Tuesday, March 08, 2016

Does atheism increase interest in science?

No. 

28 comments:

Cal Metzger said...

Does science increase disbelief in gods. Yes.

planks length said...

The more interesting question is not "Does atheism increase interest in science?" but rather "Does atheism increase the likelihood that a person will shout 'Science!' in a debate, imagining that he's somehow said something of significance?"

Legion of Logic said...

Atheism has nothing to do with science, beyond being used as a tool by anti-theists against religious beliefs because they have been led to believe that science somehow undermines belief in God - which of course, a little thinking will demonstrate is not the case.

Most of the anti-science people I know happen to be atheists, as far as my anecdotal observations can be taken. And most of the nerds I can sit around discussing scientific findings with are very devout Christians. Science can only detect truths about how the universe functions. Whether or not you believe in God afterward depends entirely on what implications you believe those workings indicate.

planks length said...

Well said, Legion. But what amazes me most is the ubiquitous internet atheist who, armed with only a popularized general overview "knowledge" of actual science, will use Science! like a magic incantation, in the apparent belief that the mere sound of the word itself has power to win an argument. No need to actually use reasoning or facts - just keep pounding the table and say "Beetlejuice".. ur, I mean "Science!" three times, and you're done.

And as to an example of a science denying atheist, one need look no further than TV personality Bill Maher and his crusade against vaccination.

Joe Hinman said...

comments:



Cal Metzger said...
Does science increase disbelief in gods. Yes.


If your concept of God is based upon fighting evolution or something then I guess. But that's very limited view of religious belief.

I was always a liberal arts guy. I was so into fighting positivism and reductionism almost hated science because I imagined it was all like AJ Ayer with test tubes. I was way up into doctoral work in history of ideas that I took a history of science class for a particular reason and began to realize that philosophy of science was as interesting as others forms of philosophy Then I began reading Kuhn and really feel in love with that stuff. would up doing my dissertation on Boyle and Newton and the Latitudinarians. Then in fighting atheists on the net I read Popper and because even more interested in philosophy/history of science.



Joe Hinman said...

Most of the anti-science people I know happen to be atheists,

you must not go on message boards very often. what kind of an atheist is that?

as far as my anecdotal observations can be taken. And most of the nerds I can sit around discussing scientific findings with are very devout Christians. Science can only detect truths about how the universe functions. Whether or not you believe in God afterward depends entirely on what implications you believe those workings indicate.

agree, with PL, well said.

Victor Reppert said...

And then there is the guy who shouts Science! the loudest, and then say that teaching a child religion in childhood is worse than abusing him sexually, in complete denial of the fact that science has measured both the effects of sexual abuse and religious upbringing, and has produced result the exact opposite results from this ridiculous statement.

What was his name again? Starts with a D.

Joe Hinman said...

"in complete denial of the fact that science has measured both the effects of sexual abuse and religious upbringing, and has produced result the exact opposite results from this ridiculous statement."

You know where I can get a bunch of studies showing that religious experience is real good for you psychologically?

The Trace of God

The author of this book is a real nice guy. great guy.

Ilíon said...

"What was his name again? Starts with a D."

Was it 'Doobieous'?

Joe Hinman said...

Dylan

Legion of Logic said...

"you must not go on message boards very often. what kind of an atheist is that?"

I only referred to people I know personally, in real life and not the internet. These aren't materialists, they have beliefs that are spiritual in nature sometimes but believe every religion is false and that there are no gods. They also are hyper skeptical about vaccines, like Bill Maher. In fact they tend to be dubious of the entire medical community.

planks length said...

Hmm, Legion. I never thought about this before, but I only know personally (not over the internet, but face to face) 3 people who are militantly anti-vaccine, and they're all atheists! And you say you've had the same experience. I wonder if these are chance samplings, or is there some sort of correlation here?

Legion of Logic said...

I would imagine there is no connection per se, though I have no statistics to back that up. I think it's simply more noteworthy as proof that atheism and science only intersect if that science is useful to attack a religious idea.

Ilíon said...

It seems to me there comes a point when a body has to trust the evidence of his own eyes and experience, no matter how totes disinterested parties are bleating that "The singular of (statistical) data is is not anecdote."

planks length said...

I think it's simply more noteworthy as proof that atheism and science only intersect if that science is useful to attack a religious idea.

Interesting. It reminds me of C.S. Lewis's description of the Un-man in his novel Perelandra:

"Ransom soon perceived that [the Un-man] regarded intelligence simply and solely as a weapon, which it had no more wish to employ in its off-duty hours than a soldier has to do bayonet practice when he is on leave. Thought was for it a device necessary to certain ends, but thought in itself did not interest it. It assumed reason as externally and inorganically as it had assumed Weston's body."

planks length said...

By the way, for those of you following this conversation who may have not yet read Perelandra, the Un-man is the Devil.

Joe Hinman said...

Hey LL


"I only referred to people I know personally, in real life and not the internet. These aren't materialists, they have beliefs that are spiritual in nature sometimes but believe every religion is false and that there are no gods. They also are hyper skeptical about vaccines, like Bill Maher. In fact they tend to be dubious of the entire medical community."

actually I was a non scientific sort of atheist. But I was into Sartre and continental philosophy, but I was a materialist but not into science. I find that so rare now because my main source of meeting atheists is one the net now days.

Joe Hinman said...


March 08, 2016 6:02 PM



Blogger Ilíon said...
It seems to me there comes a point when a body has to trust the evidence of his own eyes and experience, no matter how totes disinterested parties are bleating that "The singular of (statistical) data is is not anecdote."


what if his experience differs from that of others?

Joe Hinman said...

