Richard Dawkins Slams Pope as 'Stupid' for Views on Condoms and Aids in Africa

[mgb_phys]

Not sure I understand what you mean here (I have some ideas, but I don't like to speculate). Perhaps you could elaborate?

If you lived in medieval (or pre 19C) europe and want to attract patronage (and avoid the interest of the authorities) it was a good idea to put in a few plugs about how your work glorified God.

Rather like how you today have to show that your research either has defence or money making applications - it doesn't mean all physicists today are devout militarists or entrepreneurs

 

[mheslep]

... Much credence has been given to Richard Dawkins, who seems to circumvent logic and claim otherwise. Insodoing, he actually discards the very scientific method that he appears to uphold. I want people here to consider carefully what they are saying. Richard Dawkins is basically the Ann Coulter of atheism. He issues emotionally charged arguments and employs childish, schoolyard taunts. I think we can all agree that Ann Coulter is a moron (no, that wasn't a schoolyard taunt). I would apply the same logic and state that Richard Dawkins is also a moron.

I agree with much of this post including that there are similarities between a Coulter and Dawkins, but not in the label 'moron'. Neither of them are stupid or moronic. Coulter is an attorney and Dawkins has done distinguished scientific work. Both of them have made good arguments on a number of issues that make vested interests uncomfortable. I'd say their common problem is they've both crossed the line into self serving zealotry, and such a stance then necessarily takes them beyond evidence based argument.

 

[Gokul43201]

That would indeed be a dispassionate summary. Again, Dawkins is not. IMO he has substituted self worship for the worship of the super natural.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYBFqse7tiU"
Neil deGrasse to Dawkins, after a typical Dawkins diatribe:
"You are a professor of the public understanding of science, not a professor of delivering truth to the public. These are two different exercises."

Dawkins in reply (paraphrasing another):
"Science is interesting, if you don't agree you can **** off"

Wow! You don't think that's a pretty extreme distortion of the conversation?

The following is a more accurate representation:

Tyson: "You are a professor of the public understanding of science, not a professor of delivering truth to the public. These are two different exercises."

Dawkins in reply: I admit I am and accept your rebuke. But you might be interested to learn that there are actually others that are worse than me at this. Here's an example of one such ... (followed by the New Scientist anecdote).

At no point does Dawkins suggest that Tyson ought to **** off. Nor does Dawkins indicate ever that he even so much as shares the same opinion as the New Scientist editor. He actually cedes the point to Tyson. Besides, even if that were Dawkins' own opinion, rather than someone else's, it would still not provide any evidence for Dawkins being self-serving. Impolite, yes. Self-serving, no.

I am disappointed by the attempt to paint Dawkins as self serving through a distortion of this incident and ask you to please provide us with real examples of this allegedly self-serving (and Dawkins worshipping) agenda that you have repeatedly mentioned in this thread.

 

[BobG]

Funding makes good science.

It's probably not fair to call any particular past scientist's or mathematician's religious beliefs into question, but sources of funding for education and science probably have at least a little to do with atheism being more prevalent among scientists today than it was in the past.

Not sure I understand what you mean here (I have some ideas, but I don't like to speculate). Perhaps you could elaborate?

If you lived in medieval (or pre 19C) europe and want to attract patronage (and avoid the interest of the authorities) it was a good idea to put in a few plugs about how your work glorified God.

Rather like how you today have to show that your research either has defence or money making applications - it doesn't mean all physicists today are devout militarists or entrepreneurs

Exactly.

 

[mheslep]

Wow! You don't think that's a pretty extreme distortion of the conversation?

The following is a more accurate representation:

Tyson: "You are a professor of the public understanding of science, not a professor of delivering truth to the public. These are two different exercises."

Dawkins in reply: I admit I am and accept your rebuke. But you might be interested to learn that there are actually others that are worse than me at this. Here's an example of one such ... (followed by the New Scientist anecdote).

At no point does Dawkins suggest that Tyson ought to **** off.

I didn't intend that implication - an attack on Tyson. I should have included more of the text. The video makes this clear.

Nor does Dawkins indicate ever that he even so much as shares the same opinion as the New Scientist editor.

Now here I think you give him too much credit. I don't take Dawkin's statement as "here's a statement of real radical". No, he makes that statement to show some affinity for it.

