Daggah

Excuse me Sojourner, but what, exactly, is a "fundamentalist atheist?"

Atheism has no books, no set of guidelines, and no equivalent of a bible to be fundamentally adhered to. Fundamentalist atheism is an impossibility, because fundamentalism requires a strict adherence to the guidelines of a belief, and all atheism has is a disbelief about the existence of god.

Sojourner553

Actually, a very thoughtful question:

Here are some examples of atheist fundamentalist: Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, Madalyn O'Hair.

Atheist fundamentalists emphasize rigid creeds that must be narrowly followed, with little tolerance for differences of opinion. Usually these creeds are based on some "authority" that is not God. Of course, the atheist fundamentalist could consider THEMSELVES the authority. The key is to show narrow tolerance on precepts considered "sacred"-like (ie cannot be disbelieved) even though these precepts cannot be "proven".


Bertrand Russell, declared Marxism-Leninism to
(in essence) act like a religion --even though its authority was not based on belief in a "god". That is, "true" communists were required to "believe" in some vaguely defined divine power invisibly guiding society towards a workman's utopia through the course of history. Like religious authorities, anyone who did not believe the official dogma were considered the status of heretics.

In the examples of Rand and O'Hair, they also required strict adherence to their authoritative dictates. "They" were the authorities, and anyone who disagreed on some points was still a "disbeliever".

Here is a quote by Ayn Rand on whether anyone was allowed to disagree with her and remain an Objectivist:

"What is the proper policy on this issue? If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with--and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish, on your own." -- Ayn Rand


Sojourner

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Sojourner
Because religious scientists do not apply religious (pseudo)knowledge (like "with God, anything is possible") in their work. So their religious beliefs take a back seat when they are dealing with practical issues. Thus they remain effective in spite of their religious beliefs.

For example, christian surgeons don't kneel to pray while a patient is bleeding to death. They act to stop the bleeding as they have been trained. So, even though religion is antithetical to science, it doesn't interfere with the work of religious scientists.

Looked at in this sense, one wonders, when is the time to act and when is the time to let God act? Does God only come into play when we are overwhelmed and helpless?
Bigtime.
And I am still outraged that you even tried to link the two.

Sojourner553

[QUOTE: per IntenSity

Religious scientists do not apply religious (pseudo)knowledge (like "with God, anything is possible") in their work. So their religious beliefs take a back seat when they are dealing with practical issues. Thus they remain effective in spite of their religious beliefs.

For example, christian surgeons don't kneel to pray while a patient is bleeding to death. They act to stop the bleeding as they have been trained. So, even though religion is antithetical to science, it doesn't interfere with the work of religious scientists"

I see your point Intensity.

But are you not also aware that OTHER Christians accept that miracles:

(1) used to happen long ago but either do not happen at all today or are extremely rare. (ie God is very UNlikely to interfere with a miracle -- that kneeling in prayer is really INeffective in invoking miraculous intervention.)

(2) Some hold miracles are restricted to emotional support (ie "God loves you through all your adversity, but can't help you right now, because He has made the decision not to interfere in "this" world.)

and/or

(3) miracles are confined to a supernatural world which we go to after we die.

Therefore any prayers are not regarding the nature of this world.

Of course the above does not include the "I believe in angels" irrational crowd. A lot of "miracles" is just talk: Doctors and nurses bring up miracles -- often to give the patient some semblence of hope which can be healing in itself -- not based on any real belief an external miracle will happen.

But there are degrees of this--

I mentioned earlier the inconsistency of my mother praying for help to find a "good doctor". (ie she just wanted a teeny bit of divine help in pointing her towards a good secular doctor.) But she also is a firm believer in science and evolution.

Of course there are fundies as well (your point) : When a relative of mine had a head-on car accident many years ago she began proseltyzing to my son how it was a miracle she was not killed? "Why," my son asked her, "did not God also prevent all the back problems she continued to have following the accident (still to this day) since God was already active at the scene?" She looked very angry but said nothing.

I have known "A" students with science degrees that maintain the Flood stories "have" to be real; evolution is anti-God. They just shut out any evidence that conflicts with their dogma. I am sure very few (if any) go on to be ranked in the top field of scientists.

You have not pinned me down on numbers,IntenSity but your point is right on the mark with fundamentalist Christians (like my relative). And a large perecentage of Christians are fundies in the US (probably around 30% of the population -- even higher in my part of the country!)

