Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Shaker on September 09, 2015, 04:31:31 PM
-
Inspired at least in part by the recent Kim Davis nonsense, an excellent article by Lawrence Krauss in the New Yorker:
The Kim Davis controversy exists because, as a culture, we have elevated respect for religious sensibilities to an inappropriate level that makes society less free, not more. Religious liberty should mean that no set of religious ideals are treated differently from other ideals. Laws should not be enacted whose sole purpose is to denigrate them, but, by the same token, the law shouldn’t elevate them, either.
In science, of course, the very word 'sacred' is profane. No ideas, religious or otherwise, get a free pass. The notion that some idea or concept is beyond question or attack is anathema to the entire scientific undertaking. This commitment to open questioning is deeply tied to the fact that science is an atheistic enterprise. "My practice as a scientist is atheistic," the biologist J.B.S. Haldane wrote in 1934. "That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career." It’s ironic, really, that so many people are fixated on the relationship between science and religion: basically, there isn’t one.
Because science holds that no idea is sacred, it’s inevitable that it draws people away from religion. The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems. Scientists have an obligation not to lie about the natural world. Even so, to avoid offense, they sometimes misleadingly imply that today’s discoveries exist in easy harmony with preëxisting religious doctrines, or remain silent rather than pointing out contradictions between science and religious doctrine. It’s a strange inconsistency, since scientists often happily disagree with other kinds of beliefs. Astronomers have no problem ridiculing the claims of astrologists, even though a significant fraction of the public believes these claims. Doctors have no problem condemning the actions of anti-vaccine activists who endanger children. And yet, for reasons of decorum, many scientists worry that ridiculing certain religious claims alienates the public from science. When they do so, they are being condescending at best and hypocritical at worst.
Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend.
If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.
http://goo.gl/1NqVlW
-
Shker, I would suspect that many scientists who are also Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or having any other faith would disagree with the comment that Haldane is quoted as making: "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career." One can quite easily assume that 'no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with (an experiment's) course' yet still hold the belief that the experiment couldn't take place without the creation - by a God or gods - of the very elements with which the experiment is taking place.
Not only does Haldane erroneously imply that a supernatural being is necessarily going to intervene in anything like an experiment, he also assumes that this is proven by the degree of success (and he doesn't express precisely what success he is referring to) he has achieved.
This quote seems to be a central plank of Krauss's article, so I would suggest that it falls down on this point.
Furthermore, the comment that Krauss makes, that "The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems" doesn't appear to be as widely held as he makes out, even within the scientific community.
Finally, it is interesting that Krauss picks on the period of 500 years. That of course would put us back to circa 1600. We all know that science had been in existence for centuries before that, and that many of the so-called discoveries on the first 200 or so of those years were simply re-discoveries of stuff that had been discovered in Ancient China and other parts of the Ancient world.
-
Many scientists would laugh at Shaker's stupid comment. Who is Shaker to tell scientists what they should be?
"I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside of their special subject." C.S. Lewis
"Arrogance is often the shield of the fool and it doesn't last forever." Kevin Keenoo
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html?eref=rss_tops
-
Shker, I would suspect that many scientists who are also Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or having any other faith would disagree with the comment that Haldane is quoted as making: "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career."
Not while they're doing science.
One can quite easily assume that 'no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with (an experiment's) course' yet still hold the belief that the experiment couldn't take place without the creation - by a God or gods - of the very elements with which the experiment is taking place.
Testament to the incredible power of doublethink that some people have.
This quote seems to be a central plank of Krauss's article, so I would suggest that it falls down on this point.
It isn't a central plank of Krauss's article, which is much, much longer than the few bits I've quoted, but it's a central plank of proper science. It is however a quote I've employed myself several times in the past, for good reason.
Furthermore, the comment that Krauss makes, that "The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems" doesn't appear to be as widely held as he makes out, even within the scientific community.
He's echoing - probably consciously - Steven Weinberg's famous quote: "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." Conscious or not, it doesn't matter whether it's widely held or not. Science isn't a democracy.
Finally, it is interesting that Krauss picks on the period of 500 years. That of course would put us back to circa 1600. We all know that science had been in existence for centuries before that, and that many of the so-called discoveries on the first 200 or so of those years were simply re-discoveries of stuff that had been discovered in Ancient China and other parts of the Ancient world.
He probably picked 500 years because that's roughly speaking when the scientific method - not science generally - began to emerge bit by bit, this being the most powerful and accurate tool we have for understanding reality. The discoveries of the ancient world to which you allude didn't come about via the scientific method as we now know it. Observation, certainly. Experiment, only sometimes if the means were available. Anonymous peer review, no. To pick just one example, the ancient Greeks' theories of atomism were exercises in pure armchair rationalism, not experimental science. We know they were right but they were right as it were accidentally; they didn't know they were right and couldn't prove it because they didn't have the means to demonstrate it.
-
Many scientists would laugh at Shaker's stupid comment. Who is Shaker to tell scientists what they should be?
Shaker isn't telling anyone anything - the title of the thread is the title of an article by Lawrence Krauss, hence the correct use of quotation marks.
Which of course you would have known if you were capable of reading and comprehending the piece.
-
Many scientists would laugh at Shaker's stupid comment. Who is Shaker to tell scientists what they should be?
"I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside of their special subject." C.S. Lewis
"Arrogance is often the shield of the fool and it doesn't last forever." Kevin Keenoo
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html?eref=rss_tops
Many people would suggest that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, JC, but I suspect that wouldn't stop you. You might disagree with Shaker, you might even be able to put some sort of an argument together as Hope has done (I disagree with him, but it's an argument that's been constructed with some thought behind it.)
O.
-
Very heartening to read your OP quotation from Lawrence Krauss, Shaker. Thank you.
-
Many people would suggest that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, JC, but I suspect that wouldn't stop you. You might disagree with Shaker, you might even be able to put some sort of an argument together as Hope has done (I disagree with him, but it's an argument that's been constructed with some thought behind it.)
JC doesn't construct arguments, big O, preferring instead merely to do with words what chimpanzees do with their own excrement, and with much the same result.
-
Shker, I would suspect that many scientists who are also Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or having any other faith would disagree with the comment that Haldane is quoted as making: "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career." One can quite easily assume that 'no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with (an experiment's) course' yet still hold the belief that the experiment couldn't take place without the creation - by a God or gods - of the very elements with which the experiment is taking place.
They can, but as scientists they're being disengenuous if they suggest that there's any reason to think that's the case. I'm not suggesting that they do, I suspect the overwhelming majority of them divorce their professional activities from the religious ones, and the ones that don't end up with the sort of tortured desperation that we see from 'Creation Scientists' and the like.
The reality is that their scientific endeavours might well sit within a created framework, or they might sit within a purely naturalistic framework, but scientifically they cannot tell and should (and probably do) construct their experiments in such a way that it makes no difference.
