My personal beliefs are irrelevant but if it's not affecting you in anyway why bother responding to them.
Well that narrative is no surprise. It's the rise of Scientism, not necessarily Science itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
I think it's evident that the fervent forms of religion have been harmful. I can't think of any virtues of religion that aren't found in art and literature without the fire and brimstone. If America were to become a more secular society, well, I wouldn't be crying any tears. You've shown me yours, I'm showing you mine. If your beliefs are irrelevant, well, that's a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned :]
Whether it is a good thing depends on what you mean by "replace". To take the collected theories of science as some kind of universal truth, in the same way that theological tenets are treated as universal truths by those that believe in them, is entirely at odds with the spirit of the scientific method. It is only a good thing when enquiry replaces faith, doubt replaces certainty and questions replace answers.
You don't need post-enlightenment scientific method to refute the existence of deities. The logic and reason of the ancient Greeks is plenty. The multitude of contradictory beliefs and evolving nature of religions should be enough of a hint that it is not about any kind of eternal and universal truth. http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...t-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion Good ideas hold up to scrutiny, whether that's an all-pervading invisible life force running through the universe or climate change denial. No ideas should be sacred, as that only leads to cultural oppression and stagnation.
It's universally true that we evolved from earlier lifeforms. The details may change with further study but that will always and forever remain true (as it was before this was worked out). Just because that may be at odds with scientific method as an ideal that doesn't mean we can't draw certain conclusions that are proved robustly enough to be considered truths.
Nope, I deliberately used the term "theory" as opposed to "hypothesis". Theories can never be said to be "true" in the philosophical sense, only by degrees of strength demonstrated by experiment. This is a good thing, and we should embrace it. They are mutable models to support our observations, not canonical truths to fit observations into. This gets tricky when unscrupulous and/or ignorant people use sophistry to misrepresent the uncertain and mutable nature of scientific inquiry to support their own demonstrably false pseudoscience and superstitions. But, we only have ourselves to blame for not investing in our children's education. Instead of meeting religion on its own absolutist terms and saying "we're right, you're wrong", we should simply be giving people the cognitive tools to discover that for themselves. Yes, but that is not the same kind of truth as presented by fundamentalist religion. The Bible is not re-written whenever new evidence is found.
David Attenborough tells me humans evolved from aquatic apes? Oh sorry...did that spoil things for you? Put you off your stroke?
I don't think I would subscribe to that exact statement myself. I would use an analogy to describe them. The one of all the blind men each having a hand on the elephant. What it hints at is open to interpretation of course. Good ideas aren't just about scrutiny they are also about how they effect peoples lives for the better. When that's the case, scrutiny doesn't matter one bit. An idea could be completely beyond any objective answer for all I care, but if it does no harm and someone finds it useful; all the scrutiny in the world is utterly meaningless and bereft of any real power or influence in the subjective context of that person.
Not true at all; the scientific method has resulted in very tangible improvements to subjective experiences. I like clean water, lower rates of child death, vaccinations, internet discussions about biology, etc.
What you're talking about is basically "fancy", or how one wants to colour their existence with imagination and fantastical narratives. I think an active internal life is a good thing. I don't care what goes on in people's minds, and they should be allowed absolute freedom in the confines of their own mind. But we run into problems when those fantasies start impinging on social policy, and education in particular. This elephant god we are groping around is too capricious to please each of its followers simultaneously, so I think its best that the elephant stay out of public policy until it decides to present itself in a more coherent manner. Sometimes your daughter has to be sacrificed for the good of the crops, sometimes you have to cut a bit of skin off your winky, sometimes you have to destroy everyone who won't be exactly the same as you and raze their temples and idols. I'm intrigued at what hint it is that you feel you are getting.
Oh, there was a nice bit in the Wikipedia page on "scientism" posted by cloudz. I think it is good to point out, for both those who have beliefs that rely on denying evidence, as well as those who would turn atheism into a new religion: "Susan Haack argues that the charge of "scientism" caricatures actual scientific endeavor. No single form of inference or procedure of inquiry used by scientists explains the success of science. Instead we find: the inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers a vast array of tools of inquiry, from observational instruments to mathematical techniques, as well as social mechanisms that encourage honesty. These tools are diverse and evolving, and many are domain-specific." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Yes, read it again. I said if they do no harm and are useful to people; these "good ideas". Do you really think that I wouldn't include all you listed amongst that. Well FYI of course I would include them, and it worries me how often you choose to go there. I mean did I say the scientific method didn't lead to improvements in peoples personal / subjective experience ? Of course I did not. Sorry if I confused you and hope this is clearer. I'm out seeing as we are into this kind of game now.
I'm trying to think of an alternative to these two positions: 1. You defy evidence and reason to believe in a god that cannot, in any reasonable balance of probability, exist. 2. You believe in a "god of the gaps", which is a very weak argument that can only become weaker. What other options are there?
Except that even placing some ideas beyond scrutiny is harmful as a whole. It's great that you think people should be allowed their fantasies, what you neglect is that ideas have effects on how people behave and how they interact. The point is the only way we got those is through universal scrutiny. How are you making your choices about what ideas should be subjected to scrutiny and which should not be? Religion is generally not simply "believing in something warm and fuzzy," but comes along with a host of cultural attitudes, stances, rituals, etc., etc. If you're willing to say "Well, we can dispense with all that and just concentrate on the warm fuzzies," all of a sudden you've become like me and think that it should just be a very odd and archaic hobby.
This is why we should steal the techniques and drop the dogma. Believe in a god when they are useful to you, then laugh them off as you move onto one that will now serve you better.
