Are some of the opinions of atheists pseudoscientific? By Society Posted on 2022-02-05 Category : Other For example, "Man is a primitive biorobot", "the church burned scientists by the thousands", "Einsteinism leads physics to a dead end" …
The theses are not pseudoscientific, they are simply abominably formulated, and therefore cannot be verified/refuted – since it is generally unclear what was meant by “primitive biorobot”or” leads physics to a dead end”. How does a primitive biorobot differ from a non-primitive one? What is a”physics dead end”? It's not clear at all. About the church – all these myths about the Inquisition have already been debunked, for several centuries of its existence, literally several thousand people were burned at the stake. And there were almost no scientists among them.
But where exactly did you find atheists who would claim something like this-this is a separate question. And even if there are such people, maybe they say this not because they are atheists, but simply because they are rather narrow-minded people?
This judgment is a direct consequence of atheism itself. Atheism – the idea that nothing but the material world that we can touch – does not exist, or is unworthy of attention.
Science does not say that “man is a primitive biorobot.” Science only says that a lot of things in a person are subject to biological laws(but not all).
What is the difference between science and atheism? Science says: in the course of scientific research, we consider only the material world.
Atheism says “there is nothing but the material world.”
– a direct lie that contradicts the historical truth. http://www.ateismy.net/wiki/doku.php?id=%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B8
Atheists themselves have killed far more scientists than all religions combined, a historical truth that has been documented. http://www.ateismy.net/wiki/doku.php?id=%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%B0_%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%81_%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BC
I am a proponent of the ether theory, and I also consider Einsteinism to be a dead end. If you are interested in more details, you can read books on etherodynamics.
They are written by Atsyukovsky Vladimir Akimovich-Doctor of Technical Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Russian Academy of Cosmonautics named after K. E. Tsiolkovsky, Honorary Academician of the Russian Academy of Electrical Engineering Sciences. Although Atsyukovsky is an atheist, and moreover, he does not separate his atheism very well from his scientific views – I agree with him as a scientist, and I do not agree with him as an unbeliever.
Thus, the idea of the need to abandon Einsteinism is supported not only by atheists from the Internet, but also by serious scientists, and even some people who believe in God.
Scientific judgments are quite rare. Scientific thinking is unnatural for the human brain, so it is extremely expensive.
Even highly professional scientists do not always use scientific thinking outside of their professional field.
Therefore, it is safe to call most of the judgments of both atheists and theists unscientific.
As for pseudoscientific judgments, this is more difficult. Pseudoscientific, this is unscientific, but pretending to be scientific. Due to the fact that the authority of science has been constantly increasing over the past three centuries, scientific statements have become fashionable. Moreover, scientology and references to science have become common methods of demagoguery. This has nothing to do with faith.
Therefore, we can say that many of the judgments of both some atheists and some theists are pseudoscientific.
“the church burned scientists by the thousands” is naturally pseudoscientific.
“Einsteinianism leads physics to a dead end” – I didn't understand in what way?
“Man is a primitive biorobot “(well, really not so primitive) is a well-founded scientific statement, but only if the materialists/atheists are right about the non-existence of God. Dawkins (who is a biologist), Hawking, Crick, and our Punchin all clearly explained this.
There are enough narrow-minded people among all categories and worldviews. Ignorance has no religion, no age, no gender, no nationality at all.
For me personally, as a non-believer, it is much more fun to read comments in the spirit of (Attention, I write more generally, since all opinions cannot be included here):
– You can not judge all believers only by a part of them, but all atheists are gloomy and unspiritual people, and all pagans are superficial people who change their faith if it is profitable…Some people associate atheism with a mix of social Darwinism and hedonism (they say that without religious prohibitions, anyone will become a chikatila).
– Atheism is a religion that worships science and believes in the absence of God. And there are many other beliefs that try to pull atheism over the religious perception of the world.
– Atheists stole morals from believers (pfft).
– Atheists do good only for the sake of profit. Atheists simply benefit from not killing each other, and helping each other to make their lives easier.
– If some scientists went to church or were agnostics/nazis, then all science is on the side of religion, checkmate atheists!
