Opinion of internet atheists

[Sbane]

I'm an agnostic but anti-religion for the most part. Most religions (but with obvious exceptions, including within the religions)in this world have a deleterious effect on people, usually minority groups like gays and women (who aren't really a minority group). Criticizing such institutions aren't a bad thing in my book. Of course militantly shoving your belief that there is no god down someones throat is annoying.

[Sbane]

I don't agree with "Christianity" on too terribly much, but on a sentimental level, its recognition of human wickedness and human divinty, of the chaotic, dark mess of the human spirit, is far more compelling than the vision of crushing us into mechanistic contraptions  of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers.

But we are "mechanistic contraptions of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers". That being said, there is way, way more to be learned about the human brain. And it is best learned through the scientific method!

[Sbane]

I don't agree with "Christianity" on too terribly much, but on a sentimental level, its recognition of human wickedness and human divinty, of the chaotic, dark mess of the human spirit, is far more compelling than the vision of crushing us into mechanistic contraptions  of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers.

But we are "mechanistic contraptions of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers". That being said, there is way, way more to be learned about the human brain. And it is best learned through the scientific method!

Way to prove Mikado's point.  The very action of you and others elevating Science to the status of God, replacing religious truth of one kind with a religious truth of another, but claiming it is something else ("scientifically proven"), and then arrogantly claiming that human beings will ever be able to know the full extent of the human brain's capabilities (which is not, by the way, the same thing as the human mind, and does not explain the enormous complexities of social interaction, for example)..what science has allowed modern human beings to do is to have pretensions of Godly power, of superiority, of enlightenment.

If you read my comments in the other thread about whether humans are a "higher" being than other animals, you can tell I have no such delusions about the supposed superiority of human beings and rational thinking. I just think it is the best way to understand the world around us and ourselves. That being said, there is a lot that is still undiscovered and some questions that just cannot be practically answered currently. If you want to believe in myths about it, that is fine with me. I just don't see how that is in conflict with the scientific method. I am really puzzled by the anti-science rants. Unless you are one of those who believes the earth is 6,000 years old or doesn't believe in evolution, I don't see how you are in conflict with science. Perhaps you believe in a myth that cannot be proven or disproved by science. That does not make you opposed to science. There are just some people out there, like me, who cannot make those leaps. Perhaps you can. I don't think that makes either one of us superior to the other.

And science is not god. I don't understand where that accusation even comes from. The scientific method just allows us to learn about the world a little more step by step. Maybe one day we will fully understand the complexities of the human brain, maybe not. I really don't understand what arrogant claim I made. I don't think I even understand your thinking process.

[Sbane]

But we are "mechanistic contraptions of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers". That being said, there is way, way more to be learned about the human brain. And it is best learned through the scientific method!

That's just what my problem is, though.  Science denies the validity of types of truth other than scientific truth, and values systems other than Rationalism.  What I'm rejecting is the notion that scientific "truth" is inherently more valuable or valid than other ways of interpreting the universe.  If that involves rejecting "reality" itself then so be it.

I am not making any judgments. I just don't think I even understand how you think. See, I do not try to just dismiss anything that has not been explained by science. This is why I am an agnostic, not an atheist. I also keep open the possibility of things existing which others say is impossible or is crazy to even think about without first being proven by science.

I am fine with other medical systems beyond just the western approach. Even there though, the therapies that work can be proven to work by the scientific method. The mechanism of action can be uncovered by the scientific method. And science is not something mythical, all it is is a systematic approach to uncovering the truth. I do not understand how another method would be better....If there was a better method out there to find out the truth about something, it would be utilized by science. Does that make sense?

And if we are going at this from the science vs religion angle (which is idiotic, but what this thread kind of seems to be about), I think it is just a fundamentally different way of looking at the world. I don't think there is any need to be judgmental about it, although imho, if you have a heart attack, science will come in more handy than prayer. Of course, we are also finding substantial evidence that prayer can help with the healing process, so perhaps there is something to that as well. But I would argue that even there we should be able to find the mechanism within the body through which prayer is helping us heal, rather than some sort of divine intervention. At least that is how I look at the world and I am really incapable of looking at it from a more "spiritual" sense. I don't see how that makes me a bad person worthy of scorn. And if you can't appreciate the scientific method, that is fine as well.

[Sbane]

Yes, I suppose the arts do have limits. Didn't produce zyklon-b or thalidomide, for instance.

Yes, and using science we could figure out thalidomide caused birth defects so we stopped its use. And we also discovered ondansetron using science, so women could control their morning sickness and have healthy babies.

[Sbane]

Point missed entirely, but that's to be expected.

Both of those drugs were created with good intentions. Yes, they had side effects. Many drugs have side effects (which is why they are tested so regularly these days, thus the high cost). What exactly is your point (probably something irrational that you think makes you look smart)? Sometimes they can be used by humans with bad intentions (like Zyklon-B), but I don't see how that is some sort of a huge indictment of science.

[Sbane]

Al, what's your point exactly? Because if your point is "science can do bad things", then you probably believe we are all idiots, since only an idiot can be unaware of that.

