Science is independent of humanism, atheism and religion

[rug]

It's one of the highest human achievements, but some atheists seem to want to raise science to the level of our saviour

Julian Baggini guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 October 2011 05.00 EDT

'You might find the odd such person standing in front of a painting, only interested in knowing what their brain is doing in response to the visual stimulus, but such a person would be just that: odd.' Photograph: Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images
Last week, I argued that although science and religion clearly can be compatible, they often make for far less comfortable bedfellows than most believers sanguinely maintain. There is, however, another side to the story of science's relation to belief: the idea held by many atheists that science is not only on their side, but is their best buddy. The uncomfortable truth for believers and atheists alike is that science is a loner who never shies from revealing embarrassing truths about anyone who tries to claim ownership of it.

This is not the rather silly view that science is "just another myth", that the physics of Niels Bohr is no more "valid" than the poetry of Beowulf. Indeed, I'm not sure that anyone who gave this more than a second's thought really believes this. John Gray often sounds as though he does, but what he actually says is that science "has become a vehicle for myths", such as that of inevitable progress, not that science itself is no better way of understanding the world than folk beliefs about sun gods or earth spirits.

Talk about "myths" seems to me to be a cheap way of trying to equate secular problems with science with religious ones, when really they are quite different. While the religious merely need to find a way to co-exist with science, atheist humanism often claims too close a kinship with it. Science is portrayed as what underlies and vindicates the humanist outlook. In one very important senses this is right. Atheism may be defined negatively as opposed to theism, but atheists are first and foremost naturalists, committed to a positive view of the universe as containing only natural entities and forces. This view is not held as a matter of faith but because that is what the scientific evidence strongly suggests.

If this represents a marriage of science and atheism, then it has to be admitted that in every other respect, the two enjoy a non-exclusive relationship. Take the claim made a few years ago by the British Humanist Association that agreeing with the statement "scientific and other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe" is a distinguishing characteristic of the humanist outlook, or the international humanists' 2002 Amsterdam Declaration, which maintained "Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare". Both statements are held with equal conviction by many religious believers. It is just that, for them, science leaves many questions open, and in such cases we are entitled to base our judgements on non-scientific grounds. Only the most fanatically scientistic would insist otherwise, demanding that, of which science cannot speak, we must remain silent. You might find the odd such person standing in front of a painting, only interested in knowing what their brain is doing in response to the visual stimulus, but such a person would be just that: odd.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/21/science-atheism-humanism-religion?newsfeed=true

[beam me up scottie]

1. So?

This is news?

Must be a slow day.

[rug]

6. No there's lots and lots of news.

But this is a discussion board not a news feed.

[darkstar3]

9. Then why not treat it as such instead of like LBN?

You know what makes a discussion? A starting comment.

[rug]

10. Why not discuss the article instead of Emily Poster?

[darkstar3]

13. I already did. It doesn't surprise me that you didn't read that far.

[rug]

16. Well, no shit Sherlock is hardly thought-provoking.

[darkstar3]

18. Moreso than the article.

[rug]

20. Once again, I look at the article, look at your post, look at the article again,

and look at you and shake my head in dismay.

[darkstar3]

22. I can't help it if the aritcle provoked a thought or two for you,

but really, it doesn't appear to have much in the way of collected original thoughts, let alone the ability to provoke them.

[rug]

24. Well, I have yet to hear from you an argument that isn't found on the iphone atheist app.

[darkstar3]

25. And it never occurred to you that I might have wrote it?

;)

[beam me up scottie]

11. That's too bad.

I guess there's another reason why the majority of your threads (and there's a LOT of them) don't get much attention.

:shrug:

[rug]

15. Oh no, you say my threads are unpopular!

:cry:

I hope I can get a date for homecoming.

[beam me up scottie]

26. More like boring.

You should try starting a few using your own opinions.

And you never know, your cousin might just say yes to that dance after all.

[rug]

28. You have an inordinate interest in boring posts.

Maybe the bloom has worn off your cousin.

[beam me up scottie]

30. You should know.

About the cousin thing, I said my bf was catholic, not me.

[NMMNG]

2. Another one of those "atheists worship science" pieces

:boring:


It is just that, for them, science leaves many questions open, and in such cases we are entitled to base our judgements on non-scientific grounds.


Translation: "Science hasn't answered some questions yet, which means God Did It".

[rug]

5. I doubt that's his translation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/17/atheist-sermon-westminster-abbey

[darkstar3]

7. The Guardian?

Your reading list is decidedly lacking, has anyone ever told you that?

[rug]

14. Yes, the Guardian.

Your index of forbidden sources is decidely ridiculous. Has anyone ever told you that?

Here, expand your mind: http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192804243 Don't forget to read the reviews.

[darkstar3]

17. I'm simply commenting on the fact that between

The Guardian, The Daily Mail, and the Wall Street Journal, I've seen enough of your reading list to know that there is simply no way under the sun that we'll ever see eye to eye.

I also find such a list incongruent with the values of a liberal discussion forum.

[laconicsax]

19. Liberal Christianity is about incongruence. n/t

[rug]

21. The disagreement has virtually nothing to do with reading lists.

I rarely agree with people who support police spying on ethnic communities.

(And you really should compile all the sources. Otherwise, you'll just look foolish.)

