Have some scientists been too fanatical?

You, like most here, have a very parochial, that is, American view of this subject.It seems that in the USA the religious arguments are extreme and current. For most of Europe the Religion v Science debate was over years ago. There's very little fuss about it now - although here in the UK there has been a resurgent of the evangelical movement - a US import - which baffles most of us.Most religious people here, if asked, would say that they were Christians but they have the vague kind which blends nicely with modern society - i have never yet met a YEC in the UK though they do exist. The concept that science is somehow incompatible with religion is not widely held so we have no real problem teaching evolution in our schools. (With some exceptions - our growing Muslim communities can be a little problematic and we have our share of cults.)I'm not at all sure why the US hasn't moved with the rest of the Western world given its expenditure on science and technology but the more the religious fight against facts, the more unconvincing it becomes and the less influence it carries. I suspect the extremeness of the arguments are an indication that one side feels its losing.The funny thing is that science isn't even aware that there's a fight - it really couldn't care less what religion believes, it's just getting on with its business of finding out how things work.

Most folks here in the US who reject evolution also reject Europe's countries - they're all a bunch of socialist takers/moochers who are dependent on the state from cradle to grave.Why on earth would they care what they think about science?Good grief!

IMO, the problem that some christians have with science is that it has made God superfluous. We simply don't need God to explain how reality works. Even in matters of ultimate origins with respect to our universe, "God did it" simply falls flat. Science has consistently found natural explanations for what was once described as the province of the supernatural. As Stephen Weinberg puts it in a quote I often use:

quote:

---

"One often hears that there is no conflict between science and religion. For instance, in a review of Johnson's book, Stephen Gould remarks that science and religion do not come into conflict, because `science treats factual reality, while religion treats [sic] human morality.' [Gould, S.J. "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge". Book Review of "Darwin on Trial," by Phillip E. Johnson, Regnery Gateway: Washington, D.C., 1991, Scientific American, July 1992, pp.92-95, pp.94] On most things I tend to agree with Gould, but here I think he goes too far; the meaning of religion is defined by what religious people actually believe, and the great majority of the world's religious people would be surprised to learn that religion has nothing to do with factual reality. But Gould's view is widespread today among scientists and religious liberals. This seems to me to represent an important retreat of religion from positions it once occupied. Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree. Even as late as the nineteenth century the design of plants and animals was regarded as visible evidence of a creator. There are still countless things in nature that we cannot explain, but we think we know the principles that govern the way they work. Today for real mystery one has to look to cosmology and elementary particle physics. For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete." (Weinberg, S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," Pantheon: New York NY, 1992, pp.249-250)

---

At one time in history God was an explanation for . . . well, everything. Now it isn't. Scientific explanations have consistently taken the place of supernatural explanations. Supernatural phenomenon after supernatural phenomenon has been shown to be false, all replaced by nautral explanations. Now we are told that the supernatural is, once again, just over the horizon of our current knowledge. The supernatural can be found at the origin of our universe. Why should we go with a method that has failed so miserably in the past?What I think bothers some christians is that reality ticks on as if God just doesn't exist, and science reminds them of that. No scientific theory or branch of study requires the insertion of God into any equation or mechanism. A reality without God is indistinguishable from the reality we live in. God is superfluous and irrelevant to our view of how the universe works. For those who claim that science does not comment on the supernatural, I would say you are flatly wrong, and the history of science bears this out.

Allow me to add a word or two, and to push you to put on your 19th C mindset:1. The origin of the human species was a natural phenomenon.
2. Therefore, gods do not need to exist.

Yes, it leaves us slighlty puzzled and rather disappointed. Like seeing your child behaving badly at school; we look on rather helplessly and just hope they'll grow out of their juvenile, selfish behaviour.

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.

Yeah, except that they don't do that, do they? They do things like ... write books. Express their opinions. Fanatical stuff like that.The fact is that religious people just have a lower bar for when an atheist should be considered a "fanatic" than they do for their fellow-religious. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I would like to thank all of you for your responses, my goal of this thread was to bring to light the need for civility in discussion. I'm genuinely concerned about how the debate on evolution vs creationism vs intelligent design is represented from civilians and even some leaders from all isles. I'm tired of all the hate speech and view it as a true decline in civilization even in the midst of great discoveries and theories. Sometimes I feel like the general population of unbelievers have taken a "south park" stance on christianity. I mean how is it ok to portray what some people view as the almighty god as a dufus comic figure? These are sensitive topics and could carry weighty or even violent consequences if things get too out of hand.If aethists want god taken out of society, then who will be their moral leaders? 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. I think aethiests are certainly capable of having great moral values without a belief in god if they can respect a person of alternative views.So while scientists may not see their job description as needing to care about hurting people's feelings with their statements, as a human I think it is their responsibilty. We live in a very diverse society and when people stop respecting others views, things can get out of hand pretty quickly. Don't get me wrong, I have seen many videos etc. of so called christians being an embarrassment to the religion so I know it definitely works both ways.Also for what it's worth I applaud you all that have taken care with your words, we all need more people like you.I'm sorry if this came across as arrogent or self righteous, I know I'm guilty at times of speaking before I think.

