Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

[markdohle]

[danydandan]

" evolution makes little sense " ? that's because he is an idiot

" and is supported by little evidence" okay I think there is loads of evidence for ,

Who is this guy

he said he was a Mathematician were did he study?

I know a lot about maths , I studied at trinity college in Dublin I have a degree in engineering ( someone got me thinking of doing a masters thanks K ) . My word holds more weight than this tool.

this is the most bias thing I have ever watched

Edited February 27, 2012 by danydandan

[markdohle]

" evolution makes little sense " ? that's because he is an idiot

" and is supported by little evidence" okay I think there is loads of evidence for ,

Who is this guy

he said he was a Mathematician were did he study?

I know a lot about maths , I studied at trinity college in Dublin I have a degree in engineering . My word holds more weight than this tool.

this is the most bias thing I have ever watched

He is one of the great minds in mathematics, look him up. It is an interesting presentation.

[Landry]

This is my first post on this forum. I'm gratified to see to that someone has posted a video featuring David Berlinski. If I believed in omens I would take that as a good omen. Berlinski is brilliant.

[danydandan]

He is one of the great minds in mathematics, look him up. It is an interesting presentation.

warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives . that's great quote I read it him describing his feelings towards intelligent design . lol .

well he has a pH.d , sohis word carries more weight than mine .

but he wrong about evolution . especially animal evolution.

and i do not like differential tapology . I like differential geometry. Tapology is too vast if you know what I mean

woops I spelled topology wrong

Edited February 27, 2012 by danydandan

[aquatus1]

I'm not seeing anything too remarkably interesting in this presentation beyond what we see on a daily basis on this forum. He certainly is a great mind in mathematics, but being that he is not using mathematics to support any of his points, it is largely irrelevant. In fact, within the first five minutes he directly warns people about not giving a person who is an authority in one field any sort of unwarranted authority in an unrelated field.

In all honesty, it is little more than an opinion piece, albeit a well-presented one. His major complaint is that science is arrogant. Okay. I personally don't see it that way, and, like Mr. Berlinski, I could pick and choose public statements from scientist to support my position, but when all is said and done, it will still be nothing more than an opinion.

Neither his opinion nor mine is going to affect any scientific theory (no, not even evolutionary theory, which is inexplicably isolated from all other scientific theories despite meeting the exact same standards). A theory stands by its own merits, regardless (and often, in spite of) how many people dislike it. It is a truism that the final test of a theory is often that it outlives its detractors. That Mr. Berlinski believes evolution makes little sense and has little support is more a statement regarding his ignorance on the subject than anything about evolution itself.

I have not read his book, and only listened to the highlights presented in this review of the book, however I am not seeing any reason why his dislike of what he perceives to be the arrogant attitudes of the scientific community (even if it were not merely his opinion, and even if it were factually correct) should be given any weight over anyone else's opinion, let alone that of people who actually work in the field.

[Lion6969]

If the clergy don't dance to the atheist tune…they have no credibility?

[danydandan]

I'm not seeing anything too remarkably interesting in this presentation beyond what we see on a daily basis on this forum. He certainly is a great mind in mathematics, but being that he is not using mathematics to support any of his points, it is largely irrelevant. In fact, within the first five minutes he directly warns people about not giving a person who is an authority in one field any sort of unwarranted authority in an unrelated field.

In all honesty, it is little more than an opinion piece, albeit a well-presented one. His major complaint is that science is arrogant. Okay. I personally don't see it that way, and, like Mr. Berlinski, I could pick and choose public statements from scientist to support my position, but when all is said and done, it will still be nothing more than an opinion.

Neither his opinion nor mine is going to affect any scientific theory (no, not even evolutionary theory, which is inexplicably isolated from all other scientific theories despite meeting the exact same standards). A theory stands by its own merits, regardless (and often, in spite of) how many people dislike it. It is a truism that the final test of a theory is often that it outlives its detractors. That Mr. Berlinski believes evolution makes little sense and has little support is more a statement regarding his ignorance on the subject than anything about evolution itself.

