All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists
4 comments
You've never heard God mentioned at a conference because the religious people are hiding from bigots like you. Plenty of scientists have seen a connection between faith and science and if you can't, it's probably your own fault.
> I have never heard the word “God” mentioned in a scientific meeting. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature
The second part is key here. Whatever connection 'plenty of scientists' see between faith and science, it has no place at a scientific conference. That aside, calling someone a bigot or some other label in order to distract from the actual topic at hand is hardly productive. Like he says at the end:
> If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.
The second part is key here. Whatever connection 'plenty of scientists' see between faith and science, it has no place at a scientific conference. That aside, calling someone a bigot or some other label in order to distract from the actual topic at hand is hardly productive. Like he says at the end:
> If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.
> Whatever connection 'plenty of scientists' see between faith and science, it has no place at a scientific conference.
I'm assuming that you mean that non-science has no place at a science conference. Scientists who see a connection between faith and science will see that as science, which is why it's as important to them as a type of protein folding or particle decay might be to someone else.
I'm assuming that you mean that non-science has no place at a science conference. Scientists who see a connection between faith and science will see that as science, which is why it's as important to them as a type of protein folding or particle decay might be to someone else.
Scientists who see a connection between faith and science will see that as science
Only if such a connection is documentable, predictable, hypothesizable, and reproduceable. Calling anything else "science" is diluting the word.
(apologies to string theorists: https://xkcd.com/171/ )
Only if such a connection is documentable, predictable, hypothesizable, and reproduceable. Calling anything else "science" is diluting the word.
(apologies to string theorists: https://xkcd.com/171/ )
Scientists still talk about food, art, ethics, and so on. They just avoid talking about religion.
> You've never heard God mentioned at a conference because the religious people are hiding from bigots like you.
They probably should. Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is. If you can apply one set of rules to determine, say, the efficacy of some new drug undergoing testing, but another set of rules to how you believe the universe works, then you don't really understand either.
They probably should. Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is. If you can apply one set of rules to determine, say, the efficacy of some new drug undergoing testing, but another set of rules to how you believe the universe works, then you don't really understand either.
> Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is.
No, it doesn't. (I would argue that that statement betrays a misunderstanding of what science -- or religious belief -- is.)
There's no fundamental conflict between science and religious belief, even in principle. There can be a conflict between science and particular religious beliefs, and a conflict between a quasi-religious scientism and other religious belief, but that's a different thing.
No, it doesn't. (I would argue that that statement betrays a misunderstanding of what science -- or religious belief -- is.)
There's no fundamental conflict between science and religious belief, even in principle. There can be a conflict between science and particular religious beliefs, and a conflict between a quasi-religious scientism and other religious belief, but that's a different thing.
Unless you've redefined religion such that it does not require, on some level, belief in supernatural phenomena, yes there is a conflict, in principle. There is no room in science for supernatural events that have a cause and effect relationship with events in the natural world.
> Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is.
Can you go into more detail about what this means?
Can you go into more detail about what this means?
If you are religious, then you either think that religion is a valid alternative to science for certain problems, or that testable predictions are not important in some domains.
Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important. All else being equal, good scientists will possess neither of these qualities.
Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important. All else being equal, good scientists will possess neither of these qualities.
> If you are religious, then you either think that religion is a valid alternative to science for certain problems, or that testable predictions are not important in some domains.
Testable predictions aren't even applicable in some domains. (e.g., fundamental moral principles.) Science can tell you whether certain actions fulfill a given set of moral principles, but it only answers "is" questions, and not fundamental "ought" questions. (It can sometimes answer derivative "ought" questions once you use some other means to select the answers to fundamental "ought" questions.)
> Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important.
Or, you think that there are things worth considering besides the mechanics of how our world works. Certainly, some take the view that this is the only class of thing worth considering but this view is, itself, a quasi-religious and not-scientific view (and, as it is not a view about how the world works, somewhat self-inconsistent to hold in any case.)
Testable predictions aren't even applicable in some domains. (e.g., fundamental moral principles.) Science can tell you whether certain actions fulfill a given set of moral principles, but it only answers "is" questions, and not fundamental "ought" questions. (It can sometimes answer derivative "ought" questions once you use some other means to select the answers to fundamental "ought" questions.)
> Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important.
Or, you think that there are things worth considering besides the mechanics of how our world works. Certainly, some take the view that this is the only class of thing worth considering but this view is, itself, a quasi-religious and not-scientific view (and, as it is not a view about how the world works, somewhat self-inconsistent to hold in any case.)
I guess I wasn't clear enough, but considering the topic of this thread, when I wrote "certain problems" I was referring to statements about the natural world. That is, the sort of stuff you would talk about at any scientific conference.
You are correct that "ought" questions are not scientific in nature, but that's because they are not statements about the natural world. Moral principles will be rooted in your biology and your culture, and if your culture includes religion that will be reflected in your beliefs, but that certainly doesn't validate your religion. Of course, how your religion came to have those values in the first place is in the domain of science (anthropology).
You are correct that "ought" questions are not scientific in nature, but that's because they are not statements about the natural world. Moral principles will be rooted in your biology and your culture, and if your culture includes religion that will be reflected in your beliefs, but that certainly doesn't validate your religion. Of course, how your religion came to have those values in the first place is in the domain of science (anthropology).
