Article: All scientists should be militant atheists

[CrucifyCindy]

No, science is a tool to O-B-S-E-R-V-E the real world, and if you are going to be a scientist, or call yourself a scientist, then other scientists have every right to screen you on who you should be when you enter their labs and write in their journals! Your personal beliefs you have a right to, but you should not have the right to discuss non-empirical data while wearing the hat of a "scientist". Science is empirical, anything else is something otherwise.

You know, you are absolutely right! Science is empirical! And we should should dismiss bullshit non-empirical nonsense such as "memes" and the "scientist" who believe in such non-empirical bullshit! Right? After all "memes" are non-empirical pseudoscience and any "scientist" who espouses non-empirical bullshit like that should be dismissed as bullshit artists.

[Cocoa Beware]

Religion should never impede science when human lives are at stake, its ridiculous.

It makes a lot of sense to be openly hostile of religion in such cases. Its long overdue.

[jonb]

That was "militant A-T-H-E-I-S-T", and it was written strictly in the context of the presumptions which should or should not be permitted in the lab, at the scientific discussion table, or in scientific journals. Your personal bullshit you have a right to, least of all in the US.

Well show me one peer reviewed paper that has a 'god did this bit' section, or that the conclusion rests on a personal opinion that has not failed the review. What she is talking about in that article is not about the mechanisms of science, but about what should or should not be said in public meetings which explain science to the general public.

I take exception with the writer of that article when she says atheists should be militant, it is plainly the wrong word. There is no need to be militant. If the data shows that religious dogma is wrong it is not militant to say so, that is just being honest. A scientist with religious convictions can say just the same thing that the data does not support such and such dogma, it is just a matter of honesty, not militancy.

CrucifyCindy
Have you heard of Linguistics?

Linguistics is the scientific study of language.There are three aspects to this study: language form, language meaning, and language in context. The earliest activities in the description of language have been attributed to Pāṇini (fl. 4th century BCE), with his analysis of Sanskrit in Ashtadhyayi.

I know all these 'ologies' and stuff must be quite confusing for you.

https://youtu.be/jC_-r-J69qA

[Baruch]

If the point is how to explain science to the general public ... what about to students?  The standard joke in school, regarding textbooks were two:

1. The development of an idea is being presented, and the textbook author has a sudden seizure where they skip the hard parts ... we called that the "then a miracle happens" section.

2. Problems are being given at the end of the chapter.  The principles involved have been inadequately explained by the hack writer ... one of the problem assigned once required a Nobelist to solve.

3. Generally the best way to explain science to the general public is ... "look at all the flashy lights".  Generally the general public has neither the interest nor the preparation to seriously read anything.  If you like serious documentaries ... you have already self identified as a geek.

[peacewithoutgod]

You know, you are absolutely right! Science is empirical! And we should should dismiss bullshit non-empirical nonsense such as "memes" and the "scientist" who believe in such non-empirical bullshit! Right? After all "memes" are non-empirical pseudoscience and any "scientist" who espouses non-empirical bullshit like that should be dismissed as bullshit artists.

As explained before, meme theory explains behaviors which are real, and no less scientifically than the science which observes and explains the behaviors exhibited by schizophrenics. Just because you insist otherwise doesn't make your position valid.

[peacewithoutgod]

Well show me one peer reviewed paper that has a 'god did this bit' section, or that the conclusion rests on a personal opinion that has not failed the review. What she is talking about in that article is not about the mechanisms of science, but about what should or should not be said in public meetings which explain science to the general public.

Are you really unaware of the pervasive influence of "Intelligent Design" writers? Lots of them have scientific credentials, and they work at prestigious secular universities. They really, really don't belong there!

I take exception with the writer of that article when she says atheists should be militant, it is plainly the wrong word. There is no need to be militant. If the data shows that religious dogma is wrong it is not militant to say so, that is just being honest. A scientist with religious convictions can say just the same thing that the data does not support such and such dogma, it is just a matter of honesty, not militancy.

I think there is a pressing need for militancy when you call the work which you get paid for "science" - nobody said you cannot be religious privately, only that you must not bring it to the job.

[jonb]

Are you really unaware of the pervasive influence of "Intelligent Design" writers? Lots of them have scientific credentials, and they work at prestigious secular universities. They really, really don't belong there!

It does not matter what these people do as a hobby,

Paul Dirac was quite a fan of -

Che in his latter years, but it did not interfere with his maths. Its a fee world they can do anything they want in their spare time. If Paul had written a paper on his love of Che's music it would not be science would it?

I think there is a pressing need for militancy when you call the work which you get paid for "science" - nobody said you cannot be religious privately, only that you must not bring it to the job.