He actually cedes the point to Tyson. Besides, even if that were Dawkins' own opinion, rather than someone else's, it would still not provide any evidence for Dawkins being self-serving. Impolite, yes. Self-serving, no.

I am disappointed by the attempt to paint Dawkins as self serving through a distortion of this incident and ask you to please provide us with real examples of this allegedly self-serving (and Dawkins worshipping) agenda that you have repeatedly mentioned in this thread.

Obviously mine is a subjective take, and I point to Tyson's assessment of Dawkins earlier remarks: viewing oneself as the deliverer of truth. That mindset requires a rather fantastic self-elevation.

Edit: Here's some more. Debate w/ geneticist Francis Collins and Dawkins:

DAWKINS: If ever there was a slamming of the door in the face of constructive investigation, it is the word miracle. To a medieval peasant, a radio would have seemed like a miracle. All kinds of things may happen which we by the lights of today's science would classify as a miracle just as medieval science might a Boeing 747. Francis keeps saying things like "From the perspective of a believer." Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

COLLINS: Richard, I actually agree with the first part of what you said. But I would challenge the statement that my scientific instincts are any less rigorous than yours. The difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and yours is.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-7,00.html
More of the 'think as I do, all else is folly' egoism. And after hearing quite a bit from Dawkins, I further say BS to his 'sorry' disclaimer, I don't think he's sorry at all.

 

[arunma]

If you lived in medieval (or pre 19C) europe and want to attract patronage (and avoid the interest of the authorities) it was a good idea to put in a few plugs about how your work glorified God.

Do you have any historical evidence to suggest that this was a common practice?

Also, this theory wouldn't explain Issac Newton, since he didn't publish his results until long after he had written them down. As you will recall, this was actually the reason for the controversy with Leibniz over the Calculus. Nor would this explain James Clerk Maxwell, who lived in the 19th century. I don't think any legitimate historian would deny that both Newton and Maxwell were Christians, albeit heretical in the former case.

 

[Gokul43201]

Many of these people cited God as their chief inspiration for their scientific investigations.

And that list includes people like Ramanujan, who sought inspiration in Shiva and Vishnu, Pythagoras, who was driven by the belief that his work would determine how his soul would be reincarnated, Al Khwarizmi, who believed that the beauty of algebra was the making of Allah, and any number of the Ancient Greek mathematicians and natural philosophers would have been inspired by Zeus, Apollo and Athena.

So what?

 

[arunma]

And that list includes people like Ramanujan, who sought inspiration in Shiva and Vishnu, Pythagoras, who was driven by the belief that his work would determine how his soul would be reincarnated, Al Khwarizmi, who believed that the beauty of algebra was the making of Allah, and any number of the Ancient Greek mathematicians and natural philosophers would have been inspired by Zeus, Apollo and Athena.

So what?

See my earlier comment.

It has been pointed out that most scientists today are not very religious. This is true, as those of us who work in physics departments can readily testify. However, the existence of religious scientists (of all religious affiliations) makes it difficult to argue that their is any causality between atheism and good science.

I'm not arguing so much for the correlation of any specific religious affiliation with science so much as I am arguing that there is no causal relationship between atheism and scientific excellence. It seems that your above comments seem to support my argument.

 

[NeoDevin]

See my earlier comment.



I'm not arguing so much for the correlation of any specific religious affiliation with science so much as I am arguing that there is no causal relationship between atheism and scientific excellence. It seems that your above comments seem to support my argument.

You list a few names, do no analysis whatsoever, and claim victory... Methinks you need further study if you want to pursue this argument.

 

[jobyts]

Has someone done some research on (in the field of psychology or sociology), why some of the today's scientists are theists? What's Dawkins' take on it?

 

[arunma]

You list a few names, do no analysis whatsoever, and claim victory... Methinks you need further study if you want to pursue this argument.

I didn't claim any conclusive victory (at least not yet). Did I make any statement that you interpreted as such? And besides this, my claim is a negative statement. I would think the burden of proof rests on those who believe that atheism is conducive of good science. I have yet to see any valid argument to the contrary. What evidence do you have to suggest that atheism is conducive of good science?

