Re: Berlinski: The Scientific Embrace of Atheism
- From: John Stockwell <john.19071969@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 30, 11:25 am, Glend <interelectromagne...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"If not, what reason do we have to suppose that God might not exist?
"We have no reason whatsoever. If neither the sciences nor its aura
have demonstrated any conclusion of interest about the existence of
God, why then is atheism valued among scientists?
"It takes no very refined analytic effort to determine why Soviet
Commissars should have regarded themselves as atheists. They were
unwilling to countenance a power higher than their own. Who knows what
mischief Soviet citizens might have conceived had they imagined that
the Politburo was not, after all, infallible?
"By the same token, it requires no very great analytic effort to
understand why the scientific community should find atheism so
attractive a doctrine. At a time when otherwise sober individuals are
inclined to believe that too much of science is too much like a
racket, it is only sensible for scientists to suggest aggressively
that no power exceeds their own."
That was the end. The rest:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/
For a supposed philosopher, he sure doesn't argue intelligently.
For the 5,813th time, the question is not "why do we know that God
doesn't exist?" but "why do we know that God does exist?" Even he
can't be dumb enough not to know that, which means that he's almost
certainly being dishonest in repeating the same stupid thing yet
again.
Since we don't have reason to suppose that Zaphod Beeblebrox doesn't
exist, should we operate as if he does? Should Zaphod be considered
likely enough to affect our lives and thinking with the odds of his
"existence"?
And I doubt that "atheism is valued" among many scientists at all, and
indeed, a large minority (IIRC) is religious. Most atheistic
scientists don't care much about atheism, they just don't care about
religion.
Beyond that, he's clearly playing up the BS in "Expelled," like "Big
Science" is really retarded and thinks that no power exceeds their
own.
That's my short response, but here's a link to Derbyshire drawing it
all out:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/getting-it-wrong-about-atheism-and-science/
In closing I want to reiterate that science, and most scientists, are
not truly embracing atheism. They just can't admit an unevidenced
"Cause" into science, which is the real issue that Berlinski cares
about.
Glen Davidsonhttp://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Actually, I believe that Berlinski is primarily interested in making
money from
writing books. He is in Expelled, and just happens to have a new book
that was
released a few weeks ago.
-John
.
- References:
- Berlinski: The Scientific Embrace of Atheism
- From: Glend
- Berlinski: The Scientific Embrace of Atheism
- Prev by Date: Re: How Science Gets Swiftboated
- Next by Date: Re: Rapidly Evolvling Lizards may not be evolving at all.
- Previous by thread: Berlinski: The Scientific Embrace of Atheism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
