NOMA

\

However, atheistic scientists are scientists that tend to objectively analyse the truth value of things including religion; — VoidDetector

The problem with your post is that you fail to acknowledge that scientists worthy of the name recognize that religions are about things, subjects, that by their nature remain outside of science - they have to or they wouldn't be religions. The only occasion for opposition is when religions claim truth for their beliefs, which truth is never demonstrable and remains a case for very special pleading.

I uses the phrase "worthy of the name" above. Lots of folks aren't worthy of any name and make bogus and outrageous claims. There is no accounting for such people, and they're fair game for anyone.

And it's worth noting that scientists presuppose a Universe governed by a consistent set of laws, or you might put it, one authority. If you want to call that ultimate authority "God" no reputable scientist will object, because at the moment he or she has no better answer. Of course, what is meant by the claim and how it is made matters.

The problem with your post is that you fail to acknowledge that scientists worthy of the name recognize that religions are about things, subjects, that by their nature remain outside of science - they have to or they wouldn't be religions. — tim wood

Right, in the same sense other made up things are “outside” science, like astrology, magic, witchcraft, teapots in space, spaghetti monsters, etc etc.

To the OP, I dont think that science is an atheistic endeavor. Its not about disproving god and it would have to be implicitly about that to be considered atheistic. Its about more than that single claim, its about any claim, its a method for determining the way things work. Its like saying gardening is about eating carrots. Not really.

For every scientist that’s an atheist, there’s another that’s not, and the difference between them is not something that can be discerned by science.

Science is happily indifferent to theistic claims; were theology to disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow night, nothing about science would change. In that sense, science is indeed atheistic: theistic claims are beneath the dignity of scientific concern.

For me the real question is whether an entirely (religious) belief-free Science is even possible, given that Science needs to suppose an order and underlying unity to all that it is. So at least for practical reasons, Science assumes that Reality is not really random but interconnected and law-abiding. This is truly a religious mindset. Consider how religion comes from religio, religare, "link again", and carries the meaning of establishing symbolic bridges in (social, personal, natural) reality.

For the same reasons, a scientist can not work either within the metanarrative about the Universe inspired by a book cult. A scientist can not suppose that it´s all a God-best-selling-author´s cheap tale, because again that leads to a natural world that makes no real sense and it´s ultimately just fancy.

So a scientist can not be an Atheist in his lab, and he can not be Christian, Muslim, Feminist... A religious and open-minded approach is a must for a scientist who wants to contribute to basic science and not just to engineering and technology.

nothing about science would change? please explain that, it is hard to reconcile with the history of Science. I guess you mean that the underlying physical reality does not change; but the same can be said of religion. Where is the eternal heaven defended by Science before John Dee and Tycho Brahe (the guys that studied for the first time a supernova)? Where will "factual" darwinistic evolution be in 20 years?

"Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis. "

This continues to be the case. But it does not mean that science is atheistic; rather, that science is agnostic.

Atheism does not merely concern rejecting deities — VoidDetector

That's even too strong. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a deity. That's it. You don't have to consciously reject the notion of a deity to be an atheist.

"Atheism" implies nothing else. Atheists have no necessary connection to science or science-based beliefs.

And science has no necessary connection to atheism. A lot of scientists are religious believers, though a much smaller percentage than non-scientists who are religious believers.

And science has no necessary connection to atheism. A lot of scientists are religious believers, though a much smaller percentage than non-scientists who are religious believers. — Terrapin Station

You should perhaps:

1. Read Wikipedia/atheism, and you'll probably discover yourself to be wrong.

2. Actually read the rest of the OP, which addresses religious scientists.

This continues to be the case. But it does not mean that science is atheistic; rather, that science is agnostic. — Herg

Wikipedia/atheism describes atheism to broadly mean lack of belief in deities. It's only when you get to the narrow definition where there is a positive claim about deities' inexistence.

The OP concerns the broad definition of atheism, and as science grew, it had long assumed or ignored belief in deities.

Well, or you could read the surveys about religious beliefs among scientists.

What part, specifically, do you think is wrong in what you're quoting?

Presumably you don't think that both of these are wrong, though, do you? "A lot of scientists are religious believers" and "the percentage of scientists who are religious believers is much smaller than the percentage of non-scientists who are religious believers"

For every scientist that’s an atheist, there’s another that’s not, and the difference between them is not something that can be discerned by science. — Wayfarer

1. The difference is rather clear; one ignores scientific endeavour when it comes to analysing religion, while the other applies scientific endeavor objectively and thereafter disregards religious endeavor.

2. If one recalls the history of science (See Wikipedia/history of science) one may see that religion is literally old science, contrary to models in modern science that disregard deities and religious endeavour. You'll notice astrology which was once science, and which concerns deities, is now regarded as pseudoscience, and astrology was replaced by astronomy which disregards deities and other religious endeavour. (See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy)

...

scientists worthy of the name recognize that religions are about things, subjects, that by their nature remain outside of science - they have to or they wouldn't be religions. The only occasion for opposition is when religions claim truth for their beliefs, which truth is never demonstrable and remains a case for very special pleading. — tim wood

[ My highlighting.] :up:

Well, or you could read the surveys about religious beliefs among scientists.

What part, specifically, do you think is wrong in what you're quoting?

