Yeah. Point taken. So would a "no true scotsman" count without a "no"?
E.g if you said "the true scotsman"?
On the matter of whether someone is a scientist or not If they're religious. I guess it depends if you're more pro-evidence/atheist or more anti-faith/anti-theist.
I'm more pro-evidence but I'm certainly anti-faith too.
Unlike the other 3 horsemen. Hitchens descibes himself not as an atheist but as an 'anti-thesit' for example.
So I guess in that case you could very well know that technically religious people are scientists. But since you think 'faith' is so bad for the world and bad for science. You wouldn't really consider them scientists anyway. Or maybe unless they were very good scientists and/or didn't influence science negatively with their faith? Maybe if not through themselves but through converting other people either intentionally or unitentionally.
I dunno. What do you think? A lot of this is just speculation.
But I'm more pro-evidence than anti-faith anyway. After all if I wasn't pro-evidence I would be more agnostic about God. So I wouldn't want to say religion was bad for the world if I thought there was a good chance that it wasn't delusional. And that it was overall good for people.
But I indeed DO think its delusional. I am Pro-evidence and there is no evidence of God. And God is very very improbable indeed.
EDIT: I've also been thinking now. If a religious scientist is considered to be a true scientist. Would he be considered a true scientist if instead he believed in Russell's Teapot? If he was a teapot worshiper instead of a Christian for example? But otherwise the same?
And if saying 'the true scientist' counts as a NTS in just any context. Then Dawkins has said this in TGD. So would this count as a NTS?
E.g if you said "the true scotsman"?
On the matter of whether someone is a scientist or not If they're religious. I guess it depends if you're more pro-evidence/atheist or more anti-faith/anti-theist.
I'm more pro-evidence but I'm certainly anti-faith too.
Unlike the other 3 horsemen. Hitchens descibes himself not as an atheist but as an 'anti-thesit' for example.
So I guess in that case you could very well know that technically religious people are scientists. But since you think 'faith' is so bad for the world and bad for science. You wouldn't really consider them scientists anyway. Or maybe unless they were very good scientists and/or didn't influence science negatively with their faith? Maybe if not through themselves but through converting other people either intentionally or unitentionally.
I dunno. What do you think? A lot of this is just speculation.
But I'm more pro-evidence than anti-faith anyway. After all if I wasn't pro-evidence I would be more agnostic about God. So I wouldn't want to say religion was bad for the world if I thought there was a good chance that it wasn't delusional. And that it was overall good for people.
But I indeed DO think its delusional. I am Pro-evidence and there is no evidence of God. And God is very very improbable indeed.
EDIT: I've also been thinking now. If a religious scientist is considered to be a true scientist. Would he be considered a true scientist if instead he believed in Russell's Teapot? If he was a teapot worshiper instead of a Christian for example? But otherwise the same?
And if saying 'the true scientist' counts as a NTS in just any context. Then Dawkins has said this in TGD. So would this count as a NTS?
