The New Atheists; The Cult of Science?

[Qfwfq]

A distinction is in order, there is a difference between the following two statements:

• Science is a cult.
  
• There are people who's cult is science.
  

I think that the title of this thread was meant in the second sense and, in my experience, I have seen an increasing number of such people. Of course, it also depends on what one means by the word cult, consider one of the cases in Merriam Webster's definition:

5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) ; especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Science is not a religion. Science isn't meant to be a religion. Science shouldn't be a religion. And yet, I've seen plenty of folks who's religion is science and who, as sman says, have a tendency to stuff scientific conclusions "down others gullets". Oddly, some of them get all the more religiously aggressive if one tries to be more reasonable, rational and logical (more scientific) than them.

 

You'll notice, when David doesn't get the answer he wants, he re-words the question a little bit and tries it again, like a child with one of those magic 8 balls. Hilarious.

I really fail to get you here sman. He "made the mistake" of asking two questions when he could only get one answer at a time. After an answer to one question he essentially repeats the second one. He simply could not have had an answer to both. The narrative style doesn't worry about making things perfectly logical. Normal people go about things similarly, not only kids.

[lawcat]

The cult of science? Sure there is one.

 

I was watching the History channel's program titled "Universe." There they discussed Solar system, and the gradual fall of Earth towards the Sun. They had a scientist on to provide an opinion on how we may prevent such a disaster.

 

The idea is this: (1) we send a spaceship with looong ropes to tie up an asteroid or some cosmic body; (2) the spaceship tows the asteroid to Earth's gravitational field; (3) the mutual gravitational forces between the Earth and the Asteroid work to pull the Earth ever so slightly off the collision path with the Sun; (4) over billions of years the Earth goes back onto the safe orbit.

 

However, the scientist points out: If the "math" is wrong it could be a disaster.

[Boerseun]

The cult of science? Sure there is one.

 

I was watching the History channel's program titled "Universe." There they discussed Solar system, and the gradual fall of Earth towards the Sun. They had a scientist on to provide an opinion on how we may prevent such a disaster.

 

The idea is this: (1) we send a spaceship with looong ropes to tie up an asteroid or some cosmic body; (2) the spaceship tows the asteroid to Earth's gravitational field; (3) the mutual gravitational forces between the Earth and the Asteroid work to pull the Earth ever so slightly off the collision path with the Sun; (4) over billions of years the Earth goes back onto the safe orbit.

 

However, the scientist points out: If the "math" is wrong it could be a disaster.

You want to drive 500 miles in a car that does 30 miles to the gallon. There are no fuel stations on the way. How much fuel do you need? You know absolutely no math. You get someone to do the math for you. You fill up, trusting in the calculations performed by your mathematician.

 

Does your faith in this math whiz constitute a cult?

 

No.

 

Not by any means.

 

Because nothing is stopping you from studying up on basic math and doing the calculation yourself.

 

The scientist in your example was merely being prudent, and he is inviting other parties to double-check his calculations, like a good scientist should.

 

The "New Atheists" aren't representative of a "Scientific Cult", because everything they say can be double-checked by dispassionate and objective observers. As opposed to anything religious, which can also be checked by said parties, but fails each and every time it is subject to the same scrutiny.

 

Calling atheism a "cult" is merely an attempt by parties to cast the whole concept of atheism in a bad light, because it makes them feel uncomfortable and they have no other means to retaliate but to resort to rude, baseless and rather juvenile name-calling. I have nothing in common with any other atheist on this planet except our common dismissal of the God concept. If my dismissal of "God" counts as a cult, then surely my flat-out dismissal of perpetual motion must also count as a cult. And there are lots of us ungodly perpetual motion deniers out there.

[Qfwfq]

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

 

So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

 

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

 

[enorbet2]

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

 

So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

 

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

 

 

Thank you for a terrific example of non-sequitur used as obfuscation perhaps only second to

 

From Bob Dylan's "Ballad of a Thin Man"

 

You raise up your head

And you ask, "Is this where it is?"

And somebody points to you and says

"It's his"

And you say, "What's mine?"

And somebody else says, "Where what is?"

And you say, "Oh my God

Am I here all alone?"

 

Because something is happening here

But you don't know what it is

Do you, Mister Jones?

