"Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Quote:
Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists
The question we have addressed is, “Thinking as good scientists and observing the world in which we live, is it more reasonable to conclude that a materialist or theist picture is most likely to ultimately provide a comprehensive description of the universe?” Although I don’t imagine I have changed many people’s minds, I do hope that my reasoning has been clear. We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description. In the various ways in which God might have been judged to be a helpful hypothesis–such as explaining the initial conditions for the universe, or the particular set of fields and couplings discovered by particle physics–there are alternative explanations which do not require anything outside a completely formal, materialist description.
Come to think of it, is there any scientific field in which most practitioners are not atheists?
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calypze
Come to think of it, is there any scientific field in which most practitioners are not atheists?
Is this an assumption backed by any study or just something taken as granted?
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calypze
Come to think of it, is there any scientific field in which most practitioners are not atheists?
I dunno if "most" practitioners are atheists or not, what I can think of is that it has to do with how religions are "narrated": in a few words, they have an old fashioned narrative. You cannot structure it as a fairy tale and think that modern* scientists (and in general people who has an allure in science without being a practitioner, such as myself) will not discard it as such. Religions need to update to modern times, admit that the old narrative was an attempt to give an answer to common questions which are now answered by science and invest more time and efforts in teaching morals, which is what religions are meant for in any case.. or die in the attempt, so to say.
*modern is actually a deceiving term: the trend has started since 17th century with the Enlightenment, with some occasional backlashes such as during the Restoration.... quite certainly the Astronomy is the real game changer here, the knowledge that the Earth is just one planet on a Solar system, among other 200 billions "similar" systems in our Galaxy, within trillions of Galaxies in the Universe, totally crushed the idea of the centrality of humanity, which is the base of almost any religion.
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Mostly its social sciences that are chock full of atheists. Pretty sure most scientists are too smart to be atheists.
The study doesn't cite "most cosmologists". It posits Occam's Razor as a definitively scientific test for theism vs materialism: this doesn't seem falsifiable, so I'd say its not that scientific at all.
Science doesn't have much to say about the existence of God/s per se, although it debunks a lot of fundamentalist nonsense.
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Discussing the existence or non-existence of a god is actually in itself of very little consequence in itself. It only becomes contentious when people claim they have knowledge of a god that does not come from reproducible observations but from divine revelations. That's where the actual friction is.
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Phier
Thx for the data.
If the "neither" category is hard atheism its much higher than I expected.
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Well a Universal Spirit or a Higher Power (powerful enough so that he has a spirit that influences billions of galaxies; basically the whole cosmos) is still belief in some kind of Divinity/God out there. It literally opens the door for all kinds of metaphysics.
A true atheist position would be that only matter exists, no force in the universe and beyond can be anything other than the material or the palpable.
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Seems to me fkizz you are trying to put words in the mouths of non-theists. Rejection of the concept of God or “a higher power” does not equate to “nothing but the palpable exists”. The unknown is simply unknown. In my view it is religion that attempts the reduce the scope of existence by ascribing the unknown to a deity or at least some sort of spiritual agency.
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chriscase
Seems to me fkizz you are trying to put words in the mouths of non-theists. Rejection of the concept of God or “a higher power” does not equate to “nothing but the palpable exists”....
Well I agree with you both that the categories are unclear. Is "God" not the same as "a god"? What about gods? Devas, angels, demons, bodhisattvas, arhants etc? Materialism doesn't always directly equate to atheism (although in practice they tend to equate), and I think some theists call other theists who believe in the wrong god atheists on the basis "other gods are fake".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chriscase
.... The unknown is simply unknown. In my view it is religion that attempts the reduce the scope of existence by ascribing the unknown to a deity or at least some sort of spiritual agency.
Indeed. Systems of thought like science, philosophy, reason and religious belief are in my view human creations and subject to our failings, science has a decent method but like religion and philosophy has been used to dress up some silly ideas as Truth. They all seem to need some assumptions as a basis and my wee monkey brain can't find a solid piece of ground to base any of them on.
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cyclops
Well I agree with you both that the categories are unclear. Is "God" not the same as "a god"? What about gods? Devas, angels, demons, bodhisattvas, arhants etc? Materialism doesn't always directly equate to atheism (although in practice they tend to equate), and I think some theists call other theists who believe in the wrong god atheists on the basis "other gods are fake".
You're correct. Following such contrarian logic, technically Poseidon wouldn't be a god (or God) because "merely" influencing the seas is not "omnipotent". Technically Zeus wouldn't be a god/God either. Same for Shiva. And Krishna. List goes on. Those are all deemed to be Gods/gods.