 

[NeoDevin]

I didn't claim any conclusive victory (at least not yet). Did I make any statement that you interpreted as such? And besides this, my claim is a negative statement. I would think the burden of proof rests on those who believe that atheism is conducive of good science. I have yet to see any valid argument to the contrary. What evidence do you have to suggest that atheism is conducive of good science?

Just reread the thread. Sorry, I got your posts confused with Dr.D, and was thinking you were trying to claim that religion is conducive to good science. I apologize, and redirect my previous post at Dr.D.

Edit: I would also be interested to know if there have been any studies done on religion's impact on science at an individual level. On a societal level it's clear that religion has done a lot to both destroy and preserve science, on different occasions. On an individual level, I wonder if there is any relationship? Do more atheists than theists become scientists? I think so, but what is the relationship? Do theists do better science than atheists? I doubt it. Do atheists do better science than theists? Being an atheist, I'd like to think so, but I doubt it, and all the religious scientists I've met seem to suggest not.

Anyone have detailed information on the subject?

 

[siddharth]

I'm not arguing so much for the correlation of any specific religious affiliation with science so much as I am arguing that there is no causal relationship between atheism and scientific excellence. It seems that your above comments seem to support my argument.

I think an important point to keep in mind was that there was little option to be non-religious during those times. Science was still in its infancy. For example, there wasn't a theory of evolution, or abiogenesis. Then, scientists/people who did not share the view of the church were likely to be oppressed, (like Galileo, Giordano Bruno).

However, while I think that being religious doesn't affect a scientists ability to contribute to science, I think that they must compartmentalize their beliefs (like, Stephen Jay Gould's belief of Non-Overlapping Magisteria between Science and Religion)

I think that the current majority of irreligious scientists is pretty significant. In my opinion (I read this in one of Feynman's books), religion and science are fundamentally opposite because religious beliefs require an 'absolute belief' or faith based on a personal experiences, religious texts, etc while the scientific method requires you to question everything and look at the scientific evidence behind claims. This is why it's my personal opinion that it's difficult for a scientist to be religious (unless one can compartmentalize their views)

 

[arunma]

Just reread the thread. Sorry, I got your posts confused with Dr.D, and was thinking you were trying to claim that religion is conducive to good science. I apologize, and redirect my previous post at Dr.D.

No problem, thank you for clarifying.

Edit: I would also be interested to know if there have been any studies done on religion's impact on science at an individual level. On a societal level it's clear that religion has done a lot to both destroy and preserve science, on different occasions. On an individual level, I wonder if there is any relationship? Do more atheists than theists become scientists? I think so, but what is the relationship?

Data clearly shows that there are by far more atheists and agnostics in science than theists. Combined with the small proportion of atheists in society, this suggests that atheists are more likely to become scientists. But those of us here who are scientists (which I assume is almost all of us) know that correlation doesn't imply causality, so it would be a mistake to draw any conclusion from these data alone.

Do theists do better science than atheists? I doubt it. Do atheists do better science than theists? Being an atheist, I'd like to think so, but I doubt it, and all the religious scientists I've met seem to suggest not.

Anyone have detailed information on the subject?

I too would be interested to see data on this. I don't know if any detailed study has been done yet.

 

[arunma]

I think an important point to keep in mind was that there was little option to be non-religious during those times. Science was still in its infancy. For example, there wasn't a theory of evolution, or abiogenesis. Then, scientists/people who did not share the view of the church were likely to be oppressed, (like Galileo, Giordano Bruno).

With respect, I think you may be drawing incorrect conclusions from historical information. If you read the Wikipedia article on Newton, you'll find that he held heretical beliefs. Had he been public about this, he might have gotten in quite a bit of trouble (or maybe not, since his did happen to be a time of great religious upheaval). This goes to show that people of Newton's time weren't under some magic spell that made them believe in some specific doctrine concerning God. In fact, the bad behavior of the Catholic Church would probably lead people to reject its doctrines, if anything. This perhaps is why so many Europeans separated from the Catholic Church during this period.

Concerning Galileo, he would be a bad example if you're examining people being oppressed on the basis of unbelief. Galileo did not in any way reject the existence of God. His trial for heresy was based in part on his heliocentric views, and also on various comments he made about the Catholic Church. None of this had to do with theism.

