h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well there seems to be a lot in this article about how social sciences are inherantly atheist and arrogant about religion, but when it comes to the reason given I'm more than a little baffled. Maybe there are just too many long words for me?

Is it saying that social sciences should take the effects of faith on people into question? If so then I'm sure it already does.

Is it saying the social sciences are dedicated to attack on religion? There are plenty who are religious in all its fields.

Is it saying that social sciences should take into account direct acts of the divine? Which divine?

Is it saying that the nature of atheism is in rationality and thinking for yourself, but social sciences assume the non-existence of god. I know atheists who don't think for themselves. I'm also sure that social sciences encourage debate and finding your own angle on a subject, at least if they're done correctly.

Or am I missing the point completely? I have a distinct feeling this is the one...

Hi BouncyBit.

I'm trying not to take any particular viewpoint here, but this one was a bit of a mess when it came for Subbing. I tried to tidy it up to some extent, but I hope I didn't overwrite any of the key points in my bumbling.

B

I think that the main idea was that the Social Science disciplines treat atheism as axiomatic, or dogma, or something which is a given.

But... they treat that idea like a religious belief.

Mind you, it is months since I read it. What was unfortunate was that Beryl wrote it and then almost immediately left the site. I really liked the piece, but she did not stick around long enough to tidy it up. It is probably the rawest of the entries.

Thanks for the subbing by the way Master B. I am warmly happy it is on the Front Page at last.

Ben

It is nice to see something a bit controversial there, it has to be said.

B

Yeah, I love stirring it up, as you know. Its a habit I ought to get back into, really.

B