Atheists and theists: Endless confrontations

[gph]

We have to accept reality of two worlds, material and spiritual, each with its own methodology of validation of claims.

If by "spiritual" you mean "magic innards" I'll accept it as reality when it's proven real.

The idea that theism and science are two "non-overlapping magisteria" was formulated by Stephen Gould, about 15 years ago.

Gould was wrong. Theistic religions make all sorts of unsupported claims that are well within the realm of science.

 

[Craig4]

I'm at a loss as to why we have to accept that there is a spiritual world. Why would we have to accept that if there's no evidence for it?

 

[Irony]

We have to accept reality of two worlds, material and spiritual, each with its own methodology of validation of claims. The idea that theism and science are two "non-overlapping magisteria" was formulated by Stephen Gould, about 15 years ago.

We have to?

Why?

I for one feel no compulsion to accept two separate forms of reality.

With all due respect to Gould (which is a considerable amount), on this point he was simply wrong. "Spiritual", "religious", or whatever claims about reality are still claims about reality, and therefor subject to verification and experimentation. There is no reason whatsoever that science should stop what it's doing just because it enters some entirely imaginary "spiritual" domain.

 

[SezMe]

With all due respect to Gould (which is a considerable amount), ...

Agreed. He stands with, say, Sagan, as a science writer "for the rest of us". Two of my favorite pieces are the one about DiMaggio's hitting streak and the one about the shrinking chocolate bar.

/OT

 

[Pup]

Biblical statements, as far as know, are not derived by theologians; they are taken on faith.

Then that blows the whole comparison to mathematics.

We have to accept reality of two worlds, material and spiritual, each with its own methodology of validation of claims. The idea that theism and science are two "non-overlapping magisteria" was formulated by Stephen Gould, about 15 years ago.

I think that the concept of non-overlapping magisteria is how people deal with the cognitive dissonance of trying to follow contradictory philosophies about how to learn about the world.

There is certainly no reason to accept the reality of both.

Are biblical statements consistent with each other, according to logical analysis? That is a good question. Perhaps someone will answer it, quoting from real debates among theologians. I am a scientist; not a theologian.

The very fact that theologians hold debates among themselves about it, is a hint.

 

[Beerina]

We have to?

Why?

I for one feel no compulsion to accept two separate forms of reality.

With all due respect to Gould (which is a considerable amount), on this point he was simply wrong. "Spiritual", "religious", or whatever claims about reality are still claims about reality, and therefor subject to verification and experimentation. There is no reason whatsoever that science should stop what it's doing just because it enters some entirely imaginary "spiritual" domain.

I think his NOMA was just a last grasp at heaving a bone to the religious. It's the way you dealt with things back in the olden days, largely to get them off your ass.

As such, it was probably already anachronistic even as he penned it. 1950s would have been a better timeframe. Or maybe he was after a religious chick, who knows?

 

[Dinwar]

The idea that theism and science are two "non-overlapping magisteria" was formulated by Stephen Gould, about 15 years ago.

Paleontologists tend to step into philosophy, some with more success than others. Gould erred here.

Remember, science has no final authorities, only experts. Experts are MUCH more likely to be correct than lay people, by virtue of having studied the subject much more intensely, but they can still be wrong. Every peer-review journal has a retractions section. I once read that Einstein published an enormous number of retractions--he'd put an idea out into the literature, it'd be debated, and he'd realize he was wrong. No harm done. The idea that even the best expert in the field can be wrong is built into the foundations of science. So simply throwing a name out--even referencing his paper--isn't going to impress too many people here. We've disagreed with experts before..

Or maybe he was after a religious chick, who knows?

I spoke with one of his grad students about this. It was mostly exactly what it appears to be: A way to reconcile science and religion. He was sick of religious people trying to undermine evolution, but not consistent enough to say "Your epistemology is wrong, in everything".

With all due respect to Gould (which is a considerable amount), on this point he was simply wrong.

You're generous. I know some guys in Italy that think he's completely over-rated, and who have evidence to back it up (that's why you'll never hear me say Punctuated Equilibrium is THE tempo of evolution, only A tempo). In fact, as I understand it European paleontologists really don't agree with him. They respect him, but it's the kind of respect you give to someone who puts up a good fight--you're still going to pummel them. There's a LOT of people who say Gould was wrong--you just don't hear about them unless you get into the really technical literature.

 

[Weak Kitten]

I know it's rehashing what most of the rest of you said but I agree with the common theme here of why atheists and theists often clash.

I'm very nice to theists when I meet them, I am respectful and polite to true believers no mater how I personally feel about what they are saying. It is when they try to take away my rights based on their mythology that I start fighting back; and when they try to convert me to their religion in an attempt to make me accept the loss of my personal rights I get justifiably angry.

 

[kowalskil]

I know it's rehashing what most of the rest of you said but I agree with the common theme here of why atheists and theists often clash.

I'm very nice to theists when I meet them, I am respectful and polite to true believers no mater how I personally feel about what they are saying. It is when they try to take away my rights based on their mythology that I start fighting back; and when they try to convert me to their religion in an attempt to make me accept the loss of my personal rights I get justifiably angry.

Yes, respect must be mutual. That is the precondition for reducing the intensity of the we-are-better-than-you confrontations.
.
==========================================

Breach of rule 6 removed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Dinwar]

Yes, respect must be mutual. That is the precondition for reducing the intensity of the we-are-better-than-you confrontations.

Well, let's look at the two sides to see which one is disrespectful.

On the one hand, we have theists. They've passed laws preventing atheists from holding office in the United States, passed laws forbidding people to engage in activities that violate their religious beliefs (Blue Laws), are attempting to force their way into science classes in order to create a theocracy (the Wedge Document), establish noncheritable organizations known to harbor people who rape children and which don't pay taxes, and (and this is a big one) murder innocent people.