I know of no published paper in an accredited journal putting forward "Intelligent Design" so it simply is not science. So of course as it is not science it should not be called science. No need for militancy just the truth.

This is why I am making this point, to say speaking the truth is militant implies that the truth is not empirical, cannot be tested, and once that view is taken the christards have won.

I to the best of my abilities look for and tell the truth as I understand it that is not being militant it is about being honest.

I think that is an important point to make.

[peacewithoutgod]

It does not matter what these people do as a hobby,

Paul Dirac was quite a fan of -

Che in his latter years, but it did not interfere with his maths. Its a fee world they can do anything they want in their spare time. If Paul had written a paper on his love of Che's music it would not be science would it?

That's a straw-man - neither me nor Krauss had anything to say on what people do in their spare time. There's also the red herring trick of switching out science for math, which requires no data to be observed, only computed. Religion for music - I don't see anything relevant or analogous here either. Do whatever you want to in your spare time, but keep it out of your work as a scientist, if that's what you get paid for! I know I've said this at least twice already, and you aren't all woo-woo and enigmatic like CC, so why is it that with you this requires repeating?

Also, Brian May, the uber guitarist for Queen went on to become an astrophysicist. SO WHAT? Music has no conflict with science, and science can actually study it.

I know of no published paper in an accredited journal putting forward "Intelligent Design" so it simply is not science. So of course as it is not science it should not be called science. No need for militancy just the truth.

Repeat: If it is not science it should not be called science! Yes, yes, YES!!! Which I believe is the problem which Krauss was addressing, that people who work as scientists are bringing their presumptions that their god exists into the labs where they work, and into scientific conferences. They need to understand that this is not science, and if they insist that their woo is scientific without presenting valid empirical evidence, then should no longer be supported. Graduate students who promote non-science in their doctoral thesis should not become further credentialed in science, and the government should not fund "research" projects which have nothing to do with scientific inquiry.

Professional, subscription-based journals aren't something I read, but the media is utterly awash in crap which the public cannot sort out from the truth. Even the old and vaunted magazines such as Scientific American and National Geographic are known sources of controversy on grounds that they have become infiltrated with pseudoscience. Steven Jay Gould was respected as a scientist, but his insistence that science and religion can coexist as "non-overlapping magisteria" was the most ridiculous woo I've ever seen.

This is why I am making this point, to say speaking the truth is militant implies that the truth is not empirical, cannot be tested, and once that view is taken the christards have won.

I to the best of my abilities look for and tell the truth as I understand it that is not being militant it is about being honest.

I think that is an important point to make.

Huh??? The truth isn't militant, who the hell said that? The truth is true, and it should always be empirically falsifiable if it is to be permitted where science is practiced. The christards win only if they are permitted to continue their incessant disruptions of the scientific process through their organized woo infiltration. Science should therefore insist on keeping out all arguments which are unfalsifiable.

[jonb]

Because you don't seem to know the difference between the terms militant and Honest.
As you seem to have a problem with identifying that difference then it makes your use of any terminology suspect.

Did you not know that Paul Dirac won the The Nobel Prize in Physics 1933 "for the discovery of new productive forms of atomic theory" in quantum mechanics.
Red Herring?
As a rule of thumb I find when a poster starts accusations of strawmen they have lost any argument they are putting forward.

Do whatever you want to in your spare time, but keep it out of your work as a scientist, if that's what you get paid for!

I take it require the above action. Which is the situation as it is now. That science is not about the personal beliefs of any individual.
But the thread is entitled 'All scientists should be militant atheists' Now a religious person cannot truthfully be a militant atheist can they?
So should scientists be truthful, or Militant Atheists?

You don't seem to understand the repercussions of the argument or the terms being used.
When I understand what you are arguing for other than the vague notion 'I like wot she sed init', we might get somewhere.

[peacewithoutgod]

Because you don't seem to know the difference between the terms militant and Honest.
As you seem to have a problem with identifying that difference then it makes your use of any terminology suspect.

Did you not know that Paul Dirac won the The Nobel Prize in Physics 1933 "for the discovery of new productive forms of atomic theory" in quantum mechanics.
Red Herring?
As a rule of thumb I find when a poster starts accusations of strawmen they have lost any argument they are putting forward.

I take it require the above action. Which is the situation as it is now. That science is not about the personal beliefs of any individual.
But the thread is entitled 'All scientists should be militant atheists' Now a religious person cannot truthfully be a militant atheist can they?
So should scientists be truthful, or Militant Atheists?

You don't seem to understand the repercussions of the argument or the terms being used.
When I understand what you are arguing for other than the vague notion 'I like wot she sed init', we might get somewhere.

You say "honest", I say what Krauss said, but semantics aside, I understand what he was saying, and I don't think it's how you are interpreting it.

