
All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists - ScotterC
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists?intcid=mod-latest
======
michaelsbradley
Persons of deep faith have been, are, and can be great scientists.

See, for example, _Scientific Geniuses and Their Jesuit Collaborators_ [1].
Not to mention that the author's field (physical cosmology) was deeply
influenced by a Catholic priest-scientist[2]. There are numerous other
examples spanning the last few centuries, including our own.

Faith and reason ought to go together and are entirely compatible with one
another – at least that's the Catholic view, not new but recently articulated
by Pope St. John Paul II.[3]

[1] [http://www.strangenotions.com/scientific-geniuses-and-
their-...](http://www.strangenotions.com/scientific-geniuses-and-their-jesuit-
collaborators/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre)

[3] [http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/encyclicals/doc...](http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html)

[&]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio)

~~~
gay_genocide
I didn't mean to be disrespectful to either the religious or militant
athiests. The idea that one group's "rationality" is somehow holier than the
other gave me a chuckle. I read the linked article as more of a sociological
statement.

------
AnimalMuppet
See [https://www.webguyinternet.com/users/stimpfam/science-
histor...](https://www.webguyinternet.com/users/stimpfam/science-history-and-
god)

TL;DR (even though it isn't very long): Science cannot find (direct) evidence
either for or against the existence of God. It can't do this even in
principle. Atheism is therefore the product of a philosophical view, rather
than a product of the scientific evidence. A scientist, then, should not take
a dogmatic view on this, especially not a militant one. If a scientist does
so, he/she should recognize that it is unconnected to science.

[Edit: clarity.]

~~~
michaelsbradley
Are you familiar with the work of Fr. Robert Spitzer[1] in this area?

 _From Nothing to Cosmos: God and Science_

[http://www.magiscenter.com/pdf/FNTC_Study_Guide.pdf](http://www.magiscenter.com/pdf/FNTC_Study_Guide.pdf)

 _Science, God and Creation_ [video]

[http://www.magiscenter.com/science-god-creation-
video/](http://www.magiscenter.com/science-god-creation-video/)

 _New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics
and Philosophy_

[http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-
Contributions...](http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-
Contributions/dp/0802863833)

 _Introducing Bernard Lonergan’s Philosophical Proof for God_

[http://www.strangenotions.com/tag/bernard-
lonergan/](http://www.strangenotions.com/tag/bernard-lonergan/) (scroll down
for the link to part 1 of the series)

His arguments largely build on the assumptions that General Relativity
accurately describes the macro-scale universe and that the telescope data
backing the Lambda-CDM model[2] are being interpreted correctly. However,
that's a starting point familiar to most who work in the field of physical
cosmology, so I don't think they're unreasonable assumptions to start out.

Also, his arguments are certainly not beyond criticism, but Fr. Spitzer is
intellectually honest and overall he offers a great deal of good food for
thought.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(priest)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_\(priest\))

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-
CDM_model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model)

------
drallison
Amen to the article. Science is more than a belief system.

Dekhn is incorrect to say the Article summary (that is the post title) is
incorrect.

The relevant paragraphs from the article are:

Similarly, when religious actions or claims about sanctity can be made with
impunity in our society, we undermine the very basis of modern secular
democracy. We owe it to ourselves and to our children not to give a free pass
to governments—totalitarian, theocratic, or democratic—that endorse,
encourage, enforce, or otherwise legitimize the suppression of open
questioning in order to protect ideas that are considered “sacred.” Five
hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced
ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of
whom it may offend.

If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no
scientist should be ashamed of the label.

------
dekhn
Article summary is incorrect. The author does not propose that all scientists
be militant atheists.

Also any scientist worth their salt eliminates no hypothesis consistent with
the data, and thus cannot eliminate the hypothesis that there is a supreme
being capable of constructing the results of all experiments to cloak its
existence (this is a very improbable hypothesis, of course, but that's not a
justification for formally rejecting it).

------
anigbrowl
Militant atheists are just as annoying as militant religionists. If someone
tries to lay a religious argument on me I will mention that I don't believe,
but only in the sense that I'm opting out of the divine premise and so I'm
indifferent to arguments that depend on it. I see no point at all in trying to
persuade the other person to share my belief - it wastes my time and will only
make them feel angry or upset.

------
gay_genocide
Why? they all worship invisible beings.

