Apologies for that. I did realise the sentence was provisional. I quoted it without context for brevity.
Morality Without Deity
by cofty 210 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
The Rebel
:-)
I look forward to your next O.P.
-
John_Mann
Yes thank you all for a good conversation.
Just reminding atheism is not science. Atheism is a philosophical position. But some atheists add the position of "Sola Science" which is not a scientific position either.
Just like the Sola Scriptura it's not found in Bible the "Sola Science" it's not found in science too.
-
never a jw
John Mann: Just reminding atheism is not science
True. I may add that science does not intend to support atheism. On the other hand, theism, as interpreted by Christians and most other religions, is thoroughly demolished by science. I have long ago concluded that the strength of Christianity is rooted on the ability of the leaders to maintain the masses ignorant. They have done an excellent job so far.
-
John_Mann
Conversely, theism, as interpreted by Christians and most other religions, is thoroughly demolished by science. I have long ago concluded that the strength of Christianity is rooted on the ability of the leaders to maintain the masses ignorant. They have done an excellent job so far.
This is very true to some Christian denominations.
I know theism is not science. But it's not anti-science.
I just find very intriguing that people like cofty preach the "Sola Science" but at the same time has no problem professing a non-scientific central position and blaming others to hold non-scientific positions. It's a double standard.
I think the majority of people here defending the "Sola Science" lacks basic knowledge about philosophy of science. Here's a good video about it:
-
cofty
John - the paragraph that contains the phrase "people like Cofty..." Please explain further what you mean. It sounds like a GROSS misrepresentation of my position but I should give you a chance to clarify before I object.
Thanks
-
John_Mann
This is how I interpret your position.
What other kind of valid interpretation of reality do you accept beyond scientific method and atheism?
I accept science and atheism being valid kinds of knowledge (Dawkins is right when he says every theist is also an atheist in a sense) but I know the limitations of them. You seems to use science and atheism as the only two kinds of valid and universal knowledge.
-
cofty
What other kind of valid interpretation of reality do you accept beyond scientific method and atheism? ... You seems to use science and atheism as the only two kinds of valid and universal knowledge. - John_Mann
Hi John thank you for the question. Let me take the second part first.
Atheism isn't a basis for knowledge in that sense. It is simply a lack of belief in the claims of theism. If somebody is unconvinced that there is a supernatural being who is immanent and involved in the affairs of humans - who cares about our actions and judges us after our physical deaths - then we are atheists.
But that tells us nothing else about the atheist or about reality. I know of atheists who believe in fate or in astrology or homeopathy and all other sorts of irrational woo.
My appeal is for a rational, evidence-based approach; a commitment to discover what is objectively true about our world. The big change in my intellectual life was not when I left the Watchtower in '85 but when I abandoned faith as a valid basis of knowledge in '94. Being rational means that our beliefs should be in proportion to the available evidence.
Claims about supernatural worlds, gods, angels, souls and spirits are irrelevant in the pursuit of knowledge and in the moral debates of our time.
Science is the best method we have for uncovering facts about reality. It's how we try to get past our biases and superstitions and investigate the world objectively. Of course is has its limitations. Science cannot tell me whether I ought to prefer Martin Elliot's "Tennis Girl" poster (£2.99) or Tracey Emin's "Unmade Bed" (£2.2m) However there is a lot it can tell us about human nature that might explain my personal preference.
Science is based on an assumption of methodological naturalism. That doesn't mean that a scientist has to believe there is no supernatural world but that he must leave the supernatural outside the lab. If he is investigating the efficacy of a new cancer drug he can't factor in the effects of intercessory prayer. When he is investigating the possible benefits of human stem-cell research he cannot limit his pursuit of progress in case a frozen blastula might be imbued with an immortal soul.
Similarly when wrestling any moral dilemma the question of what decision will make god happy is inadmissible.
-
Ruby456
Great book here
atheism: a very short introduction by Julian baggini
The atheism most discussed here on this site is modern atheism - it has great potential for setting people free from tyrannical religion. but it is important to remember that
modernity fired up many useful things. However the downside is it also gave us 2 world wars, fascism, the holocaust, Isis and now Donald trump - in other words extreme forms of nationalism and patriotism
the vision that modernity encapsulates - that technology and science will set us free has yet to materialise but it is a worthy aim to have. but as I said it is also good to be aware of the downside.
thanks to all who contributed to this thread.
-
konceptual99
Great post Cofty. I wish your succinct explanation of atheism and use of the scientific method could be an obligatory "read this first" for anyone about to comment on a thread such as this.