However, while I think that being religious doesn't affect a scientists ability to contribute to science, I think that they must compartmentalize their beliefs (like, Stephen Jay Gould's belief of Non-Overlapping Magisteria between Science and Religion)

Well, I'd have to disagree there. I'm a theist, I do science, and I don't experience any cognitive dissonance. On the other hand I know atheistic scientists who believe in weird things like crystal magic and astrology (the astrology guy is doing his thesis on astrophysics!), so they clearly do experience cognitive dissonance. Apparently both theists and atheists can be susceptible to the compartmentalization to which you refer.

I think that the current majority of irreligious scientists is pretty significant. In my opinion (I read this in one of Feynman's books), religion and science are fundamentally opposite because religious beliefs require an 'absolute belief' or faith based on a personal experiences, religious texts, etc while the scientific method requires you to question everything and look at the scientific evidence behind claims. This is why it's my personal opinion that it's difficult for a scientist to be religious (unless one can compartmentalize their views)

Thanks for providing your personal opinion. But I feel it necessary to say that this disagrees with my personal experiences. The only religious people I've seen who say that belief in God requires blind faith (i.e. absolute belief) are the mainline Protestant types who don't believe in a God who actually influences the believer's personal life. I've never been told by any of my pastors to avoid reason or critical thought. On the contrary, I have been taught to think critically about matters of faith, and to not believe something just because someone tells me to. As long as we're talking about personal opinions and not scientific data on the matter, I just thought I'd throw that out.

 

[yelram]

Its obvious what the pope meant. First of all, Condoms do not prevent Aids, even if properly used. Second, you give someone a condom, and tell them, "you can have all the sex you want, just use this, and you'll be safe", so they make decisions they otherwise wouldn't have. And that's even assuming that they use it correctly. Its like giving someone a bullet proof vest, and saying "now go out and shoot the bad guys, you're safe", and then they die from a head shot.

 

[arunma]

Its obvious what the pope meant. First of all, Condoms do not prevent Aids, even if properly used. Second, you give someone a condom, and tell them, "you can have all the sex you want, just use this, and you'll be safe", so they make decisions they otherwise wouldn't have. And that's even assuming that they use it correctly. Its like giving someone a bullet proof vest, and saying "now go out and shoot the bad guys, you're safe", and then they die from a head shot.

Well, it's more like giving someone a bulletproof vest and telling him to go get shot. But you make an excellent point.

Anyway, getting back to the original topic, here's the part I don't understand. Catholic teaching on this issue states that people ought to engage in only monogamous (and marital) heterosexual intercourse, without a condom. Personally I disagree with the condom part, but that's beside the point. If you obey this teaching properly, you're guaranteed to spread HIV to at most one person. If we throw out data points from nonconsentual sex for the moment, this basically eliminates the AIDS problem. The Pope is saying that faithful Catholics ought not to use condoms. Theoretically those Catholics will also be practicing marital sex only. And people who aren't Catholic shouldn't pay any regard to the Pope's teachings anyway. So what's the problem? If African Catholics obeyed the whole of Catholic teaching on sexuality, it would work just fine.

Clearly, the anti-Pope crowd is concerning themselves with a specific group of people: namely the hypocrites. These are the people who disobey the Pope on marital sex, but obey him in regard to condoms. I realize that almost all people engage in some degree of hypocrisy. But most people don't go this far. If you're a Catholic, it seems to me that you're going to ignore teaching on condoms before you ignore teaching on sexual morality. So whatever the Pope says about condoms should have an effect mostly on people who would otherwise not spread HIV to anyone but their spouses anyway. I don't see what the Dawkins crowd is accomplishing here. It seems as though this issue is little more than a platform to engage in the peddling of atheism. And if that's the case, then I do wish that they would end the pretense of actually caring about African AIDS victims.

 

[BobG]

Its obvious what the pope meant. First of all, Condoms do not prevent Aids, even if properly used. Second, you give someone a condom, and tell them, "you can have all the sex you want, just use this, and you'll be safe", so they make decisions they otherwise wouldn't have. And that's even assuming that they use it correctly. Its like giving someone a bullet proof vest, and saying "now go out and shoot the bad guys, you're safe", and then they die from a head shot.

This brings the subject right back to the post that got us started on the Galileo discussion. The two situations are different.

