Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says
Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atheism-is-inconsistent-with-the-scientific-method-prizewinning-physicist-says/
Scientific American: "Why are you against atheism?"
Marcelo Gleiser: "I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that. This positions me very much against all of the “New Atheist” guys - even though I want my message to be respectful of people’s beliefs and reasoning, which might be community-based, or dignity-based, and so on. And I think obviously the Templeton Foundation likes all of this, because this is part of an emerging conversation. It’s not just me; it’s also my colleague the astrophysicist Adam Frank, and a bunch of others, talking more and more about the relation between science and spirituality."
Firstly, it is nice to see that even prizewinning physicist are human, just like the rest of us, and as such can say uterly stupid things, like the entire answer above.
"I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method" - that's actually quite funny, since atheism is the scientific position on the question of gods. Obviously, being a prizewinning physicist would, hopefully, imply a proper understanding of science - thus one can only conclude that it is the word atheism that he does not understand.
"What I mean by that is, what is atheism?" - I am on pins and needles.
"It’s a statement" - no it isn't.
"a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief" - and there it is... By corollary, theism would thus be a categorical statement that expresses belief in belief. But, since that's how we define belief, we would then have to say that theism is a categorical statement that expresses belief in belief in belief, which would then make atheism a categorical statement that expresses belief in belief in nonbelief. You see where this is going? Yes, theism is a categorical statement that expresses belief in belief in belief in belief in belief in belief in belief in belief in belief...
Again, no it is not. Atheism is not a statement and atheism does not express belief. Two flat our false, and frankly beyond ridiculous, statements. Atheim is the lack of belief in god. One would think that a prizewinning physicist would be able to grasp such a simple concept?
"“I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period." - again, no. It's actually "I don’t believe because I have no evidence for, simply I don’t believe." You know, kind of like in science, when someone presents you with a ridiculous and completely unsuported hypothesis, you respond with I don’t believe your hypothesis because I have no evidence for it, simply I don’t believe. See how easy that is?
"But in science we don’t really do declarations." - actually, we do. You have no proof of that hypothesis is a declaration. Here, this is proof of my hypothesis, is another declaration. That theory is well supported by a huge body of evidence - another declaration. I'm beginning to think this guy maybe doesn't actually understand science?
"We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.”" - correct, and if they do not have evidence for it, we say we do not accept their hypothesis, we do not believe it is true. Kinda like when religious people present their hypothesis that god does exist and we, the atheists, respond with we do not accept that hypothesis, we do not believe it is true.
"And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god" - yes, so? Atheist can easily say the same thing. Do you also not understand the meaning of the word agnostic, now? How about someone buys you a dictionary and we start again?
"an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about" - and since when are expressions of beliefe or lack there of "final statements"?
Do I really need to grab some crayons in order to explain the difference between "I do not believe pink unicorns exist" and "I claim without any doubt that Pink unicorns do not exist"? Seriously.
"“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that." - except that this is a false statement because if you claim that an elephant just ran through a glass window, and I see no evidence of broken glass, the absence of that evidence is clearly the evidence of elephants absense.
"This positions me very much against all of the “New Atheist” guys..." - these strawman claims that the new atheist guys never have and never will make? Those claims position you against them? Wonderful. Maybe you should not try with actual facts, for a change?
"And I think obviously the Templeton Foundation likes all of this, because this is part of an emerging conversation" - actually, no. The Templeton Foundation likes BS and is rewarding you for promiting it. The Templeton Foundation by definition does not understand the fact that science is the exact opposite of religion. While science is based on absolute doubt and absolute rejection of any dogma what so ever, religion, the exact opposite, is based on dogma and agressive rejection of any doubt in its dogma. But, this might be a bit too much for someone who is unable to grasp the meaning of atheism and yet finds themself compelled to criticise it.
Scientific American: "Why are you against atheism?"
Marcelo Gleiser: "I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that. This positions me very much against all of the “New Atheist” guys - even though I want my message to be respectful of people’s beliefs and reasoning, which might be community-based, or dignity-based, and so on. And I think obviously the Templeton Foundation likes all of this, because this is part of an emerging conversation. It’s not just me; it’s also my colleague the astrophysicist Adam Frank, and a bunch of others, talking more and more about the relation between science and spirituality."
Firstly, it is nice to see that even prizewinning physicist are human, just like the rest of us, and as such can say uterly stupid things, like the entire answer above.
"I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method" - that's actually quite funny, since atheism is the scientific position on the question of gods. Obviously, being a prizewinning physicist would, hopefully, imply a proper understanding of science - thus one can only conclude that it is the word atheism that he does not understand.
"What I mean by that is, what is atheism?" - I am on pins and needles.
"It’s a statement" - no it isn't.
"a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief" - and there it is... By corollary, theism would thus be a categorical statement that expresses belief in belief. But, since that's how we define belief, we would then have to say that theism is a categorical statement that expresses belief in belief in belief, which would then make atheism a categorical statement that expresses belief in belief in nonbelief. You see where this is going? Yes, theism is a categorical statement that expresses belief in belief in belief in belief in belief in belief in belief in belief in belief...
Again, no it is not. Atheism is not a statement and atheism does not express belief. Two flat our false, and frankly beyond ridiculous, statements. Atheim is the lack of belief in god. One would think that a prizewinning physicist would be able to grasp such a simple concept?
"“I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period." - again, no. It's actually "I don’t believe because I have no evidence for, simply I don’t believe." You know, kind of like in science, when someone presents you with a ridiculous and completely unsuported hypothesis, you respond with I don’t believe your hypothesis because I have no evidence for it, simply I don’t believe. See how easy that is?
"But in science we don’t really do declarations." - actually, we do. You have no proof of that hypothesis is a declaration. Here, this is proof of my hypothesis, is another declaration. That theory is well supported by a huge body of evidence - another declaration. I'm beginning to think this guy maybe doesn't actually understand science?
"We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.”" - correct, and if they do not have evidence for it, we say we do not accept their hypothesis, we do not believe it is true. Kinda like when religious people present their hypothesis that god does exist and we, the atheists, respond with we do not accept that hypothesis, we do not believe it is true.
"And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god" - yes, so? Atheist can easily say the same thing. Do you also not understand the meaning of the word agnostic, now? How about someone buys you a dictionary and we start again?
"an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about" - and since when are expressions of beliefe or lack there of "final statements"?
Do I really need to grab some crayons in order to explain the difference between "I do not believe pink unicorns exist" and "I claim without any doubt that Pink unicorns do not exist"? Seriously.
"“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that." - except that this is a false statement because if you claim that an elephant just ran through a glass window, and I see no evidence of broken glass, the absence of that evidence is clearly the evidence of elephants absense.
"This positions me very much against all of the “New Atheist” guys..." - these strawman claims that the new atheist guys never have and never will make? Those claims position you against them? Wonderful. Maybe you should not try with actual facts, for a change?
"And I think obviously the Templeton Foundation likes all of this, because this is part of an emerging conversation" - actually, no. The Templeton Foundation likes BS and is rewarding you for promiting it. The Templeton Foundation by definition does not understand the fact that science is the exact opposite of religion. While science is based on absolute doubt and absolute rejection of any dogma what so ever, religion, the exact opposite, is based on dogma and agressive rejection of any doubt in its dogma. But, this might be a bit too much for someone who is unable to grasp the meaning of atheism and yet finds themself compelled to criticise it.
Коментари
Постави коментар