Mark:
I think that if you ask an atheist scientist whether science disproves god, you'll get a quick "No, it does not" in a large majority of cases, from Richard Dawkins* to the lowliest grad student (like me). Most scientists know what the limits of science are, and god's existence is not a testable hypothesis. We may be able to test the age of the earth and show that the world is sphere-shaped rather than flat - which contradict some creation myths - but we can't disprove god any more than we can disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
Which is to say, I think your claims of atheist science misuse of science are overblown. I've heard some people claim that science disproves god, but they were mostly 16-20 year olds who clearly hadn't thought hard about much of anything, much less the philosophy of science.
*I've only read one of Dawkins' books, "Unweaving the Rainbow", and it was a long time ago. However, I believe he explicitly states in this book that science can't prove the absence of god, the best it can do is make him unnecessary.
2009-02-03 20:41:29
E.D., you're arguing against a point I'm not making. My point is that fake science and science denial are always bad and are a big problem in modern society. At worst, they're destructive and evil, at best, they're wasteful of limited resources like time and money. And the further point is that the biggest promoters of fake science and science denial have been religious leaders.
What you're arguing is that science isn't always good. I've never argued explicitly that science is always good, and you're presuming it into my argument. It does not follow from the arguments that I have made.
2009-02-03 19:06:55
Great, now the hosts are breaking Godwin's law. Good work.
2009-02-03 18:30:06
E.D., Mark, full disclosure: I'm a scientist. For me, one of the big problems in this country is science denial. I suspect that's also the case for most prominent "new atheists" or whatever we want to call them. It's not an accident that PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are all scientists in general and biologists in particular. Science has been under attack in the US for the past eight years. Global climate change denialists have been the biggest problem especially since we had one in the White House but creationism has been a problem too, as have, to lesser extents, abstinence-only advocates, AIDS denialists and vaccine conspiracists.
Science denial isn't a cost-free belief. E.D. brought up Stalin in the context of his (Stalin's) atheism, but Stalin was also a skeptic of Darwinian evolution. He called genetics "Capitalist Science", imprisoned prominent geneticists and instituted Lysenkoism, a pseudoscience that he thought was more in line with communist ideals. His science policies caused huge famines and were probably responsible for as many, if not more, deaths than his gulags. How many people do you think will die from George W. Bush's climate policies? Will it be more than from Stalin's denial of genetics?
Right here and now, in 2009 and in the US, the most consistent and prominent pushers of science denial have been conservative Christian leaders advocating for creationism. Some even work denial of climate change into their sermons.
Who is going to push back against this? Moderate and liberal Christians could, but they mostly don't or aren't very loud when they do. Larger denominations are probably too worried about offending their conservative wings. Pope Benedict even recently made some rhetorical gestures in the direction of Intelligent Design, which horrified me because my family is largely Catholic. If moderate and liberal Christians can't be bothered to push back against science denial from their co-religionists, the task is going to fall to scientists. Who are largely atheist. Who include among their rank some assholes like PZ Myers. Who are not going to respect your religion in general, and even less when you elevate science deniers to leading roles.
I am constantly baffled when I see science deniers defended from those mean atheists. Yes, Myers and company are jerks. But science denial is dangerous. Those who advocate it deserve every bit of scorn they get.
2009-02-03 16:23:24
The problem with "believe and let believe" is that beliefs have consequences. At the very least, societal belief in god has usually been a pretty bad deal for women and homosexuals. It's frequently pretty bad for scientists as well, whether they're modern biology teachers or Galileo.
Furthermore, while some theologian's deistic god may be unprovable, that's really not what people believe. Geologic evidence really does indicate a very old planet, rather than an approximately 7000 year old planet. This doesn't disprove all gods, but it does disprove one specific kind of god - one that lots of people really believe in - which is why some people get bent out of shape about it. And while Bob from accounting believing that the earth is 7000 years old probably doesn't matter, it does matter if he goes to PTA meetings and convinces the school board to stop teaching that heathen evolution.
