Sounds great, so long as you include Reppert's Corollary: But if you think you have the answers based on your atheism, and that causes you to not have the curiosity to seek further knowledge on those questions, then he has no need for you in the lab.
But if you say "Oh, no, that would never be a concern. No one's atheism could cause they to lack the curiosity to seek further knowledge," then you're a fundamentalist in the perjorative sense.
15 comments:
"But if you say "Oh, no, that would never be a concern. No one's atheism could cause they to lack the curiosity to seek further knowledge," then you're a fundamentalist in the perjorative sense."
Have no fear. I wouldn't say such a thing. And of course your corollary is well-taken. So let's all agree that anyone who claims to have all the answers surely doesn't.
I think it's painfully obvious that Tyson has constructed a strawman. Considering the boundless curiosity that religious scientists have demonstrated in the past (the sort of curiosity that has led to most of the scientific knowledge we now have), I don't think he is any danger of meeting in real life the sort of imaginary person he has dreamed up.
Until he runs into Behe and the rest of the DI crowd.
I think that makes sense only if you buy into the Discovery Institute/Intelligent Design Conspiracy Theory.
I don't.
"I think that makes sense only if you buy into the Discovery Institute/Intelligent Design Conspiracy Theory.
I don't."
I know. And Tyson probably wouldn't want to use you for scientific research.
I know. And Tyson probably wouldn't want to use you for scientific research.
You, on the other hand, could be used for scientific research. Are there any studies being done on atheists with crippling cognitive biases? You should volunteer. ;)
I think I see why 'I-pretend-to-value-reason' likes NdGT the "reason" alike
The only intelligent thing Tyson said on that video is "Oops, I pushed a button by mistake!"
My point, exactly.
I've never been able to find a video I could link to, but I recall seeing a Nova (or Nova-type) program several years ago, hosted by Tyson, in which he approvingly echoed Sagan's claim that 'Science!' shows us "truths" such as that "once in a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street"
An amusing thing about "skeptics" (i.e. 'Science!' fetishists) is that they:
1) insist that the miracles Christianity affirms are "impossible" because they "break the laws of nature";
2) even as they deny that there *are* any "laws of nature".
As it turns out, they'll accept *any* "miracle" ... just so long as happened (will happen) without purpose and cause. They object to Christianity's miracles, not because they're miraculous, but because they are, definitionally, intentionally caused and to a purpose.
even as they deny that there *are* any "laws of nature"
As amply demonstrated in a thread below this one, in which Skep has for days now been frantically attempting to defend his "scientific" belief that things can just occur in nature without any cause. (Because to admit to the principle of cause and effect would lead him straight to the First Way - and we can't have that!)
"The only intelligent thing Tyson said on that video is "Oops, I pushed a button by mistake!""
Do we have another candidate for Dawkins' spot as Most Threatening Atheist?
"Do we have another candidate for Dawkins' spot as Most Threatening Atheist?"
Nah... Tyson is entertaining enough as a science popularizer, but as an atheist he never rises above pathetic. Nothing to be threatened by here.
That video (which is typical of his snarky comments when he strays from his expertise) is downright embarrassing. Not a coherent thought in the whole thing, punctuated by adolescent titters in the audience. Hardly a spectacle to be proud of.
If this is what passes for "threatening", then the faith community has nothing to worry about!
I find it more interesting to speculate on what lab questions one's religious views would affect.
Chiefly, there are religious views on genetics that many atheists feel are not needed in their moral standard.
One example: I think that if someone wanted partners to help with their dog-human hybridization lab in their quest for the perfect border security animal, there might be religious considerations there.
So, you have to believe in the Forrest-Gross Intelligent Design Wedge Conspiracy Theory in order to do scientific work? Spare me.
If someone wants to look for something to be skeptical about, that would be an excellent place.
"So, you have to believe in the Forrest-Gross Intelligent Design Wedge Conspiracy Theory in order to do scientific work?"
I haven't read it. I know that what they do isn't science, as recognized by the broader scientific community.
Post a Comment