Of course, this is presuming they aren't the sort of idiot that tries to adhere to Biblical inerrancy.
Not only does Haldane erroneously imply that a supernatural being is necessarily going to intervene in anything like an experiment, he also assumes that this is proven by the degree of success (and he doesn't express precisely what success he is referring to) he has achieved.
No, he suggests that he sets his experiments up on the presumption isn't going to intervene as it would render the endeavour meaningless. That, in itself, is not a implication that something supernatural would interfere, just that as a believer he'd otherwise accept that it's a possibility - indeed, as a Christian his religion is founded upon the concept.
His 'degree of success' is that there is consistency between his experiments, which implies that no outside influence is disrupting the natural flow of cause and effect; of course, it fails to disprove the idea that malicious entity is deliberately mimicking cause and effect by supernatural means.
This quote seems to be a central plank of Krauss's article, so I would suggest that it falls down on this point.
That's not what I took to be the central element, but then we are different people with differing viewpoints.
Furthermore, the comment that Krauss makes, that "The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems" doesn't appear to be as widely held as he makes out, even within the scientific community.
I'd suggest it describes the scientific community and the body of scientific evidence pretty well, actually.
Finally, it is interesting that Krauss picks on the period of 500 years. That of course would put us back to circa 1600. We all know that science had been in existence for centuries before that, and that many of the so-called discoveries on the first 200 or so of those years were simply re-discoveries of stuff that had been discovered in Ancient China and other parts of the Ancient world.
Not really - he's a westerner, and the history of the Western world pitches the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, hence the birth of the modern scientific endeavour, as happening from then.
O.
-
Shker, I would suspect that many scientists who are also Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or having any other faith would disagree with the comment that Haldane is quoted as making: "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career."
Not while they're doing science.
Or using Brobat toilet cleaner eh, Shakey...........
Your post has an air of reduced temporal lobe sensitivity about it.
-
Inspired at least in part by the recent Kim Davis nonsense, an excellent article by Lawrence Krauss in the New Yorker:
Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance.
And invented the Atom Bomb eh, Lozzer.
-
Shker, I would suspect that many scientists who are also Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or having any other faith would disagree with the comment that Haldane is quoted as making: "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career." One can quite easily assume that 'no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with (an experiment's) course' yet still hold the belief that the experiment couldn't take place without the creation - by a God or gods - of the very elements with which the experiment is taking place.
Not only does Haldane erroneously imply that a supernatural being is necessarily going to intervene in anything like an experiment,
Umm, I can't believe you have pasted JBS Haldane's quote into your post and you still make that claim.
Haldane explicitly states the opposite of what you say he implies. Why don't you try a bit of intellectual honesty for a change?
-
How does Krauss (The science of Star Trek) hope to measure militant atheism?
Will it be the militancy?....or the atheism.
Perhaps I can help him out here.......
How about Temporal Lobe sensitivity?
In this scenario, the Militant atheist with the lowest midichlorian count gets to be YODA!!!!!! Yeaaaaahhh!!!!!!!!
-
Great post by the way Hope.
-
How does Krauss (The science of Star Trek) hope to measure militant atheism?
Will it be the militancy?....or the atheism.
Krauss is being ironic - is there such a thing as low irony sensitivity, I wonder ... it looks like it. The very first paragraph of the article runs:
As a physicist, I do a lot of writing and public speaking about the remarkable nature of our cosmos, primarily because I think science is a key part of our cultural heritage and needs to be shared more broadly. Sometimes, I refer to the fact that religion and science are often in conflict; from time to time, I ridicule religious dogma. When I do, I sometimes get accused in public of being a "militant atheist."
In other words LK is saying that he is regarded as a "militant atheist" merely for having the temerity to criticise and ridicule religion. In still other words, he must have met you.
Perhaps I can help him out here.......
How about Temporal Lobe sensitivity?
In this scenario, the Militant atheist with the lowest midichlorian count gets to be YODA!!!!!! Yeaaaaahhh!!!!!!!!
Have you been on the glue again?
-
[
Have you been on the glue again?
Not likely......I fear it affects one's temporal lobe sensitivity.
-
So are you telling us that you reject the title of your thread Shakey? Seems hard to believe you have a problem with it, I mean you never pass up an opportunity to oppose around here. You made no objection to the article in your OP.
-
Mr Out,
Well it would help if Shaker would actually make and argument for or against his title thread. You note he didn't bother to put anything forward but some other persons BS. I am against Shakers stupid title thread as would be most scientists. Shaker doesn't want to admit anything so far Mr. Out.
-
So are you telling us that you reject the title of your thread Shakey? Seems hard to believe you have a problem with it, I mean you never pass up an opportunity to oppose around here. You made no objection to the article in your OP.
See #14 and all should become clear. The "militant atheist" nonsense is being used ironically by Krauss because it's a description often bandied about by unoriginal, usually not tremendously intelligent people to refer to anyone who merely criticises religion, which Krauss does regularly and well. People who have been used to unearned privilege for a very long time are in the habit of setting the bar for the militancy of their ideological opponents very low indeed; thus while Islamic militants behead people, maim, rape, torture and kill - which seems appropriately militant to me -, to some people all you need to do to acquire the "militant atheist" tag is to write books saying disobliging things about religion. So it goes.
Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend.
If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.
And indeed anybody else.
http://goo.gl/dsh9xV
-
Not while they're doing science.
Why not, Shakes? If, as I said, a person believes that everything that makes up the material of scientific investigation was purposefully created rather than accidentally evolving how does that compromise said science?
Testament to the incredible power of doublethink that some people have.
Not at all; testament, instead, to a belief that everything was purposely created.
It isn't a central plank of Krauss's article, which is much, much longer than the few bits I've quoted, ...
As there was no indication that this was a patchwork of bits taken from a larger article, I assumed that the reference at the bottom was simply that.. In future, if you're going to stitch together extracts from a larger piece, could you please indicate this within the material. After all, no honest scientist would have done what you have done. ;-) (I would put a proper smiley in here, but the new MS Edge browser doesn't seem to want to allow smileys)
... but it's a central plank of proper science.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Or is it simply an opinion held by some?
Science isn't a democracy.
What I said has nothing to do with democracy. The good thing with science, as with many other parts of life, is that one isn't required to believe that what one or a number of other people say is true - at least until one has investigated their claims and found them to be so. That is why scientists don't always agree with each other, and it would be the weaker if they did.
He probably picked 500 years because that's roughly speaking when the scientific method - not science generally - began to emerge bit by bit, this being the most powerful and accurate tool we have for understanding reality. The discoveries of the ancient world to which you allude didn't come about via the scientific method as we now know it. Observation, certainly. Experiment, only sometimes if the means were available. Anonymous peer review, no. To pick just one example, the ancient Greeks' theories of atomism were exercises in pure armchair rationalism, not experimental science. We know they were right but they were right as it were accidentally; they didn't know they were right and couldn't prove it because they didn't have the means to demonstrate it.
