tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post4211645032070569740..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Political Considerations for Religious BeliefAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-75887340153124175452008-01-06T08:12:00.000-07:002008-01-06T08:12:00.000-07:00Alonzo, I just wanted to let you know this post is...Alonzo, I just wanted to let you know this post is now included in Humanist Symposium #13, here: <BR/><BR/>http://danceswithanxiety.blogspot.com/2008/01/humanist-symposium-13-cheesy-holiday.html<BR/><BR/>Thanks! -DaleDalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10523307255698594696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39241095804458906642007-12-26T19:41:00.000-07:002007-12-26T19:41:00.000-07:00To be less condescending, I would have to be conde...To be less condescending, I would have to be condescending in the first place so there would be a measure of condescension from which I could remove some. I have yet to be condescending, but I could be if you'd like me to be so that I could at a future time be less so.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I have studied sociology and psychology. That's why I know your claims that they can't provide useful information and that applying science to the studies of human behavior is a bad thing are false. No, they don't work the same as hard sciences, but they still have rigorous methodology, are repeatable, and provide valuable, practical information. To claim otherwise is simply wrong.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17626857285330229082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-83889852114719135562007-12-26T18:20:00.000-07:002007-12-26T18:20:00.000-07:00Can you please stop being quite so condescending? ...Can you please stop being quite so condescending? Have you ever studied the social sciences? Do you have any idea how unlike the 'hard' sciences they are, and how many more problems they present?Matt Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14994000827596018585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-11381779256768897132007-12-26T16:22:00.000-07:002007-12-26T16:22:00.000-07:00The results are replicated though. "Soft" science...The results are replicated though. "Soft" sciences are just a rigorous as "hard" sciences. It's not like sociologists and psychologists are just making things up. They have to use strong methodology and get peer-reviewed like all the other scientists.<BR/><BR/>I don't know where you've gotten these crazy ideas about science, but you've been terribly misled.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17626857285330229082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-83400516301284658072007-12-26T13:46:00.000-07:002007-12-26T13:46:00.000-07:00Because the human subject is neither reliable nor ...Because the human subject is neither reliable nor predictable! How can science claim hegemony over knowledge in these areas if to do so it has to sacrifice one of its key principles - the replicability of results?Matt Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14994000827596018585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-21604064411666088352007-12-26T11:12:00.000-07:002007-12-26T11:12:00.000-07:00Why do you think the scientific method is insuffic...Why do you think the scientific method is insufficient for such fields? If a politician is looking for policies to reduce violence among the populace, should she merely guess or follow the party line, or should she look at the knowledge of sociology, consider the known contributory factors to such trends, and seek to change the environment within reason to reduce the tendency toward violence in society (such as increasing education and decreasing poverty)?Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17626857285330229082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1690387518017841892007-12-26T10:33:00.000-07:002007-12-26T10:33:00.000-07:00That was an excellent summary of the basics of ath...That was an excellent summary of the basics of atheism, thank you. I'm not going to discuss it any more because you have done far more reading on the topic than I and I don't want to back myself any further into a corner!<BR/><BR/>I agree totally that the scientific method is well suited for finding cures for cancer and the like. However, I find it disturbing when such a mentality is applied to studies of human behaviour and when it gets dragged into politics. I know this isn't particularly relevant to your argument, but I suppose that's the price I pay for posting comments late at night! Hope you all had a merry Christmas (or whichever non-denominative festival you choose to celebrate!).Matt Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14994000827596018585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-26499906634018303882007-12-26T06:33:00.000-07:002007-12-26T06:33:00.000-07:00dootdootThe vast majority of atheists, in talking ...<B>dootdoot</B><BR/><BR/>The vast majority of atheists, in talking about the existence of God, use something like Bertrand Russel's teapot analogy. The claim that God exists is like the claim that there is no teapot orbiting Mars. It is not something that can be proved true with absolute certainty, but it is not something that we have any reason to believe either.<BR/><BR/>Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" says that his claim that no God exists has a ranking of 6 - on a scale where 1 means absolutely certain that a God exists and 7 means absolutely certain that no God exists.<BR/><BR/>Some atheists hold to this certainty because they view the concept of God like the concept of a "round square" - as internally inconsistent. Yet, even these must acknowledge that their argument depends on a concept of God that is internally contradictory, and does not apply to any concept of God lacking this feature.