All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists

by mightybyte • 11 years ago

6 24 11 years ago

sp3324• 11 years ago

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.

NN88• 11 years ago

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.

sp3324• 11 years ago

Ad hominem arguments are of course irrelevant. A person's work should be judged on its merits.

unmole• 11 years ago

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.

PascLeRasc3• 11 years ago

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.

sp3324• 11 years ago

Scientists still talk about food, art, ethics, and so on. They just avoid talking about religion.

deciplex7• 11 years ago

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.

PascLeRasc3• 11 years ago

Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is.

Can you go into more detail about what this means?

_nedR• 11 years ago

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.

dragonwriter2• 11 years ago

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.

PascLeRasc3• 11 years ago

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.

deciplex7• 11 years ago

Can you offer up some examples where religious "reasoning" directly improved our understanding of the world?

anoncoder• 11 years ago

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.

jdarais• 11 years ago

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.

A_COMPUTER• 11 years ago

His gay marriage example is instructive of the weakness of this type of argument. Marriage is purely a social institution, so what does science have to say on the subject, anyway? Well, he appeals to equality. If we have these laws, they should be applied equally. Ok then, what's the scientific argument for equality? He takes these things as axiomatic, which, presumably, means that these are the types of things he should most militantly be examining.

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.

All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

Related Stories