In the Galileo incident, the church refused to be staked to a position that might be wrong and they refused with a vengeance. In the Pope's comments, he staked himself (and the church to a certain extent) to some comments that can be proven wrong.

Condoms do reduce the chance of STD if properly used. Promoting condom use doesn't seem to have any effect on sexual behavior, including condom use.

 

[Evo]

I didn't claim any conclusive victory (at least not yet). Did I make any statement that you interpreted as such? And besides this, my claim is a negative statement. I would think the burden of proof rests on those who believe that atheism is conducive of good science. I have yet to see any valid argument to the contrary. What evidence do you have to suggest that atheism is conducive of good science?

arunma, you did not link to the posts in this thread that specifically claimed that atheists are better at science, perhaps I missed it, but the only person that I've found that said such a thing so far is you. Please link to those posts for me.

Please do that in your next post.

Thanks.

 

[Gokul43201]

What evidence do you have to suggest that atheism is conducive of good science?

There is a strong correlation between scientific caliber today and atheism. A causal relationship would be much harder to either demonstrate or invalidate. That's typically the way it works. Demonstrating correlation is often a lot easier than demonstration causation. So unless someone comes up with a clever experiment (or already has), we won't have a very good idea of whether it is more often that atheism that leads to scientific caliber or if it's the other way round.

 

[Gokul43201]

I didn't intend that implication - an attack on Tyson. I should have included more of the text. The video makes this clear.

Now here I think you give him too much credit. I don't take Dawkin's statement as "here's a statement of real radical". No, he makes that statement to show some affinity for it.

That's just your judgement, based on preformed opinions (and you may well be right), but there is nothing in the clip that says this is so. Nevertheless, Dawkins does clearly gratefully admit that he (Dawkins) is bad at the job of being an ambassador for science.

Obviously mine is a subjective take, and I point to Tyson's assessment of Dawkins earlier remarks: viewing oneself as the deliverer of truth. That mindset requires a rather fantastic self-elevation.

It does? If I am teaching a 10 year old kid where they made a mistake in an arithmetic problem, I view myself as a deliverer of some truth. Likewise, when I help someone out on the Homework Forums or give a conference talk or submit a paper for publication. If I don't think I am delivering truth, I ought to keep my mouth shut.

Edit: Here's some more. Debate w/ geneticist Francis Collins and Dawkins:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-7,00.html
More of the 'think as I do, all else is folly' egoism. And after hearing quite a bit from Dawkins, I further say BS to his 'sorry' disclaimer, I don't think he's sorry at all.

Will read the article when I get some time - thanks for the link.

 

[BobG]

There is a strong correlation between scientific caliber today and atheism. A causal relationship would be much harder to either demonstrate or invalidate. That's typically the way it works. Demonstrating correlation is often a lot easier than demonstration causation. So unless someone comes up with a clever experiment (or already has), we won't have a very good idea of whether it is more often that atheism that leads to scientific caliber or if it's the other way round.

Very tough, indeed. In fact, the same question comes up about language. Does the prevalent thoughts of a people determine the characteristics of their language (which nouns are masculine, feminine, etc) or does the language affect the speakers' thought processes.

Shakespeare Had Roses All Wrong

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Very tough, indeed. In fact, the same question comes up about language. Does the prevalent thoughts of a people determine the characteristics of their language (which nouns are masculine, feminine, etc) or does the language affect the speakers' thought processes.

Shakespeare Had Roses All Wrong

I'd say its likely that culture (or collective thought) influences language and language influences individual thought.

off topic though. :-/

 

[jacksonpeeble]

It's the pope. Obviously, what he's saying is biased, and Dawkins knows this.

It's a political move.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, I'd have to disagree there. I'm a theist, I do science, and I don't experience any cognitive dissonance. On the other hand I know atheistic scientists who believe in weird things like crystal magic and astrology (the astrology guy is doing his thesis on astrophysics!), so they clearly do experience cognitive dissonance.

I don't understand this. In what way is religiosity or theism different from beliefs in crystal magic or astrology that the former do not require compartmentalization from a scientist, but the latter do?

 

[Gokul43201]

Its obvious what the pope meant. First of all, Condoms do not prevent Aids, even if properly used.

