An op-ed about misrepresentation and non-critical thinking
April 28, 2014 at 10:33 am
(This post was last modified: April 28, 2014 at 10:33 am by Bad Writer.)
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.
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.
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:
It's after this that he names "Scientific Atheists" in a derogatory fashion:
Indeed, he's found his answer:
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.
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]](https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg)