On the other hand, you have atheists who rent billboards, hold conferences, write books, write blogs, and argue online. Oh, and strive for the same civil liberties as everyone else has (you know, the right to hold office, the right to not be assaulted, the right to not have our homes violated, that kind of thing).

I think you need to reconsider telling atheists we need to be more respectful.

 

[kowalskil]

Well, let's look at the two sides to see which one is disrespectful.

On the one hand, we have theists. They've passed laws preventing atheists from holding office in the United States, passed laws forbidding people to engage in activities that violate their religious beliefs (Blue Laws), are attempting to force their way into science classes in order to create a theocracy (the Wedge Document), establish noncheritable organizations known to harbor people who rape children and which don't pay taxes, and (and this is a big one) murder innocent people.

On the other hand, you have atheists who rent billboards, hold conferences, write books, write blogs, and argue online. Oh, and strive for the same civil liberties as everyone else has (you know, the right to hold office, the right to not be assaulted, the right to not have our homes violated, that kind of thing).

I think you need to reconsider telling atheists we need to be more respectful.

RELIGION = THEISM + MANY OTHER THINGS

What you are addressing is not theism; it belongs to "other things." These topics are certainly worth discussing, but not all at the same time.

===========================================

 

[Agatha]

But in many cases, the source of the conflict between atheists and theists is that theists discriminate based on belief, and they reinforce that discrimination with legislation.

You cannot eradicate conflict without addressing all the sources of it.

 

[Pup]

RELIGION = THEISM + MANY OTHER THINGS

What you are addressing is not theism; it belongs to "other things." These topics are certainly worth discussing, but not all at the same time.

Since theism is "belief in the existence of a god or gods," and religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power," I'd say:

THEISM = RELIGION + MANY OTHER THINGS

What Dinwar described does indeed fall under the umbrella of things theists do.

 

[kowalskil]

But in many cases, the source of the conflict between atheists and theists is that theists discriminate based on belief, and they reinforce that discrimination with legislation.

You cannot eradicate conflict without addressing all the sources of it.

.

This reminds me the Soviet Union.

============================

 

[Dinwar]

What you are addressing is not theism; it belongs to "other things." These topics are certainly worth discussing, but not all at the same time.

Oh, well, so long as you define the terms to negate my argument arbitrarily, I guess I MUST accept what you say as true! You even used bolded text!

I never said that ALL theists did this. I specifically gave the worst examples. 99 times out of 100, there's no significant difference between how an atheist and how a theist act. But when people start saying that atheists are disrespectful, they can only support that position by ignoring data. Show me how modern atheists are disrespectful, THEN we can talk about needing to show respect. Thus far, it's an arbitrary assertion on your part that atheists don't show theists due respect.

This reminds me the Soviet Union.

So what? This is Argument from intimidation, nothing more.

Face the facts: Atheists aren't disrespectful. The only thing atheists do that appears disrespectful is say "I don't believe you, here's why". Theists can't handle that, and use the whole "Respect mah authoritah!" argument to silence those who oppose them. Not all theists, but their leaders certainly do. And you're telling people who are showing theists respect (from a scientific standpoint intense analysis IS RESPECTFUL--the idea is at least worth wasting time on) that we need to be more respectful. the only way to do that is capitulation, disenfranchisement, and, if certain imams and the Discovery Institute get their way (as put down in their own words in the fatwas and the Wedge Document), death.

 

[Complexity]

Thank you. But I disagree that theology does not start with axioms. Existence of God is taken as a self-evident truth.

Then theology is wrong, dangerous, harmful, and an utter waste of time.

 

[slingblade]

Kowalski, I'm with slingblade. Cut the crap below the equal signs. If you must brag, put it in your sig so sensible people can ignore it.

It has to be the world's most blatant Appeal to Authority.

It's also clear evidence that even supposed scientists can bathe in woo.
That's no surprise, really; surely we're all aware that science is no bar to pseudo-science. But I suppose it is something, at least, to have such obvious evidence of it.

Not, of course, that I am reassured that the poster is who the poster claims to be. I rather doubt it, frankly. Still, not impressive in the way I suspect it was intended to impress.

 

[Dinwar]

Still, not impressive in the way I suspect it was intended to impress.

I'm curious as to who's going to be impressed by saying "I'm a retired nuclear physicist". I mean, first off that has no bearing on theism/atheism. Second off, there are nuclear physicists on these boards, and we've all likely argued against them at one time or another. Third, if you claim to be a physicist and you can't grasp thermodynamics, you're obviously not a good one, so saying you are one actually undermines your credibility.

 

[Complexity]

Yes, once again I don't have the rocket scientist brains to add to a religious thread, tho I hope to get there some day; but, Complexity, seeing you here just made my night! *hugs*

Sorry if that's inappropriate, but I've been away and missed your postings, threads, and even this short sentence! LOL

I also feel that I would be happy to not meet any more theists or spiritualists again. *Sigh*

I suppose the endless conflicts will truly be endless. Once one religion goes down the crapper another is there to take its place. And on and on and on...

I've been feeling pretty down the past few days. I so don't want to be around people right now that I couldn't even go to my favorite breakfast place this morning.

Minarvia, you just made my year. Thanks, and hugs back atcha!

 

[Agatha]

But in many cases, the source of the conflict between atheists and theists is that theists discriminate based on belief, and they reinforce that discrimination with legislation.

You cannot eradicate conflict without addressing all the sources of it.

.

This reminds me the Soviet Union.

In what way? Your response does not address the post which you quoted.