blind followers

[Nahtan]

I think everyone here would agree that religions have lots of blind followers, does anyone think science/atheism has blind followers? And do you think it would be wrong for people to blindly follow science?

[eclectic]

Agree with Black, science and atheism are entirely different things.

However, taking them separately here are my initial thoughts.

I don't think it is really right to say a "blind" follower of science. I think if someone believes in science, it is because it is what makes sense. A person does not need to understand the full workings of a scientific theory, or even consciously consider the merits of scientific method, to see that it is credible - science simply measures the world and explains it as best we humans can. So I think you could say someone could follow science with a low level of understanding of it, but they are not blind. Perhaps there are other reasons to "follow" science, but I would think it is simply because it describes the world around us that we experience with our senses.

For atheism, hmmm. I think there are people who don't question their lack of belief in god, who just see it as normal. In a sense that could be considered "blind", although it is not following, it is just being. Many of us on this forum are more aware of our lack of belief, from either a religious past or difficulties with other religious people around us, hence our deliberate association here. But in an ideal world (in my opinion) people would just be atheist by default and wouldn't invent unnecessary gods to complicate things. Atheism, as noted many times, is simply a lack of belief in gods (and normally all things supernatural), not a position to be "followed".

[Dan Gleibitz]

does anyone think ... atheism has blind followers?
Isn't 'blind' non-belief an oxymoron?

[davo]

As Dan states re atheism ..

but if you are talking about science, could you explain what you mean with 'blindly following it'?

Science is a methodology, that is the basis for pretty much all mankinds advancements of knowledge, if you have alternative methodology that is anywhere near as successful I would like to hear it.

If 'blindly following' science is accepting that science is the best process we have, and an ongoing adaptive process well then I can only *shrug*, it comes down to your definitions.

[SchizoDeluxe]

Every group has blind followers, regardless of what it is and who the followers are. Stupidity and ignorance doesn't stop at religion, it's everywhere.

QG5Xs0s55eU

[nari]

I seriously do not think anyone can 'blindly' follow science. It requires critical thought for a start and an interest in follow-through and a zillion other aspects.....

I don't understand your statement either.

nari

[atheist_angel]

I think everyone here would agree that religions have lots of blind followers, does anyone think science/atheism has blind followers? And do you think it would be wrong for people to blindly follow science?Faith is more about repetition than proof. People are told that they have to have super-strong faith and really 'believe' or they won't be saved. People are told to say prayers and hail marys (or other creeds) over and over again. Practice makes perfect and repetition leads to multiple copies of the same thing being layered into the brain. It is reinforced over and over again. When strongly indoctrinated people are presented with evidence that contradicts their indoctrination, they will either look for evidence that makes claims to the contrary ... even if they have to make it up ... or they will try to reconcile it with a delusion they conjure up to make both things true; or they will compartmentalize and believe one thing at school and another thing at church.

On they other hand, many people become atheists because they weren't satisfied with just going along with the 'program' and not questioning things ... or rather: it was the ability to question things that led them to atheism.

[DanDare]

Science

You could blindly accept a scientific conclusion. It might be right but you have not looked at the evidence to check it, just accept it without question. You yourself would not then be "doing" science.

You could blindly follow the utterances of someone who is a working scientist, even though that is an unscientific thing to do.

You could blindly follow every article in a science magazine and accept its conclusions without having really understood the evidence.

Atheism

No, you cannot blindly follow atheism, because atheism cannot be "followed". Its a lack of belief. That lack of belief may be default and never thought about, or a position that has been arrived at, but there is nothing about it to follow. It has no dogma, no traditions, no articles of faith, nothing.

[wearestardust]

People sometimes (edit: make that "very frequently") come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

There are ideological atheisms that seem to me to carry very little rational weight. Some marxisms eschew religions for reasons that essentially come down to social utility of atheism. These are no better arguments against god than are theists arguments in favour of god because of the supposed social value of religion.

One of the arguments against the 'new atheism' is its lack of sophistication in various respects. One of these areas in which the new atheism is supposedly unsophsticated is in comparison with, they say, the social philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries. But these arguments that the theists say we should advance, if we want to look cool and intellectual, are the ones I just suggested don't always carry a lot of weight. I enjoy reading Neitzsche, and like him my start point to atheism was because of the way xians act, but my lack of god-belief now is because of views of reality, not personal philosophy.