 

Great Job!

[InfiniteNow]

Calling atheism a "cult" is merely an attempt by parties to cast the whole concept of atheism in a bad light, because it makes them feel uncomfortable and they have no other means to retaliate but to resort to rude, baseless and rather juvenile name-calling.

It's a common fallacy known as poisoning the well, and yet another example of how impossible it is for theists to argue in favor of their worldview on the merits.

[Boerseun]

...poisoning the well

...thaaaaaaat's the term I was looking for.

[Qfwfq]

...a terrific example of non-sequitur used as obfuscation...

Would you sprinkle a seving of superbly cooked seafood with drops of peach juice? If you go tell the gourmet what lousy advice he gave you and he points out that he said "lemon" and not "peach", would you say fruit is fruit, what's the difference? You might even add "Call it tomato!" and sure, botanically, tomato is a fruit too, it's a berry... so let's make ketchup out of grapes and wine out of tomatoes.

 

If you failed to catch my point, either we strive to talk the same language or I say g'night folks and it's no use accusing me of non-sequitur and obfuscation. :shrug:

 

:hihi: ;)

[RevOfAllRevs]

There is certainly a cult of science! And its destructive and parasitic. By cult I mean a way of thinking by a group of people. This cult of science, COS for brevity, is not a group of people that meets and acknowledges each other and has a written down 'mission statement'. No, these people are secular and usually rabidly (but not openly rabid) anti religious. They are much like me, a southern confederate still pissed because we lost the war (and I am not happy because the cause of the war was misrepresented). However, the COS guys are pissed because they think the church harmed science centuries ago and still think the church and religious thought is harming science.

 

So yes dear friends the cult of science is alive and well, call it the cult of Positivism, and it has harmed us for over 100 years when it was created and introduced (infected?) into the western way of thinking in the early 1920’s. If Kurt Godel* and other anti neo positivists had of been more of the warriors ilk instead of genius metaphysical wimps we may of stopped neo positivism in its tracks, but unluckily it wasn't to be. Neo Positivism has infected the entire world, when it escaped from the Vienna Circle.

 

; {>

 

* I included the descriptive paragraph from google.

 

Kurt Gödel (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Kurt Friedrich Gödel (b. 1906, d. 1978), "established, beyond comparison, as the most important logician of our times," in the words of Solomon Feferman ...

plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel/

 

Kurt Gödel (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[RevOfAllRevs]

Originally Posted by Boerseun View Post

Calling atheism a "cult" is merely an attempt by parties to cast the whole concept of atheism in a bad light, because it makes them feel uncomfortable and they have no other means to retaliate but to resort to rude, baseless and rather juvenile name-calling.

 

Atheism isn't a cult its a belief system and sometimes its not even that. However if you want to hear name calling and insults try going into nearly any forum and mention Christianity. The only good thing from all the insults etc is that it proves bible prophesy which tells us that in as time goes along Christians will be singled out and ridiculed and persecuted* simply for their beliefs. That is true.

 

; {>

 

Link describes persecution of Christians up to 2007. One of thousands of links.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

[modest]

However if you want to hear name calling and insults try going into nearly any forum and mention Christianity. The only good thing from all the insults etc is that it proves bible prophesy which tells us that in as time goes along Christians will be singled out and ridiculed and persecuted* simply for their beliefs. That is true.

 

You cheapen the sacrifice and persecution those who established your faith really did endure. Second century Rome was persecution.

 

"Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name" <-- Jesus talking about harsh language on the internet :hihi:

 

~modest

[enorbet2]

<snip>If you failed to catch my point, either we strive to talk the same language or I say g'night folks and it's no use accusing me of non-sequitur and obfuscation. :shrug:<snip>

 

Since I did indeed miss the point, and that was my point, I hoped you would respond to elucidate. The only sense I could make of that particular piece of scripture was that you think theists and atheists speak different languages and that dialogue may not be fruitful and even possible. By extension I admit that it crossed my mind that perhaps you cleverly chose scripture to speak in the tongue of believers to inform them that they may need to brush up at the very least on nomenclature to be able to speak in an understandable way to the science oriented of us.

