Print
Onward Science Soldiers
by Victor Stenger, Skeptical Inquirer
Thanks to Ivan Valdivia for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/Onward.pdf
Victor J. Stenger
In a poll taken in 1998, only 7 percent of the members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the elite of American scientists, said they believed in a personal God (Larson and Witham 1998). While the percentage is undoubtedly greater in the U.S. scientific community as a whole, it is probably safe to say that the majority of American scientists are nonbelievers, in marked contrast to the general public.
Nevertheless, most scientists seem to prefer as a practical matter that science should stay clear of religious issues. This is a good strategy for those who wish to avoid conflicts between science and religion, which might lead to less public acceptance of science and that most dreaded of all consequences— lower funding. However, religions make assertions about the natural world, and these have no special immunity from being examined under the cold light of critical analysis. Scientists are abdicating their responsibilities when they avoid applying their expertise to evaluate religious claims that can be tested against empirical facts, especially when religious thinking is used to override science in the making of public policy.
Click here to continue (PDF):
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/Onward.pdf
Reposted from:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/Onward.pdf
Victor J. Stenger
In a poll taken in 1998, only 7 percent of the members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the elite of American scientists, said they believed in a personal God (Larson and Witham 1998). While the percentage is undoubtedly greater in the U.S. scientific community as a whole, it is probably safe to say that the majority of American scientists are nonbelievers, in marked contrast to the general public.
Nevertheless, most scientists seem to prefer as a practical matter that science should stay clear of religious issues. This is a good strategy for those who wish to avoid conflicts between science and religion, which might lead to less public acceptance of science and that most dreaded of all consequences— lower funding. However, religions make assertions about the natural world, and these have no special immunity from being examined under the cold light of critical analysis. Scientists are abdicating their responsibilities when they avoid applying their expertise to evaluate religious claims that can be tested against empirical facts, especially when religious thinking is used to override science in the making of public policy.
Click here to continue (PDF):
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/Onward.pdf
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 17 of 17 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #87854 by Monosilabbiq on November 13, 2007 at 11:50 am
This is the sadest article I have read on this site. I wish the article had explained what the role of the Bush appointee was on the NASA board.I can just imagine the howls of laughter ringing around the office when the e-mail arrived - followed by a deathly silence that it had actually been written in earnest by someone in a position of power.
Other Comments by Monosilabbiq
3. Comment #87861 by liberalartist on November 13, 2007 at 12:07 pm
I have read Victor Strenger's book "God:The Failed Hypothesis. How Science
Shows that God Does Not Exist" and I recommend it to anyone who hasn't had the pleasure. Its a lot of science but I was able to keep up with most of it. :)
The Bush administration has done a lot of damage to public policy and our poor "wall" is crumbling. I just have to hope the next president can fix it. January, 2009 cannot get here soon enough!
Other Comments by liberalartist
4. Comment #87875 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 13, 2007 at 1:00 pm
The Bush administration has done a lot of damage to public policy and our poor "wall" is crumbling. I just have to hope the next president can fix it. January, 2009 cannot get here soon enough! It is intolerable how the entire world is basically marking time, in limbo, looking to the day that the reeking excrement that is the Republican "president" George Walker Bush, be finally scraped from the heel of history.
With luck we may see himself and Rummy in the Hague within a decade. Now that would be worth waiting for:-)
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
5. Comment #87877 by leodavinci on November 13, 2007 at 1:07 pm
briancoughlanworldcitizen -With luck we may see himself and Rummy in the Hague within a decade. Now that would be worth waiting for:-).
I'd rather see them tried in Iraq in similar circumstances to Saddam ;)
Other Comments by leodavinci
6. Comment #87884 by sane1 on November 13, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I downloaded from a post somewhere on this site an excellent extended interview with Stenger. Stenger is truly a great contributor to the conversation.EDIT: found it: http://media.libsyn.com/media/infidelguy/02-28-2007_Vic_Stenger-God_The_Failed_Hypothesis.mp3
Other Comments by sane1
7. Comment #87907 by D'Arcy on November 13, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Nevertheless, most scientists seem to prefer as a practical matter that science should stay clear of religious issues.
Presumably most scientists are too sensible to bother with the complications that religion is unparalled in offering.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
8. Comment #87908 by steveroot on November 13, 2007 at 3:33 pm
"Onward, Science Soldiers"..."Onward, Christian Teachers?"...
What next...
"Onward, Christian Scientists"?
Roll over, Mary Baker Eddy!
