Agnostic.com

13 4

I believe that anyone who calls themselves a scientist can accept no other label than AGNOSTIC. Do you agree?.
Why set out to find something if you know it already.

Incidentally I think that everyone should call themselves a scientist

Mcflewster 7 Dec 18

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

13 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

@Mcflewster - I disagree in part. First, any scientist worth his sheepskin has the understanding that precious little is known to the degree to assert it in the absolute. I list myself as an atheist/evidentialist/rationalist, but the 'atheist' part is couched with the restriction that to make the assertion 'there is no god' places me under the same obligation to provide my unassailable evidence as the assertion that 'there is a god' does to the theist. We are all atheists at the core because we reject any god(s) not consistent with OUR notion of god(s). Sensible atheists that have rejected all gods are only 99.9999999999...9% certain there is/are no god/gods. The fact that I leave that 0.000000000...1% open does not make me any less an atheist. It does make me a reasonable person in that if evidence is ever presented, I will accept it -- well, after rigorous investigation to validate it. Even then, because I am a scientist, I will only say I am 99.999999999...9% sure there is a god because ... well ... the possibility of eventually encountering evidence to the contrary. And the beat goes on.

A good structured responsee. Yes of course we can accept a multitude of labels ,put there for different purposes and occasions . I feel the need for one underlying label which in my case is Humanist.

Athest says only ONE thing about a person. other labels are much more nuanced

Which is why I am an atheist/evidentilist/rationalist.

0

Hmmm, very interesting. I'm not quite sure I understand all of your logic here, as cognative dissonance is part of the very fabric of religion itself, and it is therefore not any more of a contradiction to be religious and a scientist, than to be religious at all, but I would like to hear more about your reasoning on the topic.

0

haha! I completely understand what you are saying. I think an open mind is probably the most important thing anyone can have. My personal definition of Agnosticism means that you are aware you are ignorant, in the true sense of the word. I do not know. I will only find more questions. But he who dies with the most questions wins. However, if you can do that within your own belief system, I don't see why it would be any different. I am not a fan of 0 1 'logic'. The world is chock full of maybe's and sortas. In fact, I am almost sure that that's all there is. Sorta.

0

My father had a Phd in Chemistry and was a devout Catholic. So, in my opinion yes, you can be both a scientist and a Christian.

0

If you are an agnostic, you are also an atheist because you do not believe in a god. If you are Gnostic you can't be an Atheist, but you are an Agnostic in reality because you have to 'pretend' to know something you don't.

1

No. Scientists can be stupid too.

Best reply.

1

I wish it were so. However science has become so specialized that scientists can believe a lot strange and sometimes even crazy stuff outside of their field of knowledge.

I am also not so keen about allowing people to arbitrarily label themselves as scientists. A person shoudl be vetted by peers before the title of scientist is granted.

As an example of just how bad self labeling can go, Hitler considered himself to be a good Catholic all the way until he killed himself. The Catholic church would most likely beg to differ with his opinion of himself, as would most Catholics church members.

To let someone take on a label of authority with very little understanding about what the label means and without actually being qualified, will be disastrous. Just look at Trump. He has very little knowledge of just what a president can or cannot do legally, or what the job actually entails.

A scientist does not take a label of authority except by being right, and can be proved wrong by anyone using these processes and fact checking systems of science, like peer review.
I intended to convey that we are all born with the rudimentary processes of science -mankind would never have survived unless this were so - and these processes have to survive being squashed by amongst others religious people . We just have to stop science being squashed by dealing properly with the religious and every human can develop their capabilities to the maximum using he science they were born with.

3

Claiming to know that there is no god is not the same as not believing that one exists. And, I don't think there are any scientists who claim to know there is no god. In this sense everyone, believer and non-believer, is agnostic as no one can know for sure. Science does not care whether a god exists or not-- and scientists simply want evidence; if someone claims to have such evidence, let them subject their findings to the scientific method.

2

"a scientist can accept no other label than AGNOSTIC."

No, I don't agree.

The following excerpt is from an interview with Richard Feynman in The Voice of Genius: Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries:

Q: Do you call yourself an agnostic or an atheist?

Feynman: An atheist. Agnostic for me would be trying to weasel out and sound a little nicer than I am about this.

Q: But I thought a scientist couldn't call himself an atheist because that's like saying "There is no God," and you can't prove a negative.

Feynman: I don't have to prove it. I only say: "Look, I don't know that there is a God; I just don't think there is one."

Q: That makes you an agnostic.

Feynman: No, no, no, no, no.

Q: According to the dictionary (Webster's New World): an agnostic is "a person who thinks it is impossible to know whether there is a God or a future life, or anything beyond material phenomena."

Feynman: That's too refined. There's always an edge. What I mean is this: the probability that the theory of God, the ordinary theory, is right, to my mind is extremely low. That's all. That's the way I look at it.

Most people on this earth want a yes/no answer. Not for them the refinements and associated mathematics of probability. Although I accept that probability IS the way to go I am at present more of a mind to get more religious people on the side of logic and reason through science. Getting someone into agnosticism is for the moment a very
significant step in the journey to logic and reason. So although I greatly respect Richard Feynman and want everyone to join with him in his conclusions I would prefer this method of getting more on the journey.
Also there are some very bolshy scientists about who could do with a bit of humility.

0

Everyone does exibit use of scientific method to some degree. Overthinking, sneaky, unpredictable people lol. I guess some folk are just comfortable in a church environment, the warmth and compassion, genuin love thy neighbor vibe. It's sad they have to take so much bad with the good but that's life if your not a rich sociopath.

0

I whole-heartedly agree and it's nice to see this viewpoint independently being shared.

To expand why I think as you do, there is no scientific evidence nor experiment that proves god but at the same time there is no scientific evidence or experiment to disprove god. As such, the agnostic mantra of "I don't know" is the only logical, scientific viewpoint.

As to everyone calling themselves a scientist, I don't agree. A scientist has a particular set of skills and worldview that not everyone can or want's to adopt. For example, curiosity and skepticism are two ideologies that come to mind that not everyone has or wants.

0

I think you might get a differant opinion from an atheist...lol. but Hell, I'm a moron looking for the truth myself.

1

If you understand the processes of science, even in simple terms, there is no alternative.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:9005
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.