Polytheism is more relaxed on what is a God or not.
Or Sumerian Gods, Enlil, God of the Wind. It's God of the Wind in just one Planet, how come a "Huge Spiritual Force Somehow Influences The Whole Universe" is less Godly than the Sumerian God of Wind? Or Godess of Fertility, Ninhursag?
So those who prayed, did rituals and worshiped to Sumerian Gods were atheists?
Let's be honest.
Following the Abrahamic Monotheistic definition of "God" as the Exclusive Only One (doesn't even make sense for an atheist to do that but ok) none of those mentioned are Gods, sure. But then it's ironically implying the only Real Religion where true God worship can be found is the Abrahamic one mentioned in the Bible.
Didn't expect following an Atheist logic to defend this conclusion but well, not complaining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cyclops
Indeed. Systems of thought like science, philosophy, reason and religious belief are in my view human creations and subject to our failings, science has a decent method but like religion and philosophy has been used to dress up some silly ideas as Truth. They all seem to need some assumptions as a basis and my wee monkey brain can't find a solid piece of ground to base any of them on.
Even assuming Science as the 100% fountain of Truth, there is a huge issue. For most people, Science is only "Truth" while it provides them with the conclusions they like. The moment it provides based on scientific/biological grounds something that can be sociological controversial, or something against a political policy/ideology it becames some very negative "-ism".
Interesting how this dynamic of "controversial scientific finding gets scientist in personal trouble" keeps repeating itself despite church/clergy being out of the equation.
Darwinian issue is more of a problem to modern liberal societies than to religions to be fair. The logical implications of Darwinism are an Elephant in the Room to modern society and much of its conclusions deemed as not "acceptable for the public" enough. It was used to beat religion, but now that religion is out of the picture, not answering how Darwinism logical endgame conclusions should fit and be inserted into modern liberal democracies is rejecting Biology and Science.
Big Bang theory was created by a Catholic Priest, so they're covered enough on Darwinism whatever concludes.
This isn't the XIX century clergy dynamics anymore, Darwinism is the Elephant in the room is ignored by modern ideologies and institutions who claim to follow "science".
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Quote:
Darwinian issue is more of a problem to modern liberal societies than to religions to be fair. The logical implications of Darwinism are an Elephant in the Room to modern society and much of its conclusions deemed as not "acceptable for the public" enough. It was used to beat religion, but now that religion is out of the picture, not answering how Darwinism logical endgame conclusions should fit and be inserted into modern liberal democracies is rejecting Biology and Science.
Big Bang theory was created by a Catholic Priest, so they're covered enough on Darwinism whatever concludes.
This isn't the XIX century clergy dynamics anymore, Darwinism is the Elephant in the room is ignored by modern ideologies and institutions who claim to follow "science".
Could you restate that since I really got no ideal what you are trying to say
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fkizz
This isn't the XIX century clergy dynamics anymore, Darwinism is the Elephant in the room is ignored by modern ideologies and institutions who claim to follow "science".
As Conon said, I think that requires some explanation, especially in the context of a thread about atheism among cosmologists.
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
conon394
Could you restate that since I really got no ideal what you are trying to say
Well, in XIX century everyone was having a laugh at Darwinism wrecking the social fabric of the time, the remnants of the Church and Religion.
Now we're in an age were more or less God is Dead, but Darwinism isn't.
And Darwinism disruptive activity continues, but this time it has potential to wreck modern secular humanism and this issue is "solved" by giving it the silent treatment.
For example, 1) would it be better a state welfare system where all citizens are taken care of to produce a more cooperative/better quality of life society?
2) Or a more competitive one would be the one who produces the most skilled human talent pool, albeit at the cost of not allocating resources to the most fragile?
Which is the right answer?
One is more Darwinistic, may promote more the top skilled individuals but doesn't produce as much as a cooperation type of society as choice 1) that is a more european democracy welfare state post-FDR.
Plus there's also a lot of modern ideologies that rely on human beings being inherently equal or more or less equal, and well, to not be misunderstood, even in genetic twins all sorts of different developments happen, and DNA is a biological thing, so even identical biological twins end up as very different people, mainly when raised separate, no other card at play here.
But Darwnism relies on Species not being equal and ones with a small characteristic having advantage and surviving environmental pressures or outbreeding the other. Otherwise Evolution can't possibly happen. (any grasp at Origin of Species will make this self evident)
So do we go against such pressures and try to create a welfare state where people live in harmony and cooperation, and inclusiveness but where we are potentially ignoring Evolution (I don't know about this one, it's mostly Seculars mostly pushing for Evolution survival of the fittest awareness thing, not the Theist types) or do we go for societies with more unforgiving competition but where only the best humans are allowed top places?