...or maybe you were just trolling.

The point isn't "science can do bad things," it's that "scientific 'progress' is not inherently good, but its advocates take it to be as such and make little effort to philosophically justify that contention."  There's an arrogance involved in people attempting to bring order to chaos or whatnot and neglecting to realize that a substantial amount of humanity finds refuge, beauty, and grandeur in that chaos that they're beating back and don't want it to vanish.

Put simply, in the battle between trying to further understand the universe and accepting life, nature, and the universe itself as chaotic, beautiful, and terrible unknowable mysteries.  I side with the chaos over the order, with celebrating the unknown over the efforts to "know," and I resent the idea that "science" is ideologically championed as "a good thing" that should be blindly furthered without questioning.


EDIT: I should clarify.  I keep seeing goals like "furthering human knowledge" given without seeing even an attempt to justify why "furthering human knowledge" is in any way a desirable goal using any sort of moral philosophy.  Science's advocates have become arrogant enough that they neglect to use any sort of philosophic framework to justify the pursuit of more "truth," which, like all information, is quite possible of having drastic, lethal results.  Astronomy improved trajectories for rockets and ballistic missiles, aeronautics allowed for the deaths of millions in aerial bombing raids, chemistry allowed (and allows) for mass poisoning, biology for the intentional cultivation of illness, and physics tampers with the fundamental building blocks of the universe and unimaginable power.  Why is this allowed?  How can scientists justify their "right" to further research in these fields?  Where is the philosophic justification for why the furthering of knowledge in these fields is at all desirable?  Science used to be a subdiscipline of philosophy, which was as it should be.  Its divorcing from morality and its complementary status to metaphysics has produced a field allowed to tamper with the very foundational building blocks of life without any sort of extensive soul searching as to why this quest to further humanity's understanding of the universe is even a desirable goal to begin with.

Almost all the fields you mentioned have produced good and bad applications of that knowledge. In my view it is humans that choose to abuse knowledge, though that's not always the case. Science does not always produce good but I do believe most researchers have good intentions. Unfortunately many pieces of knowledge can have both good and bad applications. The does not mean we should limit research to limit the bad when It produces more than enough good to outweigh the bad.

In terms of philosophical justification, most researchers do have to make some justification for their work, and it usually isn't "I want to kill people". Military research is a hard one to justify, but the argument is made that if you don't do it, someone else will.

[Sbane]

When science facts out a fact (which is then peer reviewed), it actually is the absolute truth. The earth is not 6,000 years old. That is the truth.

[Sbane]

When science facts out a fact (which is then peer reviewed), it actually is the absolute truth. The earth is not 6,000 years old. That is the truth.

Yeah just like Newtonian mechanics... whoops quantum mechanics is truth now

Touche! The word "absolute" is a bit much, but if you want to disprove something you must do it through the scientific method, just like the discovery of quantum mechanics. Until then, it is the truth as we know it. I don't see why myths should take precedence over that.

[Sbane]

When science facts out a fact (which is then peer reviewed), it actually is the absolute truth. The earth is not 6,000 years old. That is the truth.

Of course it's not, that goes against the entire idea what science should be. A scientifitic fact are nothing more than a approximate theory of reality which hasn't been disproven yet. The point about science is not to find the truth, but to seek it.
What you do is setting up science as a atheist religion of progress rather than threat it as what it is; a philosophical tool.

I don't think it is an atheist religion of progress. That sort of thinking just strikes me as bizarre, paranoid and delusional.

Like I mentioned in my previous post, science can be disproven. The word "absolute" should not be used, no. The earth is not 6,000 years old. If you can disprove prove, then you must do it through the scientific method, not based on what some dude wrote 2,000 years ago.

[Sbane]

Also, thanks Afleitch for writing the elaborate response to Mikado which I wanted to write but lacked the time to - and putting it much better than I could.

I would just add this: Obviously the expansion of human knowledge does not entail a good for humanity, but it creates a potential, of which humanity can (and in many cases, does) make good use. Bad use is also bound to happen, of course, but overall it's hard to deny that scientific progress has brought more good than evil.

But was that due to scientific progress?

Or rather, I should say, was scientific progress (however we may define) a sufficient condition for the good that you speak?

It depends about what good we are speaking of, but most medicines were created using the scientific method (not counting the natural ones, but even there the products have been purified in many instances to lower allergic reactions). That body of knowledge that the scientific method has accumulated over the years was necessary for the good things to be created.

Why do you think science was not necessary for modern medicine and other good things about our modern world?

[Sbane]

Thanks for bringing up genetic testing, Mikado. That is a perfect example of how science can be used for both good and bad. Genetic testing can be used to target drug therapy in different people and I am very glad it is happening. On the other hand, if it is used by insurance companies to jack up your rates or deny you coverage, it is a misapplication of that technology. Perhaps you feel that it will inevitably happen. That, my friend, is an indictment of humanity, not science. Perhaps you feel new scientific application are used more for bad than good, but that again is an indictment of human beings.