I'm aware of this, Shaker, which is why I pointed it out. We in the West like to think that we discovered the 'scientific method' as you call it, despite the evidence there is that to suggest that it was 'discovered' long before the BC/AD split in what we now regard as the Far East. I notice that you had to refer to a Western example, as if the West is the marker for all such things. Without the basis of discoveries made pre-17th century, both in pure science and mathematics, we wouldn't be where we are.
-
but scientifically they cannot tell and should (and probably do) construct their experiments in such a way that it makes no difference.
Precisely, O. It seems to be the likes of Shakes who believe that there should be some sort of difference of approach.
Of course, this is presuming they aren't the sort of idiot that tries to adhere to Biblical inerrancy.
I would only partially agree; Biblical inerrancy can result in creationism (which I don't adhere to) or it can result in modern scientific thought. I realise that many assume it is the former, but that assumes that the inerrancy is in the wording and that the Bible was written in genres that are purely literal. We all know that this is not the case, as the Bible is made up of poetry and prophecy (rarely literal in nature), parable and analogy, and history that is specifically the history of a given people group and not really that of the surrounding population.
Not only does Haldane erroneously imply that a supernatural being is necessarily going to intervene in anything like an experiment, he also assumes that this is proven by the degree of success (and he doesn't express precisely what success he is referring to) he has achieved.
No, he suggests that he sets his experiments up on the presumption isn't going to intervene as it would render the endeavour meaningless. That, in itself, is not a implication that something supernatural would interfere, just that as a believer he'd otherwise accept that it's a possibility - indeed, as a Christian his religion is founded upon the concept.
Why would a religious scientist accept that there was a possibility that something supernatural was going to interfere? Interestingly, as a Christian, their religion is founded upon the idea that God intervenes, in a way such as Christ's birth and resurrection on rare occasions but that he intervenes regularly through the human practise of skills and mental processes he has provided us with. That is very different to your blanket generalisation.
That's not what I took to be the central element, but then we are different people with differing viewpoints.
If Shaker's recent post, it seems that the 'article' quoted in the OP isn't actually an article at all, but a stitching together of parts of a larger one.
-
I would only partially agree; Biblical inerrancy can result in creationism (which I don't adhere to) or it can result in modern scientific thought. I realise that many assume it is the former, but that assumes that the inerrancy is in the wording and that the Bible was written in genres that are purely literal. We all know that this is not the case, as the Bible is made up of poetry and prophecy (rarely literal in nature), parable and analogy, and history that is specifically the history of a given people group and not really that of the surrounding population ... Why would a religious scientist accept that there was a possibility that something supernatural was going to interfere? Interestingly, as a Christian, their religion is founded upon the idea that God intervenes, in a way such as Christ's birth and resurrection on rare occasions but that he intervenes regularly through the human practise of skills and mental processes he has provided us with. That is very different to your blanket generalisation.
According to the first part of this - Biblical inerrancy - you've had any number of instances of the Christian God influencing reality - from light shows for Saul on the Damascus road, voices from the burning bush for Abraham, through Jesus' various miracles and onwards. Coupled with the long history of claims of 'miracles' outside of scripture, theistic scientists have to set their work up in the assumption that a deity isn't going to interfere - that's not implying a presumption on their part that it would interfere, just the process of science has to continue as though it doesn't. This is, I think, the point that Shaker is trying to make when he says that Christian scientists have to 'put aside' their faith whilst they do their work.
O.
-
"The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems."
That is true from a human point of view ... and of course that is the only position we can see it from.
We can invent all the pretty stories we like to give the universe some "purpose", but that is all the work of our imagination.
So far, we remain ignorant of the truth.
-
Why not, Shakes? If, as I said, a person believes that everything that makes up the material of scientific investigation was purposefully created rather than accidentally evolving how does that compromise said science?
Science is methodologically naturalistic, which is practically and functionally equivalent to atheistic. That is to say, whatever beliefs about gods a scientist may hold at other times, when doing science properly there must be an assumption of naturalism/atheism. Haldane explained why so I shouldn't need to go over that again. Given that science is the endeavour to find out accurate and reliable knowledge (scientia, from scire, 'to know' and not credere, to believe) of the way the world is, to infest scientific practice with the belief that everything was purposefully created by a poorly defined (if that) entity doing unknown things by unknown means is to prostitute science. That may be one's belief, but that's all it is - just a belief, with nothing whatever to support it. It has no place in science.
Haldane was an atheist, by the way, and not as he has been referred to here a religious scientist. The well-known quote about experimentation continues: "... such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world." Exactly so. This is why the majority of scientists are nonbelievers - because they don't compartmentalise and don't flip-flop back and forth between a scientific view of the world and a non-scientific one, which a religious scientist is bound to do.
Not at all; testament, instead, to a belief that everything was purposely created.
Which is, as I said, doublethink for a scientist.
As there was no indication that this was a patchwork of bits taken from a larger article, I assumed that the reference at the bottom was simply that.. In future, if you're going to stitch together extracts from a larger piece, could you please indicate this within the material.
I don't need to. If you'd followed the link you would have found this out for yourself. I'm not here to spoonfeed you. Do your own work.
After all, no honest scientist would have done what you have done.
I'm not a scientist.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
Apart from the fact that it's a nigh-universally acknowledged facet of the proper scientific working method for centuries, you mean?
What I said has nothing to do with democracy. The good thing with science, as with many other parts of life, is that one isn't required to believe that what one or a number of other people say is true - at least until one has investigated their claims and found them to be so. That is why scientists don't always agree with each other, and it would be the weaker if they did.
Just one of the good things about science is that while nice ideas are nice, everything stands or falls on the strength of the evidence.
-
Dear Shaker,
Just as a aside, science should be for the masses, not just the privileged few, it needs to step out if its lofty towers and reach to the ordinary man in the street.
Science is seen by many as old and dusty, just like religion, it belongs to them that have a mind for it, but we should all have a mind for it.
It has to lose its geekiness, stop flowering it with Latin names, make it approachable for all, stop telling the less educated that they won't understand, scientists have a job to make us all understand.
At the end of his book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking talks about the grand theory of everything, he says it should be understood by all, butcher, baker, candle stick maker.
I don't give a flying spaghetti monster if it is atheistic, I want the facts, understandable facts, so that we can all join in.
I am not descended from a monkey, I am descended from a monkey like creature.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonnagle
You obviously havn't been following the Science Radio 4 programmes in the last couple of years - plenty of Science and facts there. Okay, sometimes they try to be a bit too jolly sometimes, but they're not bad. The presenters are atheists - I certainly haven't heard one with a God belief - but that's as it should be.
