Why are believers anti-science?

[geeser]

It's NOT new?
check out this link

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

richard dawkins says it best here, you've obviously got wrong.

Is God a Superstring?

I shall now return to the "no-contests". The argument they mount is certainly worth serious examination, but I think that we shall find it has little more merit than those of the other groups.

God is not an old man with a white beard in the sky. Right then, what is God? And now come the weasel words. these are very variable. "God is not out there, he is in all of us." God is the ground of all being." "God is the essence of life." "God is the universe." "Don't you believe in the universe?" "Of course I believe in the universe." "Then you believe in God." "God is love, don't you believe in love?" "Right, then you believe in God?"

Modern physicists sometimes wax a bit mystical when they contemplate questions such as why the big bang happened when it did, why the laws of physics are these laws and not those laws, why the universe exists at all, and so on. Sometimes physicists may resort to saying that there is an inner core of mystery that we don't understand, and perhaps never can; and they may then say that perhaps this inner core of mystery is another name for God. Or in Stephen Hawkings's words, if we understand these things, we shall perhaps "know the mind of God."

The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion. If a physicist says God is another name for Planck's constant, or God is a superstring, we should take it as a picturesque metaphorical way of saying that the nature of superstrings or the value of Planck's constant is a profound mystery. It has obviously not the smallest connection with a being capable of forgiving sins, a being who might listen to prayers, who cares about whether or not the Sabbath begins at 5pm or 6pm, whether you wear a veil or have a bit of arm showing; and no connection whatever with a being capable of imposing a death penalty on His son to expiate the sins of the world before and after he was born. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins...e/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994-12religion.shtml
if you believe steven hawkings is a believer you seem to be the only one.
the thrust of Hawking's philosophizing in A Brief History of Time is to demean God's role in the affairs of the universe and to elevate the role of the human race.
and now a little fun
http://www.mchawking.com/
or go here and click play the movie
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/233937

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Can't let go of the Hawkings thing can you and what of Lederman?

I'll reiterate here what I said in another thread, what I believe is not based on logic it is personal and unique to me. I have no label for what I believe I also have no desire to share what I believe, neither to convince or convert. If everyones view differed from mine, this is of no interest to me. I have no interest in seeking approval or confirmation.

The only logical view in my mind if we are talking of logic is the agnostic one.
My view is not logical, I know that.

The topic relates to why religious aren't open to science, same reason scientists aren't open to religion I guess? I 'll let you all squabble it out, its not my argument.

Ask yourself why its so improtant to you that the masses share your view?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Scientists, mathematicians, et cetera do not seem to be anti-religion.

I think by reading the scientists view in this thread it is clear they are anti religion, same reason as religious appear to be anti science, I disagreed that all believers in god were anti science and look what I got? It is was a welcome response as it demonstrates that clearly science is no more ready for religion than religion is for science. Not that I was promoting religion! Or even God for that matter.

Science is constantly evolving and disproving that which was previously proved. But still you worship it. I embrace it. It is not the be all and end all.

Religion is a means of control, of course they don't want to relinquish that control? What part of this is a mystery?

 

[duendy]

actually the dogmatic assertion the 'God' is the Earth, and universe, isa up-start ptriarchal ripp off from the original insight that world and universe are body of the GODDESS....actully in patriarcha dogma it doesn't mean Earth is 'God's body, it rather means 'he' is an architect-creator of Earth,and is more transcendent. the evidence for this attitude is shown in how peoples who wanted to commune ecstatically with Nature and universe--a need which was sacred toprepatriarchal and many Indigenous poples--were persecuted by the ptriarchy,and STILL ARE. do not forget the ev ery relentless presence of the war on (SOME) drugs....whcih very much include psychedelics. psychedelic sacrements as an age old primal way of inspiring ecstatic uniion wit Nature andcosmos

now the old dude wt the beard is the patrarchl sky-god concept. but te inisghgt of IMMANENCEis more te panpsychic understanding of our very anceint ancestors. tis means that matter-energy itself is active intelligence and creative

 

[Mythbuster]

I hope those scientists are talking about space not a men with a large beard.

Any scientist will understand this:

G = God exists
B = God is benevolent
P = God is omnipotent
N = There is no evil

P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P, then N
P3. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-B or not-P
C2. Therefore, not-G

If G Then [B + P] = "true"
If [B + P] Then N = "true"
N != true

Therefore ![B + P]
Therefore ![G]

God dont exist.