They do about 90% of the time (approximate number). But if you want an absolute 100% certainty of prevention, you won't get that from anything else either (except, perhaps death) - not even by devoutly practicing abstinence.

Second, you give someone a condom, and tell them, "you can have all the sex you want, just use this, and you'll be safe so they make decisions they otherwise wouldn't have.",

This is a strawman argument. Condoms do not come packaged with lies. Nor are these lies propagated by aid agencies working in Africa.

And that's even assuming that they use it correctly. Its like giving someone a bullet proof vest, and saying "now go out and shoot the bad guys, you're safe", and then they die from a head shot.

No one's asking you (as in, the person giving the vest or the condom) to say things that are untrue. You (as in 'you') are only making an argument against false advertising, not against condom use.

But if the Pope were to use your argument, he could be expected to give a speech about why bullet proof vests should be disallowed in war-zones because they increase the odds of getting the wearer killed.

 

[arunma]

Evo, in regards to your last post to me, I haven't seen anyone here claim that atheism is conducive of good science (except perhaps the one quoted below?). I'm inferring, I think reasonably, from various statements made by Richard Dawkins that he believes this.

There is a strong correlation between scientific caliber today and atheism. A causal relationship would be much harder to either demonstrate or invalidate. That's typically the way it works. Demonstrating correlation is often a lot easier than demonstration causation. So unless someone comes up with a clever experiment (or already has), we won't have a very good idea of whether it is more often that atheism that leads to scientific caliber or if it's the other way round.

A few hundred years ago there would have been a very strong correlation between affluence and scientifc calibre. Based on the people in my physics department, a cleverly chosen sample could show a strong correlation between getting trashed on weekends and scientific calibre (that seems to be a common behavior among most of the other physicists I know, don't ask me why). If causality could be established by correlation, we could arrive at all kinds of absurd results. You're likely familiar with the global temperature vs. number o pirates curve on the Flying Spaghetti Monster website, which is ment to demonstrate the folly of deducing causality from correlation. I assume that you too are a physicist or other scientist. If so, then you know that causality isn't established by experiments alone, but by theory. This is not to disparage the importance of empirical data. As an experimental physicist myself, I rely heavily on data. But you need to construct a model from known physical laws, which can then be confirmed empirically, in order to demonstrate causality. If you don't have any theoretical reason as to why atheists make better scientists, you can't make any conclusive statements from correlation plots. In fact, the existence of preeminent theistic scientists and scientifically illiterate atheists would call your conclusion seriously into question.

I don't understand this. In what way is religiosity or theism different from beliefs in crystal magic or astrology that the former do not require compartmentalization from a scientist, but the latter do?

Many theistic religions have some basis in history (whether this historicity is valid is another topic, and is not relevant to this discussion). Thus the belief is rational. Crystal magic and astrology, on the other hand, are arbitrary, and have no basis in reality. Furthermore, I would add that if you're going to accuse any group of people of experiencing cognitive dissonance, it might be a good idea for you to propose some testable means of detecting this. Saying that certain people are compartmentalizing simply because they hold beliefs that you don't like isn't very scientific (let me know if this is not what you're saying).

Also, from personal experience I've found that atheists seem to have a much stronger tendency towards irrationality, especially militant atheists. The most irrational and emotionally-charged arguments I've ever heard came from militant atheists. Angry people tend to say foolish things. But maybe I'm encountering a biased sample, so I certainly wouldn't presume to present my personal experience as evidence of any kind.

 

[Gokul43201]

A few hundred years ago there would have been a very strong correlation between affluence and scientifc calibre.

And an obvious causal relationship as well.

Based on the people in my physics department, a cleverly chosen sample could show a strong correlation between getting trashed on weekends and scientific calibre (that seems to be a common behavior among most of the other physicists I know, don't ask me why).

This is not a rigorous statistical test; it is in fact, by your own admission, not based on a random sampling. It is at best a distortion of anecdotal evidence. And even without the distortion, that would be meaningless.

If causality could be established by correlation, we could arrive at all kinds of absurd results.

I am not saying that causality would follow simply from correlation. Even if I did, I would have to select the cause and the effect, which, given nothing else, would be arbitrary.

If so, then you know that causality isn't established by experiments alone, but by theory. This is not to disparage the importance of empirical data. As an experimental physicist myself, I rely heavily on data. But you need to construct a model from known physical laws, which can then be confirmed empirically, in order to demonstrate causality.