Yes, and by the same account, a good scientist shouldn't be a moral realist.
Science only has bearing on testable, repeatable hypotheses. History, for example, isn't science even though it tries to deal in objective truth. "Testable predictions" aren't everything.
To the extent that history is the organization and interpretation of known past events, no it is not science. But, neither does it need to be, since it is not factual discovery - it is not dealing in objective truth, rather cataloging known truths. However, the part of historical study that concerns itself with gaining knowledge about the past is absolutely science, and it can and should make testable predictions. If you read historical accounts of Mongolian invasions of Eastern Europe, you might expect and predict that Eastern Europeans would have a genetic heritage that is partially shared with present-day Mongolian people - and indeed that turns out to be the case. If they didn't, we would have reason to believe the historical accounts are exaggerated or even false.
In other words, "history" might not be science depending on your definition, but anthropology certainly is.
Any statement you make about reality, or a model for reality, should have a consequence in anticipated experiences. If it doesn't, you haven't gained any knowledge.
In other words, "history" might not be science depending on your definition, but anthropology certainly is.
Any statement you make about reality, or a model for reality, should have a consequence in anticipated experiences. If it doesn't, you haven't gained any knowledge.
What betrays the rejection of science even more, is making blanket statements or taking strong standpoints, especially on controversial topics. It betrays a propensity for scientists to ignore evidence, or to frame conclusions and experiments to fit their preconceived notions. I would include strong support of religious viewpoints, athiesm and even global warming under this rule.
Once politics or agendas get involved, then science takes a back seat to convincing others that you are right.
Once politics or agendas get involved, then science takes a back seat to convincing others that you are right.
> What betrays the rejection of science even more, is making blanket statements or taking strong standpoints, especially on controversial topics.
The controversy-value of a statement has no bearing on its truth-value, and to think so is deeply unscientific. Belief in the supernatural is unscientific by definition: once something crosses into the natural realm it comes under the dominion of science. In the meantime, God will not pop into existence if enough people believe in him. Even if I am so persuasive that I can convince every living physicist that I'm immune to the laws of gravity, when I jump off a tall enough bridge I will still plummet to my death. If the fate of our species should we continue on the path we're on, is the collapse of our civilization and binding to this one planet until our eventual extinction, then that is what will happen regardless of whatever clever arguments against climate change you can conjure up. The combined willpower of every living human being could not so much as change the spin of a single electron. The universe is indifferent, and it is hard to overstate just how dangerous it is to ignore this basic fact.
Moreover, taking a strong standpoint is absolutely justified based on the strength of the evidence. To do otherwise implies that the evidence is not so strong. And again, controversy-value has no bearing on this, either.
The controversy-value of a statement has no bearing on its truth-value, and to think so is deeply unscientific. Belief in the supernatural is unscientific by definition: once something crosses into the natural realm it comes under the dominion of science. In the meantime, God will not pop into existence if enough people believe in him. Even if I am so persuasive that I can convince every living physicist that I'm immune to the laws of gravity, when I jump off a tall enough bridge I will still plummet to my death. If the fate of our species should we continue on the path we're on, is the collapse of our civilization and binding to this one planet until our eventual extinction, then that is what will happen regardless of whatever clever arguments against climate change you can conjure up. The combined willpower of every living human being could not so much as change the spin of a single electron. The universe is indifferent, and it is hard to overstate just how dangerous it is to ignore this basic fact.
Moreover, taking a strong standpoint is absolutely justified based on the strength of the evidence. To do otherwise implies that the evidence is not so strong. And again, controversy-value has no bearing on this, either.
I judge the religiosity of the scientist by the field they're in.
Social sciences and economics get more leeway than say...physics or chemistry. Then you have a few in the middle like biology or math.
Social sciences and economics get more leeway than say...physics or chemistry. Then you have a few in the middle like biology or math.
Ad hominem arguments are of course irrelevant. A person's work should be judged on its merits.
This person seems like they are unwilling to accept a different idea of how religion and science could be connected than the one he's come up with (essentially, that our universe exists in a test tube and a God interfering is bound to the same laws that we observe ourselves to be). This whole article deserves a "citation needed" marking.
Can you offer up some examples where religious "reasoning" directly improved our understanding of the world?
To suggest that "Planned Parenthood provides fetal tissue samples from abortions to scientific researchers" is even remotely true is, well, sad. I saw the videos. That's some sick stuff. If this is one of your arguments for objective science, then count me out.
True, he seems to be displaying the same characteristics he criticizes religious folks for by assuming the values and beliefs he derives from his culture are self-evident.
[deleted]
What if self-described militant atheists like Krauss took their atheism seriously and considered fundamental values, whether they come from a sincere belief in a deity or not, to be essentially the same, since they basically are if there's in fact no God? They would have to look closer at values and see if there was perhaps a social or personal utility to having certain types of values. Study them, and figure out what makes certain values work well and which ones implode. Create some kind of explanatory model of values. If you will, come up with a "scientific" way of analyzing values. One might even put some effort into examining value systems for consistency, figure out if they have side-effects or study what types of outcomes they optimize for, and make a good one for the outcome you desire. Just don't tell Krauss that this is what philosophy does, because he thinks philosophy is dumb and a waste of time.