Science belongs to the religious too

[rug]

Sadly, we've reached a point where I have to declare my atheism and some scientists are scared to 'come out' as Christian

Fern Elsdon-Baker guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 October 2011 03.00 EDT

A respected friend and scientific academic colleague confided in me last week that she didn't feel able to tell people in the science community that she was a Christian. It was an assertion, she felt, which would lead other colleagues to assume she was in some way stupid.

Her "coming out" as a Christian struck a chord with me because, to a large extent, it mirrored my own experiences of how faith is often portrayed by those whose job it is to communicate science. It is also indicative of how many young scientists are beginning to feel about their personal faith.

Now it is at this point in any discussion about the science v religion debate that I have to declare my own position: I am an atheist and unquestionably pro-science. It is actually a point of some consternation that I do feel the need to state this because, quite frankly, what I do or do not believe is my own business.

How I chose to define myself in terms of identity markers should be inconsequential to my career as a science communicator and academic. In fact reading down my own personal top 10, atheist comes at the very bottom after woman, British, partner, daughter, sister, friend, academic, sci-fi geek and Marmite lover.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/20/science-religious

[valerief]

1. Believers believe in magic science. nt

[rug]

4. Mendel must have thought they were magic beans instead of peas.

[LateTrade]

51. Instead of belief, Mendel applied the scientific method, foregoing the impulse to

say that GOD did it! He went out and experimented season after season.

He could have just given-up and said, "God did it!" But he didn't. Did he?

[no limit]

2. The simple fact is that there is nothing scientific about christianity

it is faith. I don't understand how people that study and understand scientific method can at the same time call themselves christian. Afterall, to be a Christian you must believe in the bible. A set of books science has disproven time and time again.

[rug]

5. If your headline is true, the scientific method does not apply.

[no limit]

7. Care to explain in more detail?

Once you put the bible (the thing that makes christians christians) to a scientific test it fails on every count. So why would a scientist believe the bible has any supernatural meaning?

[rug]

8. Since religion is not science it's foolish to apply the scientific method

to it and expect valid results.

You may have a point about the Bible if it was a geology book.

[no limit]

9. Religion is not science, you are right. But the bible is a set of real books

a book that makes a christian a christian. And if you apply the scientific method to the bible you see that it fails every test for what would make something scientific. So why would a person that is a scientist for a living believe that it is some kind of devine document?

[rug]

11. Because the Bible is not a set of scientific data and theses.

Looking for science in the Bible is as ridiculous as loooking for divinity in a genome.

[no limit]

13. But before you can prove the bible isn't scientific...

...you must apply some kind of method to determine that.

So if the bible says the earth is flat before you can say that this is false you must come up with some kind of test to determine that. And with most of the claims the bible makes you can do exactly that. And come to the same conclusion every time, that it's bullshit.

[rug]

16. Actually, you're asserting it is scientific.

Ergo . . . .

[no limit]

17. I said these is nothing scientific about christianity

[LateTrade]

52. I will have to scatch my head, asking why would anyone look for

divinity in the first place?

Secondly why is a desire to "look for divinity" something humans who understand the natural world would ever want to do?

So the Bible is NOT science? Why do so many people spend SO MUCH time trying to make the Bible appear to be anything other than fantasy and good fiction?

Two books on my nightstand tonight, one good science fiction, one a great geologic history of the planet: I could pick up either one. Enjoy either. But I'm NOT about to claim the fiction to be the absolute truth, nor the geological history, both need more facts and research.......why is it that supporters of the Bible won't allow for any more research ?

[rug]

135. Adios.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Actually, the bible has ONLY supernatural meaning. It is not a science text. nt

[humblebum]

25. The Scientific Method, as it is applied to the hard sciences, considers

or is useful for nothing beyond empirical, physical existence. Religion, or to be more precise, belief in metaphysical or supernatural existence examines existence beyond physical existence. When Christian people are working in science, they use the same SM as their non-believing peers.