I have not read his book, and only listened to the highlights presented in this review of the book, however I am not seeing any reason why his dislike of what he perceives to be the arrogant attitudes of the scientific community (even if it were not merely his opinion, and even if it were factually correct) should be given any weight over anyone else's opinion, let alone that of people who actually work in the field.

it seems its to show that all scientists are not believers in evolution , and therefore to those who cant understand evolution , that evolution must be wrong if a REAL LIFE SCIENTIST does not support it.

And lunatic religious nut jobs will eat this crap for breakfast .

Its also trying to show that intelligent design , or the creator theory has some credit if a man with a pH.d supports it

[aquatus1]

If the clergy don't dance to the atheist tune…they have no credibility?

Not sure what you mean (or even if you actually intend to have a reasonable discussion on the matter), but...yes and no.

Clergy, mathematicians, heck, even scientists, all of them, need to present scientific arguments in the correct scientific format in order to be considered, at a minimum, credible. It is similar to the way that anyone, grad student or doctorate, submitting a paper for review needs to meet APA standards. Simply put, the standards are there so that an impartial review of the article can be done quickly and efficiently, and everyone knows where the relevant information is. That is really nothing more than basic manners, when you get down to it; any culture is going to consider you a bit more credible if you take the time to learn their customs and practices.

But that is mostly social credibility. Basically, it gives people a reason to take you seriously instead of politely stepping back and looking to engage someone else in conversation. In terms of actual scientific influence, credibility and validity are powerful, powerful support for a given scientific theory. Now, don't confuse "credibility" with "authority". Authority is a social influence. Credibility is a logical influence. Clergy, in the strict sense of being clergy, do not have much authority or credibility in terms of scientific influence. Doctorates, be it in math, biology, or Religious Study, all have authority, but only have credibility in their specific fields (assuming they didn't do anything to mess it up).

So, could clergy produce a scientific theory? Of course. They would, however, have to make an extra effort to be socially credible (as they are already considered outsiders) by following the "etiquette" of the scientific community. And, of course, whatever they presented would have to meet all the standards of scientific methodology, but that is not singular to them. After all, every single theory in existence, past or present, must meet the prerequisites of scientific methodology prior to being considered scientific.

[Lion6969]

When I say clergy I refer to scientific experts, if they dance to the atheist tunes they are credible, if they don't, well you know what I mean.

Did you watch the video? If so it's not about scientific methodology it's about philosophy of science, how it's determined which theories to propagate, in this process those who dance to atheist tunes get a head. Not based on data, but rather based on philosophical and political reasons. He constructs and argument, you should deconstruct it.

When I say clergy I refer to scientific experts, if they dance to the atheist tunes they are credible, if they don't, well you know what I mean.

Did you watch the video? If so it's not about scientific methodology it's about philosophy of science, how it's determined which theories to propagate, in this process those who dance to atheist tunes get a head. Not based on data, but rather based on philosophical and political reasons. He constructs and argument, you should deconstruct it and present and construct your argument against it.

[Lion6969]

it seems its to show that all scientists are not believers in evolution , and therefore to those who cant understand evolution , that evolution must be wrong if a REAL LIFE SCIENTIST does not support it.

And lunatic religious nut jobs will eat this crap for breakfast .

Its also trying to show that intelligent design , or the creator theory has some credit if a man with a pH.d supports it

What the video boils down evolution to is an atheist creation myth. I liked that phrase, but in saying so he gave his reasons why.

[Cybele]

Hah, well, I was with him when he said that scientists are no authorities on philosophy or theology. So, while they may be experts in their particular fields, their atheism is a personal opinion which reflects a lack of faith, rather than certainty and authority resulting from knowledge.

However, the author being interviewed then turns around and proves himself a hypocrite by saying that evolution makes little sense, even though he himself is not speaking from an authoritative, or perhaps even sufficiently-informed position. He is a mathematician, philosopher, and author, not a biologist.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Cybele

[Cybele]

What the video boils down evolution to is an atheist creation myth. I liked that phrase, but in saying so he gave his reasons why.

