- Oct 2019
You are clearly very confused and putting the cart before the horse....er...The Atheist before the science. People who study or rely on science are simply more likely to disbelieve in things that cannot be proven as real or useful in life.I'm curious why atheists bring modern science into the equation, given that atheism has always existed in some form or another, dating back to individuals such as Epicurus.
Even if modern science didn't exist, atheists would still be atheists on the basis of some notion or another, and faith in Bacon's scientific method is a different concept entirely than merely being an atheist, so why are these two concepts being conflated?
I pointed this out to you in another thread but of course you ignored it.I'm reposting this here from another threat - since it's a sound critique of Secular Humanism:
I proved a point. The Secular Humanist religion (or philosophy, if you prefer that), is based on faith, then retroactively attempts to use scientific evidence to reconcile it with its faith-based beliefs, as does presumably any belief system, "religious, secular, or otherwise".
This is a hypothetical argument that ignores religion's guilt on the issue.Scientific "data" in a vacuum is meaningless information, and could be used in an infinite number of ways - however Secular Humanists believe that things such as racism and sexism are wrong due to their faith-based beliefs - so if, hypothetically, scientific information could be used to justify exterminating non-whites (like the Nazis did), or could be used to save human lives - they would choose the latter, just as if science and technology could be used to destroy the planet, or to save the planet, they would believe on faith it should be used to save the planet.
Again, this accusation can be more accurately laid at the foot of religions which dictate that because the bible tells them ___, then they have to...Even a belief that "science" is worth doing at all, or is any more valuable to humanity than... tap dancing, or watching reality TV is a faith based belief, which can't be reconciled without circular reasoning. (e.x. Science is worth doing because... science says so).
500 years ago, the people were still living like the people in the bible lived.I'm curious what the basis of faith in Francis Bacon's scientific method is.
Much of it seems to be ignorance or superstitious notions, such as people falsely conflating Bacon's method with "science" in general, which has always been a part of human existence, prior to any specific intellectual movement (e.x. the European Enlightenment); most of the technology of the modern world today stems less from Baconian science (which was invented after the Renaissance), and more to the Industrial Revolution, and the various inventors of that era.
Along with the notion that science couldn't have developed in any other way. Many inventions, such as plumbing systems and gunpowder were invented during ancient cultures, such as that of Rome and China, prior to Francis Bacon's method gaining popularity, in conjunction with religions or beliefs in God or higher powers - so falsely crediting inventions and scientific developments to Bacon's method of science specifically, as opposed to human innovation which has always been around (such as in the case of the Renaissance men), seems erroneous to me.
Many of the myths and pseudo-histories, such as that of the Dark Ages, for example, are also based on ignorant notions - in the Middle Ages, the Church and science were governed by the same system, while today science has developed into a separate system based on Bacon's method.
The idea that "religion" held scientific progress back is something of a myth (scientific progress itself, being a faith based notion, which has not always been shown to be true, such as it leading to the proliferation of nuclear arms, rather than world peace - as well as giving the 9/11 hijackers the weapons they needed to blow up buildings, whereas had they had only "religion", all they could have done was pray about it, rather than actually do it, which science allowed them to). For that matter, regarding developments such as the moon landing - is anyone certain it had more to do with scientific progress, as opposed to an arms race with the Soviet Union - or name one thing which they benefitted from it in any way? Or why funding for scientific projects such as that shouldn't be diverted to other endeavors, such as poverty?
Today, science is a separate institution, so the "religion" which currently holds "scientific progress" back are the ethical restrictions within science (e.x. restrictions which prohibit scientists from experimenting on Jews, and things of that nature - if one wanted to remove restrictions on scientific progress, the Church is more or less irrelevant today, so they would need to work on removing the ethics from science instead).
By the same token, if we could save 100 gays by executing 10,000 Christians it would be worth it.2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
That definition doesn't define what "spiritual apprehension" is, nor what a "religion" is.
(Regarding, "proof", my understanding is that that is more of a mathematical concept.)
As far as the other definitions you gave me, they would suit what I am describing well enough - if a person believes in blind acceptance of Bacon's scientific method or in other similar concepts (e.x empiricism), or blind faith in scientists in general (despite not having tested and gathered the evidence oneself). (As mentioned, Bacon and the scientific revolution are only one of many different intellectual movements in history).
Or in other axioms, such as "scientific progress" always being a good thing, then I'd argue this would be faith. (If a person blindly believed that science would lead to progress, ignoring negative possibilities such as nuclear war, this would be faith as well).