And it's all very well reading Stephen Hawking, but you haven't read 'The Magic of Reality' by RD yet, have you?
-
Just as a aside, science should be for the masses, not just the privileged few, it needs to step out if its lofty towers and reach to the ordinary man in the street.
Science does reach - there are any number of popular science shows, periodicals, internet sites, YouTube channels, Facebook groups and the like.
Science is seen by many as old and dusty, just like religion, it belongs to them that have a mind for it, but we should all have a mind for it.
Unfortunately, as with maths, the problem is that there is an anti-intellectual bent to the common populace that depicts the rejection of understanding as 'cool', and this occurs at pretty much every level of society: from schoolkids who reject all of learning, through to suburban Mums who joke about their own inability to help with their children's homework as though it were a badge of honour or a sign of normality.
It has to lose its geekiness, stop flowering it with Latin names, make it approachable for all, stop telling the less educated that they won't understand, scientists have a job to make us all understand.
The latin names are there for a reason - they allow science to transcend national boundaries, to give a common language to naturalists from Bombay to Billaricay. Science does not covet 'geekiness' for itself, it only adopts that guise because it allows it, in the modern world, a modicum of acceptability.
I don't give a flying spaghetti monster if it is atheistic, I want the facts, understandable facts, so that we can all join in.
Then you need to join the rest of us in pushing back when excellent science communicators like Professor Dawkins, Bill Nye, Dr Krauss and Professor DeGrasse-Tyson explain things that either contradict traditionalists or have consequences that their oil-dispensing backing groups don't like.
I am not descended from a monkey, I am descended from a monkey like creature.
You can take the man out of the monkey-like creature...
O.
-
Science is methodologically naturalistic, which is practically and functionally equivalent to atheistic. That is to say, whatever beliefs about gods a scientist may hold at other times, when doing science properly there must be an assumption of naturalism/atheism.
And do you actually have any evidence other than the personal opinion of however many people hold this view (which, as we have often heard on this site doesn't count as evidence).
Given that science is the endeavour to find out accurate and reliable knowledge (scientia, from scire, 'to know' and not credere, to believe) of the way the world is, to infest scientific practice with the belief that everything was purposefully created by a poorly defined (if that) entity doing unknown things by unknown means is to prostitute science. That may be one's belief, but that's all it is - just a belief, with nothing whatever to support it. It has no place in science.
'poorly defined', 'unknown things' and 'unknown means' would seem to fit several scientific theories currently in existence.
Haldane was an atheist,
I was already aware of that.
The well-known quote about experimentation continues: "... such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world." Exactly so. This is why the majority of scientists are nonbelievers - because they don't compartmentalise and don't flip-flop back and forth between a scientific view of the world and a non-scientific one, which a religious scientist is bound to do.
I would disagree, as would many religious scientists.
Which is, as I said, doublethink for a scientist.
Again, some thing that not all scientists believe is the case.
As there was no indication that this was a patchwork of bits taken from a larger article, I assumed that the reference at the bottom was simply that.. In future, if you're going to stitch together extracts from a larger piece, could you please indicate this within the material.
Sorry, Shaker, but academic practice is to make it clear that a quote is either direct quote or a stitching together of elements of an article.
I don't need to.You certainly don't need to, but it makes your argument less rigid.
If you'd followed the link you would have found this out for yourself. I'm not here to spoonfeed you. Do your own work.
I'm not asking to be spoon-fed; just that you adhere to normal academic practice.
I'm not a scientist.
Did I say that you were? Mind you, your posts over the months have suggested that that was the case.
Apart from the fact that it's a nigh-universally acknowledged facet of the proper scientific working method for centuries, you mean?
So a time-based version of an argumentum ad populum is acceptable?
Just one of the good things about science is that while nice ideas are nice, everything stands or falls on the strength of the evidence.
Precisely, which is why I do not believe science to be the sole arbiter of reality; the strength of (scientific) evidence precludes me from accepting that view point.
-
Just as a aside, science should be for the masses, not just the privileged few
Sure popularising science is important.
But that rather misses the point - science is usually there to be applied, and it is through its application that it is for the masses. Just think about technology you use, that enhances your life, that perhaps keeps you alive - that makes life easier, more fun, more enjoyable. All that is based on science.
That's how science is for the masses not the privileged few.
-
According to the first part of this - Biblical inerrancy - you've had any number of instances of the Christian God influencing reality* - from light shows for Saul on the Damascus road, voices from the burning bush for Abraham, through Jesus' various miracles and onwards. Coupled with the long history of claims of 'miracles' outside of scripture, theistic scientists have to set their work up in the assumption that a deity isn't going to interfere - that's not implying a presumption on their part that it would interfere, just the process of science has to continue as though it doesn't. This is, I think, the point that Shaker is trying to make when he says that Christian scientists have to 'put aside' their faith whilst they do their work.
O.
*Just a quick nit-pick, O - we're not talking about the Christian God here, but the Judeo-Christian God.
But why do they have to 'put aside' anything, especially when the examples you give make up so small a percentage of time as to be statistically insignificant. As I pointed out in a previous post, the sole assumption that the religious scientists I know have or make is that everything was created and therefore has a purpose, rather than being purposeless.
-
According to the first part of this - Biblical inerrancy - you've had any number of instances of the Christian God influencing reality* - from light shows for Saul on the Damascus road, voices from the burning bush for Abraham, through Jesus' various miracles and onwards. Coupled with the long history of claims of 'miracles' outside of scripture, theistic scientists have to set their work up in the assumption that a deity isn't going to interfere - that's not implying a presumption on their part that it would interfere, just the process of science has to continue as though it doesn't. This is, I think, the point that Shaker is trying to make when he says that Christian scientists have to 'put aside' their faith whilst they do their work.
O.
*Just a quick nit-pick, O - we're not talking about the Christian God here, but the Judeo-Christian God.
But why do they have to 'put aside' anything, especially when the examples you give make up so small a percentage of time as to be statistically insignificant. As I pointed out in a previous post, the sole assumption that the religious scientists I know have or make is that everything was created and therefore has a purpose, rather than being purposeless.
I guess that's the point I was trying to make - it's not, to my eyes, so much a 'putting aside' as a not including it in those moments. With the possible exception of the most secluded monks, I'm guessing that whilst believers when asked will say that God is always with them, there are times when they aren't actively conscious of that idea, they are doing other things. Science, of necessity, has to be one of those times.
O.
-
And do you actually have any evidence other than the personal opinion of however many people hold this view (which, as we have often heard on this site doesn't count as evidence).
Evidence for/of what?
'poorly defined', 'unknown things' and 'unknown means' would seem to fit several scientific theories currently in existence.