Science is all about logic and i see NO REASON for them to believe is faith.

 

[Sarkus]

Therefore ![B + P]
Therefore ![G]

God dont exist.

Science is all about logic and i see NO REASON for them to believe is faith.

Surely this just discounts the "Benevolent AND Omnipotent" God-variant?

 

[Lerxst]

Of course, like all theists, they pick and choose whatever suits their fancy to prop up their versions of god fantasies.

That might be the case. So what? It doesn't change the fact that there are scientists that believe in God.

If that were the case, why don't we have Grimmians or Aesopians?

Those books may have morals and interesting stories, but they don't really deal with religious ideas or death or an afterlife, IIRC. I'd have a hard time seeing children's fables taking root for a religious doctrine when there is something already so firmly entrenched in society as Chrisitianty was in europe back then.

Apparently, you can be whatever you want, considering the thousds of sects of Christianity. Again, they pick the best part of the fantasy that suits their needs du jour.

You can be whatever you want. When I look for information, I often scour books from a variety of authors and many sources. Why should religious ideas be any different? Kudos to those who embrace a diverse and well-read kind of spirituality - they are much, much, much, much, much less likely to be fanatical.

Really? So, explain to me please the "gray" areas between a god and no god, souls and no souls, afterlife and no afterlife, reality and fantasy?

The gray area I'm referring to is set of beliefs that can exist in the mind of one individual. There are a number of folks here that seem to think that the world is divided into strictly irrational anti-science theists and purely atheistic logical scientists. Black and white. Either-or. It is a false dichotomy, it's bullshit, and it is easily disporven by the FACT that there are tenured professors in science departments that beleive in God.

Now, if you want me to explain exactly how these particular scientists reconcile these things in their own minds, I can speculate, but given that I am not a theist it is just that, speculation. Many religious scientists are of the pantheistic or deistic persuasion, and a few are liberal Christians.

As well, could you please explain the apparent "degrees or levels" of belief? I was under the impression that you either believe in a god or you don't.

Yes, you either belive in God or not, the difference is that there are differing concepts for what that God is and there are widely differing views on how that belief should impact every other facet of your life, including how you do science.

There is a difference between the conceptions of God held by Al-Zarqawi and Freeman Dyson. There is a very large difference in how they consider God interacts with the universe. There is a very large difference in how their belief impacts what they do day-in and day-out.

But if you are going to divide the world into the black and white of strictly irrational anti-science theists and purely atheistic logical scientists, then where are you going to put Dyson, eh? That is the gray area.

Again, you'd have to define the apparent degrees of belief as opposed to belief and non-belief? At what level exactly does one draw the line between hypocrite and defender?

Personally I could give a rat's ass about who is a "hypocrite" relative to some outdated religious ideals. It is meaningless in this context. I'm concerned with Miller's ideas, not what box you can shove them into and what label you can convieniently affix. If you ask Oral Roberts or Billy Graham, I'm sure they would tell you Kenneth Miller is a hypocrite, and apostate, and a heretic. Who cares?

You have to start partioning up your concepts and differentiate a little more. These concepts are just too complex and blanket staements won't work. Here let me give you an example:

Miller is not a defender of orthodox Christianity.
Miller chooses to believe in a personal God.
Miller does not defend the idea that science somehow shows evidence for God.
Miller is not a defender of biblical literalism.

etc...

This is far more useful and informative than "he is a defender of religion" or "he is a hypocrite".

Who declared that all religious belief has to fall into the narrow guidleines of orthodoxy? They have been changing the details ever since day one. They have been calling each other hypocrites since day one for interpreting every little thing differently. So what?

Thanks for tossing out the first ad hominem. Should we now stoop to kindergarten tactics?

I was calling the idea (that a scientist cannot be a believer) idiotic, not you or anyone else. If that was a personal attack, or construed as one, I apologize. It was not my intention.

 

[Lerxst]

I hope those scientists are talking about space not a men with a large beard.