This is just one (political) example that I picked up from the cliché Welfare State vs Small Government State (pre and post FDR) debates.
You can find this type of darwinism related dillemas being discussed in all kinds of modern ideological movements, they just make it a taboo to name Darwin, because nowadays Science is to be taken seriously if it's to attack Clergy, but ignored otherwise, it seems.
It's legit Science until it questions at a deep level my suposedly modern beliefs/ideology. Then only handpicked "science" is accepted as a cope.
Kinda like in old times passages in the scripture that were not in favour a person were ignored, and the ones in favour promoted. Same dynamic/behaviour, different skins for the mod, different theories, same old game. Nothing new under the Sun.
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
@fkizz, a society that accelerates darwinistic evolution at the species level along dimensions of 'success' of its own definition (e.g. being rich, or being famous) would have to be one where mating rights are distributed depending on these measures of success.
Until such a society comes about (personally I hope never), darwinism will happily disregard whatever we may think of as being "successful" and just go with whoever produces the most offspring for whatever reason.
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
So err fkizz you seem to be confusion Social Darwinism (a psudo science) with the actual science that is the fusion Mendelian Genetics and Darwin's model of evolution via natural selection. That currently goes by Neo Darwinism or more typically The Modern Synthesis. Yes the latter is boring but it works since it can comfortably add in Epigenetics and facts like virus moving whole chunks of DNA around between species.
In any case the latter actual science has nothing to do with proposed questions 1 or 2, or social fabric, or you car parking question.
Quote:
But Darwnism relies on Species not being equal and ones with a small characteristic having advantage and surviving environmental pressures or outbreeding the other. Otherwise Evolution can't possibly happen. (any grasp at Origin of Species will make this self evident)
For actual evolution its probably better to think in terms of survival of the good enough under the current environmental pressures. Once you consider it that why you can stop trying to inject 'survival of the fittest' into social constructs that are not based on genetic evolution.
"Full efficiency (ruthless competitive) would allow you to just park your car. A more welfare state minded one (Equity) would emphazise the need that you can't occupy such places."
You are putting a lot assumption into full efficiently. Compare for example the non handicapped driver in question is a teen age burger flipper of average intelligence but otherwise healthy - he or she would fit enough for a farther walk but the disabled spot user is a still alert grandmother who is providing unpaid child care for her grandchildren. Getting her directly into a store in the winter and not falling on a long walk to the door is good since she could go from a net benefit to society to a hospitalized women with a broken hip and in need of long term care.
Societies do not evolve via the mechanism of genetics and genetic mutation
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Muizer
@fkizz, a society that accelerates darwinistic evolution at the species level along dimensions of 'success' of its own definition (e.g. being rich, or being famous) would have to be one where mating rights are distributed depending on these measures of success.
Until such a society comes about (personally I hope never), darwinism will happily disregard whatever we may think of as being "successful" and just go with whoever produces the most offspring for whatever reason.
Well, a valid respectable response, I don't have much to add or refute as it is fairly agreeable I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
conon394
So err fkizz you seem to be confusion Social Darwinism (a psudo science) with the actual science that is the fusion Mendelian Genetics and Darwin's model of evolution via natural selection. That currently goes by Neo Darwinism or more typically The Modern Synthesis. Yes the latter is boring but it works since it can comfortably add in Epigenetics and facts like virus moving whole chunks of DNA around between species.
In any case the latter actual science has nothing to do with proposed questions 1 or 2, or social fabric, or you car parking question.
I never mentioned Social Darwinism, for it is a doomed concept from the start, so you misunderstood. Social Darwinism (was) just one of the many possible offshots of Darwinism implications on society. Depends on how people interpret it.
So if you think I went for Social Darwinism we're not on the same page of the book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
conon394
For actual evolution its probably better to think in terms of survival of the good enough under the current environmental pressures. Once you consider it that why you can stop trying to inject 'survival of the fittest' into social constructs that are not based on genetic evolution.
True, agreed. But not everyone has patience to learn biology or watch related documentaries and easily fall prey for the "survival of the fittest" cacophony propaganda, even if it isn't the point.
Putting it in another way, it's a different way of saying "Might makes Right".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
conon394
"Full efficiency (ruthless competitive) would allow you to just park your car. A more welfare state minded one (Equity) would emphazise the need that you can't occupy such places."