Steve :-)
Other Comments by steveroot
9. Comment #87968 by windweaver on November 13, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Victor Stenger is one of my heroes. I've read all his books and love the way he sticks it to theists and New Agers. You'll often hear theists pose the question "Well Mr Atheist, how do explain why there is something rather than nothing?Surely God had to start the whole thing off?(or words to that effect). Stenger has an excellent riposte to this age old question:http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html
Other Comments by windweaver
10. Comment #87969 by RickM on November 13, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Sane1,Thanks for the mp3; got to get Stenger's book.
Other Comments by RickM
11. Comment #88015 by USA_Limey on November 14, 2007 at 6:37 am
Comment #87875 by briancoughlanworldcitizen It is intolerable how the entire world is basically marking time, in limbo, looking to the day that the reeking excrement that is the Republican "president" George Walker Bush, be finally scraped from the heel of history.
Brian, stop equivocating and tell us how you really feel about the Bush administration.
On a more serious point; don't be so sure you will be rid of him in 2009.
If New York disappears in a mushroom cloud sometime next year he'll do an FDR and be a third term president before you can say, 'internment camps for muslims'
Have a nice day!
Other Comments by USA_Limey
12. Comment #88028 by annabanana on November 14, 2007 at 7:32 am
The Bush administration has done a lot of damage to public policy and our poor "wall" is crumbling. I just have to hope the next president can fix it. January, 2009 cannot get here soon enough!
RAmen! liberalartist!
Although, I have often worried about the point that USA_Limey has brought up. I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to pull a stunt like that and make himself emperor of the world or something. Hopefully no one would stand for it the way they stood for him fudging the election in 2000.
There are already polls among historians that rate G.W. as the worst president in American history and he isn't even out of office yet. His only rivals for that is the guy who was in office when the civil war started (James Buchanan) and the guy who was in office during the Great Depression (Warren G. Harding). Now that's an accomplishment!
Other Comments by annabanana
13. Comment #88076 by arogop on November 14, 2007 at 2:00 pm
anabanana-What polls? I would question any poll that makes that kind of claim.
This crap about him staying on a third term is not very realistic is it. Try reading our constitution sometime. Don't just read the parts you like. Some will associate you with the (gasp) Christians.
REPUBLICAN and ATHEIST.
Andrew
Other Comments by arogop
14. Comment #88098 by EvolvedDNA on November 14, 2007 at 4:54 pm
It is interesting to note that Christians use the White House to do their bidding. I would think they would prefer to use the " power of prayer" to get God to intervene in the research projects (stem cell etc) and affect the outcome. Surely god could change the chemistry to make the research useless. It seems to me that these christians don't believe in either the power of prayer, or the power of god.Other Comments by EvolvedDNA
15. Comment #88134 by BT Murtagh on November 14, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I couldn't find any polls where historians specifically rated GW Bush the worst President. In a quick search I did find an informal poll of historians where the vast majority of them rated him a 'failure': http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html
Historians vs George W. Bush
At least some historians, as well as much of the general public, are of that opinion:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history
The Worst President in History?
Among the general public, he's got the title as of now:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/06/poll_gw_bush_wo.html
Poll: G.W. Bush 'worst' president since WWII; Reagan 'best'
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2007/02/20/
D'Oh! Bush Way Worse Than Nixon
Of course you can't tell about the long term views by what people think at the time. (I doubt Reagan's going to keep that title!) I personally doubt that he's going to be looked back upon with great favor by history though.
Sorry about the bare links, but I can't get normal formatting to work from comments.
Other Comments by BT Murtagh
16. Comment #88166 by scooternyc on November 15, 2007 at 2:49 am
I had the honor of meeting Mr. Stenger last weekend in NY at the CFI conference; I wish they had given him his own time slot to speak by himself. So much of what his recent book is about is so important. While certainly the Republican party has hijacked it with religion, no one should be under the impression that Democrats are not in bed with this same problem.
Even Alan Dershowitz made the comment in his presentation that "both parties are pushing this agenda", they can't wait to get up there and start witnessing to their devotion. Paul Kurtz was forthright and had the fortitude to mention the importance of holding both parties accountable.
Democrats and Republicans need to get off this soapbox of sanctimony and start focusing on issues that affect ALL AMERICANS.
If you're giving a pass to your particular candidate in spite of this issue, you're just rationalizing your choice and not being responsible.
Other Comments by scooternyc
17. Comment #91813 by arogop on November 29, 2007 at 11:16 am
15. Comment #88134 by BT Murtagh Thanks
Other Comments by arogop
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #87853 by BAEOZ on November 13, 2007 at 11:49 am
The stuff the Bush government has done to neuter science or deny scientific results and pretend the religious viewpoint is viable is astounding. Someone like Biz spouts the lies that abstinance works and abortions cause breast cancer because of this.
Other Comments by BAEOZ