Again, then if executing 100 gays, saved 1,000 people from dying from AIDs, on what basis would you oppose this.
That's a popular myth or urban legend, but isn't historically accurate.500 years ago, the people were still living like the people in the bible lived.
There were shepherds and farmers, Tax collectors and fishermen, scribes and smiths, millers and weavers, people used animal power, they heated and cooked with wood fires. They lived to an average age of nearly 30.
Just as they had for thousands of years.
we live nearly three times as long
Even that's not accurate, the scientific method in the 15th-16th century, whereas most of the innovations you're talking about weren't around until the 19th century, so they probably stem more directly from the Industrial Revolution (and the inventors responsible for it, such as mass production) than the scientific method specifically.They comes the scientific method, and in five hundred years, we have antibiotics, automobiles,
Other than as part of the arms race with the Soviets, what purpose did "man on the moon" serve, other than just a triumph of civilization?man on the moon,
That's all well and good, but even then, other than in specific industrial purposes, what culturally function does that serve other than as a "civilizational triumph". Ghenghis Khan "didn't know about evolution" but had no problem finding 100s of wives, whereas today some "computer geeks" know about evolution, but still get nervous talking to a girl - almost as if knowledge of evolution is sometimes inversely proportional to actual "mating" success.we understand evolution, nuclear physics, we can split the atom.
As far as history goes, that's highly debatable from a cultural perspective on the whole.500 years ago, you might not see any change in the way things were done in your entire lifetime.
Scientific and technological progress don't automatically equate to human progress - if nuclear warfare is any indicator, or the fact that the Nazis were the most technologically advanced culture of WWII, but were still exterminating people based on their race (something which Jesus was against in the days of ancient Rome, far ahead of his time in that regard than Hitler was in the 20th century).Progress moves so fast today, you can actually see it change things over a few years, and completely revolutionize things in the length of a single life.
When you lie, you make Jesus cry......That's a popular myth or urban legend, but isn't historically accurate.
As as can easily be verified, science and technology in cultures past at times surpassed what was available even after Bacon's methodology, such as gunpowder having been invented in ancient China, or plumbing systems invented during ancient Rome.
Science of some form has always been around, so giving Bacon's specific scientific method sole credit for it is somewhat fallacious.
So what makes you believe that Bacon's specific version of science, which developed in the 1500-1600s is any "better" than any other version of science which as existed since cavemen came up with the idea of inventing the wheel, or that science couldn't have developed in any different way than what Bacon's method has become?
The myth about life expectancies isn't a good approximation either, such as how the Renaissance artist Titian lived to be in his late 80ss - which is longer than a morbidly obese person today would be expected to live; even many modern innovations such as vaccines only cured problems caused in part by human development (such as living in dirty cities; which is why Native Americans were alleged to have died from diseases carried by Europeans - the Native Americans had no immunity, but they had lived for 1000s of years without needing one, since they lived closer to nature rather than in filthy cities).
Even that's not accurate, the scientific method in the 15th-16th century, whereas most of the innovations you're talking about weren't around until the 19th century, so they probably stem more directly from the Industrial Revolution (and the inventors responsible for it, such as mass production) than the scientific method specifically.
Other than as part of the arms race with the Soviets, what purpose did "man on the moon" serve, other than just a triumph of civilization?
If that's all it was, then I'd argue it's no necessarily different than any other "wonder of the world", whether the construction of the Great Pyramids by ancient Egypt or the Roman Colosseum. (All of which were done by some variety of "scientist", "engineer" or "architect" long before Bacon's version of science was invented).
That's all well and good, but even then, other than in specific industrial purposes, what culturally function does that serve other than as a "civilizational triumph". Ghenghis Khan "didn't know about evolution" but had no problem finding 100s of wives, whereas today some "computer geeks" know about evolution, but still get nervous talking to a girl - almost as if knowledge of evolution is sometimes inversely proportional to actual "mating" success.
Even scientists themselves admit that most of pure science isn't "practical", but is something they find "just plain fun", or a creative activity as an end in and of itself - so in that regard, it's not necessarily any different than sports, arts, dance, or other cultural activities.
As far as history goes, that's highly debatable from a cultural perspective on the whole.
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if we discover that actual rates of technological or cultural advancements were higher during eras before Bacon's method of science than they are today.
Scientific and technological progress don't automatically equate to human progress - if nuclear warfare is any indicator, or the fact that the Nazis were the most technologically advanced culture of WWII, but were still exterminating people based on their race (something which Jesus was against in the days of ancient Rome, far ahead of his time in that regard than Hitler was in the 20th century).