[darkstar3]

23. You're right, it's not about our reading habits, it's about our completely incompatible worldviews.

I will never agree with someone who supports a network of child molestors, believes that monitoring of public events is "spying", or revels in the inapprorpriate application of majority privilege and the bullying of minorities by members of his chosen majority.

[rug]

27. Then you you sweep those strawmen out of your head.

You'll live happier based in reality.

[darkstar3]

29. Firstly, "straw men" is two words, not one,

and secondly, this is all based entirely on conversations had with you on this very board. Deflect all you want, the truth is more than clear in your history.

[rug]

31. Lol.

Don't strain yourself stretching for your stalker file. It will be refreshing to compare what's actually written to those shadows in your mind.

[darkstar3]

32. There's that word again.

I don't think you've ever been stalked before. I have. You might ask me about the experience sometime if you'd like to know fuck all about what the word means.

[rug]

33. Before? No.

[LeftishBrit]

36. I agree about the Daily Mail, but the Guardian is a predominantly left/liberal newspaper

One of very few such papers in Britain! It's also relatively reliable for news, though the BBC is probably better than any newspaper.

It's probably our best newspaper. Not all of its writers are progressive (one was the infamous Julian Glover, now speechwriter to Cameron); but many are, and I would not consider it 'incompatible with the values of a liberal site'.

Not saying that I agree with the article; just defending one of the few British papers that's worth defending!

[NMMNG]

8. Essentially it is

He says if science cannot provide the answers we must let religious people provide them. Not only is that a false dichotomy but it's pure bollocks. Just because science doesn't currently have an answer to a question that doesn't mean that a supernatural explanation is the only possible alternative.

[darkstar3]

3. This just in from the NSS section.

Science is independent of ideology, but that doesn't stop the straw builders.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. they share 'evidence based reasoning' as a fundamental principle.

and that is at odds with the faith based reasoning that is fundamental to religion.

[Humanist_Activist]

12. I would argue that for secular humanism that is true, but for atheism it is not...

atheism has no principles of any sort, its a lack of belief, and while most atheists in the western world became atheists due to evidence based reasoning, we cannot say that because of that its a principle of atheism. If someone was raised with no concept or worship of a deity, they are an atheist, but they may not necessarily disbelieve due to lack of evidence, but because it runs contrary to other irrational beliefs. Certain sects of Buddhism are atheistic in this way, so are certain varieties of Animism and a variety of other religions as well. Not to mention many New Agers who may not believe in a god, but believe in the power of astrology, crystal healing, and other crackpot and irrational beliefs.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. You are splitting hairs, or perhaps hares.

Yes there exist atheists who literally lack religion and did not arrive at atheism through deliberation, for those atheists it is arguable that indeed they do not view evidenced based reasoning as fundamental to their philosophical outlook, if they even consciously have one. The same of course can be said for theists who have never deliberated on their theism - they may in fact not view faith based reasoning as fundamental as they haven't thought about it. So what? Neither group is of any interest in this discussion.

New Agers are not atheists in any sense.

[Humanist_Activist]

44. Not all new agers, no, but quite a few have no belief in a personal god...

Hence are atheists, you seem to want to expand the definition of atheism to include not having any supernatural beliefs. This is simply untenable as some varieties of theists also reject most supernatural beliefs outside of there theism.

[Deep13]

34. Science is a way to find objective reality.

It works. Human understand is not perfect and not always honest, so there have been obstacles in the implementation of science. So far, it is the only way we have positively discovered anything beyond what cavemen knew. It is not a religion or a savior and should not degrade itself by trying to be those things. Atheists tend to appreciate science because they tend (I don't want to reify the whole group) to want objective, verifiable answers. Science should be useful to solving human problems and it largely has been. Of course human behavior is sufficiently complex that it has not been reduced to a solved problem, though in principle it could be. If we were able to see through the psychological and emotional barriers to understanding it would go a long way toward improving the human condition.

[laconicsax]

35. But objective reality is so narrow!

It's much more fun to simply decide that anything you imagine might be real and deride those who want proof (or at least a shred of evidence) that the machinations of your mind are anything more than puerile fantasy (they're so shrill and militant anyway).

[Deep13]

39. I know, right?

The world was so much richer and wider when it was just the dirt, heaven and hell and the stars were just lights in the sky.

[Jim__]

37. His interview with Harris is somewhat astounding.

It really does make at least one point of the column clear:

The rapturous reception Harris's book received from many atheists – though thankfully far from all of them – is a symptom of an unhealthy desire to raise science to the level of our saviour. ...

[Angry Dragon]

38. Who are all these atheists that believe science is god??

and the children need to take their squabbles outside

[edhopper]

40. As an atheist and an artist

I find this article insulting and imbecilic. It seems the author has little understanding of people with a reason based outlook.

[rug]

41. But he is.

"But there are also lots of atheists like me. We simply do not believe in God because we see no good reason to do so. To invite us into the citadels of faith and ask us to explain what we believe is therefore not to bring the enemy though the gate, simply because we are not the enemy."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/17/atheist-sermon-westminster-abbey

[edhopper]

42. This tells me

"The upshot of this and last week's argument is that science is not such a large problem for religion as atheists suppose, but not such a small problem as the religious suppose, and not as much of an ally to humanists as they suppose. All of which means that science just isn't as central to the disputes between believers and atheists as almost everyone seems to suppose. It's time to move on."


That he doesn't understand the rationalist point of view.