RE: Ignorant Atheists?
December 3, 2008 at 12:19 pm
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2008 at 12:33 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
So what would you say the difference is between that and the other example I gave? Faith contradicts science. If you tolerate faith when you're a scientist how is that not like tolerating your enemy when you're good? I'm not sure myself. Intuitively it seems too far. But intellectually I'm not sure yet. So please explain.
I am all for the "conversational intolerance" that Sam Harris promotes.
And of course as I've already said I certainly don't think having a degree and even making discoveries makes you a scientist. Its using the scientific method. And if you just use it when you feel like it and don't when it contradicts your faith. So you are putting your nonsensical faith above the scientific method. How can you be called a scientist then? You are putting pretty much the reverse of the scientific method ABOVE the scientific method.
If you're a scientist then you might as well just say everyone is a scientist. Even if they're very illogical.
Furthermore it shouldn't be up to them if they are negatively effecting other people. And for instance making faith heads think science is compatible with faith. When it isn't. Only if you ignore the contradictions. And that's not really compatible. They can still practice the scientific method but they should be aware that their faith is completely debunked by it. Because of the burden of proof, Occam's razor and the absurd improbability of God. If they want to be really considered a full practitioner of the scientific method. A scientist.
And also how do you know that they wouldn't be better scientist if they weren't religious? If they didn't believe in supernatural absurdity that completely contradicts science?
Finally, if I am not a scientist in the sense I don't have a degree or practice 'science'. And that makes me not a scientist. But someone who does but believes in 'a faith' the opposition of science. Does that make him/her more of a scientist than me? Even if he/she gets such a HUGE scientific question wrong and I don't?
I am all for the "conversational intolerance" that Sam Harris promotes.
And of course as I've already said I certainly don't think having a degree and even making discoveries makes you a scientist. Its using the scientific method. And if you just use it when you feel like it and don't when it contradicts your faith. So you are putting your nonsensical faith above the scientific method. How can you be called a scientist then? You are putting pretty much the reverse of the scientific method ABOVE the scientific method.
If you're a scientist then you might as well just say everyone is a scientist. Even if they're very illogical.
Furthermore it shouldn't be up to them if they are negatively effecting other people. And for instance making faith heads think science is compatible with faith. When it isn't. Only if you ignore the contradictions. And that's not really compatible. They can still practice the scientific method but they should be aware that their faith is completely debunked by it. Because of the burden of proof, Occam's razor and the absurd improbability of God. If they want to be really considered a full practitioner of the scientific method. A scientist.
And also how do you know that they wouldn't be better scientist if they weren't religious? If they didn't believe in supernatural absurdity that completely contradicts science?
Finally, if I am not a scientist in the sense I don't have a degree or practice 'science'. And that makes me not a scientist. But someone who does but believes in 'a faith' the opposition of science. Does that make him/her more of a scientist than me? Even if he/she gets such a HUGE scientific question wrong and I don't?