I saw a very casual and insufficiently explained dismissal of evolution. I hope that the discussion of the subject in his book is a lot more thorough and a little less embarrassing.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Cybele

[aquatus1]

When I say clergy I refer to scientific experts, if they dance to the atheist tunes they are credible, if they don't, well you know what I mean.

I see...

Basically, you are just trying to get a sly dig in at the scientist, right? Implying that scientists and clergy are both one and the same, which, by extension would indicate that the clerical study of religious history, behaviour, and tradition should be considered the logical equivalent of scientific methodology and formal presentation for critical review, which would, of course, imply that both scientists and clergy are not really thinkers so much as dancers on a stage, being commanded to and fro by...atheists...

Guess I don't really see it. Does sound like you are just randomly sniping at everyone involved, though.

Did you watch the video? If so it's not about scientific methodology it's about philosophy of science, how it's determined which theories to propagate, in this process those who dance to atheist tunes get a head. Not based on data, but rather based on philosophical and political reasons. He constructs and argument, you should deconstruct it.

I did. I pointed out that I believe his foundational argument is flawed. I also pointed out a certain hypocrisy in his first five minutes of the presentation. And I noted how his primary means of supporting his argument is with individual examples, and how I could do the same with a similarly constructed opinion piece.

I even addressed the part where, even if he was correct in regards to his claims, it still would not affect the validation of theories regardless.

What did you do?

When I say clergy I refer to scientific experts, if they dance to the atheist tunes they are credible, if they don't, well you know what I mean.

Did you watch the video? If so it's not about scientific methodology it's about philosophy of science, how it's determined which theories to propagate, in this process those who dance to atheist tunes get a head. Not based on data, but rather based on philosophical and political reasons. He constructs and argument, you should deconstruct it and present and construct your argument against it.

[Rlyeh]

This is my first post on this forum. I'm gratified to see to that someone has posted a video featuring David Berlinski. If I believed in omens I would take that as a good omen. Berlinski is brilliant.

Not that brilliant if he's fooled by Discovery Institute's pseudoscience.

[Rlyeh]

When I say clergy I refer to scientific experts, if they dance to the atheist tunes they are credible, if they don't, well you know what I mean.

We know what you mean, you're just wrong. This isn't about atheism, it's about science and scientific criteria.

[Leonardo]

What the video boils down evolution to is an atheist creation myth. I liked that phrase, but in saying so he gave his reasons why.

While atheists might agree with, and even promote, evolution, the Theory of Evolution is a body of secular work and has nothing to do with atheism.

Berlinski might castigate athiests for their pretensions to hold their beliefs as 'scientifically sound', but he does not castigate science for being 'an atheist philosophy'.

[markdohle]

This is my first post on this forum. I'm gratified to see to that someone has posted a video featuring David Berlinski. If I believed in omens I would take that as a good omen. Berlinski is brilliant.

He is. I don't post to convince anyone, that is impopssible, but he seems sane and centered.

Peace

mark

[Lion6969]

Hah, well, I was with him when he said that scientists are no authorities on philosophy or theology. So, while they may be experts in their particular fields, their atheism is a personal opinion which reflects a lack of faith, rather than certainty and authority resulting from knowledge.

However, the author being interviewed then turns around and proves himself a hypocrite by saying that evolution makes little sense, even though he himself is not speaking from an authoritative, or perhaps even sufficiently-informed position. He is a mathematician, philosopher, and author, not a biologist.

So in order to crticise evolution one has to be a qualified, certified, authority in the field. Lol. I think part of his argument was the fact that any criticism of evolution is ridiculed not based on substance but dogmatic atheistic policies by clergy (sciences PR machine).

Secondly, his criticism of evolution not solely based on biological data, but philosophical, historical, observational and logical. Basically his all point which you all seem to miss is that science is not a sole standard of knowledge to understand the world and universe, that it is finely combed through philosophical arguments related to empirical data and it's relationship to reality.

