Science doesn't belong to atheism

[MatthiasGould]

For me there seems to be some fault on the side of atheists, who often use science as a reason not to believe in God/a god/gods. This to me at least seems to suggest that rather than science being denounced or demonised by the religious as being atheistic, atheists have created their own problems in claiming science as requiring atheism.

 

[McBell]

For me there seems to be some fault on the side of atheists, who often use science as a reason not to believe in God/a god/gods. This to me at least seems to suggest that rather than science being denounced or demonised by the religious as being atheistic, atheists have created their own problems in claiming science as requiring atheism.

Yeah, well you have fanatics and extremes on all sides of the fence.

Problem is far to many people are listening to the fanatics and extremes instead of finding out for themselves.

 

[MatthiasGould]

Yeah, well you have fanatics and extremes on all sides of the fence.

Problem is far to many people are listening to the fanatics and extremes instead of finding out for themselves.

There's plenty of sensible religious people out there. Problem is that the media and other outlets see it that the fanatics and nutjobs make for better stories, and sell more newspapers. To give you an example.

A few months ago saw a YouTube video published on major news channels and feature in most major newspapers here in the UK featuring a group of young Muslim men calling themselves the 'Muslim Patrol' and taking cans of alcohol from people passing by this particular mosque they were near, as well as openly telling women they were dressing immodestly and to cover up, and how this was 'a Muslim area'.

This wouldn't have been a problem if the papers had bothered to print the letter which was published by the East London Muslim Association which in no uncertain terms denounced the men for their actions and which emphasised that in no way did the mosque agree to have such things happen under its watch.

Ditto the likes of Richard Dawkins and the 'new atheists' who often incite enough rage to sell papers, while more restrained atheists such as Stephen Jay Gould who do not make such open pronouncements on religion get little publicity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How are you defining skepticism?

This probably works as a good definition for the purposes of this thread:

- the position that the proper grounds of support for a claim are evidence and valid logical inferences from that evidence.

- the position that a claim should not be accepted unless it is well-supported.

Besides, even the most scientificy among us must and do make assumptions to get through life.

Of course. If we had to do a double-blind study every time we had to make a decision, we'd never get anything done.

But my point is that, at least as far as I've seen, when skepticism is applied to religion, belief in god doesn't happen.

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure if I agree with the defining of science as a systematic application of skepticism. It is a method, not a philosophy.

I think that skepticism is just as much a method as science is. Also, I think that implicit in actually using science is the idea that it's a better method than the alternatives in terms of things like reliability.

When we engage in science, we don't just stop at the conclusion of the study and leave it at that. We use the results of that study to make logical inferences about reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

For me there seems to be some fault on the side of atheists, who often use science as a reason not to believe in God/a god/gods. This to me at least seems to suggest that rather than science being denounced or demonised by the religious as being atheistic, atheists have created their own problems in claiming science as requiring atheism.

Really? Does that happen? I don't think I have ever met or even heard of such a case.

 

[Breathe]

Really? Does that happen? I don't think I have ever met or even heard of such a case.

Yeah, it happens a lot.

 

[LuisDantas]

Quite a surprise to me. Are you sure it is not some kind of misunderstanding?

 

[MatthiasGould]

Really? Does that happen? I don't think I have ever met or even heard of such a case.

I can certainly only speak from experience, but when I debated atheists on the subject of science and particularly evolution, they quite openly stated that evolution 'disproved' religion and that I couldn't be a Muslim and an evolutionist without interllectual dishonesty (in their view anyway). Not even my points about historical and current religious scholars who support evolution and science seemed to change a thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't know what to say, Matthias, except that I never ran over such a situation personally.

 

[Breathe]

Quite a surprise to me. Are you sure it is not some kind of misunderstanding?

Absolutely 100% certain.

I can certainly only speak from experience, but when I debated atheists on the subject of science and particularly evolution, they quite openly stated that evolution 'disproved' religion and that I couldn't be a Muslim and an evolutionist without interllectual dishonesty (in their view anyway). Not even my points about historical and current religious scholars who support evolution and science seemed to change a thing.

This is definitely my experience, as well, save without Islam, and not even from debates -- just when people find out I'm religious. The very thought of it seems to offend them.

Literally, a snippet of a conversation before:

"What, you're religious?"
"Yeah."
"What about evolution?"
"What about it?"
"It disproves it."
Etc.

 

[idea]

..Problem is far to many people are listening to the fanatics and extremes...

I just went to what ended up being a rally (Act for America) where Brigitte Gabriel made a little speech about how everyone listens to the fanatics, so even though they make up only a small percentage of any given group, the fanatics seem to control everything, and are responsible for the most violent actions etc. etc. It's true, we want to just ignore the crazy extremists, and view most groups as mostly good, filled with mostly moderate people... but you can't just ignore the fanatics.

 

[idea]

I can certainly only speak from experience, but when I debated atheists on the subject of science and particularly evolution, they quite openly stated that evolution 'disproved' religion and that I couldn't be a Muslim and an evolutionist without interllectual dishonesty (in their view anyway). Not even my points about historical and current religious scholars who support evolution and science seemed to change a thing.

I agree - and I don't know why atheists get so offended when anyone suggests that ID and evolution can be mixed together. They agree with ideas such as "artificial selection" (which is a form of ID) but refuse to acknowledge the magnitude that thought/mind/conscience/spirit/intelligence (call it what you will) plays in it, which is sad.

To me, religious people are those who embrace science, but are able to see more than the materialistic world.

 

[fantome profane]

I agree - and I don't know why atheists get so offended when anyone suggests that ID and evolution can be mixed together. They agree with ideas such as "artificial selection" (which is a form of ID) ...

