RE: Atheist manifesto
March 26, 2012 at 11:39 am
(This post was last modified: March 26, 2012 at 11:39 am by NoMoreFaith.)
Not a bad article, thou I resent applying so many views to a simple non-belief in God(s)™.
You're right about #4, it makes a faulty case that "this does not make us scientistic. Scientism is the belief that science provides the only means of gaining true knowledge of the world, " and then creates a strawman by "History, for example, may ultimately depend on nothing more than the movements of atoms, but you cannot understand the battle of Hastings by examining interactions of fermions and bosons."
Your understanding of the battle of Hastings, is based upon the accounts of the battle written by men, science cannot objectively examine it, however, it is a mistake to say that our understanding of the battle of hastings IS a "true knowledge of the world". History is well known to be written by the victors after all.
What I would say is that you can never really achieve "true knowledge" of a subject like history, and there is no reason why you would invoke fermions and bosons. A healthy understanding of the scientific method allows you to apply constructive criticism to a written account of history, and refuse to accept it as definitely "true". It can only aspire to be the "truest" account we are capable of.
Science may not explain subjective states, only objective, this is true, but I don't know of anyone who has claimed otherwise.. which makes his point a little .. pointless.
As for #9, some types of Buddhism and Hinduism allow for atheism, and a rejection of Dogma in favour of provable science I think. But maybe I'm wrong.
You're right about #4, it makes a faulty case that "this does not make us scientistic. Scientism is the belief that science provides the only means of gaining true knowledge of the world, " and then creates a strawman by "History, for example, may ultimately depend on nothing more than the movements of atoms, but you cannot understand the battle of Hastings by examining interactions of fermions and bosons."
Your understanding of the battle of Hastings, is based upon the accounts of the battle written by men, science cannot objectively examine it, however, it is a mistake to say that our understanding of the battle of hastings IS a "true knowledge of the world". History is well known to be written by the victors after all.
What I would say is that you can never really achieve "true knowledge" of a subject like history, and there is no reason why you would invoke fermions and bosons. A healthy understanding of the scientific method allows you to apply constructive criticism to a written account of history, and refuse to accept it as definitely "true". It can only aspire to be the "truest" account we are capable of.
Science may not explain subjective states, only objective, this is true, but I don't know of anyone who has claimed otherwise.. which makes his point a little .. pointless.
As for #9, some types of Buddhism and Hinduism allow for atheism, and a rejection of Dogma in favour of provable science I think. But maybe I'm wrong.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
