Atheists not all that interested in science

We are told that atheists love science.  After all, it’s this deep love of science that has supposedly led to their atheism.  Yet I think this is just an image the atheist movement uses to sell itself.  After all, atheist activist Jerry Coyne is complaining (again) that his readers don’t seem all that interested in his science postings:

No more science posts!

. . . unless people start reading them. Today virtually all the serious posts were animal- or science-related. Traffic is way down (about 60% of normal) which means people aren’t reading them.  What do you want—clickbait?

I am not surpised. 

This entry was posted in atheism, Science, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Atheists not all that interested in science

  1. Regual Llegna says:

    I know why scientism+naturalism fail, and they use islamic terrorism as their prime example for “religion is bad/evil” mentallity, i want to ask:

    – If islamic terrorism, islamic expansion and islamic conquest would have never happened the gnu atheists would exist?

    (Free info):

    I asking this after compare gnus to their old atheists counterpart, the philosophical atheists
    and the more simply apatheists atheists, and they gnu come as with the scientism+naturalism mentallity and a paranoid fearmongering about religion, most of it is islamic terrorism because outsidemost of “christians atrocities” are what happen openly in wars such as the Crusades vs the Islamic expantions to Europe from Asia and North Africa, the Inquisitions that could be avoided if the monarchies never forged why exist and fall to fearmongering of religious sectarianism (combat religious sectarianism was the base of the Inquisitions) or the “scientists” (usually Galileo example) that where stop to preach their findings by “coertion or force” in a time where those scientists did not have the means to explains their findings with a “naturalist explanations” and where most of the “scientists” used to belief and explain their findings, and manny do today, with the weird “non-naturalist and non-scientists” hipothesys that the planet Earth/humans beings is/are the center of the Universe, like the falw that anybody can find in the Theory of Infaltion (cosmology), how you can explain objetively the idea of inflation if you don’t “see” the movement of the stelar bodies from the center of the Universe because if not you are moving too and this will affect every aspect of what you can see, your view point will then change every time, the enormous “un-scientific and un-natural” flaw is called Anthropic Principle from which comes the hypothesis that the Universe don’t exist if some some thinking being (humans) do not measure it, “because you can measure it then don’t exist” but what happen with the almost infinite mayority of things that could be measured but never be measured with accuracy or that change over time. The premises for Anthropic Principle are:

    * Weak anthropic principle (WAP): “The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.”

    * Strong anthropic principle (SAP): “The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.”

    * Final anthropic principle (FAP): “Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.”

    The Final Anthropic Principle is the one premise that requires more faith and this is a Principle, so is by implication an “exact science”. in fact every human centric philosophy and stance like humanism need to take Anthropic Principle for granted to have any athority at all.

    This video of Richard Dawkins in the topic and applied to physics, but to be exact to quantum physics a.k.a. mathematical and highly non-testeable only physics theories:

    He simply change God (because is every time especificaly anti-christian) with a non-emotional, completely random and chaotic (bound to disappear) universal Darwinism: “Universes are bound to Darwinian selection, passing on traits to daughter universes birthed from black holes.” So unproven multiverse theory and a unproven black holes creating universes theories, remenber humans beings cannot tell you why gravity is and for why exist.
    Note: You should love the gender implication in the words.

    For me the flaw of the Anthropic Principle is that give too much self-centered importance to the human being granted for and by others human beings. And i believe that the Anthropic Principle, which is used too much for fine-tuned Universe theories is not necesary to make and objetive view about any god at all.

  2. Regual Llegna says:

    – What are gnus atheists without scientism?

  3. Dhay says:

    We sometimes get people here who launch into impassioned emotional outbursts, incoherent rants sometimes, because we have ‘pressed their buttons’ — as it would formerly have been said, though the terminology has changed recently. Jerry Coyne’s blog is filling with complaints about ‘snowflakes’ who need ‘trigger warnings’ to avoid ‘trigger words’ and ‘trigger issues’ which (hair-) trigger strong feelings and emotional outbursts from them.

    In the normal usage, these ‘triggers’ are of negative feelings. But I reflect that perhaps there’s another category of ‘trigger words’, a category of ‘trigger words’ which trigger snug, warm, cozy, fuzzy feelings of contentment and self-esteem: the words which come most readily to mind are “Science”, “Reason”, “Truth” — which are almost always initial-capitalised (to distinguish them from their ordinary meanings, else why do that?!); the Reason Rally combines two into “Science and Reason”, whereas the science-less Peter Boghossian prefers the combination phrase “Truth and Reason”.

    I never worked out the meanings of “Science”, “Reason”, “Truth” as used by their users, either as the single words or in phrases, and the users don’t know the meanings either, so far as I can tell. The last Reason Rally did have a helpful list of “Some Say”s which the scientific rationalist was expected to disagree with, eg:

    18th AMENDMENT SAYS “Prohibit alcohol”

    (That slogan’s writer seems to be very aged indeed, and to have dementia. But the younger organisers didn’t seem to spot the obvious problem with this slogan, and it stayed on the website.)

    But the “Some Says’” seem in practice to have been promoting a particular and quite narrow political position, rather than promoting either science or reason, so “Science and Reason” seems to stand for that narrow political position, and in practice only for that narrow political position.

    Reconnecting with Michael’s Atheists not all that interested in science post, the “Science” the Reason Rally enthusiasts are interested in is not the same as science. It is a politicised “Science”.

    I ask myself whether, for most of those who refer to “Science” – atheists, in my experience – “Science” is not a word with well-defined meaning and application but instead a mere trigger word — a trigger word triggering, not strong negative emotions but warm, fuzzy emotions: perhaps a sense of disdain of and superiority over those presumably anti-“Science” people like Michael and me and Francis Collins; perhaps a warm fuzzy glow of comfort, contentment and the self-righteous feeling of being right, the feeling of having arrived at a “Truth” which no longer needs examining because it is “Right” because based upon “Science and Reason”.

    Likewise the other Capitalised trigger words and phrases: they are not just insinuated put-downs for ideological opponents, they are trigger words for nice feelings about themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s