The New Atheists; The Cult of Science?

[Southtown]

You say the "thread is devolving." Perhaps it is simply being distilled. The question isn't "whether there is a God or not," but seems to be "what does it cost us to argue about it," which obviously stays true to topic.

Tomatoe, tomato.

 

This thread asks the question of whether atheism is the cult of science.

 

There are plenty threads about the merits of the God theory, i.e. threads that can be "distilled" as to whether there is a god or not.

I don't think you understand me. I wasn't saying that the question of a god is the distillate, but that the question "what does arguing about it cost us" is the distillate, which seems to me to be exactly what TBD and Inow were getting at. Athiests often site believers for irreconcilable means, but will non-believers also adopt similar methods (whether in whole or in part?)

[Boerseun]

I don't think you understand me. I wasn't saying that the question of a god is the distillate, but that the question "what does arguing about it cost us" is the distillate, which seems to me to be exactly what TBD and Inow were getting at. Athiests often site believers for irreconcilable means, but will non-believers also adopt similar methods (whether in whole or in part?)

"Non-believers" or "atheists", as you group them, have only their dismissal (not "disbelief") of the entire God-concept in common. They share no other common values or morals. Of course their might be an overlap in values and morals, but there is nothing "written in stone", if you'll excuse the biblical metaphor.

 

As such, there's no real use in throwing "atheists" into a common group. I suspect the terminology is only useful to believers of all flavors, who have now found a common enemy so that they can ignore their own mutual irreconcilabilities, if only for the moment.

 

And seeing as a common name is a very handy tool to use for a common enemy, it's easy to just go one step further and assign "Science" as this dispiccable group's "Cult". But there is no truth to it, whatsoever. Whereas most scientists might be atheists, it does not follow that most atheists are scientists. There is no "Cult". There is merely the common dismissal of a fallacy of gigantic proportions.

[Southtown]

You're right. I feel the same way when I'm typecast.

[Qfwfq]

Since the OP has not posted once since the end of 2008 it may not be possible to get his perspective.

Actually, the opening poster has reappeared, so you can ask what his actual intent was.

 

OTOH, since "science" and "atheism" are being presented in the thread header as a near equivalency let's tackle that first, regardless of the OP's perspective.

I really wouldn't say that's what the OP was all about. Not all scientific people are induced to be atheists; it isn't a true consequence of science and rational logic.

 

The story you chose, the tower of babel, is saying exactly the opposite. It's saying that when humans get together and work with mutual understanding for their own mutual benefit then it's time for God to come down and punish them for such an evil thing. So, I thought that was a little ironic.

Actually, that wasn't the reason for the "punishment" so I don't really see it as ironic.

[enorbet2]

Had I written an article or even a thread somewhere in 1975 entitled

 

"Jim Jones, People's temple; Cult of Death?"

 

while I would not have been asking or contending if Jim Jones' Temple was identical to death, I might be suggesting equivalency since that term is defined as "virtually identical especially in effect or function". It certainly and objectively would be describing a close relationship that might conclude in "Don't go to Guyana with this sadistic, speed freak, messianic demagogue!" but I digress.

 

Of course it is also provable, and I agree with your statement, that "Not all scientific people are induced to be atheists". In fact I am not without some respect for those that can compartmentalize like that to keep paper clips and chain saws juggling in neat order. However, as in this thread and (so far) all others everywhere, there exists no logical proof for the existence of a Supreme Being, Omnipotent Creator of the Universe, and furthermore it is likely that there never can be one since by definition he/she/it is outside of our Universe (in fact, it is even a tenet of the ontological argument against kca Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia typified in arguments against actual infinites as well as faulty premises) , I disagree with your final line "it isn't a true consequence of rational logic" since as far as I can tell, Religion depends on Faith and Faith alone, the suspension of rational logic, so scientists who are not also non-believers, have removed themselves from the equation.

