[Note: Atheism broadly means lack of belief in deities, according to Wikipedia/atheism.]
[Note that Wikipedia/astrology states that astrology may be seen as a “Greek system of planetary Gods”, see also Wikipedia/planets in astrology, which concerns deities. It becomes quite clear here that Modern science having dropped astrology, disregards deities, where Modern Science need not make any positive claims about the in-existence of deities, although Modern Science clearly rejects belief in deities, i.e. Modern Science is inherently atheistic. ]
As a new rule or rather suggestion, I urge responders to include sources/valid citations, as it is quite demonstrable by now that many feelings are intertwined in peoples' responses, devoid of many facts, especially when they avoid providing sources.
Please try to include sources/valid citations that seek to substantiate points, as often as possible.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
If it was, then why are there so many "believers" who are also scientists? Even amongst the elitest of scientists, 6% are still religious believers.
Somewhat quite sarcastic, and "poe"-ful of you, and I addressed religious scientists in point 3 of OP.
And you guessed it. I am very sarcastic. Also wildly optimistic AND pessimistic. Additionally, my bite is worse than my bark.
Whoa, back it up Avant Brown, you are painting an entire profession with a broad brush. I know of legitimate scientists who are theists, and do a very good job at separating their beliefs from their work.
Science is just a process, it is not a philosophy or dogma. Science is not atheistic, nor is it theistic, it is just a process to investigate and explain natural phenomena. Just because some scientific results have contradicted religion, one does not mash it all together to reach the statement that "Modern Science is an atheistic endeavour."
Your thinking and methods in attaching causes to effect is just as muddy and wishy-washy as theists.
You have a knack for only responding to the first bit of my responses. I addressed religious scientists in point 3 of the OP.
Please see wikipedia/atheism, to see how atheism was involved in the scientific revolution.
Why do you think astrology, which concerns deities, was replaced by astronomy, which doesn't concern deities? [See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy]
Astronomy is actually older than astrology.
Even if that's the case, I don't see where I have stated otherwise, and they were once treated as one in the same, but split from each other in the scientific revolution.
@ Avant Brown
"Why do you think astrology, which concerns deities, was replaced by astronomy,"
Only through insinuation. Not intentionally. I was just clarifying.
"Why do you think astrology, which concerns deities, was replaced by astronomy, which doesn't concern deities?"
With the development of the heliocentric model by Nicolaus Copernicus in the 16th century, astrology was proven to be wrong. Because (obviously you don't know shit on this subject and rely on Wiki as a fountain of knowledge) astrology is based on the geocentric model.
And I will address the first bit of your posts because your tactic of first throwing wild and unfounded assertions at the beginning of your post(s) needs to be contained. Throwing a lot of shit at a wall hoping some will stick is a tactic many recognize and understand.
1. Wikipedia contains references, to peer reviewed journals etc, apparently unbeknownst to you.
2. According to Wikipedia/astrology, astrology doesn't stop at being a non-geocentric model per say, as you would seem to prefer above. Wikipedia/astrology states that astrology may be seen as a "Greek system of planetary Gods". It may also help you if you took a look at Wikipedia/planets in astrology.
3. It becomes quite clear here that Modern science having dropped astrology, disregards deities, where Modern Science need not make any positive claims about the in-existence of deities, although rejecting belief in deities.
I do not lean on Wiki. I have always been interested in astrology and have many books on that subject. I get my information from respected figures in that field.
Science can perhaps be seen as the logical end result of animistic thinking.
'Animism encompasses the beliefs that all material phenomena have agency, that there exists no hard and fast distinction between the spiritual and physical (or material) world and that soul or spirit or sentience exists not only in humans, but also in other animals, plants, rocks, geographic features such as mountains or rivers or other entities of the natural environment, including thunder, wind and shadows. Animism thus rejects Cartesian dualism. Animism may further attribute souls to abstract concepts such as words, true names or metaphors in mythology'
I agree with the original poster. All theistic religions were created to provide answers to questions that could not be explained using the science of their day. Because they substitute revealed knowledge and authority for real knowledge, they are inherently opposed to science. There's no authority in science, and all propositions are subject to testing on the basis of objective evidence. Religion is all authority and allows no testing.
Scientists who claim to be believers are deluding themselves and betraying their commitment to the scientific method. They're saying "We don't know. Therefore God," when they should be saying "We don't know, yet."
( ͡Ϙ ͜ʖ ͡o)
That is the case whether or not we choose to believe that. Consider the sequence below:
2. Wikipedia/Age of enlightenment:
3. Wikipedia/natural philosophy:
As is the case of Isaac Newton himself. Wow.. If he could be alive today.
@Avant Brown: As is the case of Isaac Newton himself. Wow.. If he could be alive today.
For all his faults and follies, Newton was a proper scientist. He was honest enough to admit his doubts about the validity of his own theory of gravity, specifically its inability to explain action at a distance.
"That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."
If Isaac Newton were alive today, he'd make Stephen Hawking look like an amateur.
From my perspective, the behavior of atheists is unlike the behavior of most scientists. For example, I've rarely come across the type of skepticism found here. The scientists I know are more optimistic, almost desirous, for there to be more to nature. They have no issues adopting and manipulating the craziest of theories, in the hopes that they might shed some light into the mysteries of existence.