Such as?
I would disagree, as would many religious scientists.
Well they would say that, wouldn't they?
Again, some thing that not all scientists believe is the case.
Ditto.
Sorry, Shaker, but academic practice is to make it clear that a quote is either direct quote or a stitching together of elements of an article.
This isn't an academic site.
You certainly don't need to, but it makes your argument less rigid.
No it doesn't. We're not on an academic forum but we're discussing science nonetheless; what makes the argument less rigid is paucity/poverty of evidence.
I'm not asking to be spoon-fed; just that you adhere to normal academic practice.
Yet again, this is a normal online message board, not an academic site. We do have at least two professional scientists as members here to my knowledge, one who posts regularly and one who doesn't any more (but looks in occasionally), and neither of them are so rigid as to adhere to "normal academic practice."
Did I say that you were? Mind you, your posts over the months have suggested that that was the case.
No, no suggestion of the sort has ever come from me. I try to be well-informed, though.
So a time-based version of an argumentum ad populum is acceptable?
It's not an argumentum ad populum; it's an argumentum ad what has been repeatedly demonstrated consistently to yield reliable and accurate resultsum. Or something like that.
Precisely, which is why I do not believe science to be the sole arbiter of reality; the strength of (scientific) evidence precludes me from accepting that view point.
Eh?
-
But why do they have to 'put aside' anything, especially when the examples you give make up so small a percentage of time as to be statistically insignificant. As I pointed out in a previous post, the sole assumption that the religious scientists I know have or make is that everything was created and therefore has a purpose, rather than being purposeless.
Why are you having such a problem with this? Perhaps it is in understanding what we mean by "put aside". When a scientist designs an experiment, he makes an assumption that the processes he is testing are entirely naturalistic and no god will interfere with the results. That's pretty much it from that point of view.
Also, when a scientist forms a hypothesis, he automatically assumes that the processes involved are naturalistic. For example, the successful theories of gravity talk about impersonal phenomena like forces and mass and curved space-time. Scientists do not consider ideas like angels pushing the planets around or God keeping them on track. In fact, if I remember correctly, Isaac Newton (theist) once said that (and I paraphrase) God would not create a shoddy universe that needed his intervention all the time.
So when we say scientists put aside their beliefs, we do not mean they stop believing in God but that they temporarily discount any effects he might have in their scientific work.
-
One can only hope that the number of scientists who also believe in God is diminishing rapidly!
-
One can only hope that the number of scientists who also believe in God is diminishing rapidly!
To be fair it's pretty low to start with, even in atypically religious developed nations such as the USA.
-
One can only hope that the number of scientists who also believe in God is diminishing rapidly!
To be fair it's pretty low to start with, even in atypically religious developed nations such as the USA.
Oh no the ultimate argumentum ad populum gambit.
Is saying most scientists are atheist any more significant than saying most academics come from well-heeled pampered backgrounds or that most Buddhists are not Christians?
-
But why do they have to 'put aside' anything, especially when the examples you give make up so small a percentage of time as to be statistically insignificant. As I pointed out in a previous post, the sole assumption that the religious scientists I know have or make is that everything was created and therefore has a purpose, rather than being purposeless.
Why are you having such a problem with this? Perhaps it is in understanding what we mean by "put aside". When a scientist designs an experiment, he makes an assumption that the processes he is testing are entirely naturalistic and no god will interfere with the results. That's pretty much it from that point of view.
Also, when a scientist forms a hypothesis, he automatically assumes that the processes involved are naturalistic. For example, the successful theories of gravity talk about impersonal phenomena like forces and mass and curved space-time. Scientists do not consider ideas like angels pushing the planets around or God keeping them on track. In fact, if I remember correctly, Isaac Newton (theist) once said that (and I paraphrase) God would not create a shoddy universe that needed his intervention all the time.
So when we say scientists put aside their beliefs, we do not mean they stop believing in God but that they temporarily discount any effects he might have in their scientific work.
That looks pretty fair.
What we have then, theologically speaking, is a God who has bequeathed a universe unusually open to human investigation (science) who will, when the occasion requires i.e. the salvation of mankind will provide a miracle.
-
If you want to believe that sort of ... er, thing.
-
Oh no the ultimate argumentum ad populum gambit.
No it isn't. Remember that the AaP is a fallacy becuse it tries to establish that something is the case, or at the very least worth taking seriously, because lots of people believe it. Stating that most scientists are non-believers isn't trying to make any such argument; it's simply a statement of fact.
Is saying most scientists are atheist any more significant than saying most academics come from well-heeled pampered backgrounds or that most Buddhists are not Christians?
Being an academic doesn't stand in contradiction to any socio-economic background. You can have any kind of upbringing and be an academic because the two things are not incompatible in the way that science and religion are.
-
Not ALL scientists subjects, clash with their religion.
True enough. The problems - for religionists, not the scientists - start with those scientific disciplines which deny the anthropocentrism and human exceptionalism central to theistic religions. Creationists by definition have great trouble with evolution because of what it tells us about ourselves as a species; fluid dynamics has no such human implications so they're not interested.
If any scientific discipline threatens human self-regard even slightly, some religionist somewhere will take issue with it.
-
Not ALL scientists subjects, clash with their religion.
True enough. The problems - for religionists, not the scientists - start with those scientific disciplines which deny the anthropocentrism and human exceptionalism central to theistic religions.
An interesting line to take. I must admit I've never taken to the naturalistic fallacy that your line ( reductionist ) can take.
In any case the motivation for your opposition to human exceptionalism seems to be from wanting to be as innocent as the Bonobo.......I don't think we can share their idyll.
I don't think there are many theists around here who wouldn't entertain the possibility of ET.
-
In any case the motivation for your opposition to human exceptionalism seems to be from wanting to be as innocent as the Bonobo.......
No, it stems from being aware of reality. Bonobos, as is well known, routinely have sex with just about any other member of the group, wherever and whenever they feel like it. Up to this point that sounds great, but in bonobo communities that also means adults having sex with the infant members of the group. I don't think bonobos are any sort of model as to "innocence."
I don't think there are many theists around here who wouldn't entertain the possibility of ET.
That's relevant to what, precisely?
-
Looking at rats brains under a microscope to try and cure diseases isn't going to clash with religion.
Except that one of the main reasons to look at rat brains under the microscope is to learn more about our own brains, which is predicated on the idea that we are evolved from common ancestry - many, many religious people have an issue with that idea.
Some scientists have mundane jobs that don't involve religious questions.
Except that non-scientific religious people are bringing their religion into scientific discussions such as climate change.
Nothing in quantum mechanics conflicted with his Christianity.
Nothing in quantum mechanics conflicts with some Christianities... with others it does.
O.
