MIT Survey on science, religion and origins (page 4)

cantleave

A mind driven by science alone is immune to fundamentalism only in theory. Actual facts show that atheists are just as prone to fundamentalism as religious-driven people.

Actual Facts??? I would like to see those facts.................

A strict definition of fundamentalism involves religious thelogy, a return to the religious fundamentals. Therefore, EO, your premise is flawed from the outset!

Being an atheist is not anything to do with religion, it is about non-belief due to lack of evidence. The scientific method is not a fundamental approach either, it is a methodology to find facts that support theorectical concepts.

EdenOne

Cantleave,

While "fundamentalism" is commonly applied to a " demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines", it certainly isn't restricted by this definition.

In essence, my use of the term fundamentalism here means any philosophy, doctrine or knowledge whose defense by its proponent(s) carries the dogmatic pretense of being the sole source of objective truth. That, my friend, is fundamentalism in its broadest sense. Perhaps I should have used the term "radicalism" instead and it wouldn't have bothered you so much.

Examples of atheistic fundamentalism? Stalin and Pol Pot.

You said: Being an atheist is not anything to do with religion, it is about non-belief due to lack of evidence. "Lack of evidence" leading to non-belief is an acceptable basis for agnosticism and apatheism. Pure atheism, postulated as "There's no such thing as a divinity", is indeed fundamentalism, because is based on lack of empirical evidence for such claim, while at the same time carrying the dogmatic pretense of being the sole objective truth of the matter.

Eden

cofty

Eden - how many times do we have to have the same semantic discussion?

There is no god. I can't prove there is no god just as I can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting Mars.

There is a vanishingly small possibility there is such a teapot and a similar possibility there is a god.

I find the evidence for god to be unconvincing and the evidence against god to be very compelling.

I am open to any new evidence I may not have considered.

This is not agnosticism it is atheism - it is as far removed from fundamentalism as you could get.

Have you finished reading "The Greatest Show on Earth" yet?

jgnat

Speaking of semantics, what if we replaced the word fundamentalism with dogmatism? Are athiest-minded people as vulnerable to dogma?

cofty

Of course they are.

Being an atheist tells us very little about a person.

I know atheists who believe in all sorts of woo.

Pterist

*** Is that what it is called when one accepts a first cause that causes the "big bang" rather than "we dont know" ???

Yes********

Well, like all on this forum you are entitled to your opinion, but it is not a universal fact, as other have said the following " The person who conceives of God in this way is apt to look upon the observable world as contingent—i.e., as something that could not exist by itself.""

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/208087/first-cause