The Ownership of Science

[slartibartfast]

I don't hate the word "hope" at all, but I do hate bullshit.

Personally, I find it difficult to criticize any organization that helps children, whether they put God into the mix or not.


Boru

Call me extremely cynical, but I hate the inherent blackmail.

I am imagining senior church leaders similar to Kirby Vacuum cleaner salespeople sitting round a table at their annual growth strategy convention drinking from golden goblets saying "Hmm. Conversion rates are not looking good this year and Church X and those pesky Atheists are starting to push into our territory. Any thoughts, team?"...

"Hey, why don't we target the most young, poor, needy, desperate and vulnerable people, offer them the help and comfort they desperately need and put mandatory conversion therapy in the fine print? We can pay for it with all the tithes existing members keep throwing at us."...

"It's perfect! Not only are they already beaten down enough to be receptive to our message, but we come out the end looking altruistic as fuck and smelling of roses."

Like I said.. I am a cynical prick.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hide your kids, and cover your wallet, anytime a god bothering religious group starts babbling about all the "help" they offer. You're being pitched - and they're not nice people.

Go ahead, take the help™, and when you catch them fucking children and hiding the perpetrators they'll threaten to leave those same kids hungry and unattended on the street..because it just costs too much to settle decently - and back to the billion dollar wingnut welfare spigot they go. Can't be helped. Like the prophet said, gods are just really bad with money.

[slartibartfast]

Hide your kids, and cover your wallet, anytime a god bothering religious group starts babbling about all the "help" they offer.  You're being pitched - and they're not nice people.

Go ahead, take the help™, and when you catch them fucking children and hiding the perpetrators they'll threaten to leave those same kids hungry and unattended on the street..because it just costs too much to settle decently - and back to the billion dollar wingnut welfare spigot they go.  Can't be helped.  Like the prophet said, gods are just really bad with money.

Mother Theresa springs to mind... no such thing as a free lunch.

[arewethereyet]

Is science for sale? Can we put in bids?

[The Grand Nudger]

What isn't.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It almost seems as if there are these four basic categories keep popping up to "explain" the apparent contingency of the physical universe: chance, necessity, providence, and choice. Depending on one's faith, or lack thereof, people are disposed to feel emotionally and intellectually satisfied with some categories more than others. At the same time though, some categories seem to blur together. Is there really that much difference between them? If you can model chance outcomes statistically doesn't that bleed into necessity when there is a predictable and graphable distribution? Is there really much difference between necessity, that which must happen, and providence, the idea that some things are set-up to happen. Isn't that perhaps just a differnent way of talking about the same thing...between the "how" and "why" of things.

The answer to this is no 

[Neo-Scholastic]

There is no God-hypothesis incorporated into science because nothing in science requires that assumption.

Yes, of course. IMO science doesn't see teleology and normative aspects of reality because the assumptions of a rationally ordered universe and the efficacy of human reason are already in the background as a prerequisite to any scientific inquiry. Nevertheless, whether or not either of [those] assumptions are real or only apparent and why are theological and philosophical questions about which IMHO reasonable people can disagree and epistemic humility is warranted.

[brewer]

Is science for sale?  Can we put in bids?

You buy science all the time. We all do.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no God-hypothesis incorporated into science because nothing in science requires that assumption.

Yes, of course. IMO science doesn't see teleology and normative aspects of reality because the assumptions of a rationally ordered universe and the efficacy of human reason are already in the background as a prerequisite to any scientific inquiry. Nevertheless, whether or not either of assumptions are real or only apparent and why are theological and philosophical questions about which IMHO reasonable people can disagree and epistemic humility is warranted.

You're wrong in point of fact, here.  Even though science does see things x y and z...it still has no reason to assert pixies. Teleology and normativity are aspects of scientific studies, not absent quantities. They just don't have anything to do with gods.

Care to try again to explain why you reject a scientific understanding of the cosmos.including any existent god? Think about this for a second. Science only recognizes what has been called a natural teleology, because that's all it sees and all that's required - but you, and not science, are the one in the position of denying such a teleology as a matter of course. No biologist will hesitate to explain to you the purpose of a given adaptation.

......

[Angrboda]

There is no God-hypothesis incorporated into science because nothing in science requires that assumption.

Yes, of course. IMO science doesn't see teleology and normative aspects of reality because the assumptions of a rationally ordered universe and the efficacy of human reason are already in the background as a prerequisite to any scientific inquiry. Nevertheless, whether or not either of [those] assumptions are real or only apparent and why are theological and philosophical questions about which IMHO reasonable people can disagree and epistemic humility is warranted.

What you mean is science rejects your metaphysics. There's plenty of teleology and norms in science, just not on the hooks you want to hang them on.