-
In any case the motivation for your opposition to human exceptionalism seems to be from wanting to be as innocent as the Bonobo.......
Even presuming the 'innocence' of Bonobos, the motivation for opposition to human exceptionalism is the evidence that humanity is not something distinct from nature, but merely another defined element of it.
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
Many religious people have a problem with common ancestry!!
Given that about 90% of the population are religious and add to that the fact that most religious scientists are well educated, many is definitely the wrong word.
And just to add, the scientist who was in charge of mapping the human genome is a born again Christian makes this thread a bit daft.
Ripping the mask off nature to see the face of God.
Gonnagle.
-
Many religious people have a problem with common ancestry!!
I know, it baffles me, too! :)
Given that about 90% of the population are religious and add to that the fact that most religious scientists are well educated, many is definitely the wrong word.
Is it? I'm not saying most, though I suspect it depends which sample set you take. Even if we only consider the Western world, where we have a reasonable expectation of a first world education, ~45% of Americans don't believe that humans evolved. By any measure, 45% of the population of the US qualifies as 'many'.
Within the scientific fields, specifically, I suspect that number is much lower, but you and I are both of the opinion that scientific understanding should be spread out wider - this is one of the areas hampering that.
And just to add, the scientist who was in charge of mapping the human genome is a born again Christian makes this thread a bit daft.
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity, but the findings and the fact that his findings so inflame fundamentalists shows that there are some religious sentiments - within the same nominal faith - that aren't compatible with science.
Ripping the mask off nature to see the face of God.
Ripping the mask off nature to see the face of nature - if you think your nature came from God, you're going to see the echoes of god in there, but that's in the eye of the beholder, not in the evolved eye on the dissection table.
O.
-
Ripping the mask off nature to see the face of nature - if you think your nature came from God, you're going to see the echoes of god in there, but that's in the eye of the beholder, not in the evolved eye on the dissection table.
O.
But you are still wanting to see the face of a unity.....In your case Nature. What if there isn't ultimate unity in nature?
Maybe Atheist scientists are, like the monotheists,pantheists and Platonists and goodness knows who else are after 'The One' 'The unified'.
-
But you are still wanting to see the face of a unity.....In your case Nature. What if there isn't ultimate unity in nature?
There goes the deepity alarm again!
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
No there isn't - cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and feeling discomfort because of it.
What we have here is cognitive dissonance's half-brother, doublethink, which is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and suffering no discomfort.
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
No there isn't - cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and feeling discomfort because of it.
What we have here is cognitive dissonance's half-brother, doublethink, which is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and suffering no discomfort.
There is no contradiction nor incompatabilty.
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
No there isn't - cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and feeling discomfort because of it.
What we have here is cognitive dissonance's half-brother, doublethink, which is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and suffering no discomfort.
There is no contradiction nor incompatabilty.
Yes there is.
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
No there isn't - cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and feeling discomfort because of it.
What we have here is cognitive dissonance's half-brother, doublethink, which is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and suffering no discomfort.
There is no contradiction nor incompatabilty.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
No there isn't - cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and feeling discomfort because of it.
What we have here is cognitive dissonance's half-brother, doublethink, which is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and suffering no discomfort.
There is no contradiction nor incompatabilty.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
No there isn't - cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and feeling discomfort because of it.
What we have here is cognitive dissonance's half-brother, doublethink, which is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and suffering no discomfort.
There is no contradiction nor incompatabilty.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn;t
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
No there isn't - cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and feeling discomfort because of it.
What we have here is cognitive dissonance's half-brother, doublethink, which is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and suffering no discomfort.
There is no contradiction nor incompatabilty.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn;t
Yes there is.
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
No there isn't - cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and feeling discomfort because of it.
What we have here is cognitive dissonance's half-brother, doublethink, which is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and suffering no discomfort.
There is no contradiction nor incompatabilty.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn;t
Yes there is.
No there isn't
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
No there isn't - cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and feeling discomfort because of it.
What we have here is cognitive dissonance's half-brother, doublethink, which is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and suffering no discomfort.
There is no contradiction nor incompatabilty.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn;t
Yes there is.
No there isn't
Yes there is.
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
No there isn't - cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and feeling discomfort because of it.
What we have here is cognitive dissonance's half-brother, doublethink, which is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and suffering no discomfort.
There is no contradiction nor incompatabilty.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn;t
Yes there is.
No there isn't
Yes there is.
No there isn't
-
Globally atheism has been in decline for some time and shows no signs of reversing that trend. So I don't think it's good idea for all scientists to be part of that decline.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html
http://www.rzim.eu/biography-john-lennox
-
Globally atheism has been in decline for some time and shows no signs of reversing that trend. So I don't think it's good idea for all scientists to be part of that decline.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html
http://www.rzim.eu/biography-john-lennox
What a load of utter drivel. He says things like this:
For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.
It is a simplistic approach...
He may call it simplistic, but it is true. He calls himself a scientist? He really should be ashamed of himself.
-
jeremy,
You seem so hostile, so militant, and you're not even a scientist.
https://youtu.be/Km0FGgbx42I
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
No there isn't - cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and feeling discomfort because of it.
What we have here is cognitive dissonance's half-brother, doublethink, which is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and suffering no discomfort.
There is no contradiction nor incompatabilty.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn;t
Yes there is.
No there isn't
Yes there is.
No there isn't
Yes there is.
-
Globally atheism has been in decline for some time and shows no signs of reversing that trend. So I don't think it's good idea for all scientists to be part of that decline.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html
http://www.rzim.eu/biography-john-lennox
What a load of utter drivel. He says things like this:
For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.
It is a simplistic approach...
He may call it simplistic, but it is true. He calls himself a scientist? He really should be ashamed of himself.
He's a mathematician isn't he?
-
He's a mathematician isn't he?
I stand corrected. So a non scientist presumes to tell one of the greatest scientists of the age how to do science. The article has so many obvious flaws, even I could do a pretty good hatchet job on it.
-
If you have the time to spare I wish you would, JP ;D
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
No there isn't - cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and feeling discomfort because of it.
What we have here is cognitive dissonance's half-brother, doublethink, which is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and suffering no discomfort.
There is no contradiction nor incompatabilty.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn;t
Yes there is.
No there isn't
Yes there is.
No there isn't
Yes there is.
No there isn't
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
No there isn't - cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and feeling discomfort because of it.
What we have here is cognitive dissonance's half-brother, doublethink, which is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and suffering no discomfort.
There is no contradiction nor incompatabilty.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn;t
Yes there is.
No there isn't
Yes there is.
No there isn't
Yes there is.
No there isn't
Yes there is.
-
Any chance that you two could consider those on here with screen readers, and stop this?
-
Leave it!
-
By now I think it's making a quite attractive Cubist-type image - the alternation of the pale blue and the light grey are very relaxing to the eyes.