See my post above, I did some editing because I'm a bit scatter-brained and it was only later that I think I really understood what you were trying to say.

I don't honestly think you understand the difference between "honesty" and "belief", but regardless of the important difference with the latter, I'm still not one to say that a student should be banned from credentialing as a scientist, or a professional barred from employment as a scientist for what they believe. It's only when their work begins to reflect the presumptions of these beliefs that there would be problems, and I think that is the issue which Krauss was attempting to address. If you are a religious believer and you want to be a scientist too, then you should be expected to work only with data which is falsifiable, your conclusions should follow studies of said data, not precede it, and your conclusions should demonstrate reflection on that studied data. On this requirement (not on any specific scientific ideas, if that's what you were thinking), the world of science really needs to be "militant"!

[TrueStory]

If by all he means most then that is already the case.  I remeber watching a NDT video on here a while back about how he was surprised that not all scientists were atheists, and that there was something else that must have an impact on belief of gods.  I would think it safe to say that not all descisions in a scientists life are bound by the principles of their career.

[hrdlr110]

Complete utter bullshit. It is not the purpose of science to determine your personal political views. The purpose of science is to study and understand our material universe. When we allow our own personal philosophy, religion or political views to color are view of what science does then we have sullied science. Science is not there to determine whether you should be a atheist or beleiver or wheter you should be a liberal or conservative but is a method of discovering our material universe. You are just as bad as any religionst or Deepak Chopkra when you do this, you are twisting science like a goddamn Nazi (who loved twisting science) to fit your world view and I think you should be ashamed of yourselves.

LOL 😭

[jonb]

peacewithoutgod
What you are generally arguing for (apart from 'All scientists should be militant atheists') is exactly how academic science is trying to work now and has been for at least the last three hundred years. I say 'trying' because there are always going to be those that falsify data, but apart from that that is how science works. Personal views do not impinge on the subject and I know of no evidence they do.

Professional, subscription-based journals aren't something I read, but the media is utterly awash in crap which the public cannot sort out from the truth. Even the old and vaunted magazines such as Scientific American and National Geographic are known sources of controversy on grounds that they have become infiltrated with pseudoscience.

This is key!
The problem you are having is not where the science is done, but rather how it is reported.
Every Academic I know hates how their subject is reported. Journalists as a rule know nothing about science, this is partly due to the fact that journalists tend to be educated in the arts rather than the sciences. Then we have the issue that reports are not about the truth but rather about selling papers and the news. It can be guaranteed if an article starts with the equivalent of 'a scientist says' it is bollox.
In short you should be blaming how the media works not how science is done.

[peacewithoutgod]

peacewithoutgod
What you are generally arguing for (apart from 'All scientists should be militant atheists') is exactly how academic science is trying to work now and has been for at least the last three hundred years. I say 'trying' because there are always going to be those that falsify data, but apart from that that is how science works. Personal views do not impinge on the subject and I know of no evidence they do.

This is key!
The problem you are having is not where the science is done, but rather how it is reported.
Every Academic I know hates how their subject is reported. Journalists as a rule know nothing about science, this is partly due to the fact that journalists tend to be educated in the arts rather than the sciences. Then we have the issue that reports are not about the truth but rather about selling papers and the news. It can be guaranteed if an article starts with the equivalent of 'a scientist says' it is bollox.
In short you should be blaming how the media works not how science is done.

I don't see just the media being the problem. Yes, they do tend to misinterpret good science as it is fed to them, and if this is on account of them being to lazy to listen without filtering it through their own zany ideas and confirm their report with the source before it goes to press, then they are responsible for this problem. What I'm concerned with is that they are actually being fed nonsense which has been called science - maybe you don't see a lot of that floating around Britain, but it's done a real good job at tweaking American heads. The media doesn't sort out creation "science" and the Intelligent Design brain-droppings from actual science, and then that isn't really their job when they get it from authority that it's all "science". For example, Michael Behe is one of the earliest artist of that shitcraft. He works in Lehigh University, which is regarded as "one of the 24 hidden Ivies in the Northeastern United States". No it isn't Harvard or MIT, but then it isn't Oral Roberts or William Jessup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehigh_University

[jonb]

A university employs a nutter, nothing there I don't know of any workplace in the world that has not got a few oddities in the woodwork. Is he doing science proving creationism? I know the answer is NO, how do I know this? Because if there was any scientific paper that had evidence which proved creationism it would be so ground breaking that he would have the Nobel prise. As he has not got this, we know his work in science has no evidence for creationism, and that he fits one of these categories; he is not producing any research, his role within the university is not scientific in nature,  (ie he lectures or has an administrate role etc,) or the research he is doing has nothing to do whatever mad views he holds.