Have some scientists been too fanatical?

Hi, sinamatic.First, let's consider the definition of fanatic:

quote:

---

Definition of FANATIC: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion

​

Origin of FANATIC: Latin fanaticus inspired by a deity, frenzied, from fanum temple

---

I sympathize with the weariness with which religious folks must confront the "fanatic" charge. As the etymology of the word shows, its very roots are found in the history of religion. Certainly, not all religious people are fanatics as the word is commonly understood.Yet religious conviction hinges on faith, essentially a belief that is not dependent upon proof, but is instead founded in individual, internal experience. One cannot prove one's faith anymore than one can prove the superiority of the flavor of chocolate over strawberry--the ground of faith, like the ground of taste, is inherently not replicable: we may agree that chocolate is the superior flavor, but our individual experience of chocolate cannot be recreated on the palate of another. You cannot show me or impart to me your experience of chocolate in order to demonstrate its superiority.Science, in contrast, hinges crucially on the replicability of evidence. It is not enough to believe or proclaim that you have achieved cold fusion in the lab: I must be able to replicate your results by using your recipe (can you tell I'm hungry ). If the evidence for cold fusion can only be generated in your lab--and fails to materialize in a dozen other labs--then you have failed to demonstrate the soundness of your findings.In other words, that which characterizes the essence of religious belief--the internal, individual experience--places it outside the operating theater of science.Similarly, the central characteristic of fanaticism--an uncritical zeal--contradicts foundational principles of science. Critical reasoning, the questioning of assumptions and the close examination of evidence to determine what is true, leaves no room for zealotry. Indeed, the disciplined scientist must suspect her own enthusiasms most, because our minds readily fall prey to confirmation bias, the tendency to embrace those things which support our ideas while turning a blind eye to those things which contradict them. Science, well practiced, includes protocols, methodological rules, to help avoid this and other pitfalls."Well practiced"--aye, there's the rub!Scientists are human, fallible creatures, subject to enthusiasms and blind spots despite the cautionary tales of history. There are examples of deceit in the history of science, but self-deceit is much more common, in part because scientists are remarkably critical: presenting new findings or theories to the world is akin to tossing red meat to a pack of hungry wolves (still hungry!). Perhaps the luggage ad showing a gorilla trying to smash a suitcase is a better analogy: few non-scientists will ever face a horde of highly intelligent, highly trained peers who are all intent on finding the weaknesses in their ideas.If there is authentic zeal in science, this is where you will find it.Like other posters who have already replied, I'd say that a scientist who declares, citing the authority of science, that there definitely is no God or that there cannot be a God, is abusing science for a personal, philosophical agenda. At most, science can authoritatively say that we have yet to find natural phenomena that cannot be explained by naturalistic causes. We need not resort to theology to explain anything amenable to scientific investigation.So I'd say there are certainly people who are fanatically anti-religious, and some of them are scientists. Some of them are butchers, bakers or candlestick makers.Now, a few quibbles. Your post is essentially a rephrasing of an old accusation made by the religious minded against the science minded: your faith in science is no different from my faith in God. You believe just like I believe, just in different things.But as I pointed out above, science relies on critically examined evidence. To have confidence that something is true based on the best evidence bears little resemblance to a certainty based on a belief derived from internal, subjective experience. I don't say that to deride internal experiences, merely to emphasize that a spiritual certainty exists in a separate realm from an evidence-based conclusion. So you can see that a scientist accused of relying on a "blind faith" for her conclusions can find the comparison offensive.Finally, I can see that you have made a sincere effort to ask your questions in a fair-minded manner.However, consider this: To balance that perspective, you say: On one side, you assert certain and automatic hatred and stereotyping of you as a fool for your religious beliefs; on the other, you grant the possibility that some people might hate and stereotype you if you professed atheism.As an atheist, let me hasten to assure you that professing atheism will earn you hatred and stereotyping quite as automatic as that which you expect for your professions of faith.I don't take this as a sign of dishonesty on your part--but I would cite it as an example of the almost inescapable biases, each invisible to she who has them, through which we all must struggle to find the truth, atheist and believer alike.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.