Vlad's still wrong, though.
-
Not really - the discussion is about how and where religion interferes with scientific practice and understanding. The fact that someone can be a pioneer in a religiously contentious scientific area and still be religious themselves shows that the cognitive dissonance doesn't preclude capacity.
There is no cognitive dissonance.
No there isn't - cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and feeling discomfort because of it.
What we have here is cognitive dissonance's half-brother, doublethink, which is holding two contradictory and incompatible ideas and suffering no discomfort.
There is no contradiction nor incompatabilty.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn;t
Yes there is.
No there isn't
Yes there is.
No there isn't
Yes there is.
No there isn't
Yes there is.
No there isn't
-
But not to those who use screen readers like Jim and Susan Doris.
-
By now I think it's making a quite attractive Cubist-type image - the alternation of the pale blue and the light grey are very relaxing to the eyes.
Vlad's still wrong, though.
No I'm not.
-
By now I think it's making a quite attractive Cubist-type image - the alternation of the pale blue and the light grey are very relaxing to the eyes.
Vlad's still wrong, though.
No I'm not.
Of course you are - you make a habit of it. Science and religion are incompatible, requiring a huge dose of doublethink to be held in the same brain at the same time.
-
By now I think it's making a quite attractive Cubist-type image - the alternation of the pale blue and the light grey are very relaxing to the eyes.
Vlad's still wrong, though.
No I'm not.
Of course you are - you make a habit of it. Science and religion are incompatible, requiring a huge dose of doublethink to be held in the same brain at the same time.
That's mere assertion...and wrong. What is the scientific discovery that clinches it against God?
Sagan couldn't find it. Dawkins thinks he found it but was thoroughly demolished in the journal The philosopher
The sensible person knows they are separate domains or magisterial.
And that your implicit declaration of yourself as some kind of empiricist is obvious nonsense given the amount you write on here that science doesn't actually back up.
-
That's mere assertion...and wrong.
Then instead of merely asserting it to be wrong, demonstrate it to be so.
What is the scientific discovery that clinches it against God?
Science doesn't do God, as I believe you said yourself very recently.
Sagan couldn't find it. Dawkins thinks he found it but was thoroughly demolished in the journal The philosopher
Evidence required.
The sensible person knows they are separate domains or magisterial.
No they don't, that's just the load of old shit that Gould made up.
And that your implicit declaration of yourself as some kind of empiricist is obvious nonsense given the amount you write on here that science doesn't actually back up.
Examples will be needed.
-
If you have the time to spare I wish you would, JP ;D
It's pretty simple. Let's pick out a few of the more stupid things in it, but before I do, I need to note a problem of the use of terminology by Lennox. Lennox constantly refers to "the laws of physics". In most of the contexts in which he uses the term, he clearly means "the laws and theories of science".
According to Hawking, the laws of [science], not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being.
Why "according to Hawking"? The point is hardly controversial. Life on Earth is explained by scientific law.
The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.'
Unfortunately, while Hawking's argument is being hailed as controversial and ground-breaking, it is hardly new.
As if that were a criticism. If ideas are wrong, just because they are not new, where does that leave the idea of God?
For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.
It is a simplistic approach
There is a difference between "simple" and "simplistic". Certainly the idea that the awesome complexity of the World can be explained by reference to simple scientific laws is simple, but it is also extremely successful. Why try to think of something more complex than is necessary to explain everything? And if you want "simplistic", how about "goddidit"?
But, as both a scientist and a Christian
This is a bare faced lie. Lennox is not a scientist, he is a mathematician. Mathematics is fundamentally different to science in that even the methods of reasoning are different: mathematics uses only deductive logic, science used inductive as well as deductive logic.
He asks us to choose between God and the laws of [science], as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.
Well they are. Science tells us that the probability of a three day old corpse reviving is vanishingly small. The laws of one particular version of God tell us that Jesus rose from the dead. In science we have the working assumption that the laws of physics don't change. Most religions tell us that the laws of physics can be suspended on the whim of a capricious creator. Conflict.
The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own - but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent
Here Lennox forgets that the existence of Frank Whittle is explained by the laws of science.
I could go on, but I don't have all day.
-
Top banana :D
-
That's mere assertion...and wrong.
Then instead of merely asserting it to be wrong, demonstrate it to be so.
What is the scientific discovery that clinches it against God?
Science doesn't do God, as I believe you said yourself very recently.
Sagan couldn't find it. Dawkins thinks he found it but was thoroughly demolished in the journal The philosopher
Evidence required.
The sensible person knows they are separate domains or magisterial.
No they don't, that's just the load of old shit that Gould made up.
And that your implicit declaration of yourself as some kind of empiricist is obvious nonsense given the amount you write on here that science doesn't actually back up.
Examples will be needed.
Yeh. How does Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism stop anyone who believes in them from using the scientific method, using the same equipment, unwrapping the same petri dishes etc, etc.
When you decided to commit to talking Bollocks Shaker,You really committed.
-
Here Lennox forgets that the existence of Frank Whittle is explained by the laws of science.
Which laws?...and are you talking specifically about Frank Whittle or human males in general?
-
No surprise, Jeremy fails to realize that like physicists and chemists, a mathematician also uses the scientific method. And Mr. Lennox also has a masters in bioethics.
http://www.johnlennox.org/about/
-
No surprise, Jeremy fails to realize that like physicists and chemists, a mathematician also uses the scientific method.
That doesn't make him a scientist in the professional sense. The scientific method is open to anyone and everyone, but that doesn't make anyone a scientist, which indicates the pursuit of science as a profession (though for many vocation would be the better term).
-
Bioethics isn't a science either - which is why he has an MA and not an MSc.
-
You and Jeremy are so cute, neither of you being anything near a scientist. Both rejecting a mathematician being a scientist. Now in Germany the Alexander von Humboldt foundation INCLUDES mathematics as a natural science. That you and jermey say NO, is laughable to the max and part way back. And Lennox was a senior fellow of the foundation. Here is credentials, sacked up impressively against the no credential stacks of you, the godless Marxist and your fellow godless atheist Jeremy. Nice.
http://www.rzim.eu/biography-john-lennox
-
We're not in Germany.
-
No surprise, Jeremy fails to realize that like physicists and chemists, a mathematician also uses the scientific method.
Actually, you are completely wrong. Mathematicians start with basic axioms and proceed by deductive logic alone. By itself, maths tells us nothing new.
Scientists deal with the real World. The use maths as a tool but they have to observe and test their ideas, but even if their ideas pass all the tests and the maths is watertight there is still a danger of something coming up that proves them wrong.
And Mr. Lennox also has a masters in bioethics.
That's more philosophy than science.
-
Actually, you are completely wrong. Mathematicians start with basic axioms and proceed by deductive logic alone. By itself, maths tells us nothing new.