Whatever you mean by a commitment to the scientific method, its important to remember that this method is only a small fraction of what it takes to be a scientist. You need to be philosophically inclined, you need to think about the world abstractly and let go of certainty, you have to be open to the possibility of anything. Open-mindedness is a better scientific trait than skepticism. The most interesting scientists aren't the ones who say "We don't know, yet" its the ones that say "We don't know, but what if?"
Many are even Faustian in nature, exploring things and concepts beyond the strict and narrow physicalist world of science. Sam Harris is an easy example. He is interested in spirituality minus the religion, and tries to bring these concepts back to the narrow world of neuroscience.
It seems you're mistaking creativity, for psuedoscience.
One can be quite creative, pushing the boundaries of scientific knowledge, i.e. advancing scientific knowledge, all still within the scientifically valid realm.
Science remains a model that disregards unfalsifiable sequences, such as deity aligned models, i.e. Science is atheistic. [Where atheism is broadly defined as rejection of belief in deities, as seen on Wikipedia/atheism.This means that Science both reject deity concepts, while not needing to positively claim the inexsitence of Gods.]
What does it mean to be scientifically valid when theories are by their nature proposed when there is partial or absent information? My point was about going beyond science rather than being creative within it. Yet, to even be creative implies thinking outside the box, and beyond the boundaries, not within them.
You probably won't suddenly get up tomorrow to find an entirely new, valid Science lurking around. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Notably, all of this scientific creativity reasonably occurs on the foundations of Science.
These foundations and the scientific paradigm overall, encompass atheistic mannerisms, thereby rejecting deity aligned concepts, as the OP underlines.
Thats applicable to creativity in all things. Rarely do entirely new things emerge on their own; there is typically a breaking and blending of what's already there to create something novel.
A science that rejects anything a priori has ceased to be a science and become a philosophy. Which, I agree does happen, but only because scientists usually follow one school of philosophy or another whether they realize it or not, including religious ones.
That is demonstrably false.
Science rejects unfalsifiable, scientifically unfounded concepts, such as deity concepts. [Wikpedia/falsifiability]
In fact, Wikipedia/falsifiability reports: "Declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientific would then be pseudoscience." You seem to be servicing pseudoscientfic endeavour.
It does so for rather philosophical reasons.
Yet another demonstrably false statement of yours.
Wikipedia/Falsifiability/Methodological rules and falsifying hypotheses:
"Falsifiability corresponds to the empirical notion of reproducible experiments."
Empiricism is a school of philosophy.
"Open-mindedness is a better scientific trait than skepticism."
They're not mutually exclusive, scepticism isn't bias.
"Why is maintaining a skeptical outlook so important? Scepticism helps scientists to remain objective when performing scientific inquiry and research. It forces them to examine claims (their own and those of others) to be certain that there is sufficient evidence to back them up."
" the behavior of atheists is unlike the behavior of most scientists."
Wow, you've spoken to "most atheists"? You do make me laugh John. In the elite National Academy of Sciences atheism is around 93%, that doesn't quite tally with your absurd claim.
"you need to think about the world abstractly and let go of certainty, you have to be open to the possibility of anything."
Are you open to the possibility that no deity or deities exist? Are you saying you are not sure your deity exists?
Avant Brown" "Modern Science is an atheistic endeavor. "
The statement is idiotic at best. The moment you bring something to science that is substantial from religion, scientists are going to be all over it. Science does not give a rat spit ass about religion. It cares about what can be proved. When evidence is given for a god or Gods, scientists will be the first to validate or debunk that evidence. Science is completely neutral.
It is not the fault of scientists divine hiddenness is a characteristic of all gods. It is not the fault of science that apologists are constantly embracing fallacies as evidence for their God. It is not the fault of science that theists make unfounded and un-provable claims.
"Non-atheistic scientists turn off scientific endeavor when analyzing religion.? ?
Congratulations, *CONFETTI FALLING FROM THE SKY - CHAMPAGNE CORKS POPPING - THE MODERATORS OF AR, RUNNING FORWARD WITH A TROPHY IN THEIR HANDS TRIPPING OVER ONE ANOTHER. You have won the idiot comment of the month award!!!
If they are not using science - IT IS NOT SCIENCE. DUH!!!
Go look at some prayer studies and then get back to us. Scientists do evaluate the stupidity of theists all the time.
1. You are also ignoring the History of Science; you ignore that models concerning deities were dropped from modern science in the scientific revolution.
2. Why do you think "astrology/archaic science" [which concerns deities/religious endeavour] was dropped from "modern science/astronomy" [which particularly excludes religious endeavour/deities]? [See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy]
I had long stated in the OP, that Science exists to analyse the truth value of models, including religion, and thereafter Science has demonstrably disregarded deities up until now. If deities suddenly become scientifically valid, then you could somehow begin to try to disregard that Science is atheistic.
However, even if deities somehow become scientifically aligned, Science would still be atheistic, i.e. Science is true regardless of belief, for scientific evidence requires not faith nor belief. Do you have faith in gravitational theory?