 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7644
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| 45degreeN wrote: | One distinguishing factor though is something called scientism, I don't know how many people here have read about this phenomenon. Among many others Huston Smith wrote about it. He equates scientism with religion in the sense that their basic assumptions are unprovable and for the mostly unconscious and therefore uncontrolled. Not every scientist is part of scientism, whereas every one who follows scientism is usually a scientist.
|
All reasonable scientists agree that unsupported assumptions are bad, so scientism has nothing to do with science. Don't try to use scientism to sully the good name of science.
| 45degreeN wrote: |
He writes in his book "Why Religion Matters" | Quote: | Scientism adds to science two corollaries:
|
|
I think he means axioms, and not corollaries. Axioms are assumptions; corollaries are conclusions immediately implied by other conclusions.
| 45degreeN wrote: |
first that the scientific method is , if not the only reliable method of getting at the truth, then at least the most reliable method;
|
Stated as an absolute, then I would agree that this is bad. But if you interpret this statement in a more measured way, then it's totally fine. It is objectively true that AS FAR AS WE KNOW, science is by far the best and most reliable method for getting at the truth. It's no contest; science has totally kicked the ass of every other technique known.
| 45degreeN wrote: |
secondly, that the things science deals with-material entities- are the most fundamental things that exist". |
That's not how scientists look at it. They just (correctly) think that there is no evidence to support a belief in the supernatural, and therefore they don't address supernatural questions.
| 45degreeN wrote: |
Because science focuses upon and deals entirely with the physical universe one can hardly blame them for feeling this way, but ignoring the metaphysical world they have cut themselves off from it all and ignore any evidence that comes from that field therefore it is their weakness. Unfortunately that doesn't prevent them from making their totally unsupported statements concerning the metaphysical realms.
|
Science is infinitely more useful and practical than metaphysics. People wearing berets can hang around in cafes all they want pondering the nature of reality, but ultimately it is scientists (and the engineers who implement their ideas) who actually get practical and useful stuff done.
| 45degreeN wrote: |
Scientists normally refrain from making suggestions in fields they are not well trained in yet they feel free to make statement regarding an ancient and well documented field of metaphysics. Why is this? Because they hold no respect at all for metaphysics.
|
And rightfully so! Metaphysics is completely useless next to science! Metaphysics is a purely academic pursuit, whereas science builds computers, puts people in outer space, builds dams, etc.
You are overstating the role that scientism plays in science.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.
Last edited by P1234567890 on Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plotinus wrote: | | But that is the problem with a belief that is neither falsifiable nor verifiable. Even if you do have a final theory of everything, you cannot know that you have it. |
You know you have it when it works. That's the case with all theories.
| Plotinus wrote: | | A curious statement since science is built on the scientific method. I think that John Dalton, Teilhard de Chardin, Einstein, Arthur Eddington and others would disagree. The scientific method does not make claims about the totality of all truths, only about those truths that are empirically based. Is it possible that you are confusing the scientific method and the philosophy of science with the philosophy of positivism? Many scientists are positivists, but also many are not positivists. |
More like you're misdirecting from the meat of the problem. Faith and the scientific method are not compatible because one cannot combine them without the annihilation of one or the other.
Faith and science are compatible as long as one can compartmentalize. The science itself can't disprove faith in any manner.
Faith and the scientific method don't combine particularly well, as they are antithetical to each other. Even the most superficial analysis of faith using the scientific method will run into difficulties.
Positivism is just what would happen if you applied the scientific method to everything. I admit I may be guilty of some wordplay, here. Science and faith are compatible because they are outcomes. Faith and the scientific method aren't compatible because one is an outcome the other defeats.
| Plotinus wrote: | | My career path has brought me into contact with many scientists, some of whom you probably know. But I am not going to drag them into this debate, nor am I going to name drop. |
I'm just suspicious that you may be exaggerating this starry-eyed optimism.
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Because science focuses upon and deals entirely with the physical universe one can hardly blame them for feeling this way, but ignoring the metaphysical world they have cut themselves off from it all and ignore any evidence that comes from that field therefore it is their weakness. |
Well hey, any time someone actually presents some evidence that isn't BS, maybe science will take it seriously?
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Scientists normally refrain from making suggestions in fields they are not well trained in yet they feel free to make statement regarding an ancient and well documented field of metaphysics. Why is this? Because they hold no respect at all for metaphysics. |
Because metaphysics are ridiculous and do not hold up to the scientific method, yet its "practitioners" almost without fail will say they are scientific.