 

Just to be abundantly clear, I have zero problem with that, since on some level we all do that in some areas where that makes us comfortable since it is impossible to have sufficient data to make logical choices in everything we do. Sometimes we operate on instinct and hunches and that is perfectly valid especially in areas of little or no consequence. However if I see you betting the mortgage on the next roll of the dice, I might at least suggest Blackjack or Mutual Funds. If you're married to my sister or daughter, I might even insist or inform management two signatures are required. As long as there are no consequences for me and mine, you and I are cool in my book.

[Qfwfq]

Well I must inform you that your words are wasted on me because I am not atheist, but I am agnostic. If you refuse to distinguish tomatoes from tomatoes and call the distinction nitpicking, I have no way of getting through to you. Where have I supported any whatsoever ontological argument? Science can't support an anti-ontological argument either.

 

Therefore, neither can atheism follow from science without further doxa. Note that I use this word to distinguish tomatoes from tomatoes, because I agree that the word dogma has very much assumed the strong connotation. There are however some atheists for which it is more than doxa, in their attitude it is more like dogma.

 

I disagree with your final line "it isn't a true consequence of rational logic" since as far as I can tell, Religion depends on Faith and Faith alone, the suspension of rational logic, so scientists who are not also non-believers, have removed themselves from the equation.

Faith is not necessarily the suspension of rational logic, so I totally disagree with that. Faith in Creationism, for instance, and taking the book of Genesis literally (lack of hermeneutics) are currently refutable by scientific knowledge. So what?

 

You should be aware that not all religious people believe such crap; I think you should be better informed.

[InfiniteNow]

Can someone help me understand what the difference between a tomato and a tomato is? You lost me there, Q. :cup:

 

 

Also, it seems rather clear that you sure don't like the word atheist, despite the fact that in the huge majority of times it's used it still suggests agnostic atheism. :shrug:

[Qfwfq]

For whom it may concern, my last post was due to the fact that I had been grossly misunderstood, I was therefore making more of a distinction between being agnostic and being deist/religious/theist &c. than that between the words agnostic and atheist.

 

If anyone has some great personal pleasure in using the word tapir to indicate an agnostic, I can't prevent it. If we can't agree to speak the same language, we must at least provide a translator. The word agnostic is defined and widely accepted. If one is atheist, one can't be agnostic, agnostic atheism is a contradiction in terms. There's a difference between not liking the word atheist and not being an atheist; it's crass to identify the two things, especially in describing others.

[modest]

My understanding has always been that gnosticism and agnosticism are statements of knowledge rather than belief while theism and atheism are statements of belief. I find this classification natural and useful.

 

Without this distinction there would be no term for someone who holds knowledge regarding god (or spirits or the like) as unattainable yet believes. Or, someone who claims no personal knowledge yet believes. I don't think this is an uncommon position... kind of deist.

• Strong atheist = believe god is nonexistent
  
• Weak atheist = no belief in god
  
• Strong agnostic = knowledge of god is nonexistent
  
• weak agnostic = no knowledge of god
  

I think it would be possible to be a strong atheist and a strong agnostic. I could see a person believing god does not exist and thinking that the supernatural is not knowable. As belief is not knowledge, I can see that happening.

 

I don't have a problem with using the terms differently with someone who expects they mean something else, but I rather prefer the usage above.

 

~modest

[freeztar]

While we're on this tangent, I quite prefer the wikipedia definitions.

 

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I've had several people tell me that my claim of being an agnostic atheist is contradictory, but if you read the descriptions in that link it becomes clear why the distinction is made. It is not contradictory.

 

When IN said that most atheists are agnostic atheists, I think he is probably correct. (though I think this would be difficult to prove with data)

 

EDIT: Looking back, IN did not claim what I said. He claimed that the use of the word atheism has historically meant agnostic atheism.

[RevOfAllRevs]

I am taking a brief sabbatical from this thread until some issues are resolved. My best reguards....

 

; }>

[Qfwfq]

Seriously, folks. Insistence on all these different definitions is off the point of the thread as well as based on very arbitrary choices which are quite negligent and misinformed. Yes, including that wiki, according to which almost everybody would be agnostic. :shrug:

 

Without this distinction there would be no term for someone who holds knowledge regarding god (or spirits or the like) as unattainable yet believes. Or, someone who claims no personal knowledge yet believes. I don't think this is an uncommon position... kind of deist.

