I agree with you. 20 characters.
1 Like
- Interesting that you speak for “us”…
- From what you’ve seen? What percentage of existence is that?
- I understand what science is. What, though, is spirituality?
- Where did science state there is no intrinsic value to anything?
- The use of the scientific method to affect my life gives me hope not suicidal ideation.
4 Likes
I think these people are just pissed that they’re wrong, they know they’re wrong, and they’re mad at us for convincing them that they are wrong. But they don’t want to believe that. They want to be enabled by the church system and by everyone else that their mythology is real. They want to stay in a state of denial. I think most Christians stare into the mirror and ask themselves if their imaginary sky daddy is actually real. They’ve even labeled it “crisis of faith”. It’s not a crisis of faith, it’s knowing deep down that those beliefs are bullshit.
1 Like
In my experience, the people who reach for the ‘scientism’ trope, tend to be the ones who are most pissed off at having science flush their cherished mythology-based fantasies down the toilet, and who suffer a terminal case of intellectual penis envy because science provides evidence for its postulates. I see this whinge being deployed by creationists and other similar specimens all too frequently.
Those of us who paid attention in class, learned a long time ago that science facilitates new opportunities as it advances, but unfortunately isn’t selective in this regard. It can enable the malicious just as much as the benign. But policing this was never the remit of science. If it’s anyone’s job, stopping the underhand from misusing science lies at the feet of ethical philosophers (if they’re doing their job properly) and policy makers. The latter being the principal culprits when scientific misuse becomes a serious problem.
Though if I’m given a choice between science and mythology when it comes to problem solving, I’ll run with science for one very good reason - it’s proven to be reliable time and again. Unlike infantile clinging to fantasies about a cartoon magic man from a hilariously absurd Bronze Age mythology, or falling for dark political ideologies that result in mountainous body counts.
Indeed, I note with interest, that among the first people to warn us about the perils nuclear weapons presented, were some of the scientists working on the Manhattan Project. The people who launched into runaway arms races were politicians and careerist military figures. Dr Strangelove taught us the latter. Likewise, the people warning us about the perils of AI are leading researchers in the field, while the people mashing the accelerator pedal toward the precipice are greedy tech bros with dollar signs in their eyes.
The extra 25 years of life I’m enjoying post-angioplasty taught me what we as a species can achieve, if we hand the reins to those motivated by curiosity, genuine progress and humanity. The past 14 years of shit here in the UK taught me what happens if we let the corrupt, the venal, the incompetent and the downright criminal wield power. It’s not science you should be whingeing at, it’s a combination of stupidity and duplicity that leads to kakistocracies and enshittification.
2 Likes
This is a subjective statement, I.e., unscientific.
This is an emotional response, i.e., outside the realm of science.
Tell me, scientifically, what love is or what life is all about, and then we can talk.
Love can be appreciated without neccesarily needing to be “explained” or justified.
We can just enjoy love and decide that it’s good (in however we define goodness) simply for its own sake.
I will grant you that there are times and occasions when love is bad and/or detrimental. A love for your country–when taken to an extreme–can become toxic nationalism, which seems to be a part of what happened in Nazi Germany. Love can also compell people to commit crimes.
Even so, to postulate that God exists because love exists is a fallacy . . . rather like the debunked watchmaker argument.
1 Like
Why do atheists rely so heavily on science ?
Many atheists are drawn to science because it provides a method for understanding the universe without invoking supernatural explanations.
Atheism often aligns with the foundational elements of science such as curiosity, exploration, critical thinking, experimentation, and reason; because these principles encourage questioning assumptions and seeking evidence-based explanations for the universe, which naturally challenges supernatural claims.
2 Likes
No, it’s an objective statement and all it takes to understand it is opening an history book and see the great progress done by human society thanks to the application of the scientific method to the several fields of society.
In the span of only 66 years we have passed from the first plane flight to the moon landing, all of this thanks to the scientific method.
If we used religion to understand the world instead of science at this point we would still believe that the sun rotates around the Earth and not the opposite, we wouldn’t even have life-saving treatments such as blood transfusions because “the bible says so!” or “the quran says so!” or “the tanakh says so!” etc.
1 Like
All of those answers about love and other chemical emotions have already been answered by Neuroscience. Love originates from the hypothalamus of the brain. Our hypothalamus produces oxytocin and vasopressin which are linked to love, bonding, and attachment. But of course, you either didn’t know that or did know it and decided it was irrelevant to your beliefs.
3 Likes
I guess that’s one way of avoiding the question.
You mentioned this spirituality in the post to which I was responding. I suspect this most recent maneuver is because you don’t actually know what it is.
I’m not a scientist so I am ill-equipped to define anything scientifically. Additionally, I never mentioned love.
I can tell you what MY life is all about. Do you have a few days for that? I’m unable to tell you what anyone else’s life is all about. That’s up to them to describe. Additionally, I never mentioned what life is about.
But if we can only talk once I’ve done those two things, and if you’re unable / unwilling to help with my initial request to define a term you used, then perhaps we can’t actually talk.
