do you recruit scientists?

[Sayonara]

Sayanora' date=' 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.[/quote']

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of people whose primary interest is furthering science, but if you want to play with False Dilemma then be my guest.

[Mr_Mediocre]

Sayonara, honestly, there was no implcation that Einstein was famous for his religious views. I've never thought this and wouldn't say it. Maybe I could have worded it a little better.

 

In answer to your other questions:

 

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

 

Evolution, as it is understood to science, directly contradicts the bible. This is one of the MAIN sticking points in the Christianity vs science debate.

 

- It is not representative of "science"

 

It is part of a very solid branch of science. I can't think of any SINGLE thoery/hypothesis that could be regarded as `representative of science'. It is certainly "a" representative of science.

 

- It does not contradict Christian scripture

 

Yes it does. The very first page (among many others). What about the fossil record?

 

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

 

Not entirely sure what you're getting at here.

[blike]

As I said before, Atheism is the only really scientifically valid viewpoint.

 

I disagree, and I'd love to debate anyone who agrees with the aforementioned statement. Just PM me if you're up to it.

 

Anyhow, I just want to chirp in that this is a good discussion.

[Sayonara]

Sayonara, honestly, there was no implcation that Einstein was famous for his religious views. I've never thought this and wouldn't say it. Maybe I could have worded it a little better.

It was implied - you just didn't intend for it to be.

 

 

Evolution, as it is understood to science, directly contradicts the bible. This is one of the MAIN sticking points in the Christianity vs science debate.

Which parts of the bible does it directly contradict? Normally the Christianity vs science flames are being fanned by people who are largely ignorant of either of the two camps, so identifying it as a "sticking point" is not evidence of anything.

 

 

It is part of a very solid branch of science. I can't think of any SINGLE thoery/hypothesis that could be regarded as `representative of science'. It is certainly "a" representative of science.

"It is representative of science" does not mean the same as "it is a representative of science". The latter is quite correct, you'll get no argument there, but the former is not.

 

 

Yes it does. The very first page (among many others). What about the fossil record?

What about the fossil record? The fossil record is evidence that things once living have since died.

 

 

Not entirely sure what you're getting at here.

Habitats and the biome change, and so do populations and communities. Organisms without a mechanism for adapting to these changes would all die. Therefore it would not be a massive leap to suggest that the alleged all-powerful, benevolent creator* of all life might have wanted to include some biological functionality for dealing with change.

 

* If you believe in that kind of thing, that is.

[Mr_Mediocre]

Jakiri, science precludes a few things through the laws of thermodynamics. The fact that it precludes very little only adds to its charm as a flexible philosophy, as opposed to most religious philosophies which tend to be pretty immovable on many points.

 

Back to your point, randomc, one recruits young, new, impressionable scientists by sucking them in with the same crappy advertising campaigns that large corporations and politicians do. Think of the minds that would otherwise have been completely wasted as lawyers! Two birds with one stone!

Use buzzwords like 'environmental', 'forensic', 'solar', 'extraterrestrial' (not aliens), 'laser', 'nano-', 'artificial life' and so on. Get them in early and the rest is up to the uni to keep em interested. The kiddies WANT to be told what is cool, they NEEEEED to be told what is cool

[JaKiri]

Jakiri, science precludes a few things through the laws of thermodynamics.

 

That's not precluded by science per se, it's just not allowed under current modelling. Science, supposedly, is designed around being able to gather information from as few preconceptions as possible, ideally zero.

 

Plus, the laws of thermodynamics (especially the 2nd law) are more like guidelines.

[Mr_Mediocre]

Sayonara, the bible gives the earth about 4000 - 6000 years of existence. Using radioisotopes we get (scientifically) an earth age of 4 billion-odd yrs. This is a pretty fundamental point to differ on.

 

The fossil record contains no modern day humans. If humans were around from day dot then shouldn't our fossils be peppered throughout? Especially if there was a big flood? No real mention of, say, neanderthals or cro magnons in the bible, but we seem to have stumbled on a few of them...the fossil record is alot more than a statement that something once living since died. There is an order and a progression to it, backed up with other analyses...air bubbles, MORE radio dating, etc. This would contradict the bible's view of MANY event leading to where we are today.

 

If anything, you would have to say that for someone who wants to be loved and worshipped, sacrificed to etc, biblical God (if he exists), in crafting the earth, has done a fine job of tryng to convince us he doesn't exist. Would that make him a 'sadistic twat' too?

[Sayonara]

I've read plenty of arguments that the bible doesn't actually specify such a date. Iirc, the 4-6000 years old figure comes from adding the approximate ages of the generations in the Old testament. There's also a small chance that radioisotope ageing is a pile of foetid dingoes kidneys.

