New Atheism

My question is why do New Atheist subscribe to extreme forms of logical positivism like Scientism, and why do they feel justified in holding such beliefs?

The definition of New Atheism that I'm using.

"The New Atheists make substantial use of the natural sciences in both their criticisms of theistic belief and in their proposed explanations of its origin and evolution. They draw on science for recommended alternatives to religion. They believe empirical science is the only (or at least the best) basis for genuine knowledge of the world, and they insist that a belief can be epistemically justified only if it is based on adequate evidence. Their conclusion is that science fails to show that there is a God and even supports the claim that such a being probably does not exist. What science will show about religious belief, they claim, is that this belief can be explained as a product of biological evolution. Moreover, they think that it is possible to live a satisfying non-religious life on the basis of secular morals and scientific discoveries."

Wtf?!

?

The people you're talking about are usually scientists that find religious belief damaging to public perception of science, i.e. Dawkins.

Let's get ready to rustle!

I am wondering what exactly your question is, is it why do atheist believe science?

There's already several threads that can adequately deal with this topic. I have a feeling this will just turn into another flame war. Mods, lock? @sc

It's not the fact that they believe science, it is that they believe that all knowledge is reducible to scientific concepts and terminology through empirical verification which is unsettling for me because the claim that all knowledge is scientifically reducible isn't scientifically reducible; so it seems to me that New Atheist like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Jerry Coyne, Alex Rosenberg, and etc. have traded in radical rationalism for radical empiricism when I don't see how either viewpoint is mutually exclusive with the other.

There are several threads dedicated to rehashing out the same sentiments about religion, so why does my thread have to be closed? This thread is appropriate because we don't have one central thread dedicated to exploring the problems and issues of New Atheism on the Off-Topic section.

Because it seems like you're already coming in biased and calling something "extreme" that is not especially extreme by any definition. So, this can easily turn into a flame war. I'll let the mods decide.

@nick_hero22: i think you are mixing up naturalistic ideals. A "New Atheist" says that science is our best tool for understanding reality. If you can back up what you claim, then why believe your claim? However, this mainly deals with unbelievable claims, like a bearded God, or that the bible is true etc...

@willpayton: Whilst I agree there are a few threads where this can be discussed, I do think it is novel and particular enough to sustain itself and I'll monitor the thread and if things get too heated I will lock it. I imagine things shouldn't get too heated, just because OP uses terms that will go over most peoples heads, and so those posters will probably not even address anything the OP offers, and the peoples heads it won't go over are generally the types that don't really get into flame wars, the Religion thread for example was fairly mild as far as internet disagreements go and it covered similar matters.

I think we can take a wait and see approach. ^_^.

There is no contradiction. Scientism as I understand it is just the belief that science is the best method for finding out knowledge about how the universe works. This does not contradict itself, but rather is substantiated by evidence such as the success of science in bringing us to the current level of knowledge and technology.

Scientism by defintion is an a extreme form of logical positivism, your thinking of extreme in a way that has to do with something be feign or deviant while I'm using extreme to describe the emphasis placed on empirical principles.

This statement isn't scientifically tentable because there is no way to empirical verify the merits of such a statement which is my main point here. I think New Atheist and fundamental Christians have a lot more in common than what they are willing to admit.

The statement that science is the best method for finding out knowledge isn't scientifically reducible by scientific means, so it is a contradiction. Just because science has been successful doesn't mean that it will be successful in all lines of inquiry about our world.

Yes it is. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to support that statement. We have many historical examples of non-scientific-based ways of thinking, and we can easily compare their results to the results of science. Science wins every time at learning how the universe works. Even if you ignore every single example and all pre-existing evidence, you can still device a series of experiments to compare science versus non-science. So, by definition, the statement is scientifically testable and verifiable.

Going by the definition in the OP, I fail to see how this 'New Atheism' is any different from regular atheism. "I don't believe there's a God because I believe scientific evidence shows there is no God." Isn't that what regular atheism already believes?

I try not to accociate myself with religion

Non-New Atheist don't adhere to logical positivism to counter religious claims instead they point out the philosophical inconsistencies of religious arguments.