2 Likes
Well the alternative would be to live in ignorance, I’d need to see a compelling argument for why that has not been improved upon, only your subjective claims all seemed to focus on negative ways people have used the knowledge gained, whilst tellingly ignoring the knowledge that has for example helped cure or even eradicate debilitating and fatal diseases, and provided better all around health care, better or more safe engineering, better knowledge of nutrition, indirectly and directly increased lifespan etc etc?
That is a straw man fallacy, you really ought to learn to spot such weak and poor reasoning.
Dishonest deflection, and I did not see @CyberLN claim science could explain those things, but I’d bet it has a better chance than ignorance, which is the alternative of course.
Indeed, though evolution can of course explain why such emotions exist.
Well I think the word atheist is entirely redundant in the question of course, but I would add that invoking the supernatural has no explanatory powers. So a better question would be why would anyone not rely on the best most efficacious method we have for understanding reality?
Good point.
I think the word “better” might be disputed as subjective, but again I would need to hear some compelling arguments on how saving lives, and providing better knowledge on nutrition and all round health, is not better than suffering and dying unnecessarily out of ignorance, which is the alternative to science.
2 Likes
That’s a good point. A more pertinent question might be, ‘Why wouldn’t anyone rely on science, given its unmatched efficacy in understanding reality?’ I agree that the supernatural offers no explanatory power. However, the question does highlight why atheists, in particular, might rely on science, and that’s because it aligns with our preference for evidence-based understanding. This stems from being in control of our cognitive mechanisms, unlike theists who have them loose, rewarding their curiosity (via dopamine) through misinterpreting phenomena.
Here’s an old quote of mine that I think fits perfectly with this discussion:
“An evidence-based approach is the way to go. If you don’t have an answer, research it; don’t simply narrate interpretations. Some people derive their reward from interpretations (via dopamine), while others, like myself, find it in research alone. And when that research leads to a grounded, factually supported answer, the reward is far more satisfying, honestly.”
2 Likes
“Objective truths of science are not founded in belief systems. They are not established by the authority of leaders or the power of persuasion. Nor are they learned from repetition or gleaned from magical thinking. To deny objective truths is to be scientifically illiterate, not to be ideologically principled.”
Neil deGrasse Tyson
2 Likes
Perhaps.
But then again….
I’d ask what relevance you think that link has to my quote, but as we know you don’t do explanations. Of course objectivity is not an absolute, whoever claimed otherwise? Rather it is a scale, and the best method we have for removing as much subjective bias as possible, as the quote explains, is the method(s) of science.
It seems you have produced another straw man.
2 Likes
I guess he’s trying to say that “objective evidence” isn’t accurate?
From the article…
When we view objectivity and subjectivity as opposites rather than complements, this is the kind of trap we find ourselves falling into.
This two-cultures thinking, moreover, distorts the empirical realities of data collection, the challenging work of forcing unruly phenomena to speak in clean, distinct, ideally quantitative phrases.
1 Like
I suppose this sort of vague straw man is to be expected, from anyone who uses a word like scientism, without any justification whatsoever. Does anyone remember that clown Apollo? He spent weeks trying to deny that there was any such thing as objective facts.
I asked him straight away if it was an objective fact that the world was not flat, he never did answer, not honestly anyway. Another one for whom explanations are often demanded, but never offered.
“What my students paradoxically fail to realize, in their zeal to be responsible, is that describing things by certain characteristics rather than others merely because those characteristics are countable is a profoundly subjective decision.”
Of course the decision to base credulity on more accurate definitions and the most objective evidence is a subjective choice, and it is a choice that is far more likely to return true, rather than false conclusions.
It’s the same tire old canard from religious apologists, that uses a false equivalence, to try and pretend that because all ideas are subjective, they are all equally subjective. Which brings us neatly back to the quote above from NdT, that states plainly and simply why this ideas is not just fallacious, but untrue.
"Objective truths of science are not founded in belief systems. They are not established by the authority of leaders or the power of persuasion. Nor are they learned from repetition or gleaned from magical thinking. To deny objective truths is to be scientifically illiterate, not to be ideologically principled.”
He is not of course, nor would he, ever suggest science is infallible, that is simply a lie apologists peddle using made up ideas like scientism.
1 Like
Demanded?!?!
I owe no one here anything.
Also, I have not said there is no such thing as reality.
But nice try at your “guilt by association” attempt.
Another straw man, as I never remotely claimed you did. You are free to make asinine sweeping claims, without even the pretence of objective evidence or cogent explanation, and others are free to point and laugh.
Nor has anyone claimed you did, so another straw man.
Oh I hold no illusions you are interested in honest debate, I am posting for the open minded reader, who has at least some pretence of honesty and objectivity. Your posts are merely a rather blunt tool I am using for that purpose.
For example others will note yet again, and by now without surprise, that you didn’t attempt to explain any relevance in your link to the quote it was offered in response to, I shall let others decide for themselves what this infers. While reminding ourselves you used technologies derived from objective scientific truths to post that on an internet forum, and wondering if that article is even peer reviewed, or if there is anything approaching a broad scientific consensus on it?
Silly me, there I go again looking for cogent explanations, and objective evidence.
2 Likes
Very magnanimous of you.