I'm passionate about what I believe and don't show up with a sign, bomb a building or wear a T-shirt. Also do I really need to give examples of what a fanatical aethiest is capable of?

Here's a case where a woman died unnecessarily because of a stupid ignorant decision by theologians.
'This is a Catholic country': Woman dies of septicaemia after being refused an abortion in Irish hospitalI am accused of being a baby killer, because I believe that a woman should have the right to an abortion to protect her life.And you are complaining about "South Park" depictions of religion.How about a little equivalence. That is one of the false claims that religion makes.You really should go and learn something about how the world works.

I do understand how the world works, do you? Do you not see how popular television shows or radio programs can affect how people think? To say that all religion is bad is ignoring everything good that has come from it. If you want examples then I'm not wasting my time with you. Also, I'm not catholic and I, like you, think that a woman should certainly have the right to an abortian to save her life.

I like this, and you are probably right that I may be just a tad biased towards what I percieve. However I worded it like that because true christians, as I percieve them are taught from the bible which we believe to be God's word that we should love our neighbor. I worded it like that because I believe that the majority of christians also try to live their life like this. If thats not your experience from the town/city you live in then you have my sympathy.

Then you're probably not a fanatic.The point of the picture, which I think you've missed, is that all an atheist needs to do to get labeled as an extremist or a fanatic is do something like saying: "There is no God". It's a very low bar. For a religious person to get labelled an extremist, they have to do something shocking and/or violent --- for an atheist, expressing the opinion that atheists are right is apparently sufficient.So people like Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and Dennett get called "extremists". Why? 'Cos they wrote books, which no-one is obliged to read, suggesting in usually very moderate not to say scholarly language that religion is a bad idea and atheism is a better one.Now if conversely a Christian scholar or apologist or philosopher writes a book saying that Christianity is better than atheism, no-one --- neither you nor I --- labels him an extremist on that account.Even if it's someone Christians disagree with, but is religious, he gets a pass. I suppose there must have been a zillion Muslims who've said that Islam is better than Christianity, but I've never seen a Christian denounce such people as "fanatics" or "extremists". To be an extremist, a Muslim has to blow something up. All an atheist has to do to be an extremist is say that he's right.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But some people's feelings are easily hurt. Where do you draw the line?I guess we could agree that personal civility is a good thing in debates between the religious and the non-religious, but what about statements which various people believe to be statements of fact? Things like: "Atheists will burn in Hell"; or "The deity portrayed in the Old Testament is a wicked monster"; or "Joseph Smith was a fraud" (something we probably both believe unless by some mischance you're a Mormon). Such statements might upset some people (although speaking as an atheist what upsets me about people who tell me that atheists will go to Hell is not that they say it or that they believe it but that many of them seem to enjoy the idea).Well, such statements might hurt people's feelings, but if the speaker believes what he's saying is true, then should he not say it? If, for example, it hurts the feelings of a Mormon for someone to write an accurate biography of Joseph Smith, or of a Scientologist for someone to write an accurate biography of L. Ron Hubbard, should the facts be suppressed for the benefit of Mormons or Scientologists?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It is indeed incredibly, fatuously, footlingly wrong, but is it therefore fanatical? When I read a creationist apologist talking nonsense about (to take a parallel example) the second law of thermodynamics, I don't necessarily condemn him as a fanatic, I just think he has a poor grasp of thermodynamics.---Indeed, the statement is so wrong that I'm not sure Provine said it, or all of it. I have seen some strange things happen to quotations, and it is possible that somehow a gloss has become part of the text.It's one thing for a man who is after all a non-scientist to draw false conclusions from Darwinism --- somewhere in the world this is happening once every second. But it is slightly incredible that a historian should have asserted that Darwin drew the same conclusions. I, a non-historian, knew enough of the history of Darwin's opinions to look up on google and find within ten seconds Darwin's letter to John Fordyce (who was, if memory serves, an atheist): And to Asa Gray (the biologist mentioned in the previous letter, a devout Christian) he wrote: So if Provine really wrote the words "that Charles Darwin understood perfectly", then this argues a singular degree of incompetence at his chosen profession.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.