The model has already been proposed. See Siddharth's earlier post on compartmentalizing.

If you don't have any theoretical reason as to why atheists make better scientists, you can't make any conclusive statements from correlation plots. In fact, the existence of preeminent theistic scientists and scientifically illiterate atheists would call your conclusion seriously into question.

No, it would not. In a probabilistic model, it would require an accordingly significant size of such a set to trouble the model.

Many theistic religions have some basis in history (whether this historicity is valid is another topic, and is not relevant to this discussion).

If they have an invalid basis in history, how can one say that they have a basis in history? And so, how can one ignore the validity of the historicity (whatever that means in this context)?

Thus the belief is rational.

I have no idea how this follows from your previous statement. So, perhaps, I do not understand what "basis in history" means.

Crystal magic and astrology, on the other hand, are arbitrary, and have no basis in reality.

I would say that they have a basis in history just as most religions do. There are historical accounts of all kinds of magic and all sorts of accurate predictions of this and that performed by astrologers, entrail readers, palmists, and and dozen other kinds of such folk.

Furthermore, I would add that if you're going to accuse any group of people of experiencing cognitive dissonance, it might be a good idea for you to propose some testable means of detecting this.

I made no accusation of any such kind. All I did was ask you how one group of people was different from the other. I'm not even sure what cognitive dissonance entails, and never even used the term in any of my posts. You were the one accusing a certain group of people of suffering a cognitive dissonance. So, perhaps it is your job to propose the test you seek.

Saying that certain people are compartmentalizing simply because they hold beliefs that you don't like isn't very scientific (let me know if this is not what you're saying).

I never said any such thing, or even anything remotely close to it. I merely asked you a question. Siddharth, however, did say something about compartmentalizing, and I mostly agree with his statement.

Also, from personal experience I've found that atheists seem to have a much stronger tendency towards irrationality, especially militant atheists. The most irrational and emotionally-charged arguments I've ever heard came from militant atheists. Angry people tend to say foolish things. But maybe I'm encountering a biased sample, so I certainly wouldn't presume to present my personal experience as evidence of any kind.

I've kept my own set of anecdotes out of the thread, since they would be just as meaningless as yours, for the purpose of this discussion.

 

[arildno]

Saying that certain people are compartmentalizing simply because they hold beliefs that you don't like isn't very scientific (let me know if this is not what you're saying).

What nonsense!

Here, you conflate "beliefs I don't like/like" with "beliefs with/without evidentiary support"

We therefore have 4 classes of beliefs:
A "Beliefs I like that have no evidentiary support": I sure hold some of those, for example the belief that the universe is teeming with life-supporting planets.
People are free to dismiss this belief of mine as unevidenced, I don't mind.

"Beliefs I don't like, that has evidentiary support": I believe I'm going to die, I don't like that! But it doesn't mean it hasn't got evidentiary support..

You can fill out the two last categories.

The point is that you nonsensically says that the relevant line between the beliefs we dismiss is drawn between beliefs we like and beliefs we don't like, whereas the correct view is that we regard as dismissable those beliefs that lack evidential support.

That doesn't mean we HAVE TO dismiss them, we are entitled to retain a few unevidenced belief, in the full knowledge that they are, and therefore, everyone else are entitled to dismiss them as silly, unevidenced beliefs..

 

[Evo]

Evo, in regards to your last post to me, I haven't seen anyone here claim that atheism is conducive of good science (except perhaps the one quoted below?). I'm inferring, I think reasonably, from various statements made by Richard Dawkins that he believes this.

arunma, Gokul's post was a reply to your post. No one here made the statements you claimed prior to you complaining. Do not do this again.

 

[BobG]

It has been pointed out that most scientists today are not very religious. This is true, as those of us who work in physics departments can readily testify. However, the existence of religious scientists (of all religious affiliations) makes it difficult to argue that their is any causality between atheism and good science. Much credence has been given to Richard Dawkins, who seems to circumvent logic and claim otherwise. Insodoing, he actually discards the very scientific method that he appears to uphold. I want people here to consider carefully what they are saying. Richard Dawkins is basically the Ann Coulter of atheism. He issues emotionally charged arguments and employs childish, schoolyard taunts. I think we can all agree that Ann Coulter is a moron (no, that wasn't a schoolyard taunt). I would apply the same logic and state that Richard Dawkins is also a moron.