Any scientist will understand this:

G = God exists
B = God is benevolent
P = God is omnipotent
N = There is no evil

P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P, then N
P3. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-B or not-P
C2. Therefore, not-G

If G Then [B + P] = "true"
If [B + P] Then N = "true"
N != true

Therefore ![B + P]
Therefore ![G]

God dont exist.

Science is all about logic and i see NO REASON for them to believe is faith.

Any scientist will follow the logical flow of your argument, but they won't necessarily come to the final conclusion, because they may disagree with some of the premises. Or they might feel that God is "above" such simple logical exercises.

Seriously... let me direct this to a number of you that claim 'scientists cannot be religious'... let's step away from logical exercises and just examine the facts:

There are scientists that hold religious beliefs. Yes, they are a minority, but they exist. Do you really dispute that? Among members of the NAS, in 1998 a poll showed that 7% called themselves religious. LINK

I spent about 10 years all told at two physics departments of mid-size, run-of-the-mill state universities, and I knew my classmates pretty well, and order of magnitude, I'd say 30% of them held religious beliefs of some kind. I know this because we use to talk and argue about it. Now not everyone goes on to become professional scientists, and even fewer will end up in the NAS, but most of them got the training and certification to do science professionally in some context. I knew other grad students that were religious and quite, quite bright, and some that were dull, and some bright atheistic ones, and some dull atheistic ones.

Where did you all go to school? Was I at the only two schools in the USA where the religious students went? I highly doubt it.

One of my advisor's other students who is still working on his degree is very religious. But he is every bit as capable as anyone else in the group at understanding the bedground science of the field, building instrumentation, designing experiments, colecting data, interpreting the results, publishing them, and defending them at conferences. And no one at the conferences scoffs and says, 'this guy believes in God - kick him out" - NOBODY knows what his personal convictions are except his friends. It does not impact his work. PERIOD.

In fact, if you are up for it, we'll do a little experiment - you can read the text of one of his papers and the text of a paper from a nontheist from the same research group. Both accepted by referees for mainstream journals. Then you can take the Pepsi Challenge and tell me which one was the believer in God and which one wasn't. Who is up for that? Obviously one of them should be riddled with errors and the other should be the paragon of clear thought, right?

And if you cannot tell the difference, then I guess that just shows that it doesn't fucking matter if one of the authors has a God belief, now does it?

So I sit here amazed when I hear all this talk. Either you are using a different defintion for the 'religious' - and you mean BillyBob the ignorant hayseed that dropped out of fourth grade and loves his Jeebus, or you have never spent any time in any science department talking with you fellow grad students.

 

[Ophiolite]

The extreme opposition to my view (converniently side stepping the Lederman example) re Hawking, shows clearly that scientists are not ready to accept religious people into the scientific community and if any scientist dares to claim any religious belief they will either be discredited or have there view twisted to suit the 'general' view. .

My extreme opposition was based upon the fact that you were wrong. I reserve all of my extreme opposition for things that are wrong.
I know, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that many scientists are religious, some devoutly so, and many believe in a personal, 'conventional' god. Hawkins isn't one of them. That is the motivation for my opposition.

I remain, despite both the eloquent and the unworthy arguments on both sides, a committed agnostic, routinely failing to attend any cermonies of any religion at any place of worship, unless required by social convention.

 

[(Q)]

That might be the case. So what? It doesn't change the fact that there are scientists that believe in God.

Or the fact that they are hypocrites because they are scientists that believe in gods.

Those books may have morals and interesting stories, but they don't really deal with religious ideas or death or an afterlife, IIRC. I'd have a hard time seeing children's fables taking root for a religious doctrine when there is something already so firmly entrenched in society as Chrisitianty was in europe back then.

Aesops fables are almost as old as the Olympics. And its quite impossible to tell which is the more credible fable, one from Aesop or that of Christianity. I would probably side with Aesop on that one.

You can be whatever you want. When I look for information, I often scour books from a variety of authors and many sources. Why should religious ideas be any different? Kudos to those who embrace a diverse and well-read kind of spirituality - they are much, much, much, much, much less likely to be fanatical.

If spirituality actually existed in regards to religion, that might be relevant. But since it doesn't, those religious ideas are mere fantasies and is worthless as information, except perhaps to a fanatic.

