If the scientific model is crap, then why have we been able to use it to almost double the human lifespan, feed billions of people who would otherwise starve, and visit places like the moon?
Science must be doing something right.
I would be dead right now if it wasn’t for science.
If you want to invalidate the scientific method, then you have to clear a very high bar in terms of evidence . . . a bar that is higher than the Empire State Building, Sears Tower, and World Trade Center stacked all on top of each other
Even the fact that you use a computer to communicate with us validates the scientific method . . . and suggests a certain degree of hipocrasy on your part.
The efficacy of science cannot easily be invalidated.
That said, the downsides of its narcissistic amorality are also virtually undeniable.
For example, science has given us the power to destroy the planet many times over, along with the capacity to mechanically deplete it’s resources beyond any sustainable level, while providing absolutely no logical reason not to do so.
From a scientific perspective, which rejects subjectivity in order to go about its emotionally detached business, existence and nonexistence are of equal value. Thus, to toy with or even kill the living subject of any experiment is perfectly acceptable if the interests of science are temporarily placated. (This explains one of the most common and dreaded motifs in much of our art and history; the personification of utterly insensitive, even demonic forces, in the form of an evil genius who has mysterious, almost god-like powers but no time for emotional “regrets” or fragile human sensibilities.)
To paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcolm, science has shown us what we can or could do without providing any clue as to what we should do.
As I see it, however, this is why atheism-which insists that any belief in a maker is untenable-offers scientism as one of a myriad, but ultimately inconclusive, other possible substitutions. That is, the history of the past millennium seems to be little more than the record of the modern man who finds himself in precisely the predicament Nietzsche feared and predicted; having supposedly killed-or at least doubting the possibility of any and all gods-atheism as a first principle apparently offers nothing but logical nihilism and potentially interminable deconstructionism in return.
(Interminable because at the heart of matter, and thus at the end of physical sciences, it seems more and more probable that experiments will eventually show that there really is no “thing-in-itself; i.e., that there is no logical reason or tangible evidence to demonstrate that there is any “thing” there.)
But rest easy, atheists.
Science will most likely never devise a way to disprove a null belief nor to show that there is even one assertion which can be proved beyond any and all doubt.
I agree with your claims, but disagree with your conclusion.
Science is not the problem here. The problem is human stupidity and ignorance, and science has also given us things like the Internet, greater literacy, and a deeper understanding of ourselves.
So . . . science has also given us the tools to address this stupidity and ignorance.
But it hasn’t found a way to make anyone use those tools
Just as one can’t force a horse to drink, I’m pretty sure i can’t make a person believe in something he wants to doubt just as no one has ever found a cure for willful ignorance and/or stupidity.
And that’s why religion indoctrinates impressionable children, who trust and copy their parents and persons of authority, before they have learned how to think critically yet, before they have learned about science and how the world actually works. In other words, poison the minds of the children with religion and religious bigotry before they learn how to think.
Is that the job / purpose of the scientific method? I think it belongs in the philosophy camp. One discipline is how, the other is why. To my knowledge, there isn’t a discipline for both.
Additionally, I think time might be a factor in folks’ willingness to use the tools. For instance, the scientific method indicates that drinking a large quantity of arsenic can cause one to keel over. Therefore, folks don’t tend to do it. On the other hand, the scientific method has shown that smoking tobacco can cause one to get COPD and/ or cancer thereby causing one to keel over. Despite this, lots of folks smoke. The difference is that one detrimental effect is immediate and the other takes quite a bit of time.
Folks know that a wide-spread nuclear war would end our ability to live on Earth so they resist launching one, but complete pollution of it takes a great deal longer.
I suspect you’ve committed the fallacy of confusing cause and effect.
I.e., that the attributes you’ve mentioned lead to religion which merely reinforces them for the congregant, rather than being their source.
BTW, I don’t see how anything I’ve said might make anyone think that I support religion. Yes, I have doubts about atheism’s skepticism but those misgivings have done nothing to make me think those doubts could, or ever would be assuaged by backsliding into church!
Science is simply a method(s) for gaining a better understanding of reality.
For example? That doesn’t support your claim, if humans chose to use the knowledge science has given us to do those things, then those traits might be correctly assigned to those humans, but not to science per se, anymore than a rock has nefarious murderous immoral intent, if one picks it up, and then uses it to kill someone.
You keep wrongly assigning values to the method, or the results it gains, rather than the humans who use it. Though we can note with irony that science has also enabled the curing and even eradication of awful diseases, and the feeding of countless billions, why then in the flawed and imagined intent you’re projecting onto it, is it not benevolent beyond measure?
Says who? That is simply a subjective claim some humans might make, and others reject, it is not a maxim of the methods of science.
Pure fantasy, please demonstrate some objective evidence that any deity, demon, or anything supernatural is even possible?