Although I will be objective, some atheists also have stupid comments like:
– Millions burned personally by Torquemada;
– All believers are a priori fanatics who hate any science;
– The level of intelligence directly depends on faith-disbelief, and no more on any other factors.
– Science sleeps and sees how to prove the absence of God, many scientific discoveries have happened only for this reason. (hence some prejudices…).
– Faith=religion, religion=monotheism, etc. Everyone who believes in God automatically joins the religion. There is only absolute atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam.
man is a complex biorobot. the church burned scientists. point. what is Einsteinianism, is it some kind of religious teaching based on the theory of relativity? then probably yes a dead end or rather a dead end.
Yes, of course. Almost all the stereotypical accusations of atheists are nonsense. In short:
1) The Church did not destroy science in the Middle Ages. On the contrary, temples were the repository and center of scientific knowledge of that time. For a long time, apart from the church, science was not needed by anyone, no one funded it, and it was considered unpromising.
2) The struggle of “scholars” against the church was not the struggle of enlightened paladins against evil obscurantists. It was a business struggle for a monopoly over science and business.
3) Many of the victims of the Inquisition were real criminals and sadists, the punishment of them “exorcised the devil”, also many were psychics and “herbalists”, there are cases of using the Inquisition in aristocratic intrigues. 7 million burnt beauties – nonsense.
4) The Crusades were liberating, not aggressive.
5) Christianity differs from a sect in that it does not destroy a person's life, does not demand fabulous sums from believers, and does not engage in other fraud against parishioners.
6) Grandmothers decide for themselves how much money to donate to the church. They don't need the pity, sympathy, or contempt of atheists. A person manages his own money, and it's a dirty trick to meddle in this business.
7) The influence of the Church on modern society is exaggerated. A person will encounter another advertisement a thousand times before something allegedly starts to “impose religion”on him. The queues for an iPhone are no different from the queues for relics.
Are the statements of atheists such as “Man is a primitive biorobot”, “the church burned scientists by the thousands”, “Einsteinism leads physics to a dead end” – pseudoscientific?
I can't help but notice that you have some strange atheists
No, we don't think of humans as “primitive biorobots.” A departure from idealistic attitudes does not imply falling into the heresy of biologism, when all processes in human society or all internal reflection “are thought to be conditioned exclusively by a primitive set of instincts, and a” healthy “and correct” model of social relations based on the principles of Darwinian natural selection is declared.
You can even, without much lying, say that biologism is in some sense a continuation of Christianity, or rather the concept of original sin.If a person is no better than an animal, it means that all the same training methods are needed to control them: a whip, training in obedience, strict regulation of all aspects of their life, and so on. For the right and for churchmen, this is a very convenient idea
Of course, this is not so, at the moment when the flock of great apes ceased to exist and a society of people united by common goals, tasks and principles of communication emerged, human evolution turned away from the evolution of animals. We began to learn to suppress the instinct in ourselves, gradually came up with the idea of limiting the rights of the strong in favor of the weak, a law was created, slavery was practically eradicated, and much more. However, evolution is far from being so unambiguous – in addition to the struggle of species for existence, we know a lot of examples of mutual assistance, and it is not by chance that one of the theorists of Russian anarchism, Prince Kropotkin, tried to develop his own evolutionary theory based on this principle
However, we digress. So , not vulgar, but “advanced” atheists believe that a person is not so much a biological being as a social one. But they see the roots of this sociality not in the “soul” as believers do, but in the path of evolution that led man away from the animal and gradually leads us further, in particular in what distinguishes us from our smaller brothers – in speech, in the ability to think in abstractions, and so on. That is, it is a natural process of mind development.
On the second point
Indeed, on the one hand, it was the church in the Dark Ages and early Middle Ages that became the guardian of accumulated knowledge and the heir to the thought of ancient civilization – this was natural, if only because it was in it that the majority of literate people were concentrated. And on this positive charge, it for some time moved forward both society and science. But the fact is that the basic principle of religion (faith) fundamentally contradicts the basic principle of science (doubt). If for a believer the concept of prohibitions and taboos is natural, then for a scientist they should not exist in principle, otherwise he will be forced to engage in self-censorship instead of science
Again, for the church in those days, this was quite natural and even understandable – until the concept of the constitution was formulated , the only thing that kept society from a hard split and allowed it to somehow regulate contradictions was the common faith. When this” staple “stopped working -” there were catastrophes like ” religious wars in Germany, where up to 40% of the population was put in the ground.