 

While this is possible, and since it is IMHO a little vague and tenuous, I have to also assume it is possible that I am merely projecting my own biases into those words (which may even be a third level of mystery and fog, further making a point that anyone can read anything into a book as long and contradictory as is the Bible, or find a passage that hints at what one wishes to say or believe eg: snake handling and strychnine ingestion) so I am indeed left (if we are going to use food analogies) much like the stereotype of Chinese food, hungry only minutes later, less than full.

 

So please then, I want to hear your clear opinion, not parables. I meant no personal offense and was actually expressing the frustration I felt at making out how that post applies to atheism or science or both as a cult. Please sir, may I have another?

[modest]

Personally, I think the fella's head who designed the tower was first to hit the chopping block. He kept trying to explain that a tower isn't evil. It's just the scientific advancement of humankind and it will be a beacon of civilization for years to come. Unfortunately the guy with the axe couldn't understand a word he was saying :shrug:

 

~modest

[TheBigDog]

Atheism is referenced as a form of religion the way prepositions are used to indicate position in relation to an object. Those of faith know that there are many religions, each with their own perspective on the nature of God or gods and their role in the dealings of man. People choose a religion and run with it, understanding that there are differences, but wanting something that fills the needs of their own personal existence.

 

The religious see atheism as just another relationship with their chosen God, one of disbelief. Hence the view that it is another religion.

The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[2] but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively.

Atheism fits this definition. "personal practices related to communal faith" could be the denunciation of secular tradition, and "faith" that those questions to which the answers are still unknown will indeed someday be answered not by a God, but by mankind through scientific method.

 

Of course part of this is reaction to being painted with a broad brush. The Bible may be filled with contradictions and such, but there are threads of truth and wisdom that cannot be denied. When atheists "poison the well" by suggesting that anything argued by a person who believes in the Bible is tainted because only a fool would allow the Bible to guide their beliefs, they are marginalizing the intelligence of every person of faith in one broad stroke. That believers attempt to paint atheists in the same broad fashion in no surprise, and no more valid than the first example.

 

Believer: "Jesus said 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you'; I will make that a principle I live by!"

Atheist: "But it also says beat your wife and kill your slave. You are a fool to believe in that bullshit!"

 

Atheist: "Science has provided mankind with the means to be the most thriving life the earth has ever known!"

Believer: "What good does it do when so many people are building weapons and living without moral guidelines?"

 

Both arguments cut at the opponent, both see themselves as being right, and all it does is escalate. A person is not amoral because they don't follow the teachings of a religion, they are amoral if they engage in amoral behavior. Likewise a person is not moral if the follow the teachings of religion, they are moral if they engage in moral behavior. A person is not a defacto idiot because they follow religious teachings, read the Bible or some other scripture, or profess a belief in God. Neither is a person in need of guidance because they believe that religion serves no relevant purpose productive to society.

 

We get so caught up in the who is right and who is wrong that we lose the fact that it just doesn't matter. All that matters is that we live together peacefully.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

We get so caught up in the who is right and who is wrong that we lose the fact that it just doesn't matter. All that matters is that we live together peacefully.

Actually, truth and accuracy matter as well. If someone thinks that 2+2=7, it's important to correct them, even if it means not being peaceful.

 

We sabotage our being and our society if we think it's okay to sacrifice accuracy for peace.

 

 

It might not matter to you, Bill... but it matters for many of us.

[TheBigDog]

Actually, truth and accuracy matter as well. If someone thinks that 2+2=7, it's important to correct them, even if it means not being peaceful.

 

We sabotage our being and our society if we think it's okay to sacrifice accuracy for peace.

 

 

It might not matter to you, Bill... but it matters for many of us.

You say it is your duty to correct any error that you see, even if it causes an erosion of peace? Wonderful.

[InfiniteNow]

You say it is your duty to correct any error that you see, even if it causes an erosion of peace? Wonderful.

Who said anything about "duty," and the "erosion of peace?" To clarify, I said that I prioritize truth and accuracy over peace. I said that we do ourselves a disservice if we sacrifice reality in an attempt to be peaceful. Don't assume that I do not value peace, because, if you do, you will be wrong. The point is that I value truth, validity, and accuracy more.

 

My intention is not to erode peace, but instead to ensure accuracy and validity.