Just as a rock doesn’t explain why we might consider it immoral to use it as a weapon, is this then the fault of the rock? The alternative to science is ignorance, and if you imagine this might be a more moral path then by all means explain why you imagine this to be the case?
Wrong, atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.
That’s a subjective opinion, as of course are all moral claims and assertions.
Fitting after that disjointed irrational rant, you end with a straw man, that you seem to imagine has some deeper meaning, beyond it being poorly reasoned.
Science it simply a method(s) for understanding reality, or gaining knowledge, the alternative is ignorance. Atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. Morality is subjective, and there is no evidence human morality diminishes through the lack of belief in any deity, anymore than it does through the lack of belief in unicorns. Indeed, longstanding research has shown that atheists are at least as moral as theists, when measure on any level playing field.
One need only read the bible to see he did not use a reverse causation fallacy. It is filled with bigotry and intolerance, taught as doctrinal even divine truths.
That seems an absurd double negative to me, you doubt a lack of belief in deities, what does that involve? I see this a lot, but I think often people make statements about atheism, but what they are describing are (some) atheists.
No it doesn’t, and I explained why, but you seem content to make claims, then deflect critical scrutiny in this rather glib way, so one wonders why you’re in a debate forum?
Bigotry and intolerance: Look no longer than to the bible rag, where e.g. the israelites slaughter, kill, maim, rape, plunder, take as slaves, etc. competing tribes that do not share their god and beliefs. And they do it under direct order or with “protection” from their make-believe god. And the bible is, as is well known, doctrine for the religious. And history has shown us that non-believers have been treated as animals, because this us-and-them thinking. Thus, bigotry follows directly from christian doctrine. Also, there are lots of examples, both historically and current, of groups - or even entire countries - following islam, where non-muslims are seen as and treated as animals, not worthy of living their own lives as they seem fit. This follows directly from religious doctrine. Modern day israelites - specifically ultra-orhtodox jews with blessings from their government - steal the lands of paliestinians, occupying their former farmlands and villages, chasing them away from their own lands. Yes, this is a very oversimplified rendition of the actual situation, with horrible things from both sides. But the point is that it’s the religious divides that cause this sharp front of intolerance and hate. People hate each other just because they belong to a different religion, or even just a different sect within the same religion (ref. shia vs sunni in islam). So it’s religion that sets up the us-and-them barriers, using hate and intolerance as tools. Not the other way around, with hate and intolerance that sets up religion.
Indoctrination: As with all sects of every kind, religious and non-religious, indoctrination is crucial to set up the right psychological conditions for people to start believing and to hold on to their beliefs. The causation here is very clear - religion (or other fanactical mindsets, like political ones) set up a system with indoctrination to convert new followers, and to keep the already converted. It’s the religion that uses indoctrination, not indoctrination as a tool that creates a religion or a system of religions (which is absurd). Also, to make the indoctrination even more effective, religions (and sometimes also extreme political factions and sects) set up a system of indoctrination for kids, under the tenet of “get them while they’re young, and cannot give any resistance”.
I still think this is a bit “chicken and egg-ish” so let’s not argue about which came first.
Everyone, theists and atheists alike, agrees that at least some religions, and possibly all, are bad.
What now?
Hasn’t history shown that there comes a time when men are forced to put down their pens and pick up a sword?
Or is it absurd to think that violence-or anything else for that matter-was ever an effective means of making another “see sense” and “be reasonable”?
Has anyone conclusively refuted the assertion that resisting evil, rather than being an effective cure for evil, only ever increases the level of evil?
In my experience, explanations are invariably either ineffective or unnecessary.
BTW, if you’re convinced I shouldn’t be allowed to comment here please advise the moderator that I’m just a troll and should be banned. I’ll be happy to abide by that decision either way, and just as I have in the past, given that I’ve been kicked out of much classier-and more widely read-websites than this.
Straw man fallacy, I made no such claim, I simply observed that when your ideas and claims are challenged, you evade addressing those criticisms, and you do this a lot. That does not suggest that your ideas are robust in their reasoning.
Or you could try honestly debating and addressing the critical scrutiny of your claims, they’re still there. For example the erroneous idea that projects intent onto science, and only negative intent rather tellingly, with no mention of the great good that has been achieved from the knowledge those methods have gained. Or the equally erroneous idea here:
Atheism makes no no such claim, in fact it makes no claims at all, as it has no doctrine or dogma, so this is nonsensical.
Another rather sweeping and dubious claim. How could one possibly know this of “every theist and atheist”?
Since the claim is yours, why you don’t try evidencing it, as insisting others refute your claim, and thereby implying this lends it some credence is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Also evil is a subjective term, though you might get a broad consensus on the most pernicious regimes and ideologies.