The gray area I'm referring to is set of beliefs that can exist in the mind of one individual. There are a number of folks here that seem to think that the world is divided into strictly irrational anti-science theists and purely atheistic logical scientists. Black and white. Either-or. It is a false dichotomy, it's bullshit, and it is easily disporven by the FACT that there are tenured professors in science departments that beleive in God.

No, that doesn't prove or disprove anything. It does show however that those scientists are hypocrites since they do not apply their own rigor to their beliefs. I would at least respect the "strictly irrational anti-scientist theist" who stands up for what he believes.

Now, if you want me to explain exactly how these particular scientists reconcile these things in their own minds, I can speculate, but given that I am not a theist it is just that, speculation. Many religious scientists are of the pantheistic or deistic persuasion, and a few are liberal Christians.

Then it would appear your claim is based on pure speculation.

Yes, you either belive in God or not, the difference is that there are differing concepts for what that God is and there are widely differing views on how that belief should impact every other facet of your life, including how you do science.

There is a difference between the conceptions of God held by Al-Zarqawi and Freeman Dyson. There is a very large difference in how they consider God interacts with the universe. There is a very large difference in how their belief impacts what they do day-in and day-out.

In other words, whatever they can conjure from their imagination is what they'll believe. Again, hypocrites.

But if you are going to divide the world into the black and white of strictly irrational anti-science theists and purely atheistic logical scientists, then where are you going to put Dyson, eh? That is the gray area.

Insanity is the gray area?

Personally I could give a rat's ass about who is a "hypocrite" relative to some outdated religious ideals. It is meaningless in this context. I'm concerned with Miller's ideas, not what box you can shove them into and what label you can convieniently affix. If you ask Oral Roberts or Billy Graham, I'm sure they would tell you Kenneth Miller is a hypocrite, and apostate, and a heretic. Who cares?

Many care. They see the propagation of myth held as reality as a dangerous concept. Perhaps scientists who share those beliefs are quite able to recognize that what they work on day to day is a reality and that their beliefs are pure fantasy.

You have to start partioning up your concepts and differentiate a little more. These concepts are just too complex and blanket staements won't work. Here let me give you an example:

Miller is not a defender of orthodox Christianity.
Miller chooses to believe in a personal God.
Miller does not defend the idea that science somehow shows evidence for God.
Miller is not a defender of biblical literalism.

etc...

This is far more useful and informative than "he is a defender of religion" or "he is a hypocrite".

Who declared that all religious belief has to fall into the narrow guidleines of orthodoxy? They have been changing the details ever since day one. They have been calling each other hypocrites since day one for interpreting every little thing differently. So what?

I'm quite surprised you don't see the absolute hypocrisy of that statement. If their interpretations have been continually changing, yet none of it has any basis in reality, then it is mere imaginative fantasy. Yet, the scientist who holds those beliefs MUST be able to recognize it as such. If he can, then he is a hypocrite for making those beliefs part of his reality. If he can't, then he is a hypocrite for not applying his own rigor to his beliefs.

I was calling the idea (that a scientist cannot be a believer) idiotic, not you or anyone else. If that was a personal attack, or construed as one, I apologize. It was not my intention.

Thanks. I didn't think it was your intention.

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

Or the fact that they are hypocrites because they are scientists that believe in gods.

He said "God" not "gods".

I would probably side with Aesop on that one.

Of course you would...you are anti-christian.

If spirituality actually existed in regards to religion, that might be relevant.
But since it doesn't, those religious ideas are mere fantasies and is worthless as information, except perhaps to a fanatic.

Can you explain what "spirituality is?

No, that doesn't prove or disprove anything.

So you don't think it proves that science and religion can co-exist?

It does show however that those scientists are hypocrites since they do not apply their own rigor to their beliefs.

Their rigor deals with physical phenomena which can be observed through the senses. What does this have to do with a belief in God?

I would at least respect the "strictly irrational anti-scientist theist" who stands up for what he believes.

Its a good thing your respect has no value outside your personal life.

Jan.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

My extreme opposition was based upon the fact that you were wrong. I reserve all of my extreme opposition for things that are wrong.
I know, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that many scientists are religious, some devoutly so, and many believe in a personal, 'conventional' god. Hawkins isn't one of them. That is the motivation for my opposition.

I remain, despite both the eloquent and the unworthy arguments on both sides, a committed agnostic, routinely failing to attend any cermonies of any religion at any place of worship, unless required by social convention.