PL

No slight to Lewis since he's talking about the devil. But we were talking about atheists interest in science. To have relevance to the discussion I see there be an analogy between the Lewis character and atheists in regard to their use of science.

I would think there are a ;pot of creationists who also have no interest in science except that it is necessary to fight evolution. I myself, being an evil liberal have no desire to fight evolution, yet I am the same way. I have a slight interest in cosmology apart from apologetics but I would not take the time to really learn it were it not form my CA on message boards.

planks length said...

Joe, you posted this comment over on The Skeptic Zone:

I was talking to PL. I just had a big thing on Reppert's blog where he called me a liar because I', politically liberal.he said trying he same thing over and over and expecting a change is insane I said tell it to the tea part because that;'swhat they are doing, running idiots for president

I never called you a liar - Ilion did. I personally could not care less what someone's political leanings are. They are probably the least interesting thing about a person.

Joe Hinman said...

Ok can't keep the cast straight without a program. shall we move on? what's with brining stuff in from other blogs? that's like going out of your way to create trouble. If you think that needs correcting why not do it in the venue where it was seen? Why do they need to know it over here?

planks length said...

If you think that needs correcting why not do it in the venue where it was seen?

I did.

planks length said...

Joe,

If I may offer some unsolicited (and probably unwelcome) advice, you really need to check your work better. Your posts are so full of typos, missing words, and strange syntax that it's frequently a struggle to figure out what the heck you are trying to say.

Also, you post way too much. This is Victor's blog - not yours. When I see 3, 4, or even 5 postings by you in a row, I usually ignore them all. And I'd wager others do the same.

And lastly, I think it's pretty poor form to be constantly linking to other things you've written elsewhere. Once or twice in a blue moon is OK, but all the time? Really? It smacks of self aggrandizement.

Now, "shall we move on?"

Joe Hinman said...

Now for the clean version.


First of all you want to complain about how many times I post but look at the posts I would not have to put up did I not feel called upon to answer childish attempts at getting reprisal, badly disguised as concern.. I know just trying to help me, thank you, you such a fine Christian.

Dr. Reppert is a big boy. If he thinks I'm posting too much he will tell me to stop.
I am 59 years old. I've known about my dyslexia since 1967 when I went to the only program in the country at that time designed to deal with it. Do you think I haven't it before? I spent 10 years in Ph.D program and had a 4.0 for five years. I think my syntax hold up just fine.

I also spent 15 years on CARM atheist and run Atheistwatch. that means two things

(1) nothing you can say will hurt me because I've withstood some of the worst atheists have to offer for years.

(2) I can also dish out as good as I get. think about it. If you are ready to move on I will move on. you want to go back into it I can dish it out better than you can.

planks length said...

You think I'm an atheist? Boy, you really don't pay any attention to who's posting what, do you?

And please don't use your dyslexia as an excuse. I have zero sympathy. I've suffered from dyslexia my entire life (as well as a bit of OCD), but I've long ago learned to check, double check, re-check, and check yet again everything I write. I often don't notice reversed or extraneous lettering, dropped or repeated words, until the third, fourth, or even fifth time around.

(Just went over this posting, and discovered no less than seven typos in my first draft!)

Joe Hinman said...

You think I'm an atheist? Boy, you really don't pay any attention to who's posting what, do you?

No, they are any standard of mocking ridicule. If you can get past a board full of CARM atheists you can take on any insulting person.

And please don't use your dyslexia as an excuse. I have zero sympathy. I've suffered from dyslexia my entire life (as well as a bit of OCD), but I've long ago learned to check, double check, re-check, and check yet again everything I write. I often don't notice reversed or extraneous lettering, dropped or repeated words, until the third, fourth, or even fifth time around.

I'm not interested in your sympathy or your opinions.


(Just went over this posting, and discovered no less than seven typos in my first draft!)



if you really understand dyslexia, which I doubt, you would not keep harping on that, the fact that you keep it up proves to me you do not really know what it is. If you really dyslexia you would not total up other people's mistakes do you have official diagnosis of dyslexia or are you assuming it because you spell badly?

I was diagnosed by Luke Weights he guy who discovered it.Scottish Rite Children's hospital language lab in Dallas




March 09, 2016 9:04 AM

Trev of Economia said...

Does science increase belief in God? Yes, if you've understood quantum theory properly, in the way that the bulk of its founders did. Schrodinger, Planck, Heisenberg, Wheeler, Pauli, and many other fathers of quantum mechanics took away the idea that there was mental influence on the physical world, and moreover, tended to embrace some form of monism in which mind was the ultimate reality, and the existence of a singular mind that contained that reality. Even people like Wigner and Bohm, who didn't become theists, ended up believing either in cosmic consciousness (an omnipresent and omniscient mind) or an implicate order of mental nature, which theists relate to as God. Shut up and calculate was invented by the materialist atheists precisely to stop phycicists from going in the direction of the founders of quantum theory, and rejecting atheism and materialism for the blatantly wrong picture of the world it is. People have understood quantum theory, but when they do, they are never materialists, and this is precisely why people like Feynman claim that no one understands quantum mechanics. If you put a veil of mystery over the meaning of these strange bones, no one can figure out that they're actually millions of years old and that they tell you YEC is wrong. The exact same thing is happening in physics, only this time, it's atheists hiding from the fossils, and the public has yet to recognize the age of these bones due to the mystique materialists have tried to hide them in.

Dave Duffy said...

The work of science is the most mundane and repetitive work outside of an assembly line (I've worked both). The work of science will make you envious of rural farmers. I don't blame atheist in first-world countries, or anyone else, for not wanting to spend countless hours on such a laborious task with so many disappoints and so little noteworthy discoveries.

Better to take the high road and pontificate about the "findings" of science or, better, teach about science.