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Not certain what you mean by a "soft positivism" I rather think of it as "hard" positivism. |
They're pretty much the same thing, actually. It's just that one can use "scientism" easily as an epithet as it contains the target in its name.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: |
Faith and the scientific method are not compatible because one cannot combine them without the annihilation of one or the other.
|
atoz: Hi FFT,
So what do you make of this:
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'
Albert Einstein
| FFT wrote: |
Faith and science are compatible as long as one can compartmentalize. The science itself can't disprove faith in any manner.
Faith and the scientific method don't combine particularly well, as they are antithetical to each other. Even the most superficial analysis of faith using the scientific method will run into difficulties.
|
atoz: Would you give me an example?
Could the problem be Hatred for opposites or antitheses?
Love, for opposites and for antitheses and for what outcomes in one the opposite defeats, easily splits what's united ontologically, and recombines what's split ontologically.
FFT: I admit I may be guilty of some wordplay, here. Science and faith are compatible because they are outcomes. Faith and the scientific method aren't compatible because one is an outcome the other defeats.
atoz: Wordplay is one of the outcomes of Love, and is key to where the solutions in science and in religion are hidden.
in the Science of Love for The Science of Religion,
and in the Religion of Love for Religion of Science,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2545
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FFT it seems you have mixed up "scientists" with "scientism" there is no 1-to-1 ratio. There are even Hindu scientists, so why not Christian?
It is scientism which declares that the S.M. is the only reliable method to know things. It is scientism that unilaterally declares that only the material things of the universe are worthy of investigating, and by the definition exploding any chance that anything else might exist.
In the case of faith it takes assumptions tests them and makes their choices based upon what comes back. Just like science does , the primary difference is that the scientist will reject any information that comes back from the metaphysical realm, deny that it exists, and make their conclusions on what remains. (not a completely honest way of doing things.
Positivism was developed within a world view where science itself was developing and changing rapidly. Comte especially, positively rejected anything metaphysical regardless of how it was presented to him he was as biased against it as a person could be, (kind of like you).
Even so, the ideas of Quantum mechanics goes far into the metaphysical realm. I recognize that Einstein rejected Quantum mechanics for that reason. Yet he failed miserably when he tried to explain the universe any other way. (He spent considerable effort: time and money to try and prove it wrong over the last decades of his life.)
In cosmology there is no way (with the scientific method) to tell what happened before the big bang.
Certainly dark matter and especially dark energy are both well within the metaphysical realm also. Both are undetectable through normal methods of detection and yet the scientists who theorize about them use their brains to figure them out, the very methods of metaphysics.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject: Re: The faith of atheists |
|
|
| 45degreeN wrote: | While Christianity emphasizes faith in God, and in the scriptures, Atheism has a separate and much more negative faith also.
|
Hi 45degreeN,
atoz: Atheists got that negative faith from Theists:
Faith in Hate for what they don't believe....which they did NOT get out of the Bible since all faith works by Love. Galatians 5:6
So once theists hated Satan who they did believe existed but did not believe in,
then all potential atheists who bought into that Hate for opposites had tohave faith in hating who they did not believe in and have faith in Hate for whom they thot did not exist.
| 45degreeN wrote: |
Is it possible that the atheists have more faith than Christians? |
atoz: yes! It takes more faith to believe in nothing producing something than to believe in something producing something.
But not really: they both have the same amt of faith in hating who and what they don't believe in.
And seeing who first came up with hating who or what was the opposite of who or what one believed or believed in,
atheists in negative faith come out more justified than the originators of that neagtive faith in Hate.
"There lives more faith in honest doubt [in atheists who love theists], believe me, than in half the creeds [of theists who hate atheism or atheists]."
Alfred Lord Tennyson
in the faith of Love for both theists and atheists,
in the faith of Hate only for hating any atheist or theist,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2545
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Atoz where does this "hate" you mention come from? Most atheists don't operate that way. It is simply untrue about Atheist's (in general) having this hatred. It is also irrelevant to the argument.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7644
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 45degreeN wrote: | | There are even Hindu scientists, so why not Christian? |
If scientist is religious, then it is DESPITE the fact that he is a scientist. FFT hit the nail on the head when he talked about compartmentalization.
For example, take the Young Earth Creationist (sorry, I forgot his name) who got his Ph.D in paleontology from a real university. He did this by pretending to believe all of the stuff that mainstream science teaches. Nobody could find fault with his thesis, because he was successfully able to compartmentalize his crazy ideas about the age of the Earth, etc. and not let that b.s. creep into his work at all.
