Who’s the Atheist Apologist Now?

Ricky and Tim Minchin.

I don’t quite agree that “science” (it’s a little funny to talk about a method like its a person) never claimed anything about women. Slavery I have no idea, but it used to be considered respectable science to consider women emotionally weaker and less intelligent (something some people, even some atheists, haven’t grown out of). Homosexuality was likewise accepted as a pathology.

The problem is twofold. On the one hand science has an inherent strength absent in religion. Even when both can initially have mistaken views, science is a method designed to root out and eliminate false information. By its very nature it is a self-correcting methodology. Religion, as it takes its truth from a supernatural authority, has no such correction method.

The other flaw is this notion that since science gives statements about issues important to humans, it is responsible with what humans do with it on a moral level. Science answers “how” questions, not “should” questions. Of course, that doesn’t mean that bad science is merely a mistake with no consequence. Thousands of homosexuals submitted to electroshock “therapy” can bear witness to this. When scientific data is mistaken and people rely on it to make decisions, they aren’t making good decisions, which is why we have to make sure science stays as rigorous as possible.

@Claudia

“I don’t quite agree that “science” …never claimed anything about women. Slavery I have no idea, but it used to be considered respectable science to consider women emotionally weaker and less intelligent…”

How right you are.
Two perfect examples of scientists that pushed for the inferiority of women (and the non-white races)are Paul Broca and Gustave Le Bon of the late 1800’s.
They used data from cranial measurements to come to their conclusions…and they weren’t alone. Of course, there were other scientists at the time who were found fault with the data or its interpretation, but that doesn’t make the work of men like Broca and Le Bon any less real as science…it was just real crappy science, as it turns out.
Sources: The Panda’s Thumb (1980) & The Mismeasure of Man (1981) – Stephen Jay Gould

Science is open to revision. Science can go down blind alleys and hit dead ends. That’s all fine, it is part of the process to test hypotheses and reject those that fail. If the hypothesis is that women are emotionally weaker than men then this is testable (once phrased appropriately) and then subject to scrutiny and criticism. I think it is entirely valid to examine gender differences or regional differences and formulate hypotheses to explain these as long as they stand up to scrutiny. We must accept the findings of evidence whether we like them or not.

Scientific discoveries and conclusions are always susceptible to being demonstrated as wrong. Always. If science were ever to demonstrate that gods exist (I’ve no idea how this could be done) then these conclusions would and should be tested and revised as new evidence is discovered. In the same vein evolution is assuredly the most accurate theory of biological diversity ever discovered but if it were shown to be wrong then it would be rejected. That it has stood up to intense criticism for a century and a half is testament to how overwhelming the evidence is in support of it.

But, using the same argument, religion–even Catholicism–doesn’t condone the sexual abuse of children. Yes, there is a huge support structure in the Church that protected child abusers, but there is nothing in the Bible or Catholic doctrine that says clergy should be given sexual access to children.

Which is why we blame the Catholic Church for the institutionalized sexual abuse of children. Not religion, or Christianity, or even Catholicism.

They’re to blame for many other things, though, which are a fundamental part of their beliefs / holy books: the idea that unquestioning faith is a virtue, sexism, homophobia, opposition to science when it contradicts their dogma, and so on. But it’s important to distinguish between an organization and (a) religion.

The person that asked the original question really had balls and a very biased memory. Religious texts were used to justify all those things too. Take Judiasm and Christianity: The Israelites documented several genocides they performed in YHWH’s name to acquire the “Promised Land”, leaving the door open to commit heinous crimes if the voices in your head say to do so. Then there’s this whole Crusades debacle. Noah’s curse of his black son was used to justify slavery and Jim Crow in America. Paul disallowing women a voice in Church is a form of subjugation of women, there’s worse in the Torah.

@JD, not a biased memory at all. Note that the question says “Wasn’t [science] also used”. The question is actually trying to say that science has been used to justify the same things that we all know religion has justified.

Rob: even when science is wrong, it only claims the ability to tell us what is, not what we should do.

Say that, at a particular time, the scientific community claims that a particular group of people are, on average, a bit less intelligent than everyone else. Yes, they’ll be wrong, but you’ll also notice that nobody is saying how we should treat them. Or, if anyone does, it’s the speaker’s prejudices talking — and, yes, scientists can have prejudices, too. But while “group X is a bit less intelligent than the rest” can be (very bad, and very wrong) science, “therefore we should treat them as property” is not science at all. Even if that group was on average a bit less intelligent, it wouldn’t give anyone the moral right to treat them as less than equal human beings.

Same thing with eugenics: “we could positively affect the human race by disallowing certain people from reproducing” doesn’t imply we should, even if true.

Contrast this with religion, which does tell us how to keep slaves, that women are inferior and shouldn’t ever have authority over men, that gays should be put to death, that genocide is OK as long as “God” wills it, and so on.

Well, all the horses are taken, but he could have a donkey. Ricky Gervais, Assman of the Atheist Apocalypse. Has a ring to it.

I second the motion. Ricky Gervais is the 5th Horseman, and he shall come riding a “horse of a different color.”

Yes, while I loved RG’s reply, I have to concur with the others here that say atrocities have and, frankly still are, being committed in the name of science and, once again, we’re showing a biased double standard, letting science off the hook while attacking religion.

I’m not going to get into it too deep because, frankly, I suck at science so I don’t have the ability to get in too deep. But science does do things sometimes without ever asking if it should. Frankly — and this is my personal opinion — how do we justify fertility treatments and surrogate motherhood in an already grossly overpopulated world? Want a child that bad, adopt one. It’s purely an ego thing to insist it has to carry your genes. More self love than parental love. YMMV but it frankly sickens me.