You are putting a lot assumption into full efficiently. Compare for example the non handicapped driver in question is a teen age burger flipper of average intelligence but otherwise healthy - he or she would fit enough for a farther walk but the disabled spot user is a still alert grandmother who is providing unpaid child care for her grandchildren. Getting her directly into a store in the winter and not falling on a long walk to the door is good since she could go from a net benefit to society to a hospitalized women with a broken hip and in need of long term care.
Well yes I don't actually disagree with you for this are open questions without a full definitive answer.
Societies that disresgard efficienty to just go for welfare (equity) have less budget left to defend their interest in an international level, and competition isn't always ruthless.
Societies that fully go for Equity often due to lack of Efficiency end up ironically not having material and financial resources to protect the weakest, borderline bankrupt, regardless of intentions. So they get worst of both worlds , and get neither equity nor efficiency. Many such cases. So efficiency is a very needed thing, yes.
I used the word "ruthless" to mostly to add contrast/pivot point given fellas were saying they didn't understand what I was saying.
So I'm not against Efficiency by any means, was just putting the fact that efficiency and equity is a tradeoff, and not easy to manage equilibrium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
conon394
Societies do not evolve via the mechanism of genetics and genetic mutation
Yes I've noticed, reading History it's always noticeable how people behaved 6000 years ago (Let's go to Sumeria) are similiar to us in emotions/impulses, just a different context/technology in formative years when growing up.
However, with our knowledge of human DNA and possible editing of DNA with therapies that initially to eradicate certain things that increase likelyhood of a certain disease and so on, what guarantee do we have in the future we won't grab our DNA by our own hands, therefore being in a completly new and dangerous position?
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calypze
Come to think of it, is there any scientific field in which most practitioners are not atheists?
My take on that is that they are officially atheists.
Because, however, they have come to draw a sense of identity from their capacity as scientists they feel compelled to only don the "cloth of the scientist" in all of their public appearances.
They have to act the part in order to reinforce a stereotype that serves their need to get more grants for more research.
In science, what you "believe" is irrelevant.
What matters in science is only what you can demonstrate in the most compelling manner.
The idea being, that even the detractors of your theories should be left with no other choice but to acknowledge them as valid, until your theories become the dominant ones.
Consequently, when they speak in public, most of them feel compelled to embrace and air the "official party position".
There are exceptions, as one would expect.
Ultimately, we can know when a scientist is a "believer" when they admit it in public.
In contrast, we cannot know for sure that they are atheists when they make that claim just because they claimed it.
It's not that they are lying, it's more like they are being "official".
They kind off have to be at times.
There is the example of the archaeologists that discovered the ruins of a settlement whose location matched the predictions for the locations of Sodom and Gomorrah.
They discovered that the ancient settlement was destroyed by sudden exposure to temperatures similar to such that would be raised by a nuclear exposure.
But until they had uncovered undisputed evidence for a meteorite airburst, they would not come out and say "fire and brimstone".
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
Quote:
There is the example of the archaeologists that discovered the ruins of a settlement whose location matched the predictions for the locations of Sodom and Gomorrah.They discovered that the ancient settlement was destroyed by sudden exposure to temperatures similar to such that would be raised by a nuclear exposure.
But until they had uncovered undisputed evidence for a meteorite airburst, they would not come out and say "fire and brimstone".
You umm did not actually the article because you are twisting it conclusions. It more concluding that destruction of TeH was completely natural event comparable to the Tunguska-class airburst. The authors do speculate it could well have left a basis for the Bible story but notable they firly link the effective simultaneous destruction at Jericho (20 or so miles away) to the same event - which of course makes the Bible story a purposeful crafting of of a garbled memory of a bast natural disaster.
In particular
Quote:
But until they had uncovered undisputed evidence for a meteorite airburst, they would not come out and say "fire and brimstone".
They don't
As to you first part I baffled. I married to agenescist, my closest friend is one. I worked in Biotech and University labs for some 20 years or more now and thus lot have known of biologists, genetics bio engineers, chemists and chemical engineers - you get the point and I can think of any of them who even felt compelled to pretend to an atheist or agnostic or hide there faith
Re: "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists"
I don't understand what you disagree about.
Perhaps scientists who are of some creed do not feel the need to fake atheism.
My point is that when you make your living as a scientist then it is in your best interest to reinforce the image that would get people to trust you with research grants.
Which would mean that whenever they appear in public they, more often than not, downplay the existence of a creed in them as it is not what they want people to remember them for.
Also, I think we should not underestimate the possibility that we got the original question backwards:
Maybe it is the people that are temperamentally inclined to atheism that are also temperamentally inclined to choosing cosmology as their field of study.