It is not just atheists who object to this idea. This is part of the problem, you assume that anyone who rejects ID must be an atheist, and that theists are going to accept this pseudo-scientific garbage.

Yes, artificial selection is real. But if someone claims that something was artificially selecting primates two hundred thousand years ago then they need to provide evidence. If they suggest that this nonsense should be given equal time in the classroom with established well evidenced theories they need to be opposed.

 

[MatthiasGould]

Absolutely 100% certain.


This is definitely my experience, as well, save without Islam, and not even from debates -- just when people find out I'm religious. The very thought of it seems to offend them.*snip*

You must have been debating the same people I was...

I agree - and I don't know why atheists get so offended when anyone suggests that ID and evolution can be mixed together. They agree with ideas such as "artificial selection" (which is a form of ID) but refuse to acknowledge the magnitude that thought/mind/conscience/spirit/intelligence (call it what you will) plays in it, which is sad.

To me, religious people are those who embrace science, but are able to see more than the materialistic world.

Fact is that the word 'God' can mean an infinite amount of different things, depending on which religion you're talking about, and even which denomination or group you're talking about, as well as whether you take a strict (literal) or more liberal non-literal reading of that religions scriptures and major texts.

What particularly irritates me is that typically, the atheists I debated had little clue of the concept of what the term 'Allah' meant in Islam specifically, or indeed any teachings of Islam for that matter beyond the most basic. Any attempt on my part to cite Qur'an verses, hadith or excerpts from the tafsir which disproved their points, was met with either them being ignored completely, or if people did bother to respond to the points I made, it was met with the same 'broken record' responses.

 

[idea]

...if someone claims that something was artificially selecting primates two hundred thousand years ago ...

I believe primates have the ability to think - that they control their own migration patterns, and food choices, and mate choices, and therefore determine the evolution of their offspring. This to me is ID.

The entire point of ID is that life has the ability - not just to react to it's surroundings - but to be proactive - to act - to create - to change. The different between something that is alive, and something that is not alive - rocks do not act (they only react)... what is alive acts. Living organisms are able to act because they have something within them - intelligence/thought/mind/conscience/spirit - call it what you will, but it exists.

Rocks do not evolve, they just wear away in the wind and rain... rocks do not evolve because they do not have this spirit within them.

the atomic forces do not change with time, the elements do not change, the physical laws do not change, so what does change? Our minds can change, our goals can change, our thoughts can change - that is the force that drives change, the force of the spiritual, the voice of our spirit.

 

[idea]

What particularly irritates me is that typically, the atheists I debated had little clue of the concept of what the term 'Allah' meant ...

I think most atheists are not religious because they are uneducated... if they searched, and learned a little more (as other have) they too would become religious.

when I was young and naive I was not a religious person - now that I have read and experienced more, I am.

 

[Breathe]

You must have been debating the same people I was...

Haha, I was thinking the same thing.

What particularly irritates me is that typically, the atheists I debated had little clue of the concept of what the term 'Allah' meant in Islam specifically, or indeed any teachings of Islam for that matter beyond the most basic. Any attempt on my part [snip]

Same here, only without Islam (again).
Are you my Muslim doppelgänger?

A lot of anti-theists seem to have a very rudimentary knowledge of religions. Some of them may know a certain religious text quite well {from my experience, this is disappointingly rare, to the point where I've heard people say embarassingly stupid things}, but only seem to have knowledge of the surface of the text. Not so good when it comes to mysticism, metaphor, allegory, or anything of the like.

What disappoints me is, any time I've tried to explain the way they're looking at things is too simple, or not quite right, I've been told to "quit preaching". Although they can go on a tirade against religions, painting with a broad brush for ages. There's even atheists who think you can't be a fundy atheist.

Thankfully though, the majority of atheists I've bumped into have been nice enough, even if they don't believe it.

 

[MatthiasGould]

I think most atheists are not religious because they are uneducated... if they searched, and learned a little more (as other have) they too would become religious.

when I was young and naive I was not a religious person - now that I have read and experienced more, I am.

I've met atheists on both sides of the religious education spectrum, and as far as I can tell, most atheists do unfortunately fall into the trap of knowing virtually little about what it is they mock. Some of the most educated atheists I've debated were a delight to debate and speak with, and we got a lot out of the conversation as a result.

My goal in entering such debates isn't really conversion as such, but honest debate about issues or particular subjects. I don't think it's a case that more atheist education would cause them to become religious, but that more education would result in more constructive debate and better relations between them and other faiths.

 

[fantome profane]

I've met atheists on both sides of the religious education spectrum, and as far as I can tell, most atheists do unfortunately fall into the trap of knowing virtually little about what it is they mock. Some of the most educated atheists I've debated were a delight to debate and speak with, and we got a lot out of the conversation as a result.

My goal in entering such debates isn't really conversion as such, but honest debate about issues or particular subjects. I don't think it's a case that more atheist education would cause them to become religious, but that more education would result in more constructive debate and better relations between them and other faiths.

Recent studies have shown that atheists tend to be much better informed on religious topics then religious people are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wifUXxsOPMA&feature=related

 

[Skwim]

I think most atheists are not religious because they are uneducated... if they searched, and learned a little more (as other have) they too would become religious.

when I was young and naive I was not a religious person - now that I have read and experienced more, I am.

And exactly what should they educate themselves in?

How to:

Accept the supernatural as an equal to reality

Believe one can change reality with prayer

Embrace rigorous moral codes

Organize one's life around a singular world view

Make a strong distinction between the sacred and the profane

Develop more respect for intuitive feelings than evidence

Take ancient tales and myths as true

Talk to divine beings

Accede to demands that one would otherwise find asinine

Ignore fact in favor of unsupported pronouncements of "truth"

Suspend rational thinking

​

? ? ? ? ? ? ?