Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 7:29 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
An op-ed about misrepresentation and non-critical thinking
#1
An op-ed about misrepresentation and non-critical thinking
At first I thought this article from time.com might be worth a read, that we might actually have a religious person without his or her head up their ass. While the op-ed is, well, good-ish, Amir D. Aczel falls short in many ways.

Time.com - "Why Science Does Not Disprove God"

To the title: no one is saying that it does. At least, not the people I personally know. If someone says this, then he or she has a giant positive claim on their hands that needs some supporting evidence.

Quote:A number of recent books and articles will have you believe that—somehow—science has now disproved the existence of God. We know so much about how the Universe works, their authors claim, that God is simply unnecessary: we can explain all the workings of the Universe without the need for a “creator.”

What books and articles? Where? This author does not provide a citation. Already, we are off to a good start. Need we even continue?

There is so much about the Universe that we don't know yet that it would be entirely premature to say that there is no such thing as a god. However, as our knowledge about said Universe grows with time, the need for supernatural explanations grows smaller and smaller. Perhaps it's true that a "god of the gaps" is unnecessary, but no one worth their salt in the thinking department is claiming knowledge that a god is unnecessary. Now, should they factor a god into their calculations about the universe? No. That's the part that's unnecessary, for there is no good reason to bring up an unknown and unproven factor.

Quote:But does this vast knowledge base disprove the existence of some kind of preexistent outside force that may have launched our Universe on its way?

These questions are asinine. It's impossible to disprove that which has never been proven. I'm sorry if I seem surprised that op-eds such as this grace our internet, that Time is willing to pay this person a small sum of money to publish such chloroform in print.

When the author says stuff like this:
Quote:We now know that Earth is billions—not thousands—of years old, as some theologians had calculated based on counting generations back to the biblical Adam. All of these discoveries defeated literal interpretations of scripture.
One gets a little hopeful. But then such a question is almost immediately followed by:
Quote:But much more important than these conundrums is the persistent question of the fine-tuning of the parameters of the Universe: Why is our Universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life?
Looks like Mr. Aczel forgot to properly research his topic in order to get rid of his human pride. He forgot that the earth is such a small place in our vast, vast universe, and that we are even smaller. He invokes the fine-tuning argument by asking about it, but he never explores it further than that. I'm guessing he does this so that he never has to explain why "if x, therefore god".

It's after this that he names "Scientific Atheists" in a derogatory fashion:
Quote:The “Scientific Atheists” have scrambled to explain this troubling mystery by suggesting the existence of a multiverse—an infinite set of universes, each with its own parameters.
These "Scientific Atheists" are still not claiming absolute knowledge like you are, sir. Unlike you, they are still looking for the answers.

Indeed, he's found his answer:
Quote:The incredible fine-tuning of the Universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God.

tl;dr version:

The author of this op-ed, Amir D. Aczel, gets to write a completely erroneous piece on the fine-tuning argument with no citations, no good reason to believe it, and no good evidence for it. He also bashes "Atheist Scientists" at the same time without properly representing their positions.

End rant.
[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]
Reply
#2
RE: An op-ed about misrepresentation and non-critical thinking
Quote:Amir D. Aczel

I'm guessing muslim.
Reply
#3
RE: An op-ed about misrepresentation and non-critical thinking
I didn't bother to find out. He's an asshat.
[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]
Reply
#4
RE: An op-ed about misrepresentation and non-critical thinking
Considering how hostile the Universe is to our life except for a subset of zones on this Earth, the "Universe is fine tuned for life" argument is so absurd it might as well fall under the umbrella of Not Even Wrong.

And the First cause argument demands "God" be defined so loosely that it has no relation to historical views of what a deity is. Might as well say "Zargleflox caused the Universe to be".
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
Reply
#5
RE: An op-ed about misrepresentation and non-critical thinking
Why yes, of course!

Quote:The phrase is often used to describe pseudoscience or bad science, and is considered derogatory.

I'll say!
[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]
Reply
#6
RE: An op-ed about misrepresentation and non-critical thinking
What I really want is for them to reflect upon the fact that all they have is the "You can't prove me wrong" argument.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#7
RE: An op-ed about misrepresentation and non-critical thinking
Every fucking time, it's a god that's proposed as the solution first. Science will never care about factoring in imaginary deities for its calculations until the time that a god can actually be demonstrated.

Yeah, not sure why this article set me off...damn, it got me worked up good.
[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The far right thinking they know pronouns Foxaèr 6 306 May 27, 2021 at 1:31 am
Last Post: Angrboda
Thumbs Up Last Non-winter onlinebiker 110 4053 April 6, 2020 at 4:12 am
Last Post: The Architect Of Fate
  BREAKING:The exclusion of the UK and non-Schengen countries like Ireland from the ban WinterHold 6 727 March 14, 2020 at 6:49 pm
Last Post: Rev. Rye
  Just A Dumb Ol Boys, never thinking at all. Brian37 10 1153 May 26, 2019 at 9:52 pm
Last Post: onlinebiker
  Non-discrimination for atheists Dr H 33 4298 February 26, 2019 at 10:00 pm
Last Post: fredd bear
  Non-religious countries experience greater economic growth Foxaèr 1 309 July 22, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  A non-scientist has been appointed head of NASA. c172 7 1091 April 23, 2018 at 10:58 pm
Last Post: Cecelia
  German non-Muslim runs over a crowed, killing 3 WinterHold 28 4073 April 9, 2018 at 2:11 pm
Last Post: GrandizerII
  Aziz Ansari Doesn't Pick Up On "Non-Verbal Cues" and Gets Treated Like A Rapist Shell B 880 89209 January 22, 2018 at 5:22 pm
Last Post: LastPoet
  WTF were they thinking files....... Brian37 11 1817 August 10, 2017 at 11:59 am
Last Post: vorlon13



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)