In my intro thread, Rhythm brought up an excellent point: "The conclusion must fit the observation, not the other way around."
I agree with this, but it has led me to question the standard claim that many atheists make re basing their stance on evidence alone or that science simply goes where the evidence leads. Would that this were so, but it just doesn't seem like that is the case. I think this idea was best summed up by Richard Lewontin in his infamous quote:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
I'm not a materialist, but I do admire Lewontin's frankness because my take on the issue long before I learned of this quote has been in accord with what he is saying and it runs directly counter to the claim made by Rhythm and many others.
I agree that is should be the case that the conclusion should follow the observation, but it seems far more prevalent to be the other way around. I have often joked that many materialists and atheists follow the ABG protocol when it comes to explaining the big questions: Anything but God!
I agree with this, but it has led me to question the standard claim that many atheists make re basing their stance on evidence alone or that science simply goes where the evidence leads. Would that this were so, but it just doesn't seem like that is the case. I think this idea was best summed up by Richard Lewontin in his infamous quote:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
I'm not a materialist, but I do admire Lewontin's frankness because my take on the issue long before I learned of this quote has been in accord with what he is saying and it runs directly counter to the claim made by Rhythm and many others.
I agree that is should be the case that the conclusion should follow the observation, but it seems far more prevalent to be the other way around. I have often joked that many materialists and atheists follow the ABG protocol when it comes to explaining the big questions: Anything but God!