And yet, you give one term yourself. There is also such a thing as believer and faithful.

 

I think it would be possible to be a strong atheist and a strong agnostic. I could see a person believing god does not exist and thinking that the supernatural is not knowable. As belief is not knowledge, I can see that happening.

To many, belief is grounds for knowledge. This is the view of most religious people; only some profess faith without claiming knowledge or at least make some kind of distinction between knowledge and knowledge. This is why Huxley coined the term based on gnosis which in essence means spiritual knowledge based on faith alone (including enlightenment) as opposed to epistemological knowledge.

 

Strictly, scientific knowledge is also a belief... only based on grounds quite different from pure faith and/or enlightenment.

 

Looking back, IN did not claim what I said. He claimed that the use of the word atheism has historically meant agnostic atheism.

And a false fact he was claiming. Historically the term atheist has been used for such a broad range of folks that there's no point in making the historic usage a basis for semantic consensus. Would it make sense for a Lutheran to suggest that we should take atheist to include folks of all other religions including other Christian ones? :doh:

 

;)

[Boerseun]

Strictly, scientific knowledge is also a belief... only based on grounds quite different from pure faith and/or enlightenment.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. Scientific knowledge is empirical. "Belief" is dogmatic.

And a false fact he was claiming. Historically the term atheist has been used for such a broad range of folks that there's no point in making the historic usage a basis for semantic consensus.

There is no confusion. Atheist = A-theist. Somebody who rejects theism. As simple as that. There is no need to limit our discussion of this because of historic use or abuse. The term is crystal clear, as clear as a bell.

Would it make sense for a Lutheran to suggest that we should take atheist to include folks of all other religions including other Christian ones?

If the Lutheran version of "God" is believed to be the One and Only God, then the Lutheran you talk about is already an atheist regarding Islam, Judaism and all non-Lutheran versions of God, because they worship another deity than the One and Only True God.

 

But, to be clear, a Lutheran cannot be classified as an atheist in any sense, because he is clearly a theist by virtue of his belief in the Lutheran God. Just so far as other gods might be concerned, can he be considered an atheist. But then we should say he's an "a-Allahist", an "a-Zeusist", or an "a-Apollonist". He does not reject the notion of "theism", as he is a Lutheran. So I think your example obfuscates matters more than anything else.

[InfiniteNow]

This is the view of most religious people; only some profess faith without claiming knowledge or at least make some kind of distinction between knowledge and knowledge.

The distinction between knowledge and knowledge? Again Q, I'm not following. This comment parallels your previous which discussed the distinction between a tomato and a tomato... a comment for which I requested clarification... a request which remains unaddressed.

 

What is the distinction between a tomato and a tomato?

What is the distinction between knowledge and knowledge?

How is any of this relevant?

 

Finally, why do you continue to berate others for forcing their definition of atheism, and then engage in this exact act of definitional forcing yourself with nearly every post?

[Qfwfq]

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. Scientific knowledge is empirical. "Belief" is dogmatic.

belief - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

Scientific knowledge is epistemological belief.

 

There is no confusion. Atheist = A-theist.

Historically incorrect, the privative was first applied to theos, neither to theist nor to theism which originally were deist and deism and didn't include revealed religions.

 

If the Lutheran version of "God" is believed to be the One and Only God

I deliberately chose, to illustrative purpose, a variety of Christianity with a handily compact and well known name which isn't numerically preponderant and shares the most fundamental dogma. The Lutheran god is the same יהוה as Muslims, Jews and other Christians.

 

So I think your example obfuscates matters more than anything else.

No, my point was exactly what you say as premises for this, except the last one. Your implication does not hold up. Mine was that it makes to squabble over the matter and Huxley's reason for coining agnostic was to distinguish it from atheist. Ever since that, there's no point calling all fruits tomatoes, or even all berries, other than Solanum lycopersicum.

