My article in American Atheist Magazine

kowalskil · 9th June 2012, 06:28 PM

My article about futile confrontations between theists and atheists*appeared in the April 2012 Issue of*American Atheist Magazine. The link is:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo/atheist.html

Please share this link with other potential readers. Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)*

GeeMack · 9th June 2012, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by kowalskil

My article about futile confrontations between theists and atheists*appeared in the April 2012 Issue of*American Atheist Magazine. The link is:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo/atheist.html

Please share this link with other potential readers. Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)*

Starting with this...

Quote:

The methods of validation and refutation used by scientists and theologians are sufficiently different to justify separation rather than cooperation. Separation will allow theists and atheists to rethink and reformulate the basic ideas and methodologies.

The scientific method is a demonstrably effective way to validate objective reality. Theology, not so much. It sounds like you're suggesting theists should be allowed to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific method, skepticism, and objective analysis. That's special pleading, and although religions have used that rather dishonest strategy for centuries, it's a cop out.

Quote:

Until this happens, scientists should not participate in debates about the spiritual world, unless they happen to also be theologians. Likewise, theologians should not participate in debates about the material world, unless they happen to also be scientists. Debates about ways to eliminate existing conflicts might last decades, if not centuries. They are likely to be more productive if conducted separately.

As long as god-believers want their god considered part of objective reality, they have a responsibility to demonstrate, objectively, that their gods and the associated magical stuff exists. So far theists haven't been able to get their beliefs past the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific method. Hiding behind the "theology" skirt is a pretty cowardly way to avoid that scrutiny. Now if theists would have the honesty to acknowledge that their beliefs are definitively a delusion, that they cannot be objectively demonstrated to be real, then yes, science should leave it alone. But really, we've had thousands of years of religious people demanding that their delusions are real, and further demanding that the non-religious accept them as part of their reality, too.

So really, it's not the atheists' or scientists' responsibility to stop asking the fantasy believers to support their fantasy as long as the fantasy believers are claiming it's real. It's the religious people's responsibility to objectively support their fantasy. Or have the honesty and courage to admit that it is just a fantasy. Or keep it to themselves.

I Ratant · 9th June 2012, 08:42 PM

From what Gee wrote, it sounds a lot like Gould's NOMA...
If investigations into the spectral world ruffle some feathers, ruffle 'em up.

Beelzebuddy · 9th June 2012, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

From what Gee wrote, it sounds a lot like Gould's NOMA...

That's exactly what it is.

Pup · 10th June 2012, 07:31 AM

From the article:

Quote:

Methods of validation of claims made by theologians specializing in spiritual doctrines are very different from those used by scientists exploring our physical world. God is not a material entity, and attempts to refute God's existence by performing scientific experiments are not appropriate

Following that route, what one would end up with is a god-of-the-gaps, as each attribute is slowly whittled away. Not all theists are happy with that, for the reason below (also quoted from the article)

Quote:

Theology is like mathematics, not science. Mathematicians start with axioms (initially accepted truths) and use logical derivation to justify consecutive claims, called theorems. Once proven, a theorem cannot be rejected, unless a logical error is found in the derivation

If nothing is invested in the axioms, no problem. We can posit that Batman and Superman have certain powers, and then spend days arguing who would win in a fight, without worrying a bit whether Batman and Superman are actually real.

The difficulty comes when the scientific method disproves an axiom which theists insist is actually real. This is the point at which science and theism overlap. Most theists are not happy to erase a whole branch of logical derivations, just because evidence shows the underlying assumption is not true. If they were, the two could coexist, but the only theists left would be the worshipers of the god of the gaps.

Beelzebuddy · 10th June 2012, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Pup

If nothing is invested in the axioms, no problem. We can posit that Batman and Superman have certain powers, and then spend days arguing who would win in a fight, without worrying a bit whether Batman and Superman are actually real.

We don't need days. Supes has no chance.

Now, you wanna real pissing contest, we can argue what Batman's alignment would be in DnD 3.5e.

hgc · 10th June 2012, 11:55 AM

I'd also like to comment on,

Quote:

Methods of validation of claims made by theologians specializing in spiritual doctrines are very different from those used by scientists exploring our physical world. God is not a material entity, and attempts to refute God's existence by performing scientific experiments are not appropriate

Not only are theologians' methods of validation different, they're downright non-existent. Theology is the study of the unknowable.

Skeptic Ginger · 10th June 2012, 01:06 PM

Welcome to the forum, Ludwik. My view of NOMa is that it is science apologetics. Do you find yourself being unable to verbalize how NOMa is different from any other woo belief rationale?

Skeptic Ginger · 10th June 2012, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by hgc

....
Not only are theologians' methods of validation different, they're downright non-existent. Theology is the study of the unknowable.

Theology is the study of myth with the idea myth is somehow real. Myth is better understood with the scientific process. It's a human endeavor and one should look to the human brain, not mystical gods or extra-universe sourced explanations for its meaning.