Quentin Smith does a good job of this in Atheistic Cosmological Argument without utilizing logical positivism.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/self-caused.html

That is not what I meant by scientifically reducible. What I'm saying is can there be in theory an experiment that can prove the claim that all knowledge is reducible to scientific concepts and terminology? This is a bad argument because there is an almost limitless list of hypothetical non-scientific means of understanding the world that can arise, so alluding to previous cases of failed systems of knowledge in the past doesn't give credence to the claim that no other form of knowledge could rival the success of science in the future; and it presupposes that the success of science is equivalent to it being more true than other lines of inquiry when it could be the case that what we perceive to be true through science isn't a mirror image of what is fundamentally true about our world.

But the claim that all knowledge is applicable to scientific inquiry is faith based.

I'm not saying that science has all the answers. There are things that I'm just like WAT? when it comes to science. But I do trust science to make the correct decisions

@willpayton: @nick_hero22: i'm not an atheist nor a science major, so I have questions:

1) If you are not using science to support what you believe in then what are you using to support your point of view? Faith, assumptions, the famous "anything is possible" theory?

2) If you are not using science aren't you supporting the "anything is possible" theory?

3) What is a better tool to understand the universe then science?

4) What are some alternative tools to use in understanding the universe?

Why do you trust science to provide correct answers?

Because it's science

What happened to the old one?

1) I would say that science is most faith because the axioms in which we use to establish the scientific enterprise are mere assumptions that science has make to get the enterprise off the ground, but I believe that the assumptions that science make are justified in the pragmatic sense while a lot of religious axioms aren't pragmatical. I could live my entire life perfectly fine without adhering to a single axiom that is unique to religion, but certain non-religious belief like my five senses provide valid experiences is a belief that I have to adhere to out of sheer practicality.

2) I'm supporting science and empirical principles but I'm not supporting this extreme variant that New Atheist like to use to combat theist.

3) Both empirical principles and philosophical nuance would in my opinion be a better tool for understanding the world.

4) A combination of both philosophy and science.

Its still there but the New Atheist are more vocal.

That is circular............

But we can actually see and feel some of the things science explains.

But that in no one validates scientific claims because what you think you see and feel might not be what you are actually seeing and feeling.

But why would we deny it?

So... this is what Britain, Russia, and France felt when the American Civil War broke out.

/popcorn

There is no way to know if it is true or not, especially when we divert the question to science.

But science confirms what we think

No........

Let me give you an example of why I believe this is true.

"Let's imagine this hypothetical new technology that allows medical doctors to shoot a laser into the body of a patient and cure them of cancer. The laser uses a variation of matter and energy called "C particles", so after preparing the machine the medical doctor shoots the laser into the patients body and they are cured of cancer; but little does the medical doctor know the laser uses "C particles" and a non-variant of matter and energy called "B particles" and the substance that "B particles" are composed of treat cancer cells. If this technology actually existed and this laser machine that used "C particles" was stated to cure cancer would that be true?"

Well obviously we would need proof that it works. They couldn't just send it out without testing it.

There was proof in that scenario I painted, but the question you should be asking is proof of what?

Wut

The day I quit being an atheist and started praising Pyramid Head was the day I became immortal

The warranty ran out.

Yes, that is a bad argument because that's a non-scientific argument. You're asking for an experiment that will prove some claim. This is not how science works. You should know this.

Science proposes hypothesis and then we test to invalidate them. If the test fails to invalidate it, it's taken as evidence to support the hypothesis. You keep doing that until all possible ways to invalidate it are exhausted. At that point you still didnt "prove" that the hypothesis is 100% true (which cant ever happen), all you did is get so much evidence that you probably consider this hypothesis a fact.

Like I said, the statement that I made above is a scientific statement because you can test it. Period!

You're trying to make some sort of definition and then nitpick at it in order to... what exactly? If you disagree that science is the best way we have to learn about the universe, why dont you propose a better one? Tell us that, why dont you?

This whole "science is based on assumptions" is such a bullshit argument. We already went over this again and again. Science is based on the assumptions that logic is a valid way of thinking, plus the assumption that we can trust our senses at least part of the time. Given these basic assumptions we can get to everywhere else. And, they are perfectly reasonable assumptions.

Trying to say that science is not reliable because of this is stupid because you yourself make the exact same assumptions. I'll be happy to start quoting your own words from the other thread to prove this.

Everything... EVERYTHING that we think including all of philosophy is based on assumptions. Some just make bigger and stupider assumptions than others. Science has the benefit that it makes the minimal set of assumptions needed to make progress, and everything else can be questioned.