<BR/><BR/>If you believe that all atheists dogmatically assert that no God exists, then this is because you have been listening to people who preach hate from the church pulpit, bearing false witness against atheists in order to frighten their congregation from listening to what atheists actually say.<BR/><BR/>As for using the scientific method . . . <BR/><BR/>Consider a case in which you have two possible cures for cancer. The scientific method says to run an experiment - use Method 1 100 times, and use Method 2 100 times. If Method 1 cures cancer 30% of the time, and Method 2 cures cancer 60% of the time, then scrap Method 1 and use Method 2.<BR/><BR/>This is what scientists do. They are constantly involved in comparing two or more theories by running them through tests, and then choosing the winner - the option that best explains and predicts what happens in the real world (like, the option that best predicts that a patient will survive cancer).<BR/><BR/>Nothing in human history has proven to be more effective at feeding the hungry, curing disease, and saving lives, than the scientific method.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-76594267039026757182007-12-26T02:39:00.000-07:002007-12-26T02:39:00.000-07:00Kevin: I think you're taking the term atheism a li...Kevin: I think you're taking the term atheism a little too broadly here. An atheist is by definition anti-god, and anti-religion. Someone who dithers on the fence due to lack of evidence is not an atheist.<BR/><BR/>My second statement has absolutely nothing to do with 'Hollywood myth' and a whole lot more to do with the changing nature of the social sciences, the transformation of knowledge and postmodernism.Matt Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14994000827596018585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-31947636488135335032007-12-26T01:57:00.000-07:002007-12-26T01:57:00.000-07:00Excellent post.Dootdoot, you're putting forth two ...Excellent post.<BR/><BR/>Dootdoot, you're putting forth two common misconceptions there. While I expect there are possibly a few close-minded atheists that dogmatically reject the possible existence of gods, that's not true for the majority of atheists, especially of the skeptical variety, who reject the gods of the various existing religions for lack of evidence or even contradictory evidence. Without getting too deep into ignosticism, the statement that "god(s) may or may not exist" is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Gods have taken a variety of forms throughout history, from supernatural and unfalsifiable to transcendent beings bound by either their own or our physics, and even human leaders of civilizations have been granted the designation of "god." Gods can literally take any form, and in some forms (such as Einstein's God) do exist. An anti-gods ideologue is one thing, but that's hardly representative of all atheists. If you take something from this post, keep in mind it's not the religious affiliation you should judge, but the content of that individual's beliefs as is relevant to the tasks they are expected to perform, which just so happen include religious and philosophical beliefs.<BR/><BR/>On the second part, how is the scientific method a bad thing? It is the best and only available method of acquiring real knowledge we have. It's self-correcting, and constantly evaluating against reality by means of evidence. It's not prescriptive, but it is descriptive, and is necessary to inform decisions to attain desired goals. Good intentions can have bad repercussions if improperly informed. Science is the closest to "Truth" we are capable of achieving, at least so far. A good leader uses the best information and best tools to make his decisions. A leader depending on the "revealed knowledge" of ancient shepherds over the heavily vetted stores of modern scientific understanding is not a good leader.<BR/><BR/>Your last statement suggests to me that perhaps you've bought into the Hollywood myth of the heartless, ruthless rationalist scientist that gladly sacrifices human lives to further his own goals or causes untold tragedy by "playing god". Science isn't like that. As I previously said, science isn't prescriptive, merely descriptive. It doesn't tell us what to do, merely how things work (as we currently understand them). What we do with that knowledge is a separate matter all together.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17626857285330229082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-13542563702123846612007-12-25T23:06:00.000-07:002007-12-25T23:06:00.000-07:00I agree that atheism should not automatically be c...I agree that atheism should not automatically be counted as a strike against a candidate, however:<BR/><BR/>Firstly, I believe that putting my faith (and this is what voting for a candidate is) in someone who has once and for all decided that a god, a higher power does not, and cannot exist would cause me a profound and deep sense of unease. If the said candidate has drawn his lines and built his walls in this area of his life, how does that reflect on his approach to other topics? Would he be so blindly close-minded? I am not arguing in favor of religion, merely against a completely and absolute rejection of it.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, you speak of a non-religious president opening the door for science to lead us forward into a happier future; why do you assume this is a good thing? I believe the insidious spread of the scientific method into everything we do, and its ultimate failure in many fields, will be the great philosophical upheaval of our lifetime, or possibly since the Enlightenment. Once again - not a pro-religious argument, but rather an argument against blindly entrusting politics to the calculating hands of the scientific method.Matt Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14994000827596018585noreply@blogger.com