[LAGC]

44. Have you read Richard Dawkins new book yet?

"The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True"

[humblebum]

45. Nope. Gave up on Dawkins a long time ago.

All of his work is from a positivistic perspective. Far too narrow-minded and therefore illogical, or logical only within his narrow perspective.

[laconicsax]

47. IOW: He isn't willing to just make shit up, so he isn't worth reading.

:eyes:

[humblebum]

48. Actually he is making it up as he goes along. He's definitely

lacking in the area of philosophy.

[darkstar3]

49. Laughable to a fault.

Your problem with Dawkins is not his philosophical depth, but the fact that he doesn't allow philosophy to contradict biology.

[humblebum]

53. It is not a problem of philosophy contradicting biology. It is that

it is being ignored to accomodate a very narrow and limited point of view.

[darkstar3]

54. Projection.

[humblebum]

55. Just another one of your standard retorts when you're lost. nt

[darkstar3]

57. Oh really?

Whose POV is so narrow that they focus on a single topic every time they post in R/T? Who has ignored vast amounts of historical fact in favor of the words of a handful of opinion writers who happen to share their fear and loathing? Who has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the concept of fallacy? Who desperately resorts to fallacy, repetition, and last word pissing contests when shown that their argumentation is in no way grounded in reality?

And finally, who are you to invoke the phrase "standard retort", Captain Predictable?

Whoever your debate teacher was in high school owes you money.

[humblebum]

58. No offense, but you are projecting.

[darkstar3]

60. CH, I think you're right: Poe

[cleanhippie]

62. It HAS to be.

Either way, I've given up trying to engage him in anything resembling a serious conversation. They all end up just like this.

[cleanhippie]

61. Sweet Jesus, bum, you ALWAYS end up with the "I know you are but what am I" nonsense.

[humblebum]

63. There you go with another standard retort. When all else fails...

[darkstar3]

64. And again I see evidence that you can't tell the atheists on this board apart.

[humblebum]

66. He's not the only one who does that out of habit. That's why I refer

to it as a standard atheist retort.

[darkstar3]

68. You do have a history of generalizing about atheists, that's true.

[cleanhippie]

81. Hmmm, so if you can say that, can we consider YOUR responses to be "Standard Christian" retort??

:shrug:

[humblebum]

84. Have a ball. nt

[cleanhippie]

99. So you think your views represent a general consensus of the Christian view?

Well, this is getting interesting.

[cleanhippie]

80. So you have a problem with me stating a fact. Your own posts are evidence of it.

[LateTrade]

50. You have a degree in that area? Or are you just offering your

unschooled opinion?

What are one or two ways in which his philosophical understandings and/or expressions differ from your extensive command of
"the area of philosophy"

Can you give us examples of "the area of philosophy" that fail to meet your standards? Where does he fail?

Maybe you should start with your extensive training and resume' in the field of philosophy, telling us how you are so able to judge his qualifications, based upon your extensive peer reviewed material in that area.

[cleanhippie]

59. Patently absurd.

As usual.

[humblebum]

65. I am certainly not alone in my assessment of Dawkins.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-magic-of-reality-by-richard-dawkins-illustrated-by-dave-mckean-2359196.html

http://deistphilosophy.blogspot.com/2009/10/richard-dawkins-failed-philosopher.html

[darkstar3]

67. Fallacious.

[humblebum]

69. Looked up results for 'darkstar3 fallacious'. Wow!

Results 1 - 10 of about 7,050.

[darkstar3]

70. Fallacious. ;)

Also a false representation, which I'm sure your Jesus finds most pleasing.

[humblebum]

73. But, but , but , but when it's done to me it's somehow OK. Guess

it must be one of them there atheist things again.

[darkstar3]

75. There's that generalizing about atheists again,

clear as day even if half your post makes no sense.

[cleanhippie]

82. If you want to generalize, can we now consider YOUR posts just "one of them there christian things"?

:shrug:

[NMMNG]

74. It's called "Lying for the Lord"

It's most popular in Mormon and Fundamentalist Christian circles, but others have been known to use it when it suits their needs.

