Correlation between science and atheism/agnosticism

  • Thread starter Zetison
  • Start date

What option fits you best?

  • I belive in some sort of supernatural being(s)

    Votes: 10 29.4%
  • I'm an atheist/agnostic

    Votes: 24 70.6%

  • Total voters
    34
  • #26
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
If you don't force your religion, or lack there of on me. I won't force my religion on you. Simple as that. Whether or not someone believes in God, or doesn't believe in God, it should not affect their reputation in the science community.

"Oh well that man believes in God, his work must all be foolishness"
Better that than a String theorist. :biggrin:
 
  • #27
133
0
Hmm, well I think science does do a number on particular holy scriptures, not dragging any into question. So I don't buy this 'religion and science are seperate'. It's a fallacy.

Maybe GOD and SCIENCE are seperate because gods are by definition supernatural and science only deals with the natural but religion is definitely a wordly and natural thing. It is not out of the scope of science.
I also agree that religion and science are not separate. In fact I'll go so far as to say they are currently much in opposition. I have already stated that I do not agree with the supernatural-natural division either. My definition is that if it exists then it must be "natural" whether we understand how it works or not.

Today many (judging by our poll here as well as personal observations) in science seem to have become sold on Social Darwinism. Also many in the leadership of sovereign nations take that view as well. But few people seem to really understand the implications of that.

For example the theory of evolution is widely presented not as theory but as fact. It is far from sewed up tight enough to make such a bold assertion. Furthermore, there is little consideration of the issues of morality in all this. For that is a far more central issue than whether the universe was "created", was not created, or simply has existed forever.

Here's the deal. If one accepts Social Darwinism, one pretty much has to accept the corollaries that go with it. For example, that when one dies there is nothing more. That there is no such thing as "sin" or punishment for it. That there is no such thing as "morality" beyond brute animal strength. Just look to the animal kingdom for justification. Animals have no morality. They kill, they steal, they take each other's mates, they "lie" in the sense of fooling predators etc. and so on. On the other hand in revealed religions we have an opposite proposal. This includes. Eternal life, A list of forbidden animal acts including theft, murder, lies, adultery, etc., and the suggestion of unseen forces governing things.

So now we have "science" (Social Darwinism) and "religion" (revealed, but unproved ideas) presenting diametrically opposed world views. They are not only not "separate" but they are also antagonistic! My personal view is that the issue can only be resolved when science takes it upon itself to test the validity of those revealed principles. So far this has been strongly resisted except in a few minor areas such as testing the claims of Yogis (which oddly enough mostly proved to be true). And until a larger effort is made I doubt anything will ever be resolved as until then all arguments degenerate into "what do you 'believe'?" which obviously resolves nothing just like this poll.
 
  • #28
35
0
For example the theory of evolution is widely presented not as theory but as fact. It is far from sewed up tight enough to make such a bold assertion. Furthermore, there is little consideration of the issues of morality in all this. For that is a far more central issue than whether the universe was "created", was not created, or simply has existed forever.
As Riachard Dawkins self put it: "Evolution is a fact"
http://richarddawkins.net/thegreatestshowonearth" [Broken]

Right now, somewhere out there on a planet with low gravity, a flying spaghetti monster has evolved. Atheists have no imagination, no offense.
The flying spaghettimonster is a argument atheist shall use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk8EANdpAj0&playnext_from=TL&videos=9xrUGG_-QLU"

Invent your own monster :P
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: Correlation between science and atheism/agnosticism

Replies
40
Views
10K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
97
Views
8K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
138
Views
21K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
Replies
89
Views
10K
Top