Scientists by their very nature MUST be skeptics. Skepticism is centrally important to science. This means that any scientist who has faith in some religion is NOT being scientific at all in that faith. So like I said, religious scientists are religious DESPITE their scientific beliefs. If they don't let their faith affect their work, then they can do good scientific research.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7644
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Atoz where does this "hate" you mention come from? Most atheists don't operate that way. It is simply untrue about Atheist's (in general) having this hatred. It is also irrelevant to the argument. |
Yeah Atoz, what exactly are you banging on about?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atoz wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Faith and the scientific method are not compatible because one cannot combine them without the annihilation of one or the other. |
atoz: Hi FFT,
So what do you make of this:
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'
Albert Einstein |
Doesn't address what I was actually saying. I already pointed out that faith and science are compatible. The scientific method is not compatible with faith by virtue of the way they work.
| atoz wrote: | | Could the problem be Hatred for opposites or antitheses? |
I know you like to redefine things in terms of "hate" and "love," but no. It's a problem of methodologies. The scientific method and faith are both methods used to reach a conclusion (I know I said faith was an outcome earlier, in a sense it's both a method and an outcome). The problem is that the scientific method requires evidence and faith operates despite (or even in spite of) evidence.
| 45degreeN wrote: | | FFT it seems you have mixed up "scientists" with "scientism" there is no 1-to-1 ratio. There are even Hindu scientists, so why not Christian? |
| FFT wrote: | | Faith and science are compatible as long as one can compartmentalize. The science itself can't disprove faith in any manner. |
| 45degreeN wrote: | | In the case of faith it takes assumptions tests them and makes their choices based upon what comes back. |
And when nothing comes back, does anything change? There are many instances throughout the Bible where one would assume it means if you believe in God/Jesus, you can ask for anything and get it/it will occur/etc. So when this fails, how does the faith change?
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Just like science does , the primary difference is that the scientist will reject any information that comes back from the metaphysical realm |
What information. It's all well and good for you to keep harping on this, but it's ridiculous for you to expect me to just take your word for it.
Religious pluralism is evidence enough that "information that comes back from the metaphysical realm" is the height of BS.
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Positivism was developed within a world view where science itself was developing and changing rapidly. Comte especially, positively rejected anything metaphysical regardless of how it was presented to him he was as biased against it as a person could be, (kind of like you). |
I reject the metaphysical regardless of how it's presented, once I recognize that it's metaphysical. This is true.
I'm curious.
Let's say a man walks up to your door. He offers you a pill which will cause you to grow a stupendous musculature! You say "why yes, I could use a stupendous musculature let's have it."
You follow the directions and do not ever get this stupendous musculature.
A few months later, the same man walks up and offers you a pill which will bless you with curly/straight (whatever you don't have) hair. You say "why yes, I could use straight/curly/more hair let's have it."
How many iterations of this do you go through before you realize that he's a conman?
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Even so, the ideas of Quantum mechanics goes far into the metaphysical realm. |
How so?
| 45degreeN wrote: | | I recognize that Einstein rejected Quantum mechanics for that reason. |
Einstein rejected a lot of sound things near the end of his life, and supported many ridiculous things.
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Certainly dark matter and especially dark energy are both well within the metaphysical realm also. Both are undetectable through normal methods of detection and yet the scientists who theorize about them use their brains to figure them out, the very methods of metaphysics. |
The same thing was said about black holes until we realized we could detect them due to their influence on things in their region and light passing around them. And there is evidence for dark matter and dark energy.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2545
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Try looking up Quantum paradoxes there are many websites that discuss their peculiarities.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The only one I could find with a significant amount of material was the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen paradox. To whit:
"As a result of further theoretical and experimental developments since the original EPR paper, most physicists today regard the EPR paradox as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical intuitions."
Wikipedia page
And Schrodinger's cat isn't so much a paradox as it is a thought experiment. The cat isn't actually half-alive half-dead until it's observed, it's just that outside observers don't know which is the case until it's observed. And the cat knows right off the bat, of course.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Atoz where does this "hate" you mention come from? Most atheists don't operate that way. It is simply untrue about Atheist's (in general) having this hatred. It is also irrelevant to the argument. |
atoz: okay.
Let's see.
Do atheists in general love or hate God?
Do atheists in general love or hate who they think does not exist?
What do you think are the answers to those questions?
The Prejudice of Hatred is also relevant to the argument simply because Hatred is the prejudice of mind that xcludes and/or is willingly blind to or ignorant of what evidence it hates.
"My question is this, what is the one force in the world that works to defeat the superstition, mythology and prejudice that we see all around us?