And, man, if you don’t think a culture has been created wherein you aren’t allowed to reject a scientific offering, trying being an Atheist turning down a knee replacement that would only last 5-8 years (I know they generally last longer before anyone points that out; my weight’s a factor) anyway even in the face of recalls having happened. Frankly, even if it would last 15 – 20 years (supposedly, as I said recalls have happened, with hip replacements too), I’m not sure it’s worth the risk and I have an (admittedly emotional) aversion to have something planted inside my body where I can’t just take it off if it creates problems. I’d risk something like a pacemaker where death is the most likely alternative to not do so but I’m flat out not keen on it when I’m not going to die without it and there’s a risk, however slim, of death involved with getting it.

The same thing goes for surgery. If you want an eye-opener as to how much your body is your choice join me in wrangling with doctors that you’d rather be crippled than dead. They always pull out the stupid, stupid canard that living’s a risk. No shit, Sherlock. Doesn’t mean I’m upping the ante by doing things that put an added risk of death on me even as I don’t see them as necessary. Sure I could get plowed down by a truck on my way to the store but the store’s more a necessity than a knee implant.

And frankly I’m skeptical of your claim that the odds are about the same. I look both ways before I cross the street. You’re arguing with me using this analogy because I kind of did the same thing and researched before talking to you. For the analogy to be more accurate, the odds are the same if I skip along to the store without being careful to check traffic before stepping off the sidewalk. I’ve known to do that since I was 4.

Sorry that retarded analogy fucking drives me buggy.

So, in some senses, science can be as annoying as religion and also somewhat expects to be as revered. While I think it’s earned more reverence by far than religion has, c’mon, I still have the freaking right to question. Something the medical profession seems to think you need a medical degree to do. Grrr. Yes, the basic difference between science and religion — and I cheer it and it is why I respect science more — is that science invites testing over and over again but you can only really do that if you are good at science and if you choose differently than the scientists, you’re treated as ignorant.

It’s a personal choice. Other people would rather be dead than crippled, not me. But I do think we should stop and think where we’re going when science does some of the things it does. And I think someone like me should be more respected about the choices they make over their own bodies. Give me the pros and cons, doctor, of all the options (including doing nothing) and let me decide for myself.

Rob: even when science is wrong, it only claims the ability to tell us what is, not what we should do.

I disagree, Pedro. Ever try not following a doctor’s advice?

We posted simultaneously so you didn’t see my lengthy post above but science does try to tell us what we should do all the time. Not just medical science but sciences like ecology (which should).

It’s a natural and understandable outcome of having knowledge of how our world works to try and tell others how to live in line with that.

Yes, Science has been used to justify Slavery (less intelligent, smaller brain size, less developed)-using “scientific” methods that are now debunked. But science is developing and no true scientist believes he’s got the final answer.

@Donna, you are confusing medicine and science. I can see where you might because modern medicine relies on science very heavily. However it isn’t actually science itself. Science can broadly be defined as a method for the development of knowledge and the wide body of knowledge adquired through that method.

The man or woman who patiently explains your treatment to you, or the one who treats you like a slow child with no right to decide for yourself, is very unlikely to be a scientist. They are medical doctors. This isn’t to knock MDs, who have a very hard job indeed. When I screw up, I kill a bunch of bacteria. When they screw up, people die, so the balance is really different. However your treatment by doctors isn’t really a valid criticism of science itself.

However I don’t really think we can act as if science is a pure good with no responsibility for ill consequences. Imagine if mistaken science led to a consensus that homosexual men also have irrepresible sexual attraction to young children. No, scientists wouldn’t literally be calling gays monsters who need to be locked up or shot, but acting as if these pretty obvious consequences had no relationship to the science is ridiculous.

In fact this is why maintaining the strict standards of science, which include reproducibility and peer-review, is so vital. The more strictly the method is adhered to, the harder it is for personal bias to insinuate itself into the body of knowlesge and the better and faster mistakes are rooted out.

One major difference is that science can be wrong but when demonstrated to be wrong my more and verifiable evidence, science will adjust its statements to accommodate the new evidence. Religion, will continue to deny the evidence and demand “respect” when there is nothing worthy of respect.

Robert W.

Science without morality based upon something other then science is very dangerous.

Science is a process whereby we gain an understanding of reality by examining evidence and testing ideas to see if they work. What alternatives to evidence based thinking are better and more moral?

Hoverfrog,

Science is a process whereby we gain an understanding of reality by examining evidence and testing ideas to see if they work. What alternatives to evidence based thinking are better and more moral?

Maybe you misunderstood my point. We cannot rely solely upon morality to determine our morality. Moral decisions are not based upon science alone. They can’t be because science is not designed for that.

Even knowing how to judge what is morally right and wrong can’t come from science. How would you even know how to judge the evidence unless you had a standard by which to judge the results. Without an objective standard, even culturally based morality has nothing upon which to base its moral decisions.

Donna Hamel (muggle) wrote:

But science does do things sometimes without ever asking if it should. Frankly — and this is my personal opinion — how do we justify fertility treatments and surrogate motherhood in an already grossly overpopulated world?

But Donna, it isn’t science that ‘does’ those things, science has just made those things possible ~ it’s always people who make the decisions to do or not do them.

That’s a pretty important distinction, imo.

Oh stop it with the overpopulation argument. What you neglect is that that problem isn’t uniform. The birth rate in industrialized nations is in fact relatively low. The population in some western countries is almost stagnating or even declining.

Overpopulation is a huge problem in developing and emerging countries. But those people are popping out babies all the time the natural way. Medicine or science has nothing to do with it.