This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

healthphysicist's Profile

healthphysicist's Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by healthphysicist

More Discussions by healthphysicist

Latest Comments by healthphysicist

Go to: A Current Scientific Thought Repository

healthphysicist's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by healthphysicist

epeeist:

I am using "scientism" in the manner in which I heard it used. I've defined it, so you know what I'm talking about. If you're an atheist, does that mean you are also an a-deeist, a-polytheist, an a-unicornist?

Are there not a few standard communication skills you can bring to bear?

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:20:15 UTC | #848678

Go to: A Current Scientific Thought Repository

healthphysicist's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by healthphysicist

@17 Juju

We're saying the same thing....the evidence we have is the Universe. Science can't answer whether or not the Universe is a product of god or not. We choose to call Dark Energy that, but we could call it God's Will 1. It would not change our understanding one bit nor the methodology one bit. Yet, we've made the choice to avoid using God-words. Fortunately.

@18 Zen Druid

That is my conclusion too. I wish Dawkins would get off of "atheism" which is an arbitrary choice.

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:15:53 UTC | #848676

Go to: A Current Scientific Thought Repository

healthphysicist's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by healthphysicist

@15 Zen Druid

Correct, it is an a priori ASSUMPTION. We have to remember that.

We could just as easily relabel the Big Bang as "God's Creation".

Dark energy as "God's Will 1".

Etc.

When our explanatory power ends, the naturalistic response is..."that's just the way it is".

The theistic response is "God's grace".

So, in a sense we end up in the same place.

All we can do is fairly say we don't know if there is an underlying creator or not. And then evaluate any further claims made. Then we will be good scientists and honest thinkers.

(I had to look up riposte)

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:42:37 UTC | #848659

Go to: A Current Scientific Thought Repository

healthphysicist's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by healthphysicist

@10 Zen Druid

No, I am using "scientism" is the sense that many people mistakenly believe science supports atheism over theism.

And then they go and pretty much engage in the same behaviors as theists do.

Science starts out with the goal of providing an explanation that doesn't require a god.

And guess what?

It provides explanations that don't require god. Shocking!

I dislike religious buffoonery as much as anyone, but many sophisticated theists are using "scientism" as arguments against outspoken atheists.

Let's not give them that.

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:18:29 UTC | #848648

Go to: A Current Scientific Thought Repository

healthphysicist's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by healthphysicist

Well said on "actually".

Scientism is serious...as Marios points out, science has nothing to do with atheism/theism.

Theists try to point that out to scientismists, and now I'm trying to do so.

And your manner of response was anticipated, actually...err, in my opinion.

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:37:31 UTC | #848631

More Comments by healthphysicist