 

Could we quit with point that are misinformed as well as off topic?

[InfiniteNow]

The essence of my statement is that the moderates, and even many non-believers, tend to be offended on behalf of believers themselves when someone such as myself makes a critique or comment which shows no deference for their faith. The moderates, and many non-believers, provide cover, instead attacking my criticism and deflecting the need for the believer to support their position. They tend frequently to focus entirely on the one who has presented the critique, as well as the method they've chosen, and completely derail the critique itself... leaving the believers unrequired to actually address the questions put forth. It's as if believers have managed to co-opt these others who DO NOT share the same beliefs to stand up and be offended on their behalf. My point is simply that this is part of the problem.

 

I am trying to suggest that the best defense against criticism is reason, logic, and rationality... to support ones position openly, and to address any and all criticisms leveled... not to suppress authentic debate and call for censorship (which frequently happens among moderates) due to the sensitive nature of the topic.

 

 

[Boerseun]

INow, the Tomato/tomato thing is because of the different possible pronunciations thereof, which still means the same thing. You can say "tomato" or "tomatoe", it's still the same thing.

 

Q - It doesn't matter what historical meanings have been attached to what terms. It only matters what they mean today. "Ether" was considered to be the magical medium of space which allowed light to travel through. It was clearly shown to not exist. Today (over here in South Africa, at least), "ether" is the common name for formaldehyde. We cannot say that "ether" does not exist because look - that dead frog is clearly floating in a bottle of the stuff. The fact that historical meanings was different does not have any impact on today.

 

Huxley coined the term "agnostic" because:

...were quite sure they had attained a certain 'gnosis' - had,more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ... So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be theappropriate title of 'agnostic'.

He coined the term because he did not come to some special "insight", "knowledge" or philosophical "gnosis" for the existence of God - he simply did not know.

 

Today we talk about being agnostic towards any particular question if there is no evidence either way. But saying "I'm an agnostic" doesn't imply that you're agnostic towards tomatoes being fruit or vegetables (if you don't have any data towards the matter). It immediately brings the discussion to religious terms, because of the common understanding of it. Although it is perfectly technically correct to say you're a tomato fruit/vegetable agnostic.

 

Agnostic, in the above sense, implies that you have crossed the threshold of consideration, at least. You haven't made up your mind, and are waiting for evidence to come in.

 

Atheists do not cross the threshold of consideration. "Theism" does not feature, nor are any further considerations to non-related matters open to whether any data will ever come in as to the God question. An agnostic simply cannot say that a fossil was not placed in the rock by God to confuse humans, because he left the God question open - he's still waiting for data. An atheist, however, can say that the fossil was deposited and God had nothing to do with it, because he does not consider the God premise at all.

 

It is said that "agnosticism" is the most reasonable scientific response to the question of God. But it turns out that its not. Not a single scientific finding regarding anything at all can be ascribed to by a scientist if he's an "agnostic" and God can be blamed for it - because he's left that argument open and unsolved and God is said to be involved in absolutely everything by theists.

 

The most reasonable position for a scientist is to be an atheist. An a-theist in the sense that he does not ascribe any value at all to the theistic proposition, he closed the door on the argument, and moved on to the next hypothesis. If there is no credible evidence to the proposition that four-headed superintelligent protodolphins had anything to do with the formation of the universe (which includes everything that exists in it) then we certainly will not consider that proposition in everything else we consider by letting that particular back door open to it. An agnostic will have to consider that each and every fossil could have been place there by God, that the Earth might just be 6,000 years old and that you might just live forever - because the God proposition is still not solved.

 

A good scientist, a good atheist, will merely close the door on that proposition and move on. There is no evidence as to four-headed superintelligent protodolphins. Why consider it? I suspect Huxley came up with the term "agnostic" more out of despondency than actual serious intellectual confrontation with those who did believe in four-headed superintelligent protodolphins in his time.

 

But in our current discussion as to whether atheism can be described as the "Cult of Science", we should at least agree on the terms being used.