[darkstar3]

76. I've seen it used even in the sexual sense.

In college, members of the CCC used to lure people to meetings (in order to "witness" for the lord) using promises of dinner, drinking, and debauchery.

[NMMNG]

77. Anything to perpetuate or defend the faith

That silly 9th Commandment is meaningless if it gets in the way of one's religion.

[laconicsax]

71. Wow, that's almost as many hits as for 'humblebum Stalin.'

7430 results for that search.

[humblebum]

72. Think we've been down that road before.

[cleanhippie]

79. Yeah, we have, in nearly every one of your posts.

[humblebum]

83. As long as you are engaged in your private war again religion

and religious followers, me or someone like me will always be there to expose radical atheism for what it is.

[PassingFair]

85. Radical Atheists! Hahahahaha.

Because being rational is SO radical!

[humblebum]

86. Only if you consider denial to be rational. nt

[PassingFair]

87. Denial of what? Be specific, please. n/t

[humblebum]

88. Bigotry is bigotry whether it's advanced by the gun, by the mouth,

or by the computer. Atheism, just like religion, has a repressive and violent history. That, by no means, includes all atheists, nor all religious.

[beam me up scottie]

89. Oh ffs, how can the lack of religious belief have a "repressive and violent history"?

Hank only knows how many people I've tortured and killed... :cry:

[humblebum]

90. When that "lack of religious belief" becomes organized. nt

[beam me up scottie]

91. How can a lack of something become organized?

My lack of eating meat probably makes me a terrorist.

Quick! Somebody Call Homeland Security!

[humblebum]

92. And you call atheism rational? NT

[beam me up scottie]

93. How can a lack of belief in the supernatural be anything else?

I also lack belief in alchemy and little green probe-wielding invaders from space.

;)

[humblebum]

94. I think you are confusing empirical thought with rational thought.

Atheism does not equal rational thought. To say that would be quite irrational - and self-centered.

[beam me up scottie]

95. Historically, non-belief in the supernatural has been the rational course.

Hence my sig line.



*edited to make post less offensive to believers

[humblebum]

96. Your type of rationale is this:

If I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch something - it cannot exist.

[beam me up scottie]

98. You presume to tell me what I think and/or believe?

Seriously?

You think I don't believe in sub-atomic particles?

I've been told I worship at the altar of science, try again.

[humblebum]

101. I'll stick with my assessment. Sub-atomic particles are detectable and

therefore apparent to the senses, which is the definition of empiricism.

[beam me up scottie]

109. Again, are you telling me that I don't believe that sub-atomic particles exist?

"assessment" *snort*

Please answer the question.




*edit- left out a word

[humblebum]

111. Where did I ever say that ? All I am saying is that you believe they

exist because it has been empirically proven. the evidence for their existence is gained through observation, which defines empiricism.

[beam me up scottie]

114. You told me what "my type of rationale" was. That is intolerant.

And just doggone rude.

[humblebum]

117. No, you told me what your rationale is. I merely restated the fact. nt

[beam me up scottie]

118. Wtf? Where did I do that??? Perhaps you can POINT IT OUT TO ME.

Please.

[humblebum]

119. Oh then. So you do believe in something without any objective evidence

pointing to its existence?

[beam me up scottie]

121. You are referring to your god(s)?

Sorry, I was a born skeptic, never indoctrinated into any religion and as a child felt insulted when my religious friends expected me to buy all that stuff.

I thought our school Xmas plays were like the fairy tales my mom used to read to me in German before I went to sleep.


Yes, doctor, I blame my parents.

[humblebum]

123. Not referring to anything in general. There is nothing wrong with

being a skeptic, either. The most honest thing someone say is "I don't know."

[beam me up scottie]

125. Agreed!

:toast:

[laconicsax]

127. No one has ever seen a sub-atomic particle.

Nor have they ever been directly detected. By your straw man, no reputable physicist would believe that sub-atomic particles exist.