By an almost eerie coincidence this is precisely the import of a passage in Jerry Coyne's new book which I'm currently reading - that particular passage is one I've just read this afternoon.
-
Actually, you are completely wrong. Mathematicians start with basic axioms and proceed by deductive logic alone. By itself, maths tells us nothing new.
By an almost eerie coincidence this is precisely the import of a passage in Jerry Coyne's new book which I'm currently reading - that particular passage is one I've just read this afternoon.
I must buy that book. I'm a regular reader of his web site so I am morally obliged. Besides, I expect it'll be quite good.
-
We do not have to be in Germany to know that you and Jeremy are no scientists and are in no position to say who is one. You think too highly of yourself Shaker. No, I can't give your judgement on this any consideration at all and the Alexander von Humboldt fellowship is highly respected around the world.
http://theocca.org/bios/john-lennox
-
We do not have to be in Germany to know that you and Jeremy are no scientists
I've never claimed to be. Pretty sure JP hasn't either. So that's at least one other thing Jeremy and I have in common with Lennox, then. I love science, love reading it, love trying to stay informed and according to the ancient certificate on my office wall have an exceedingly minor bargain-basement qualification of sorts in cosmology as well as an even older GSCE in biology, but I'm not and have never claimed to be a scientist. Wouldn't dream of it. I recognise what it means to say that someone is one, though, and I'm sure that Jeremy does too.
and are in no position to say who is one.
Actually yes we are. The description of scientist entails certain things which do not apply to Lennox. Whether he's a good mathematician or not I have no idea - that's outside of my area. I suspect not, since he's best known as the author of various books on the science-religion relationship (I take the Jerry Coyne view: there isn't one) rather than as somebody who has actually made real contibutions to mathematics - somebody like Andrew Wiles, for example. Regardless, he's a mathematician.
You think too highly of yourself Shaker.
Not even possible. What is this crazy talk?
No, I can't give your judgement on this any consideration at all and the Alexander von Humboldt fellowship is highly respected around the world.
I'm sure it is, but it doesn't mean that their roping-in of a mathematician as a scientist has any credibility.
-
To be fair both Lennox and Hawking appear to be trying to do philosophy, and imo both rather badly.
-
To be fair both Lennox and Hawking appear to be trying to do philosophy, and imo both rather badly.
I can't speak for Lennox; I'd have thought in recent years (certainly around the time of the publication of The Grand Design with Leonard Mlodinow a few years back) Hawking has made headlines chiefly for saying that philosophy is dead - at least from his mathematical physicist point of view, taking the quite intentionally dismissive Feynman line that scientists are explorers whereas philosophers are tourists.
Now, we could (and still might) have the mother of all threads on this (and what a fascinating thread that would be, peanut gallery aside), but that would be separate from the statement that Hawking appears to be trying to do philosophy when his recent public utterances indicate the exact opposite.
-
We do not have to be in Germany to know that you and Jeremy are no scientists and are in no position to say who is one.
I dp have a degree in maths. I know what maths is and isn't. It isn't science in the way that Lennox is talking about science in the article.
-
The problem is in referring to non scientific terms as God, Hawking is not doing science.
-
I dp have a degree in maths. I know what maths is and isn't.
I am in awe. Somehow I managed to get the Noddy version of some sort of qualification in cosmology, and still have to take off my shoes and socks if any sums involve numbers bigger than ten.
-
I must buy that book. I'm a regular reader of his web site so I am morally obliged. Besides, I expect it'll be quite good.
Yes JP, I thought you were - over the weeks then the months and then the years I've noticed that you post links from the blog website on the same day that I've seen them too, since it's one of the first ports of call whenever I log on to the superannuated machine every day.
Two more things:
(1) Yes, you must;
(2) Yes, it is ;)
-
I dp have a degree in maths. I know what maths is and isn't.
I am in awe. Somehow I managed to get the Noddy version of some sort of qualification in cosmology, and still have to take off my shoes and socks if any sums involve numbers bigger than ten.
Degree level maths rarely involves sums of numbers bigger than 10. In fact many of my favourite bits didn't involve numbers at all.
-
Oh, pish :D
-
We do not have to be in Germany to know that you and Jeremy are no scientists and are in no position to say who is one.
I dp have a degree in maths.
Then how come you have not noticed that antitheists are deficient in the penis department by one?
-
Well you see silly Shaker, Jeremy made the claim that Lennox calls himself a scientist. I haven't come across Lennox making that claim yet. So right now I think Jeremy is lying about that.
I happen to think that if the Alexander von Humboldt fellowship believes Lennox to be a scientist, I'm good with that. Your opinion that Lennox isn't is nothing but a joke. You have no credentials nor the respect from anybody that matters in that area.
You and Jeremy should know that Lennox isn't the only one in disagreement with that Hawkin. Even some the atheist scientists are not on board with Hawkin's black hole.(snork) Now this is why we got such a silly knee jerk reaction from Jeremy isn't it. Lennox dares to disagree with that Hawkin fella.
-
The name is Hawking.
-
Jeremy made the claim that Lennox calls himself a scientist. I haven't come across Lennox making that claim yet.
Have you not? That surprises me. Anyway here is an article in which Lennox claims to be a scientist:
But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking's claim is misguided
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html
I'm surprised you are not familiar with the content of that article since it first came to my attention when you posted it earlier on this thread.
So right now I think Jeremy is lying about that.
I presume you now retract your accusation that I lied over that.
Unfortunately, since you accused me of lying and the refutation of the accusation appeared in an article you posted, I will not be able to retract the following accusation on the grounds that it appears to be true:
You're an idiot.
-
And that is the way to do it ;D
-
And that is the way to do it ;D
A well known phrase containing the words 'hoist' and 'petard' comes to mind.
-
I must buy that book. I'm a regular reader of his web site so I am morally obliged. Besides, I expect it'll be quite good.
Yes JP, I thought you were - over the weeks then the months and then the years I've noticed that you post links from the blog website on the same day that I've seen them too, since it's one of the first ports of call whenever I log on to the superannuated machine every day.
Two more things:
(1) Yes, you must;
(2) Yes, it is ;)
Good interview here too:
http://youtu.be/baHLXtmI-VE
-
Superb - many thanks for sharing that, Andy.
-
Superb - many thanks for sharing that, Andy.
Seconded.
I particularly liked what he said about theologians and what they 'know'!!
-
Sorry Jeremy, yes he does call himself a scientist. Of course he is one.
-
We do not have to be in Germany to know that you and Jeremy are no scientists and are in no position to say who is one.
I dp have a degree in maths.
Then how come you have not noticed that antitheists are deficient in the penis department by one?
😳 ??? :o
They won't be breeding then 😜
Well, half of them won't...
O.