Presumably you don't think that both of these are wrong, though, do you? "A lot of scientists are religious believers" and "the percentage of scientists who are religious believes is much smaller than the percentage of non-scientists who are religious believers" — Terrapin Station

1. Note that 93% of elite scientist are atheists. Also, there are more atheists in the scientific community versus theists, compared to ratios of atheists to theists in general community. (See Wikipedia/demographics of atheism)

2. Albeit, as I mentioned in Op, I am not saying religious scientists can't exist.

However, it must be noted that God and angels are not expected to disrupt experiments in science, whether the scientists are theists or atheists.

3. Question:

Why do you think astrology (which concerns deities and religious endeavour) was dropped from modern science, and why do you think it is now regarded as pseudoscience? (See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy)

compared to ratios of atheists to theists in general community. — VoidDetector

That part, for example, is something that I said, that you quoted, and that you responded was wrong.

That part, for example, is something that I said, that you quoted, and that you responded was wrong. — Terrapin Station

I don't think the stats mean what you think it means.

Bottom line is, there are more atheists in the scientific community, compared to the general public.

Do you have an answer to the question I asked above, regarding astrology's removal from modern science?

I think that the stats mean that:

there are more atheists in the scientific community, compared to the general public. — VoidDetector

And that's something that I had said that you said was wrong.

Do you think the stats mean that?

I want to clear this up first.

scientists worthy of the name recognize that religions are about things, subjects, that by their nature remain outside of science - they have to or they wouldn't be religions. The only occasion for opposition is when religions claim truth for their beliefs, which truth is never demonstrable and remains a case for very special pleading.
— tim wood

[ My highlighting.] :up: — Pattern-chaser

Excellent.

Do you think the stats mean that? — Terrapin Station

I'll answer your new question, after you've answered my old question regarding astrology's removal from modern science.

But you didn't answer my earlier question. Or questions, rather.

I guess you mean that the underlying physical reality does not change — DiegoT

No, I literally mean not a single aspect of scientific practice, nor any theory that would qualify as scientific, would change or have to be amended. Science doesn't give a flying hoot about theology, which can drown in a well as far as it's concerned.

God and other theological trash are not hypotheses to be disproved. It's far worse. They don't even qualify as hypotheses to begin with.

But you didn't answer my earlier question. Or questions, rather. — Terrapin Station

I answered, with sources too. I don't know where you got your stats, but I doubt they'd overthrow the Wikipedia stats I provided; i.e. it is unavoidable that there are more atheists than theists in scientific communities, compared to the theists/atheist relationship seen in the general public.

You can continue to try to deflect my old question, but I suspect that you can't sensibly answer the only question I've posed to you so far. You can take your time though, sometimes we don't come up with good answers immediately, although I doubt an infinitum of extra time would deliver you to submit a sensible answer to the question I posed.

I answered, with sources too. — VoidDetector

I didn't ask you something that was answerable with sources. The only source for what I asked you would be you.

This does not mean I am saying religious scientists can't exist. However, atheistic scientists are scientists that tend to objectively analyse the truth value of things including religion; they precisely align with the scientific endeavour of disregarding religious endeavour. This contrasts non-atheistic scientists on this matter, who disregard or "turn off" scientific endeavour while analyzing religion. — VoidDetector

The problem with atheistic scientists analyzing the truth value of religions is that they are usually more literal and fundamentalist about analyzing religious texts than many if not most religious believers. Instead of looking to or for the moral of a myth, legend, story, or parable (Yes, there is even Christian mythology. Only the dolts take it literally.); the atheist debunks the most literal interpretation of the text. That’s why so many atheists think the religious are stupid, or they think we are deluding ourselves. This is a mistake that religious texts can’t impart wisdom and that science alone can address all truths wrt humanity.

The problem with atheistic scientists analyzing the truth value of religions is that they are usually more literal and fundamentalist about analyzing religious texts than many if not most religious believers. Instead of looking to or for the moral of a myth, legend, story, or parable (Yes, there is even Christian mythology. Only the dolts take it literally.); the atheist debunks the most literal interpretation of the text. That’s why so many atheists think the religious are stupid, or they think we are deluding ourselves. This is a mistake that religious texts can’t impart wisdom and that science alone can address all truths wrt humanity. — Noah Te Stroete

If religious texts contained scientific equations or scientific notation that could help to build computers and do machine learning or physics etc, the world of science would probably promptly gravitate towards religious texts.

The Internet can’t give you a guide on how to live a good life by itself, nor can science for that matter, but a religious text can teach one wisdom. I’m not saying I’m wise, but I like to think I’m actively working towards it.

The Internet can’t give you a guide on how to live a good life by itself, nor can science for that matter, but a religious text can teach one wisdom. I’m not saying I’m wise, but I like to think I’m actively working towards it. — Noah Te Stroete

That is demonstrably false. Look at the reality that heavily atheistic countries, tend to be the least violent, wealthiest, and happiest countries, compared to highly religious countries, that tend to be the most violent, saddest, and poorest countries.

Would you prefer to be a violent tribe, that embraces religion
without modern science?

Most religions don’t advocate violence. At least not the ones I’ve studied. The dolts who pick out verses from religious texts out of context to justify violent behavior are the problem. Religions’ true purpose if it was understood by the unthinking souls is to shape your life into a more meaningful one. I believe religious studies aren’t sufficient, however necessary, but science and philosophy studies are necessary as well. I’m not denying the value of science. (I have a Bachelor of Science degree.) However, a well rounded education is necessary if one wishes to one day become wise as I hope to.