Looks like science is broader than your "narrow" straw man.

[humblebum]

129. I was not the one who initiated the sub-atomic particle discussion,

And yes the evidence for sub-atomic particles' existence has been detected, and that can only be accomplished by observation. Directly or indirectly, objective evidence can only be obtained from the use of physical senses. If you cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch the evidence (or supporting data) - you are left without any method of objectively assessing it. I would like to meet the scientist who gathers evidence by any other means.

[laconicsax]

134. I see your straw man has movable goal posts. n/t

[cleanhippie]

102. And your type of rationale is this:

If you can imagine it, you think it's real.

[PassingFair]

115. Exactly. The possibility that the Christian "Creator" God exists is exactly as likely...

as the existence of an invisible sentient bagel living
in my armpit.

They are equally possible or impossible.

BELIEF in either entity is equally irrational.

[humblebum]

120. Thought through like a true atheist! nt

[beam me up scottie]

122. "the existence of an invisible sentient bagel living in my armpit."

:rofl:

Can I use that?

[PassingFair]

130. But of course!

I actually have an entire theology built around
this bagel from another planet.

Spoiler:

The slugs will inherit the earth!

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[beam me up scottie]

131. Why that's wonderful! If it's the slugs I can survive.

I know what they like, I've seen slug porn on Pharyngula.

Yeah baby, that's right, come to BMUS...

[PassingFair]

133. Just be sparing with the salt shaker.....nt

[humblebum]

124. Pure opinion and certainly not mine. And also unsubstantiated. nt

[PassingFair]

103. Bullshit.

If I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch something, then I have no reason to BELIEVE that it exists.

Unless there is provable EVIDENCE that it exists.
As in the case of radio waves or atoms.

But thanks again for wrongly defining what others believe.

[humblebum]

105. I think you just proved my point. nt

[PassingFair]

106. You have a point?

I really don't see it.

Guess I'll have to take it on faith.

:sarcasm:

[beam me up scottie]

108. Defining the (non)beliefs of others is religious bigotry.

One has to wonder what is behind this type of behaviour.

[humblebum]

110. Uh huh. Yeh. nt

[cleanhippie]

100. What would you know about EITHER on of those?

Your posts do not reflect ANY basic understanding of either kind of thought.

[humblebum]

104. LOL. As if your's do? Your obvious inability to debate such things

says it all.

[cleanhippie]

107. Thank you for re-assuring me that I was correct in my analysis.

[beam me up scottie]

112. Must have been something in his childhood, maybe an atheist stole his lunch money.

I feel sorry for people who are scared of atheists.

Just an *assessment*, of course.

:P

[PassingFair]

113. It is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

Now if your beliefs are so vague that they only
suggest the possibility of the supernatural, then
I suppose that is not irrational.

But "maybe" doesn't seem to be a religious
stance.

[darkstar3]

126. Welcome back, old friend!

[beam me up scottie]

128. .

:hug:

[cleanhippie]

78. I'm certain you aren't either. There are many who hold a distorted view of reality

in order to support their religious worldview. You are no different.

[Lost-in-FL]

3. Oh… what is I'm hearing in the background?

That's it… "Cry me a river" by Diana Krall.

[rug]

6. It's the point soaring past your head.

[Lost-in-FL]

18. M'nooooooo…

It is the stupidity of the article that is obviously "soaring past your head". Do you really want us to believe that this is common practice in the UK or scientific community? Many scientists making contribuitions to science are religious (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindu, etc.). Would I care if my doctor is religious? Absolutely not. This article is a cheap attempt at instigating feelings of "victimization" in the Christians community. It is "Expelled" in a shorter version. Nothing else.

[rug]

19. And her need to declare her atheism?

Is that also a victim card?

As to whether it's common practice, she's talking from experience. I don't know what you're talking from.

