Scientific fundamentalism

[Avi]

The result is that in combating the Creationist arguments, he's turned reductionism into a belief system in itself.

Can you provide an example?

I think that atheists do a pretty go job of debunking creationism. Scientifically, it is pretty easy to do.

Where I think atheism falls short is understanding the historic strengths of religion, for example, providing excellent ethical and moral lessons for many people.

Can we coin a new name for CZ, "atheistic-fundamentalist" ? And here he is again, being fed by his political role model :

 

[juantoo3]

What human endeavor avoids the pitfalls of political and/or emotional interference?

Like Avi pointed out, the first page of the science 101 text in one form or other claims that science is dispassionate and unbiased. In a perfect world it is. You are right, we do not live in a perfect world so there are influences that try to creep in. What I have been trying to get across is that we have to watch for these things and try to account for them rather than absorbing them without question.

Science claims to be the only human endeavor that avoids the pitfalls of politics and emotion, but that is not a given assumption.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Juan

Ahhhhh cool... see you did not need any references at all!! What was getting under your skin was not science, or the use of it in discussions, but the "pseudo-intellectual" discourse of an apparently dogmatic flavour. Well sorry Juan, I have tried to impose artificial constraints on my writing style, truly I have, but they just do not work. And as for being pseudo-intellectual....well guilty as charged.... I have never claimed anything else though...so its a bit of a hollow gripe. I am just a guy who likes looking and thinking and putting down the results here. If you want bona-fide intellectual quality debate there are others here that can supply.

Nice rant though.... loved it

 

[earl]

CZ, I can't figure out whether you are disagreeing with myself or Earl here . But I do like your emoticon !

My point about scientific fundamentalism was related to the validity of the assumptions (i.e. boundary conditions). I did not say anything about scientific data's role in proof of propositions.

But since you ask, you cannot simply connect scientific data with proof in an absolute sense. That is because of uncertainty in experimental data. One can only speak of proof within specific levels of uncertainty. The scientific fundamentalist would not recognize the significance of uncertainty, and try to make sweeping claims of absolutes. I reject this notion. I am in the "reform scientific" movement.

Yes my point is exactly yours here Avi, but CZ went a little nuts didn't he? His post to which you responded is another of those examples I meant when I said some of his posts would be better left to visuals without so much verbal commentary when all they are are personal attacks without much foundation or merit. earl

 

[juantoo3]

Can we coin a new name for CZ, "atheistic-fundamentalist" ? And here he is again, being fed by his political role model :

LOL.

Now Avi, play nice.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Where I think atheism falls short is understanding the historic strengths of religion, for example, providing excellent ethical and moral lessons for many people.

That is one of the most annoying red herrings I see bandied about. Morality and ethics exist independent of any religion.

 

[juantoo3]

That is one of the most annoying red herrings I see bandied about. Morality and ethics exist independent of any religion.

Alright...let's see what you are talking about. After the ribbing you gave me you can't possibly expect me to take this at face value? Can you support this assertion with anything more than opinion?

Let's keep this among humans. Animal ethics doesn't really qualify...unless you think it's OK to eat your children?

 

[Avi]

Yes my point is exactly yours here Avi, but CZ went a little nuts didn't he? His post to which you responded is another of those examples I meant when I said some of his posts would be better left to visuals without so much verbal commentary when all they are are personal attacks without much foundation or merit. earl

CZ's heart is in the right place . But we need to keep him on track or he tends to veer toward his more simian instincts

 

[Avi]

That is one of the most annoying red herrings I see bandied about. Morality and ethics exist independent of any religion.

First reference I could find to atheism is 5th cent. BC. So that is the earliest they could have thought about ethics and morality. By that time all the worlds great religions had already "been there and done that".

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious".

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[juantoo3]

First reference I could find to atheism is 5th cent. BC. So that is the earliest they could have thought about ethics and morality. By that time all the worlds great religions had already "been there and done that".

Psst: gotta be careful with "absolute" language, unless you mean to dismiss Christianity and Islam and perhaps other, later religions? Were it not for Islam, all of that magnificent Greek thought we so take for granted now in the west would be lost to the wind (and ravages of war, and indifference, and Catholic imposed ignorance). In that sense, modern atheism owes a debt of gratitude to Islamic intellectuals during the Dark Ages of Europe.

References on request.

 

[Avi]

Psst: gotta be careful with "absolute" language, unless you mean to dismiss Christianity and Islam and perhaps other, later religions? Were it not for Islam, all of that magnificent Greek thought we so take for granted now in the west would be lost to the wind (and ravages of war, and indifference, and Catholic imposed ignorance). In that sense, modern atheism owes a debt of gratitude to Islamic intellectuals during the Dark Ages of Europe.

References on request.

Juan, thanks for correcting me, and also before someone else does, I know about Hammurabi's Code and also just because atheism started 5th cent. BC it does not mean there were not atheists before that.

My point was that the early religions played an important role in developing foundational ethical and moral concepts, many of them written in scriptures.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Alright...let's see what you are talking about. After the ribbing you gave me you can't possibly expect me to take this at face value? Can you support this assertion with anything more than opinion?