Science.
What is at the root of so many of the world’s problems and much of what we saw just recently on 9-11? Superstition. Hatred, fear and the prejudice fostered by superstition and mythology.
It’s really just another round in the age old battle of science vs. superstition. With these numbers just released one really doesn’t have to wonder why we live in the world we do. "
http://www.liberator.net/articles/VolkayChris/science.html
with the Prejudice of Love that includes and examines all evidence for and against,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | 45degreeN wrote: | | Atoz where does this "hate" you mention come from? Most atheists don't operate that way. It is simply untrue about Atheist's (in general) having this hatred. It is also irrelevant to the argument. |
Yeah Atoz, what exactly are you banging on about? |
Atoz: Hi P123,
I am referring to the following type of prejudice either in liking one out of Hate for the other, or disliking one out of Love for the other:
"Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, was published in 1859. It is perhaps the most influential book that has ever been published, because it was read by scientist and non- scientist alike, and it aroused violent controversy. Religious people *disliked it* because it appeared to dispense with God;
scientists *liked it* because it seemed to solve the most important problem in the universe-the existence of living matter.
In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.
Lipson, H.S. [Professor of Physics, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK], "A physicist looks at evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4, May 1980, p.138.
'Recently two prominent British scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, admittedly were 'driven by logic' to conclude that there must be a Creator.
"It is quite a shock," said Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy. The Sri Lankan-born astronomer explained:
"From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation.
That notion has had to be very painfully shed.
I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in.
But there is no logical way out of it.
Once we see . . . that the probability of life, originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect 'deliberate,' " or created.
Professor Wickramasinghe also said:
"I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . . We were hoping as scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there isn't."
Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, As quoted in "There Must Be A God," Daily Express, Aug. 14, 1981 and "Hoyle On Evolution," Nature, Nov. 12, 1981, 105.
How Unprejudice works:
"Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish ... It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction ... In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process ... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers ... If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then Lets cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back ... Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."
I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.
E.J.H. CORNOR, Cambridge "Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." CONTEMPORARY BOTANICAL THOUGHT, p.61
In the impartiality of Love,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | atoz wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Faith and the scientific method are not compatible because one cannot combine them without the annihilation of one or the other. |
atoz: Hi FFT,
So what do you make of this:
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'
Albert Einstein |
Doesn't address what I was actually saying. I already pointed out that faith and science are compatible. The scientific method is not compatible with faith by virtue of the way they work.
|
atoz: Faith says Prove all things: 1 Thess 5:21...*then* have faith in what's proven.
Any other kinda faith is blind to and faithless and unfaithful in itself.
| FFT wrote: |
| atoz wrote: | | Could the problem be Hatred for opposites or antitheses? |
I know you like to redefine things in terms of "hate" and "love," but no. It's a problem of methodologies. The scientific method and faith are both methods used to reach a conclusion (I know I said faith was an outcome earlier, in a sense it's both a method and an outcome). The problem is that the scientific method requires evidence and faith operates despite (or even in spite of) evidence. |
atoz: There's that false faith in Religion again.
Here is that same false faith in Science:
"Spencer's belief in the universality of natural causation was, together with his laissez-faire political creed, the bedrock of his thinking.
It was this belief, more than anything else, that led him to reject Christianity, long before the great conflict of the eighteen-sixties Moreover, it was his belief in natural causation that led him to embrace the theory of evolution, not vice versa. ... His *faith* was so strong that it did not wait on scientific proof. Spencer became an ardent evolutionist at a time when a cautious scientist would have been justified at least in suspending judgement. ... for him the belief in natural causation was primary, the theory of evolution derivative."
Burrow, John W. [Professor of Intellectual History, University of Sussex, UK], "Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory," [1966], Cambridge University Press: London, 1968, reprint, pp.180-181, 205).
"Another reason that scientists are so prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that science itself, as I have suggested, is a religion.
The neophyte scientist, recently come or converted to the world view of science, can be every bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or a soldier of Allah.
This is particularly the case when we have come to science from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy. Then we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientists, however, is their awareness that science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion."
Peck, M. Scott [psychiatrist and Medical Director of New Milford Hospital Mental Health Clinic, Connecticut, USA], "The Road Less Travelled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growt
in the faith of Love for creation and evolution,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7644
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atoz wrote: |
Do atheists in general love or hate God?
|
Neither; we think that He doesn't exist.
| atoz wrote: |
Do atheists in general love or hate who they think does not exist?
|
Neither; you're asking a nonsensical question.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