But a small percentage of these go on to become scientists. And for those that do: Religious biases are just one area of personal bias. (Take Stephen Jay Gould's famous example of Broca's brain -- re: racism). And there are degrees of biases -- and how far scientists will let these interfere with their work (your point being well taken about the conflict again-- But my point is that the conflict isn't always from a religious source.

My hope was always that everyone's biases--religious and otherwise-- would cancel each other out through cross-culture peer review and repeatable, strongly controlled trials.

==============================================
Overall, I see a spectrum of belief in this arena -- shades of gray. Again, I am not denying your effect exists, just whether it is representative of ALL Christians! Again, I hold there are some moderate to liberal rational Christians who see little to no conflict with a scientific outlook of the physical world. (This is because they also view the biblical myths along figurative not LITERAL lines.)

Kenny is promoting ADDING to the ranks of more liberal/moderate Christians, taking them from more fundamentalist outlooks. I applaud him for that. You seem to worry he will "trick" some good rational nontheist into believing with his arguments. This is a free society: so fine. Seems to me though one has to already be a theist to be moved by his arguments-- especially as he does not address the irrational arguments against religion.

Which goes back to: neither Kenny nor any other theist ever responded to the objections I had to his lecture--a message which seemed to have been buried under the mountains of YOUR objections, IntenSity, that religion has to be antithetical towards science. (Your point being that a theist can be a scientist but this "MUST" conflict at some level with his/her belief system in miracles.) I still have trouble accepting the "must", and suspect that much of the other religious "bias" by NON-fundamentalist Christian scientists is minor.


Sojourner

[ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Sojourner,
Now that you have got my point, I am cool.

Synaesthesia

Somewhat tangental, but isn't the universe accelerating in it's expansion? Doesn't that pose something of a problem for the "cyclic universe" theory?

Synaesthesia

Re: Kenny’s assertion that science is relies upon fundamental articles of “faith” in a manner analogous to the christian’s faith.

It is my belief that presuppositionalism illustrates the closest thing to a fundamental incompatibility between the methods of science and those of mysticism. I agree with Kenny in that religion and science are not mutually exclusive, but I think that he takes the faith analogy too far.

We think that the universe exists and that our perception can provide us with useful hints about it because they provide us with fruitful lines of inquiry while the contrary hypotheses are sterile. Kenny is right in saying that this does not provide certainty, but it is most misleading to call it faith. We judge theories not relative to some immutable “objective” standard, but relative to other theories.

The invocation of a specific entity as being above revision is antithetical to the scientific method. That god has objectively revealed information about himself and what information god has objectively revealed about himself is held upon faith. Faith, in the religious sense, is not based upon theoretical fruitfulness and empirical grounding. Faith constitutes the grounding for belief.

Faith and science are not exclusive only because they can be compartmentalized, not because their respective methodology is actually compatible.

Regards,
Synaesthesia
“It is very easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of them by the sense of achievement you get from getting them to work at all.” -Douglas Adams

Shadow Wraith

I haven't read this whole thread yet, but in any case, I'd like to present my opinion. There really is no conflict between religion and science per se, though there is definite conflict between certain religios ideas and scientific theories. For example, some religious people are fiercely opposed to evolution and practically any kind of uniformitarian theory concerning life, the earth, or the universe as a whole. Others see no conflict. Galileo once wrote "Religion teaches men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." Much more recently Pope John Paul II said "Both religion and science must preserve their own autonomy and their distinctiveness. Religion is not founded on science nor is science an extension of religion. Each should possess its own principles, its pattern of procedures, its diversities of interpretation and its own conclusions. ... While each can and should support the other as distinct dimensions of a common human culture, neither ought to assume that it forms a necessary premise for the other."

I think that people like Kent Hovind and other creationists could take a lesson from the two aforementioned Christians. It would do them good to learn from those people, and learn from the things that happened in the past because religion sought to form premises for science--like the burning of Giordano Bruno (who, BTW, was a philosopher, not a scientist, but his mentioning is important) for his belief in a multitude of worlds. He has now been vindicated, as we now find many worlds around other stars like he believed there were. Science and science only should be used for understanding the workings of the physical world. There will be plenty of debate between scientists for a long time to come without outside interference.

