Have some scientists been too fanatical?

Isn't he more of a historian than a scientist? He seems mostly focussed on the history of science, but that doesn't make him a scientist, surely?

Hi! I am an atheist. I apologize for the length, but your post was rather excellent and I felt the desire to address as much as I could. There have been far too many wise theists for me to make such a hasty generalization. I agree. There has been a growing opinion that christianity should not be free of the same kind of criticism that political and scientific ideas receive. Many Christians view this overt unashamed criticism as 'lashing out' very readily. For instance this was deemed too controversial.Perhaps you could find some examples of this 'lashing out' so that I can see what you are talking about better. Is it like the way Jessica Ahlquist's community lashed out at her for having the audacity to ask her school to obey the law? Or Damon Fowler? Or is it just discussing a topic without holding it in the same reverence as you do? Again, examples might be useful. A lot of the time, scientists say things which are dismissed as 'opinions' when in fact they're not. For instance you lump 'opinions or theories' together as if they were remotely comparable. I don't think that's entirely fair. Theories aren't opinions. If you want to devalue theories while retaining an understanding of them, you might prefer 'guess' or the ever popular 'conjecture', rather than 'opinion'. Because in a sense, they start out as guesses. But there is comparisons with evidence that have taken place before it gets much in the way of support. People tried putting it gently, without causing much fuss. And they got ignored. Meanwhile, unscientific notions were getting put into school classrooms, 'God' was being inserted into pledges, money and crosses and commandments were displayed on government property. And children were being neglected to death because of a legal exemption in the case of the duty of a parent of a specific religion in times of a health crisis.I don't see why scientists should treat the matter with kid gloves if they should choose not to. They are after all, free. Why should they be burdened with this responsibility to be kind to the religious? When has scientists being delicate to religious sentiments ever benefited humanity in the past? Surely, since religion was friendly with science until they started disagreeing, it's religion's duty to make amends and start playing nice. Then, when science has accepted the apology maybe then we'll see a nicer more polite discourse.I'm kind of kidding, of course - but also slightly serious. The problem as highlighted above, is that simply saying that god doesn't exist is seen as outrageously militant or extreme - so to what benefit to atheists to start stepping on eggshells? And especially consider this: Many recent deconverts report that vocal and unavoidable criticism (coupled sometimes with the disappointing response from religious leaders to those criticisms) are key to their losing their religion. It seems inevitable that the vocal criticisms will continue - it seems to be working.I say that the level of discourse that is generally permitted when criticising communism should apply to theism. Would you agree? And political debates can become quite heated, and it often gets unkind. I, of course, disagree with your perception of speculation. It's what the maths says. It's what the evidence shows. What need to speculate? There is speculation over some details, but the broad picture is an inescapable conclusion. I don't think the present fashion amongst scientists is to believe that the singularity is real, it's just like any other singularity in the mathematics of physics, it just shows the incompleteness of our model. As any physicist will tell you, what happened before a certain point is unknown, the maths predicts a singularity - but isn't that just nonsense? Is the maths useful for the big picture, but it gets some of the fine detail wrong? Quite likely - hence quantum physics, and the long time search to marry it with relativity. I hear this a lot, but in my experience of talking with theists there are multiple points upon which they exercise a certain degree of 'blind faith'. One example might be the virgin birth. As a Christian you are quite likely to believe that Mary was a virgin.But based on what? Matthew's word? But who is Matthew? We don't know. He probably wasn't called Matthew, that much we do know, and along with some approximate times, that's about it. And he seemed to be about long after Jesus existed. By an author keen to show Jesus fulfils prophecy. Who wrote in a language other than that which would have been spoken in the accounts as written. Without access to the original writing (just copies of copies of copies).Now - if someone wrote an email to me and told me I could take a slice of a nice bit of a Nigerian bank account if I'd facilitate the moving of the money through my own account - I'd have to take his story on blind faith or disbelieve it.So why believe Matthew? I can only see the same kind of blind faith in my Nigerian Attorney being at work to describe it. Indeed, at least I have the Nigerian Attorney's email address. Philosophy is the search for truth and wisdom. Part of that process is the acquisition of knowledge. The scientific method is the method of choice in acquiring knowledge. Scientists are doing philosophy all the time. Rationalism, empiricism, verificationism, induction, abduction, deduction and so on and so forth.I always support people in their endeavour to become more philosophically astute. Why? Are they holding signs? Are they threatening to torture anyone? Are they strongly implying that someone might torture them if they disagree?Other than the fact that they are passionate (which is a good thing), and vocal (which is their right), where are the similarities? No. There are probably examples of scientists who have embarrassed themselves with their handling of their opinions. Francis Crick springs to mind, but I have the faint memory of some other fiascos in the past.