Evo, in regards to your last post to me, I haven't seen anyone here claim that atheism is conducive of good science (except perhaps the one quoted below?). I'm inferring, I think reasonably, from various statements made by Richard Dawkins that he believes this.

Perhaps a quote or link to those statements by Dawkins would help your case. Finding a quotation where Dawkins claims religious physicists or scientists fail to measure up to atheists would be hard to impossible. Still, his belief that religion is a http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/quotes.shtml could certainly lead one to think that he believes that those infected are somehow impaired in their thought processes.

It's certainly a subjective evaluation, but I think Dawkins:religion and Coulter:politics is a pretty fair comparison.

 

[mheslep]

...It does? If I am teaching a 10 year old kid where they made a mistake in an arithmetic problem, I view myself as a deliverer of some truth. Likewise, when I help someone out on the Homework Forums or give a conference talk or submit a paper for publication. If I don't think I am delivering truth, I ought to keep my mouth shut...

I think this makes my point. The public <> 10 year olds. And even for those largely ignorant of science, it is misleading for any scientific/engineering professional to claim to present 'the truth'. Instead, we present the evidence, showing attention to the scientific method along the way, to include alternative hypothesis that may also fit the data, range of uncertainty, etc. We are not the keepers of 'the truth'. I infer from Dawkin's statements that at some level he knows this, but his violent reaction to religion, perhaps encouraged by ego, none the less frequently has him presenting himself as the 'professor of delivering the truth', as Tyson says.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I disagree with this (After all, it is an economic theory :p). You're assuming that people make perfectly rational choices. Searching in google, gives me a list of empirical studies which show that availability of condoms does not increase sexual activity.

Not assuming people make perfectly rational choices, just that the rational choices outweigh the irrational ones.

The studies on prevalence of sexual activity don't convince me (though they might easily convince a rational person). I *am* convinced now, being more informed than I was at the start of this thread, that the net effect of condom use is to decrease the prevalence of STDs.

Well, as you pointed out, the only way that can happen is if the distribution of condoms directly increases the sexual activity of the public. I don't think there's any evidence of that published? Also, I think the numbers are that the use of condoms reduces the transmission rate by 80%.

I did not say that. The result could still follow if the distribution of condoms *indirectly* increased sexual activity. (In this case it seems that the large effect of transmission prevention outweighs whatever effect there is on sexual activity.)

80% seems too low -- I would expect condoms to be more effective than that.

 

[Ghost803]

Many theistic religions have some basis in history (whether this historicity is valid is another topic, and is not relevant to this discussion). Thus the belief is rational. Crystal magic and astrology, on the other hand, are arbitrary, and have no basis in reality.

What does having basis in history mean? That the texts are historically accurate? That they some times refer to historical events or locations that verifiably existed?

If the latter is the case, then would proponents of crystal magic be "rational" if they throw in random historical data and bundle it up with their beliefs?

 

[BobG]

Many theistic religions have some basis in history (whether this historicity is valid is another topic, and is not relevant to this discussion). Thus the belief is rational. Crystal magic and astrology, on the other hand, are arbitrary, and have no basis in reality.

What does having basis in history mean? That the texts are historically accurate? That they some times refer to historical events or locations that verifiably existed?

If the latter is the case, then would proponents of crystal magic be "rational" if they throw in random historical data and bundle it up with their beliefs?

Good question.

Especially since astrology is what motivated the first great scientific revolution in what became the field of astronomy. It gave some importance to being able to predict the future positions of the planets and the positions of the constellations at different times of the year.

Actually, religions had a lot to do with holding cultures together and I think the rationality of the beliefs were sometimes as irrelevant as the beliefs that yielded some pretty good results from astrology. They were a good thing regardless of their beliefs - within reason. A religion that would line up slaves or prisoners of war for a gruesome mass sacrifice might seem a little over the top, but I guess as long as the number of people sacrificed were kept small enough in proportion to the population, the religion yielded more benefits than disadvantages. If it didn't, then you'd think religious civilizations would die out quicker than non-religious civilizations and be pretty rare.