Here is something related of interest. In a recent Gallup poll, only 12% believed in the standard scientific (that is totally naturalistic) interpretation of evolution. By comparison only 34% considered themselves to be very knowledgeable about evolution (more info on this can be found at <a href="http://www.sciam.com/2002/0202issue/0202skeptic.html" target="_blank">http://www.sciam.com/2002/0202issue/0202skeptic.html</a> ). So it seems that the majority of the population doesn't have room for denouncing evolution.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Shadow Wraith ]</p>

Bede

Shadowwraith,

Just a quick point. We don't actually know why Bruno was burnt except that he was a relapsed heretic. We cannot point to a particular belief of his and say 'this was his heresy'. Frances Yates, in her seminal book about him, believes his pantheism was to blame and that his 'scientific' ideas were simply extentions of his religous beliefs. He certainly wasn't a scientist in any sense that we would understand. His co-option as a martyr of science in the nineteenth century has more to do with the lack of other suitable candidates.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

(Edited to add plug. How could I forget?!)

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Bede ]</p>

Sojourner553

Per Synaesthesia:

"We think that the universe exists and that our perception can provide us with useful hints about it because they provide us with fruitful lines of inquiry while the contrary hypotheses are sterile. Kenny is right in saying that this does not provide certainty, but it is most misleading to call it faith. We judge theories not relative to some immutable “objective” standard, but relative to other theories. "
==============================================
Kenny may also be hinting at a common theist claim: That belief in God's existance or non-existance is based on "faith" since neither position can be proven/disproven with 100% accuracy.

I would agree that the decision whether to be a deist OR an atheist can be viewed as an arbitrary decision (especially initially).

However, most theists believe in more SPECIFIC doctrines than merely "general belief in a God". That is, the theist holds specific doctrines to be true--and these CAN be scientifically tested. Examples include religious writings/commentaries; which can be cross-checked with a large database of outside sources in history/science/philosophy.

What should we look for?

* The religious writings should be INTERNALLY consistent--clear and without obvious contradictions.

--These writings should contain great wisdom, that is more advanced, especially in comparison with other competing religions.

--If a document is divinely inspired, one would expect two SINCERE religious individuals to agree on their interpretation, as opposed to forming new sects, fighting wars against each other, etc.


* The writings, when compared with EXTERNAL standards (ie OUTSIDE THE BOX) should show:

-- that they can be collaborated by outside sources (not just by believers)

-- Information regarding the Nature of the World (ie science) needs to be accurate and greater than the common SUPERSTITIONS/beliefs held by neighboring peoples during their times. (Example: Science has not found ANY demon possession as the cause for mental illnesses. Per the NT it is the cause for ALL the recorded cases of mental illness.)

--Any predictions should be honestly compared with actual historical events -- with both hits AND misses noted. But the misses should be be reviewed more carefully, instead of falling into Mark Twain's trap: Definition of a Prophecy: "Two bull's eyes out of a possible million".


A broad sweep of history should show:

-- Historically how have religious doctrine influenced its believers, either inspiring them to form societies that became renaissances or dark ages.

-- Historically, have religious writings been consistently interpreted by society over time? Else, this would hint that culture is playing more of a role in interpretation than religion. [one example of this would be society's attitude towards slavery.]

The point is almost everyone applies these standards to the religions of others. But how many people honestly apply them to their own set of beliefs?

-----------------------------------------------

Again, I agree that one can neither prove nor disprove Deism (general belief in God.) Of course, one can also neither prove nor disprove the existance of Santa Claus and fairies! But if one finds a DOCUMENT that purports to be from Santa or fairies (pick one!) then this can be subjected to scientific inquiry.


Now what if one holds scientific examination is in itself a system based on faith? I.e. Is the thing in itself (here using inquiry and analysis as opposed to more mystical means) an approach we take on faith?

For this, we can look at the records of all those who partake in mystical approaches to reality, to see if it is a better measure than science's successes. Take two independent individuals who do not share equal cultures. When one looks at metaphysics -- one is amazed at the LACK of consistency/conformity between them. (It reminds me of an old Jewish joke: If you put FOUR Jews in a room discussing a subject, you'll get FIVE different opinions.) But with mathematics and science one does see consistency and common ground across cultures.

Examining the law of the jungle (Eat or be Eaten/Kill or be Killed) and extapolating this towards humans, one can see how the animal kingdom developed a sense of reality for self preservation. (Those animals who did not develop this trait did not survive to pass this onto their progeny.)

Of course, one is still left with the "we are ALL insane" argument.

To this I reply:

-- "I'm a business major. Who's then paying for all this?"


Sojourner