Some beliefs have a very detrimental effect on society if they are widespread enough. That's why you're getting push back on this stuff. Most of the time, people who believe in crazy, detrimental stuff are kept on the sidelines of civil discourse, but in the cases of creationism and discrimination against certain minorities (and other cases not listed here), religion is allowed to provide a veneer of credibility, a large constituency and therefore political clout to what should be fringe beliefs. That's why it matters.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Mark:
I think that if you ask an atheist scientist whether science disproves god, you'll get a quick "No, it does not" in a large majority of cases, from Richard Dawkins* to the lowliest grad student (like me). Most scientists know what the limits of science are, and god's existence is not a testable hypothesis. We may be able to test the age of the earth and show that the world is sphere-shaped rather than flat - which contradict some creation myths - but we can't disprove god any more than we can disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
Which is to say, I think your claims of atheist science misuse of science are overblown. I've heard some people claim that science disproves god, but they were mostly 16-20 year olds who clearly hadn't thought hard about much of anything, much less the philosophy of science.
*I've only read one of Dawkins' books, "Unweaving the Rainbow", and it was a long time ago. However, I believe he explicitly states in this book that science can't prove the absence of god, the best it can do is make him unnecessary.
E.D., you're arguing against a point I'm not making. My point is that fake science and science denial are always bad and are a big problem in modern society. At worst, they're destructive and evil, at best, they're wasteful of limited resources like time and money. And the further point is that the biggest promoters of fake science and science denial have been religious leaders.
What you're arguing is that science isn't always good. I've never argued explicitly that science is always good, and you're presuming it into my argument. It does not follow from the arguments that I have made.
Great, now the hosts are breaking Godwin's law. Good work.
E.D., Mark, full disclosure: I'm a scientist. For me, one of the big problems in this country is science denial. I suspect that's also the case for most prominent "new atheists" or whatever we want to call them. It's not an accident that PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are all scientists in general and biologists in particular. Science has been under attack in the US for the past eight years. Global climate change denialists have been the biggest problem especially since we had one in the White House but creationism has been a problem too, as have, to lesser extents, abstinence-only advocates, AIDS denialists and vaccine conspiracists.
Science denial isn't a cost-free belief. E.D. brought up Stalin in the context of his (Stalin's) atheism, but Stalin was also a skeptic of Darwinian evolution. He called genetics "Capitalist Science", imprisoned prominent geneticists and instituted Lysenkoism, a pseudoscience that he thought was more in line with communist ideals. His science policies caused huge famines and were probably responsible for as many, if not more, deaths than his gulags. How many people do you think will die from George W. Bush's climate policies? Will it be more than from Stalin's denial of genetics?
Right here and now, in 2009 and in the US, the most consistent and prominent pushers of science denial have been conservative Christian leaders advocating for creationism. Some even work denial of climate change into their sermons.
Who is going to push back against this? Moderate and liberal Christians could, but they mostly don't or aren't very loud when they do. Larger denominations are probably too worried about offending their conservative wings. Pope Benedict even recently made some rhetorical gestures in the direction of Intelligent Design, which horrified me because my family is largely Catholic. If moderate and liberal Christians can't be bothered to push back against science denial from their co-religionists, the task is going to fall to scientists. Who are largely atheist. Who include among their rank some assholes like PZ Myers. Who are not going to respect your religion in general, and even less when you elevate science deniers to leading roles.
I am constantly baffled when I see science deniers defended from those mean atheists. Yes, Myers and company are jerks. But science denial is dangerous. Those who advocate it deserve every bit of scorn they get.
The problem with "believe and let believe" is that beliefs have consequences. At the very least, societal belief in god has usually been a pretty bad deal for women and homosexuals. It's frequently pretty bad for scientists as well, whether they're modern biology teachers or Galileo.
Furthermore, while some theologian's deistic god may be unprovable, that's really not what people believe. Geologic evidence really does indicate a very old planet, rather than an approximately 7000 year old planet. This doesn't disprove all gods, but it does disprove one specific kind of god - one that lots of people really believe in - which is why some people get bent out of shape about it. And while Bob from accounting believing that the earth is 7000 years old probably doesn't matter, it does matter if he goes to PTA meetings and convinces the school board to stop teaching that heathen evolution.
Some beliefs have a very detrimental effect on society if they are widespread enough. That's why you're getting push back on this stuff. Most of the time, people who believe in crazy, detrimental stuff are kept on the sidelines of civil discourse, but in the cases of creationism and discrimination against certain minorities (and other cases not listed here), religion is allowed to provide a veneer of credibility, a large constituency and therefore political clout to what should be fringe beliefs. That's why it matters.