I wasn't actually refferring to you Ophiolite, I was referring to those that said I was a theist, had an agenda, thought god had a beard? Maybe me calling it extreme opposition was 'extreme' use of word extreme!

 

[Lerxst]

Or the fact that they are hypocrites because they are scientists that believe in gods.

If one's belief in God is an expression of faith in things that are inherently beyond the ken of science to deal with, I don't see the hypocrisy. It is only hypocrisy when one realm interferes with the other. They can be non-ovrelapping majesteria, as Gould would say.

Aesops fables are almost as old as the Olympics. And its quite impossible to tell which is the more credible fable, one from Aesop or that of Christianity. I would probably side with Aesop on that one.

Oops, you are right - I was focusing on the Brothers Grimm.

If spirituality actually existed in regards to religion, that might be relevant. But since it doesn't, those religious ideas are mere fantasies and is worthless as information, except perhaps to a fanatic.

Huh? Spirituality doesn't exist in regards to religion? What does that mean? I hope were not just arguing over semantics here.

No, that doesn't prove or disprove anything. It does show however that those scientists are hypocrites since they do not apply their own rigor to their beliefs. I would at least respect the "strictly irrational anti-scientist theist" who stands up for what he believes.

Or they simply acknowledge that science and religion are orthogonal pursuits, that one does not inform the other, and leave it at that. One can (and should) acknowledge that there is not evidence for God, but choose to have faith in that particular concept, for personal reasons. This needn't interfere with their professional lives. Again, there are scientists that do just that, whether you like it or not, and whether you approve or not - they do it, they write papers, they get tenure, they get grants, they do science.

Then it would appear your claim is based on pure speculation.

My claims are based on writings of scientists, and conversations with faculty and grad students. I would propose that it is a much wilder speculation, a kind of fantasy, if you will, to have this romanticised notion that all 'true' scientists are a kind of cross between Hawking and Mr. Spock. They are not. I have spent enough time around enough of them to have seen all the warts.

In other words, whatever they can conjure from their imagination is what they'll believe. Again, hypocrites.

Your personal beliefs, if kept personal, have nothing to do with your professional activites. Shit, one can do solid scientific work and yet even be an idiot in other ways. I offer Nobel laurate William Shockley as a prime example.

Insanity is the gray area?

I don't think Martin Gardner is insane.

Many care. They see the propagation of myth held as reality as a dangerous concept. Perhaps scientists who share those beliefs are quite able to recognize that what they work on day to day is a reality and that their beliefs are pure fantasy.

It all comes down to your philosophical POV. And which one you hold is outside the purview of science.

I'm quite surprised you don't see the absolute hypocrisy of that statement. If their interpretations have been continually changing, yet none of it has any basis in reality, then it is mere imaginative fantasy. Yet, the scientist who holds those beliefs MUST be able to recognize it as such. If he can, then he is a hypocrite for making those beliefs part of his reality. If he can't, then he is a hypocrite for not applying his own rigor to his beliefs.

Interpretations change about everything. Personally I regard just about everything about orthodox Christianity as fantasy, so I cannot dispute that. If you mean that religious ideas have no evidence to back them up, I agree wholeheartedly. I think many 'religious scientists' would agree. Gardner would agree. But it doesn't entail hypocrisy to entertain the beliefs, it simply means holding a philosophical POV that allows for truths outside of the realm of science.

I think our fundamental disagreement has to do with the application of scientific tools and reasoning to philosophical notions. Personally I don't see that those tools need apply. Science is a method for understanding the physical world. There are philosophical POVs that posit a realm that is beyond the ken of science. Holding that view doesn't invalidate your ability to do science at all. Whether or not it is the 'best' view is up for debate, and it is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

 

[charles cure]

I think by reading the scientists view in this thread it is clear they are anti religion, same reason as religious appear to be anti science, I disagreed that all believers in god were anti science and look what I got? It is was a welcome response as it demonstrates that clearly science is no more ready for religion than religion is for science. Not that I was promoting religion! Or even God for that matter.