Also, "philosophical nuance" is a totally meaningless term. You know someone is making shit up when they start making up meaningless terms and phrases to support their arguments.

@nick_hero22:

It's not the fact that they believe science, it is that they believe that all knowledge is reducible to scientific concepts and terminology through empirical verification which is unsettling for me because the claim that all knowledge is scientifically reducible isn't scientifically reducible; so it seems to me that New Atheist like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Jerry Coyne, Alex Rosenberg, and etc. have traded in radical rationalism for radical empiricism when I don't see how either viewpoint is mutually exclusive with the other.

All knowledge can be reduced to scientific concepts? Of course it can. Why? Because the science behind it doesn't change. If there is underlying order to reality, (which there definitely is, even on a quantum level. The fact that we can hit anywhere near 90% certainty in anything proves that there are rules that are in place, even if we don't know them yet) than there should be a way to express that order mathematically/scientifically, because that it is designed to do. An if it isn't, math/science will change to adapt to it. Because of this, math/science will never be wrong, we are just doing it wrong.

The statement that science is the best method for finding out knowledge isn't scientifically reducible by scientific means, so it is a contradiction.

Here is the reasoning you used: God didn't create god so god doesn't exist. If the science is wrong, than doesn't that mean it can be wrong in it not being right, and still be right?

That aside, lets do a thought experiment. Ten years, two hypothetically identical teams have to figure out how gravity works. Both teams have their minds wiped so they have no previous knowledge. The difference is team one can use the scientific method and team two can't. Which will get close to the truth on how gravity actually works?

Non-New Atheist don't adhere to logical positivism to counter religious claims instead they point out the philosophical inconsistencies of religious arguments.

Let me boil down what you just said: New athiests use logic instead of arguing philosophy when debating. This isn't true, if we are using dawkins and hitchens as the examples, because they use both use philosophical arguments as well as logic based, and believe me, they love pointing out inconsistencies. Most of their debates aren't "there is no god", it is "there is no CHRISTIAN god", or "there is no MUSLIM god", I only distantly remember one debate where they were debating the existence of some deity existing at all, and that turned into more of a civil chat.

1) If you are not using science to support what you believe in then what are you using to support your point of view? Faith, assumptions, the famous "anything is possible" theory?

1) I would say that science is most faith because the axioms in which we use to establish the scientific enterprise are mere assumptions that science has make to get the enterprise off the ground, but I believe that the assumptions that science make are justified in the pragmatic sense while a lot of religious axioms aren't pragmatical. I could live my entire life perfectly fine without adhering to a single axiom that is unique to religion, but certain non-religious belief like my five senses provide valid experiences is a belief that I have to adhere to out of sheer practicality.

Science's axioms are simply the best we know at the time, and are subject to change, there is no assumption beyond basic trusting of our more reliable senses. We look at what we have, make a few guesses, and than put the guesses to the test. If one guess holds up to the tests better than the other ones, than we have to admit that it is more likely. If we go through and it doesn't work anymore for whatever reason, we make up a new guess, based on whatever evidence told us the other one was wrong and start over.

"Let's imagine this hypothetical new technology that allows medical doctors to shoot a laser into the body of a patient and cure them of cancer. The laser uses a variation of matter and energy called "C particles", so after preparing the machine the medical doctor shoots the laser into the patients body and they are cured of cancer; but little does the medical doctor know the laser uses "C particles" and a non-variant of matter and energy called "B particles" and the substance that "B particles" are composed of treat cancer cells. If this technology actually existed and this laser machine that used "C particles" was stated to cure cancer would that be true?"

Yes, it would absolutely be true. The machine cured the cancer. And we would use it everywhere. We would than develop machines that use focused C particles, and would scratch our heads why it doesn't work as well. From that, we will deduce that perhaps C particles don't cure the cancer, or only in certain amounts. Both tests would point to a third factor, which would lead science to be correct.

Scientific way of thinking is systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing the reality and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Possibilities are infinite and the way we discern what really is, from the infinite pool of things that could be, is through scientific method, because it is the best thing we have.

I fail to see what is so extreme about Scientism. The Scientific Method is the best tool we have to learn about the natural world. It works.

This!

We just need to know that it works.

The emergence of New Atheism is when I became Atheist; I identify with it.