Let's keep this among humans. Animal ethics doesn't really qualify...unless you think it's OK to eat your children?

People have often resorted to eating their own children. Recently in N.Korea and twice in Russia under Stalin for example. When the going gets tough people do eat their children, no matter the fairytales they recite in easier times.
As for my assertion I have supported it often here on other threads and will not let you define narrow parameters and demand I spend lots of time derailing the thread for you. Much easier and would demonstrate your integrity if you were simply to demonstrate my assertion untrue. But you cannot. Can you?

My point was that the early religions played an important role in developing foundational ethical and moral concepts, many of them written in scriptures.

Developing? Or were they merely incorporating (stealing) what is part of our collective evolutionary heritage from being social animals? You claim for religion what is observed in other species so I seriously doubt its validity.

 

[juantoo3]

People have often resorted to eating their own children. Recently in N.Korea and twice in Russia under Stalin for example. When the going gets tough people do eat their children, no matter the fairytales they recite in easier times.
As for my assertion I have supported it often here on other threads and will not let you define narrow parameters and demand I spend lots of time derailing the thread for you. Much easier and would demonstrate your integrity if you were simply to demonstrate my assertion untrue. But you cannot. Can you?

What the f...?

I can't prove the moon is made of cheese either.

I didn't make the assertion, you did. It is up to you to back it up. Else it is opinion...otherwise known as drivel. Both of which are inadmissable in a court of law, or a scientific statement.

 

[Tao_Equus]

What the f...?

I can't prove the moon is made of cheese either.

I didn't make the assertion, you did. It is up to you to back it up. Otherwise it is opinion...otherwise known as drivel.

You, as ever, are entitled to your opinion. I did not ask you to prove, merely to demonstrate. You know I have covered this at length on other threads, my opinions are no secret... so Juan it is indeed in your court.

 

[juantoo3]

I missed that class, enlighten me.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I missed that class, enlighten me.

I get it... you are trying to be as obnoxious as I can be. Well done. You are succeeding.

 

[juantoo3]

You so missed the point. Obnoxiousness has nothing to do with scientific validity.

I've done my 12 hours for today. I'll pick this up next time. In the meantime your asssertion that morality and ethics exist independent from religion is so far unfounded.

Toodles!

 

[citizenzen]

CZ, I can't figure out whether you are disagreeing with myself or Earl here . But I do like your emoticon !

Yes my point is exactly yours here Avi, but CZ went a little nuts didn't he? His post to which you responded is another of those examples I meant when I said some of his posts would be better left to visuals without so much verbal commentary when all they are are personal attacks without much foundation or merit. earl

Since you two seem to have a difficult time understanding my point, I decided to give you a little refresher course on what's been discussed in this thread. Let's begin with Earl's description of the kind of scientific fundamentalism that makes his knees wobbly...

I am leary of anyone who would claim any scientific data as ultimately meaning any proposition is absolutely true or untrue if the data cannot confirm that. But blind you are my friend or should I say "well filtered" from within the meme you say you do not possess. earl

Part of my response included the question...

"Who here (besides Avi) claimed that scientific data has proved a proposition absolutely true or untrue?"​

I including Avi because he and I spent many posts debating the degree that Isaac Newton understood gravity. My position was that while Newton could measure its effect, he did not know the cause of the effect he was measuring. Avi, on the other hand, claimed Newton knew exactly what gravity was...

CZ, if you think Newton did not know exactly what gravity was, I have only one final comment on the matter :

1/2 mv**2=mgh

Sometimes physicists can explain ideas better in equations than they can in words

Avi, was taking the fundamentalist stance here equating a measurement as complete knowledge. He refused to waver from this stance even after I quoted Isaac Newton's own words as to how he didn't understand the force behind the effect.

Here is Avi again in an earlier post...

Newton knew how and why.

and again...

Newton knew how an object falls. Newton also know exactly why it falls.

There's that pesky absolutist word "exactly" again. And later in that same post...

Today we know what gravity is. Gravity is the curvature of space / time within the field of massive objects. So gravity is well understood as an isolated force.

So you see Earl, when you were looking for an example of scientific fundamentalist attitude that is why I offered up Avi as an example. Ironically, Avi later contradicts his own statements in this post...

My point about scientific fundamentalism was related to the validity of the assumptions (i.e. boundary conditions). I did not say anything about scientific data's role in proof of propositions.

But since you ask, you cannot simply connect scientific data with proof in an absolute sense. That is because of uncertainty in experimental data. One can only speak of proof within specific levels of uncertainty. The scientific fundamentalist would not recognize the significance of uncertainty, and try to make sweeping claims of absolutes. I reject this notion. I am in the "reform scientific" movement.

But I have to ask, where was the uncertainty in his previous posts? Why did Avi not recognize the significance of uncertainty and make the sweeping statements in his posts? While he claims to be in the reform scientific movement, his own absolute claims belie this notion.

I understand that it was difficult for you two to grasp these contradictions. Sometimes it takes a simian mind to see the forest for the trees.

 

[Avi]

(just testing some new graphics CZ !! )

 

[seattlegal]

Avi, what is the speed of gravity?