9th June 2012, 06:28 PM	#1
kowalskil Scholar Join Date: May 2010 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 115	My article in American Atheist Magazine My article about futile confrontations between theists and atheistsappeared in the April 2012 Issue ofAmerican Atheist Magazine. The link is: http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo/atheist.html Please share this link with other potential readers. Thank you in advance, Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)*
	__________________ Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) and http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

9th June 2012, 07:24 PM	#2
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,171	Originally Posted by kowalskil My article about futile confrontations between theists and atheistsappeared in the April 2012 Issue ofAmerican Atheist Magazine. The link is: http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo/atheist.html Please share this link with other potential readers. Thank you in advance, Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)* Starting with this... Quote: The methods of validation and refutation used by scientists and theologians are sufficiently different to justify separation rather than cooperation. Separation will allow theists and atheists to rethink and reformulate the basic ideas and methodologies. The scientific method is a demonstrably effective way to validate objective reality. Theology, not so much. It sounds like you're suggesting theists should be allowed to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific method, skepticism, and objective analysis. That's special pleading, and although religions have used that rather dishonest strategy for centuries, it's a cop out. Quote: Until this happens, scientists should not participate in debates about the spiritual world, unless they happen to also be theologians. Likewise, theologians should not participate in debates about the material world, unless they happen to also be scientists. Debates about ways to eliminate existing conflicts might last decades, if not centuries. They are likely to be more productive if conducted separately. As long as god-believers want their god considered part of objective reality, they have a responsibility to demonstrate, objectively, that their gods and the associated magical stuff exists. So far theists haven't been able to get their beliefs past the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific method. Hiding behind the "theology" skirt is a pretty cowardly way to avoid that scrutiny. Now if theists would have the honesty to acknowledge that their beliefs are definitively a delusion, that they cannot be objectively demonstrated to be real, then yes, science should leave it alone. But really, we've had thousands of years of religious people demanding that their delusions are real, and further demanding that the non-religious accept them as part of their reality, too. So really, it's not the atheists' or scientists' responsibility to stop asking the fantasy believers to support their fantasy as long as the fantasy believers are claiming it's real. It's the religious people's responsibility to objectively support their fantasy. Or have the honesty and courage to admit that it is just a fantasy. Or keep it to themselves.
	Last edited by GeeMack; 9th June 2012 at 07:35 PM. Reason: Grammar.

10th June 2012, 07:31 AM	#5
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,587	From the article: Quote: Methods of validation of claims made by theologians specializing in spiritual doctrines are very different from those used by scientists exploring our physical world. God is not a material entity, and attempts to refute God's existence by performing scientific experiments are not appropriate Following that route, what one would end up with is a god-of-the-gaps, as each attribute is slowly whittled away. Not all theists are happy with that, for the reason below (also quoted from the article) Quote: Theology is like mathematics, not science. Mathematicians start with axioms (initially accepted truths) and use logical derivation to justify consecutive claims, called theorems. Once proven, a theorem cannot be rejected, unless a logical error is found in the derivation If nothing is invested in the axioms, no problem. We can posit that Batman and Superman have certain powers, and then spend days arguing who would win in a fight, without worrying a bit whether Batman and Superman are actually real. The difficulty comes when the scientific method disproves an axiom which theists insist is actually real. This is the point at which science and theism overlap. Most theists are not happy to erase a whole branch of logical derivations, just because evidence shows the underlying assumption is not true. If they were, the two could coexist, but the only theists left would be the worshipers of the god of the gaps.
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,587

10th June 2012, 11:55 AM	#7
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,988	I'd also like to comment on, Quote: Methods of validation of claims made by theologians specializing in spiritual doctrines are very different from those used by scientists exploring our physical world. God is not a material entity, and attempts to refute God's existence by performing scientific experiments are not appropriate Not only are theologians' methods of validation different, they're downright non-existent. Theology is the study of the unknowable.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

10th June 2012, 01:06 PM	#8
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,513	Welcome to the forum, Ludwik. My view of NOMa is that it is science apologetics. Do you find yourself being unable to verbalize how NOMa is different from any other woo belief rationale?
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

9th June 2012, 08:42 PM	#3
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	From what Gee wrote, it sounds a lot like Gould's NOMA... If investigations into the spectral world ruffle some feathers, ruffle 'em up.

9th June 2012, 08:58 PM	#4
Beelzebuddy Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,714	Originally Posted by I Ratant From what Gee wrote, it sounds a lot like Gould's NOMA... That's exactly what it is.

10th June 2012, 09:47 AM	#6
Beelzebuddy Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,714	Originally Posted by Pup If nothing is invested in the axioms, no problem. We can posit that Batman and Superman have certain powers, and then spend days arguing who would win in a fight, without worrying a bit whether Batman and Superman are actually real. We don't need days. Supes has no chance. Now, you wanna real pissing contest, we can argue what Batman's alignment would be in DnD 3.5e.

10th June 2012, 01:09 PM	#9
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,513	Originally Posted by hgc .... Not only are theologians' methods of validation different, they're downright non-existent. Theology is the study of the unknowable. Theology is the study of myth with the idea myth is somehow real. Myth is better understood with the scientific process. It's a human endeavor and one should look to the human brain, not mystical gods or extra-universe sourced explanations for its meaning.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)