Yes, Bruno was burned not so much for his astronomical studies, but for hermetics (too lazy to explain what it is, Google to help) and participation in the local political struggle on the wrong side. But Copernicus was forced to renounce the results of his scientific works. And even that's not the worst part. And terrible, for example, was “the church's categorical ban on opening the human body,” thanks to which “the development of medicine was frozen for 7 centuries” and the entire Christian world fed on the achievements of antiquity with a small addition from the Arabs and Chinese , and “even at the beginning of the 18th century believed that diseases were caused by” bad miasma ” in the air and tried to scare away plague and cholera by And the blame for all unsaved human “lives” certainly lies with both churches, which, however, are not used to it – ” after all, earthly life from the point of view of Christianity has not the slightest value, it is only a threshold before eternal life, so in the development of medicine from this point of view there is no sense at all, and the relief of human suffering contradicts the will of the Lord who sent them.
The question is clearly provocative. Combining three different questions into one incorrect technique. The answer may be different for each question. Apparently, the author of the question just wanted to talk. But the questions themselves betray the author's ignorance. The term “primitive” means easily reproducible according to existing technologies. Today we do not know how to create living matter. So we're not robots, and we're not primitive. But that doesn't mean there's anything supernatural about us. The church burned scientists and not only them. This is a historical fact. I do not know how many scientists were among those burned. But in total, there were many thousands of victims of the church. The term “Einsteinism” itself is pseudoscientific. The theory of relativity is derived unambiguously from some facts established by other scientists. Einstein only pointed out how to link these facts together without contradiction. There is no deadlock in physics. But some call a dead end new facts that have not yet been fully studied. Usually these people have their own natural philosophy, which can explain absolutely everything at the level of obscure general words.
From the point of view of science:
2. The church burned scientists by the thousands. – The Court of the Inquisition did not burn scientists, but heretics – that is, theologians. If you consider theology a scientific discipline, then yes burned. If you don't count it, then no. She burned “wrong believers”in this case
The question is formulated in such a way that it is rather difficult to understand exactly what information the author wants to receive (we indignantly reject the option of fat trolling). So let's go in order.
Do these statements contradict the current views of psychology, history, physics, etc.? Yes, they do. Would any statement that contradicts the current views of science be pseudoscientific? In my opinion, no. Only that which �is part of a (pseudo) scientific theory. Can an atheist be a false scientist? Very easily, the most common example is ak. Fomenko. Can an atheist be an ignorant idiot? Certainly. Such individuals are found among supporters of any worldview.
I will answer in part about burning.�
Leaving out the burning of heretics, cryptojeans, witches (here all denominations distinguished themselves) – the church burned Giordano Bruno. For the fact that he was a pantheist and did not consider either the Earth or the Sun to be the center of the universe, but claimed that the universe has no center at all. By the way, he spent 3 years in a punishment cell before being burned. Bruno was not a scientist, but he popularized science, in particular the Copernican system. Copernicus ' De Revolutionibus, by the way, was removed from the list of banned books only at the beginning of the XIX century.
On the other hand, in the seventeenth century, the Jesuits were the most important engines of science. For example, as is now known, the first systematic experiment, and, in fact, the first attempt to establish a scientific fact, was undertaken by the young Jesuit Leonardo Garzoni. He was proving – as ridiculous as it sounds now-that a compass doesn't demagnetize when it's next to garlic, and it doesn't magnetize again when it's doused with lamb's blood. And I came to the conclusion that it was all nonsense. For a time when even the most educated minds believed that tincture of moss from the skull of the unburied dead heals wounds, if applied to the wounded weapon-very, very cool. And at a time when homeopathy is considered a science-too. Finally, the Vatican now recognizes all the achievements of science, and funds its own research programs.�
So not everything is so clear. What about the church, what about atheists, who are not all so primitive as to use the phrases given in the question as a worthy argument.