If we went by your logic then people Dawkins and Hawkins have no credibility when they talk about god, because their are not experts or authorities in philosophy, theism, scripture, and other scientific fields which they have no expertise in. They are only good in their own fields and thus anything said outside of their field should be rejected, what do you think?

[Lion6969]

I saw a very casual and insufficiently explained dismissal of evolution. I hope that the discussion of the subject in his book is a lot more thorough and a little less embarrassing.

I think my first reply dealt with this, but read his works as well as others and make your own mind up.

[Lion6969]

I saw a very casual and insufficiently explained dismissal of evolution. I hope that the discussion of the subject in his book is a lot more thorough and a little less embarrassing.

I think my first reply dealt with this, but read his works as well as others and make your own mind up.

[Lion6969]

I see...

Basically, you are just trying to get a sly dig in at the scientist, right?

No!

Implying that scientists and clergy are both one and the same, which, by extension would indicate that the clerical study of religious history, behaviour, and tradition should be considered the logical equivalent of scientific methodology and formal presentation for critical review,

which would, of course, imply that both scientists and clergy are not really thinkers so much as dancers on a stage, being commanded to and fro by...atheists...

Neither really. I made it quite clear how you obviously did not understand the video or his argument which for the most part was in regards to philosophy of science and propagation of scientific thought, ie, how we all take scientists words as gospel, claim authority by quoting one over the other, while the average Joe ie you and I don't realise the pretensions and the philosophical premises behind them. Hence the scientific experts for atheists are no different to the clergy for most theists

Guess I don't really see it. Does sound like you are just randomly sniping at everyone involved, though.

Sniping....no. Clarifying what people seem to misunderstood about his argument which is largely philosophical and not related to scientific methodology.

I did. I pointed out that I believe his foundational argument is flawed. I also pointed out a certain hypocrisy in his first five minutes of the presentation. And I noted how his primary means of supporting his argument is with individual examples, and how I could do the same with a similarly constructed opinion piece.

Individual examples used were relevant to the topics discussed and they were leading experts quoted not from position of authority but to illustrate a variations of views among leading experts. You claim his foundational argument was flawed.....no offence but I don't think you even understood it or watched it entirely.

I even addressed the part where, even if he was correct in regards to his claims, it still would not affect the validation of theories regardless.

Really.....how?

Ps. What do you want me to do, I agreed with most of what he said.

[psyche101]

Hrmmzz, he might know maths, but it seems little else, he hardly seems qualified to comment on the subject at all, and as Aquatus1 pointed out, the first 5 minutes is rather hypocritical. Especially so considering:

Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute—a religious think tank that sponsors his work and promotes intelligent design—Berlinski refuses to theorize about the origin of life.

And while he has attacked evolutionary theory over and over again, by his own pen and through his tutelage of Ann Coulter, he's always quick to point out that he has no particular agenda beyond skepticism.

The scientists speak of incontrovertible fact, but Berlinski wants to show otherwise; he subjects scientific belief to his own rigorous investigation and finds it riddled with uncertainty. Like the theorists of intelligent design, he sees little in the fossil record that would account for sudden leaps in biological complexity. He considers the evidence for the Big Bang and learns nothing about the origins of the universe. In short, he assesses the evidence for the death of God and reports back with reasonable doubt.

LINK

[Landry]

Not that brilliant if he's fooled by Discovery Institute's pseudoscience.

Fact and logic can stand on it's own. What's interesting is that when he points out weaknesses in the current dominant Materialistic paradigm some people become emotionally involved very quickly. If he were just another religious crank I doubt that he'd cause a ripple.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Landry

[Lion6969]

Hrmmzz, he might know maths, but it seems little else, he hardly seems qualified to comment on the subject at all, and as Aquatus1 pointed out, the first 5 minutes is rather hypocritical. Especially so considering:

LINK

So who qualifies to talk about it?

What about atheist think tanks funding atheist clergy to produce literature promoting their own philosophy.

Berlinski has not offered an alternative to origin of life, does this mean until one offers an alternative one cannot criticise or analyse?