Hi again,
You seem to be getting lots of replies. I hope that you take that as a complement, and you don't feel like you're being ganged up on or anything. I understand, but do you have examples of things which concern you from the evolution side of the aisle? Specifically from 'leaders', the civvies are so large a group there is bound to be considerable unpleasantness. There's some here. Hate speech?

quote:

---

communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic

---

Maybe there's some of that going around, but you make it sound like its endemic in the discourse. Could you show us what you mean? Ridicule is an accepted method in discourse in the endeavour of changing minds. I agree it can be overused, as its one of the easiest tools to employ (but doing it well is tricky). The best defence against it is to hold views that are not ridiculous. Then the arrows and slings kind of fall flat. Why should they be sensitive though? What gives them power of other ideas and beliefs that we should treat them with care? We're grown ups for crying out loud. We're going to be exposed to ideas we don't agree with, that offend us, that anger us. That's because we are free to express our opinions (with certain caveats such as incitement) What right do the religious have for trying to insist we leave their religious beliefs out of this?It seems to me that some people, such as yourself, believe that religious ideas can't stand up to the criticism. If so, good riddance, surely? Whoever can lead them morally. Their favourite philosopher, or a combination. A contemporary essayist. You know, it's not like there are any atheists that can dictate to the rest of them who they should follow. But they're of course free to voice their opinions as to who should be considered a 'moral leader', if even moral leaders are desired. This presupposes that christianity is sanity But let's look at this closely, has Christianity helped keep anyone sane? I know some people claim to have had their sanity saved through Christ, but on the other hand, what has Christianity done for schizophrenics? I don't think it has helped particularly there. One of the symptoms of psychosis is 'magical/supersitious thinking', so it seems that Christianity would only give the seriously ill a community supported set of delusions, along with some arbitrary set of additional delusions that may or may not turn out to be a dangerous combination.And if it really did help the mentally ill, or potentially mentally ill - what is it that it is doing that does this? Is it merely a close community? Is it structured weekends? Is it 'spiritual talk'? Songs? The beliefs themselves? Christ? There's a lot of work to be done on this before you can be clear it comes out how you want it to. And if it turns out to be something mundane that helps the mentally ill - then it just requires a secular institution to adopt that practice. Well - I've heard that story a million times - but I've only seen evidence of it a small number of times.My own behaviour was quite inconsiderate with moderate violence until I was introduced to Kant, John Stuart Mill et al. So maybe all you're seeing here is that when people are given some sort of formal moral tutoring they improve their behaviour. And your seeing it with Christians because that's who you hang around with. Is that conditional? They have to respect a person of alternative views or else they don't have great moral values? Does it have to be all people? I mean there are plenty of people with alternative views to me that I have nothing but disrespect for. On the other hand there are some Christians and Muslims I do respect. And as a human, I think that one shouldn't deliberately set out to hurt someone's feelings - but you shouldn't cease to express your opinions - even if it means someone somewhere might be upset by them. Because when Christian scientists say things like 'science proves the afterlife' or something, I get a little upset (because I see it as an untruth, because it is ). But I don't think they should be prohibited from saying it.And there are lots of Christian scientists. Stand as a politician for the communist party in Mississippi.See how polite the discourse is.I bet its considerably ruder than 'God does not exist', 'When you're dead, you're dead', 'You don't God to be moral', 'The belief in God is a false one, that is difficult to remove upon examination of evidence, and it is thus a delusion' In this case, I'm glad you committed to posting it. I can see this from a Christian point of view: Church attendence is decreasing, with increasing numbers going to megachurches, large an frightening number of young atheists, having been teenagers at the release of the God Delusion, they now find themselves surrounded by religion and they're young and passionate and you can't keep the rascals quiet. Then, all those priveleges the Christians have grown used to, prayers at government meetings, staff directed prayers at school, the safety you feel that the guy you just met is surely a Christian too, all of it is being eaten away by an increasingly active secular movement, spearheaded by atheists.It must feel like you are under attack. I get that. The thing is, you (as a group) are. And you are no longer winning every battle. Indeed, some high profile battles have been lost. You still win silent victories. How many more schools are there out there that have institutional prayer? Probably quite a lot.The Christians are still winning, though. So take heart. That said, despite some extreme efforts, the religious seem to be losing the young. And in the long term, that's a losing strategy (as Christians have long known *cough Sunday-School cough prayer-in-public-schools cough bible-camp*)You want the war to end? I can say that hostilities will be greatly reduced when you finally separate church and state. When atheists are not harassed and bullied. When being an atheist is equally as acceptable as being a Christian. The problem is, I think the social momentum will carry the movement onwards possibly to the point where Christians become a reviled minority. Sorry about that (though Christianity, on the whole deserves that fate given its horrid history), but that's human nature - and no amount of pleading will change that I'm afraid.