 

The fossil record will always be a work in progress: there are entire species in it attributable to one fossil. I realise that there is more to the the record than "something once living died", but as far as the bible goes that's all that matters since you can argue the toss over interpretations of the scripture and semantics until the cows come home.

 

As for your final point, no. I don't see that that is relevant.

 

Since you seem to be lecturing me on science, I should point out I do not believe that the bible is "more correct". Not by a long shot. I am simply pointing out that Judaeo-Christian beliefs and evolution are not necessarily polar extremes. You should read the numerous other threads on this.

[Aardvark]

Not all Christians are Creationists.

 

I listened to a sermon by the Archbishop of York who said that Darwins theory of evolution meant that all living things were related, as such this showed the unity of Gods creation. He stated that he saw no contradiction between evolution and Christainity, rather that evolution helped understand Gods creation and our place in it.

 

Not all Christians take everything in the Bible absolutely literally, a lot is beautiful allergory.

[Sayonara]

It probably helps that the Pope recently declared evolution to be the true state of affairs, too.

[Aardvark]

And he quite likes the idea of the Big Bang.

[JaKiri]

Not all Christians take everything in the Bible absolutely literally, a lot is beautiful allergory.

 

In which case, it becomes useless, given it's entirely arbitrary which bits are true and which bits aren't; it's useless as a teaching guide, and to claim to be able to second guess god is the highest arrogance.

[Aardvark]

In which case, it becomes useless, given it's entirely arbitrary which bits are true and which bits aren't; it's useless as a teaching guide, and to claim to be able to second guess god is the highest arrogance.

 

 

Yup.

[JaKiri]

I disagree, and I'd love to debate anyone who agrees with the aforementioned statement. Just PM me if you're up to it.

 

You still haven't replied

[randomc]

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of people whose primary interest is furthering science

 

couldn't agree more. Don't see why atheism is a good filter tho...

 

Back to your point, randomc, one recruits young, new, impressionable scientists by sucking them in with the same crappy advertising campaigns that large corporations and politicians do. Think of the minds that would otherwise have been completely wasted as lawyers! Two birds with one stone!

Use buzzwords like 'environmental', 'forensic', 'solar', 'extraterrestrial' (not aliens), 'laser', 'nano-', 'artificial life' and so on. Get them in early and the rest is up to the uni to keep em interested. The kiddies WANT to be told what is cool, they NEEEEED to be told what is cool

 

Just trying to introduce a wider context.... science only has value to society through technology. Without technology science is an interesting but irrelevant way of looking at the universe, atheism is just another hokey cult. Political pragmatism (aka democracy) is the social experiment of the times, in which there is no room for institutionalised ideology/dogma especialy in science.

 

That's not precluded by science per se, it's just not allowed under current modelling. Science, supposedly, is designed around being able to gather information from as few preconceptions as possible, ideally zero.

 

Plus, the laws of thermodynamics (especially the 2nd law) are more like guidelines.

 

Logical positivism is little more than a guideline. Its not much more than a tautological affirmation of atheism. (How do you varify the principle of varifiability BTW? Its a circular argument). That isn't to say it isn't useful, it just aint central to the philosophy of science, and shoe-horning it into such a position is totally dishonest.

[blike]

You still haven't replied

Partially because I have confused myself somewhat over the issue.

 

I understand what you're saying, but there is a difference between believing a statement is false and not believing a statement is true. Disbelief is a form of believe which actively denies that a statement is true. Nonbelief is a state of suspended judgement, in which the statement is branded neither true or false.

 

I was going argue that science is in a state of nonbelief about things unproven, not disbelief. But I've never really read anything on the philosophy of science, so I decided I should probably inform myself before I make a case on gut intuition.

[J'Dona]

Atheism is[/b'] the religious stance of science.

Sorry for posting so long after the one I'm quoting, but I just noticed it...

 

Given that atheism is the belief that there is no God or god(s), which can never be proven, wouldn't that make it unscientific? I know that there is no area in (mainstream) science which studies or relates to a supernatural being, but that doesn't necessarily preclude one's existance, and any scientist who denied that would be biased.

 

To take any stance would be biased, unless it were agnosticism, which doesn't have anything to be biased toward. Individual scientists can be theists, so long as they don't allow any religious stance in their study which might affect it.

 

A beleif in science is, however, the stance taken by atheists.

[JaKiri]

Given that atheism is the belief that there is no God or god(s), which can never be proven, wouldn't that make it unscientific? I know that there is no area in (mainstream) science which studies or relates to a supernatural being, but that doesn't necessarily preclude one's existance, and any scientist who denied that would be biased.

 

There is insufficient evidence to say that god exists, therefore by Occam's Razor 'Atheism' is the stance to take. The fact that it's from a base of agnosticism is irrelevent, as that doesn't tell us anything about god, or science.