[Lost-in-FL]

20. Ok… an article by an atheist in the "belief" section of The Guardian.

:eyes:

Have you even been in lab? Not much of religion is spoken there. Unless of course you count expressions like "Thank god!" or "Bless you" right after someone sneezes as examples of a religious conversation.

[Jim__]

10. She makes an excellent point.

Does being a Christian mean you can't do science? Well some might argue this but then those same people tend to argue that science is an objective and not a subjective endeavour; one that cannot be influenced by the individual scientist's perspective. We are, after all, observing the same universal phenomena – or so the argument goes.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. There is no reason why a scientist cannot be religious.

What a scientist cannot be, however, is a biblical literalist.

That's just fucking stupid.

[Lost-in-FL]

14. +1, nt

[Deep13]

43. Well, the whole faith thing cuts against inquiry.

I recognize that there are many religious scientists who do very professional work. But they are good scientists despite their religion, not because of it. And the more accomplished a scientist is, the less likely he or she will be religious.

[dtexdem]

21. Science belongs to all who embrace it and its principles.

Religious faith should have nothing to do with it.

[Sal316]

22. As a Christian and a Scientist....

....this is one of the dumbest arguments in history. The two are not mutually exclusive.

This author hits the nail on the head when she talks about identity markers being inconsequential to a career in science and academics.

This paragraph says it eloquently:

"It is a misconception to assume that being religiously minded means an inherent rejection of a scientific method or approach to understanding the world around us. To take this path lends itself to the ridiculous and totally ahistorical assumption that religious teaching has always been, and should continue to be, anti-scientific. Or that science communication should be inherently anti-religious."

[laconicsax]

23. And what's more, you can interpret scripture to fit your arguments!

:woohoo:

[humblebum]

27. And so can you. nt

[laconicsax]

28. That's the wonderful thing about fiction--there's no wrong answer. n/t

[humblebum]

29. Wrong answer. nt

[laconicsax]

30. Trombone n/t

[humblebum]

31. hypersupichuberchism alphadorium. nt

[laconicsax]

32. Sorry, you lose.

Musical instruments only.

[humblebum]

33. That's the sound that comes out when I play the trombone. nt

[laconicsax]

34. Uh huh.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sal316]

46. ...and with that reply....

...you show that you got nothin'.

#kthxbai

[laconicsax]

97. Just as Jesus commands, right?

[Sal316]

132. That doesn't even make any sense...

#kthxbai

[humblebum]

26. Well stated and so true. nt

[NMMNG]

24. Science belongs to everyone

There's only a problem if somebody tries to deny scientific facts (like evolution) or to distort them so they fit a particular ideology.

[laconicsax]

35. I take it from the lack of quotation marks that you're coming out as an atheist.

Welcome, rug. Meetings are the 3rd Tuesday of each month.

[rug]

36. You missed the byline.

Thanks for the invitation but on the third Tuesday of the month I'm picketing the soup kitchen because they hand out napkins with Bible quotes.

[laconicsax]

37. You mean that same soup kitchen that's understocked? Classy.

What would they do without you?

[Iggo]

56. How dare they?

I like my Bible quotes napkinless, thank you very much!

;)

[PassingFair]

116. A worthy cause! I hate sanctimony with my soup. nt

[Silent3]

39. Since humans are great at compartmentalization...

...there's no question that religious scientists can do good science. Religion might even be a source of inspiration for scientific work in some cases. Nevertheless, doing the actual work of science well requires an objective and evidenced-based approach that is incompatible with religion.

Many who participate in the special pleading done for religion will happily agree that the scientific method is incompatible with religion, but they agree because they hope to cast religion as some "other way of knowing", for some never-well-explained reason exempt from objective standards and rules of evidence.

[Iggo]

40. Because it's real.

[Deep13]

42. Science belongs to everyone, even to those whose religions it proves wrong.

If you are an Evangelical teacher and do a good job teaching evolution, fine. If you are a Catholic pharmacist and will fill whatever Rx the doctor writes, fine.