RE: Meliorism - The rise of neo-atheism and the fall of reason
April 16, 2013 at 6:13 pm
(This post was last modified: April 16, 2013 at 6:14 pm by ManMachine.)
(April 16, 2013 at 3:19 pm)Darkstar Wrote: It is simply the fact that science gets consistent results that I find it odd to question it. Sure, you can question individual parts of science, it is supposed to be self correcting, so if a mistake is made it is imperative that it be challenged. However, to challenge the legitimacy of science in and of itself is a bit absurd, considering how far we have come with it, and how much farther we can go.
And no, you don't apply quantum physics to see how you should go about a relationship, science isn't useful like that (though a "soft" science like psychology might provide some assistance).
If there is a reasonable argument as to why science in and of itself is untrustworthy, I have not heard it.
To make myself clear. In this post, I am not questioning the legitimacy of science. That is not to say there are not problems with some fundamental assumptions such as objective reality and invariance, or whether or not science is truly the disinterested persuit of facts, but those are for another time, perhaps.
I accept that scientific method and the technology that arises from it has made some significant changes to how we live, this is not in question.
What I am questioning is the use of science and technology to prop up the notion of human progress.
We can spend the next year posting examples of where science has been put to good uses and where it has been put to bad uses and we would get nowhere. The information and technology that results from human endeavour is neither good nor bad, it is the use to which it is put that is either a good use or a bad use, and I've spent a lot of time in this thread trying to get that simple point across to people who have posted examples of where they think science has led to human progress.
I'll set out some of the basic principles on which I built my arguement, that might help explain it a little better.
I find that many scientific theories are reasonable to me, that means I find that I can reason them easily and they make sense to me. This does not mean I accept them as Universal truths, they are as I said, for the time-being, reasonable to me but new information could come along and change that opinion.
Evolution is a theory I find reasonable. There is a wealth of empirical evidence and the theory, for the most part, fits the available evidence. This does not mean it is a fact to me but means it is open to revision and occasionally change but I'm comfortable with the theory as it stands and there is still room for any future revisions should that be reasonable to me.
Evolution tells us that the human species (Homo sapiens) evolved as a result of random mutation, genetic drift and possibly a little interspecies breeding along the way (and a few other things). Homo sapiens evolved by the same process as any other evolved species.
To ask the question, 'what is the goal or aim of elephants as a species?' seems fairly ridiculous to ask of any animal let alone poor old elephants. Yet, we ask it of our own species and we do not think it a strange question to ask. Evolution does not tell us elephants exist as a species because they have a special goal or meaning or aim or whatever, and it does not tell us about any species goals, meanings, aims, etc. for humans either. Religion does, but science does not.
Scientifically speaking, it is ridiculous to ask what the final cause (the purpose, end, aim, or goal) of the human species is because it doesn't have one. We are a current in the genetic tide and one day we will be washed away like all the extinct species that have gone before us.
When we talk about human progress we invoke a final cause, something to measure human progress against. This is utterly groundless. The belief that humans can progress is built on religious and in particurlar the Judao/Christian notion that we are somehow not like other animals. This is what I mean when I talk about anthropocentrism, our species ego, and is just not supported by empirical evidence.
To talk about human progress via science and technology is unscientific, but it is religious.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
