Science and Atheism: Natural Allies

PZ Myers often says that religion and science are incompatible. They don’t work together.

In this lecture he’s taking one positive stance and that is: good science is atheistic science, and good atheism is supported by science.

Biology professor and well-known blogger, PZ Myers, gives a talk on Science and Atheism: Natural Allies.

He is one of those Gnu Atheists and some people may find it offensive to have their cherished beliefs questioned.

However “just because you’re offended doesn’t mean you are right.”

Talks and Lectures You Might Also Like

The Practical Neuroscience of...

Are People the Problem, the S...

Think Faster, Focus Better an...

Richard Feynman: The Characte...

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZMK6YNWJACHQ5CRCJW5TNYFURI KsDevil
A challenge to challenge ourselves and a demonstration that the vast majority of us want evidence and won’t simply accept someones word.
If a preacher said there was an angel in the hall, most people would want to go see for themselves instead of sitting there blithly accepting it.
Like all good lectures, a bit of theater never hurts to help keep the peole’s interest even if it’s not factually accurate.
But, then, I have a bad brain, as well.
LnatalieC
I think when he says that nothing could prove that God exists, he means that any evidence for God would be something to study scientifically and incorporate into a scientific worldview, and thus it would no longer be God, per se. Also I think his comments about respecting Glenn Beck were meant a bit ironically… he was just pointing out that Glenn Beck is indeed using his limited brain as evolution enabled him to use it.
wald0
O.K. I’m an atheist myself but, saying that there is nothing that I could imagine that would prove God, or god if you prefer, exists is ridiculous. Of course there is things that I could imagine that would change my mind. They are impossible things of course that are never really going to happen, like God himself showing up to take me on a tour of the universe and explaining it all as we go. But still this goes too far I think and makes our case sound closed minded and dogmatic in a way. And saying, although indirectly, that we should respect Glenn Beck for his ability to manipulate? We can’t claim to value truth even when it hurts and then turn around and manipulate people. This guy is a loser and that has found a niche to exploit, he doesn’t speak for the logical, honest atheists I know.