Thank you. There is a much less contentious war of a similar nature in the UK. Secularism has won for the most part - but there are still bishops that have the right to set in our legislative houses and vote on pending legislation. Right and Saddam promoted women's education, Hitler fixed the economy, much of NAMBLA's membership probably pay their taxes on time, communists have struggled for worker's rights...I'm not saying Christianity is equivalent to those things, just that your argument in their defence is. I've never said that all of Christianity is as horrid as many people claim. Though Christianity on the whole, in practice, has been problematic. Just because some Christians at some times have been unjustly persecuted, does not defend Christianity as a whole. Those Christians that acquire power are often corrupted by it, and use their power to influence politics, education, social matters, health and probably other areas too. And there are many Christian politicians (disproportionally so - according their stated positions), educators, doctors etc., so Christianity has considerable power at its disposal. And it gets abused.If these abuses of power didn't take place, you'd find that atheists would be less pissed off at Christianity. Christians often ask why atheists seem to attack Christianity, but almost seem to defend Islam. That's not exactly what happens, but what you are seeing is a reaction to the power of Christianity over the lives of the speakers and their kin. If Islam had as much power as Christianity in the USA you'd see that being criticised (unless strict Blasphemy laws got passed, which they probably would, then there maybe less people willing to speak out)If Christians are willing to acknowledge that they are The Man, the religious/philosophical position that has sufficient power to write and vote for legislation or other policies in its favour, and then compensate and avoid such abuses, we'd see less vocal atheism or at least less anti-Christianism, I'm sure.But Christians aren't completely unique. Atheists and skeptics go after Islam when appropriate (esp, but not only, in cases where the Muslims in question have power), homeopathy, chiropracty, bigfoot believers, UFOlogists I agree there are many Christians who try to be good people (and sometimes succeed). I would claim that they can also try to be good people without Christianity. That atheists can start, or fund, charity. Why?You live in a country that is predominated by Christians, so the chances are most people you hang out with are Christians. And you are a Christian, so it's reasonable to conclude that you probably are part of a Christian community. Furthermore you highlighted christians who used to be violent and reckless, which strongly suggests you haven't met many non-believers with the same story. Finally, if your location details are accurate, you live in a small town. If my demographic knowledge is right, its likely to be more Christian than America as a whole and certainly would be expected to be less 'nonbeliever'-friendly. Though Michigan as a whole has a pretty significant non-religious contingent.So I didn't assume automatically. I made a reasonable evidence based conclusion. Such conclusions can still be wrong, of course. You kind of did imply it. You said:

quote:

---

Hate it or love it, christianity HAS kept many people sane. I've met people that have been violent and reckless who found Jesus and are now self controlled.

---

Which definitely implies that Christianity/Jesus are special in some way with regards to learning discipline or staying sane.