science isnt anti religion, it is pro-fact. when the facts contradict established religious doctrine and practice, the religious lash out at science and scientists. there is like a 1,000 year legacy of this. if a scientist comes out against a particular religious viewpoint because it clearly and flagrantly violates reality and fact-based knowledge, they are not anti-religion, they are just against the promotion of fallacy as reality. lets not pretend that there are two credible sides facing off here against each other, science holds all the cards, and religion seeks to hold dominion over an ever-shrinking fear of the unknown in the hearts and minds of followers. science, as a field that can bestow knowledge on people is naturally antithetical to religion, which depends on a lack of understanding to control its flock.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

science isnt anti religion, it is pro-fact. when the facts contradict established religious doctrine and practice, the religious lash out at science and scientists. there is like a 1,000 year legacy of this. if a scientist comes out against a particular religious viewpoint because it clearly and flagrantly violates reality and fact-based knowledge, they are not anti-religion, they are just against the promotion of fallacy as reality. lets not pretend that there are two credible sides facing off here against each other, science holds all the cards, and religion seeks to hold dominion over an ever-shrinking fear of the unknown in the hearts and minds of followers. science, as a field that can bestow knowledge on people is naturally antithetical to religion, which depends on a lack of understanding to control its flock.

How can you say science holds all the cards when science is constantly disproving that which it once proved! Although compared to adam and eve stories, yes science holds a more enlightened view but not the whole view.
The mere fact you say science is pro facts and the 'facts' contradict established doctrine...what facts? There are no facts that can demonstrate that the laws of nature were not designed by something? Let me have them if you have them?


I have no religious beleifs myself so am not arguing pro religion just seems to me the way people like your self who see science as the whole truth and nothing but the truth (inspite of all the changes to these truths) are as 'blind' as the religious to reality.

Your science whether you agree or not is your religion. You are religious.

Quoted from web
"Defining the word "religion" is fraught with difficulty. All of the definitions that we have encountered contain at least one deficiency:

Some exclude beliefs and practices that many people passionately defend as religious. For example, their definition might include belief in a personal deity or some supernatural entities. This excludes such non-theistic religions as Buddhism and religious Satanism which have no such belief.
Some definitions equate "religion" with "Christianity," and thus define two out of every three humans in the world as non-religious.
Some definitions are so broadly written that they include beliefs and areas of study that most people do not regard as religious. For example, David Edward's definition would seem to include cosmology and ecology within his definition of religion -- fields of investigation that most people regard to be a scientific studies and non-religious in nature.
Some define "religion" in terms of "the sacred" and/or "the spiritual," and thus necessitate the creation of two more definitions.
Sometimes, definitions of "religion" contain more than one deficiency"

I am not religious, I embrace science but see it as it is...an infant

 

[MarcAC]

Healthy view...

 

[(Q)]

(Q),

He said "God" not "gods".

That would be one of the only times you actually DID correct someone.

Of course you would...you are anti-christian.

Anti-religion. But I'm refering to the fact that I find more credibility with talking animals than I do with angels, devils, afterlifes, souls, gods, resurrections, etc.

Can you explain what "spirituality is?

Yes, another fantasy created by theists like you.

So you don't think it proves that science and religion can co-exist?

They can co-exist in hypocrisy.

Their rigor deals with physical phenomena which can be observed through the senses. What does this have to do with a belief in God?

Nothing, of course. That was my point.

 

[(Q)]

If one's belief in God is an expression of faith in things that are inherently beyond the ken of science to deal with, I don't see the hypocrisy. It is only hypocrisy when one realm interferes with the other. They can be non-ovrelapping majesteria, as Gould would say.

Peoples fantasies are well understood as just that, therefore the overlap is whatever one makes it.

Huh? Spirituality doesn't exist in regards to religion? What does that mean? I hope were not just arguing over semantics here.

Spirituality simply doesn't exist.

Or they simply acknowledge that science and religion are orthogonal pursuits, that one does not inform the other, and leave it at that. One can (and should) acknowledge that there is not evidence for God, but choose to have faith in that particular concept, for personal reasons. This needn't interfere with their professional lives. Again, there are scientists that do just that, whether you like it or not, and whether you approve or not - they do it, they write papers, they get tenure, they get grants, they do science.

Yes, I know, you keep repeating that. The point is that they are hypocrites if they refuse to apply rigor to their own beliefs, personal or otherwise. Why would they be interested in centuries old myths as a faith? Clearly, they can't be so deluded?

My claims are based on writings of scientists, and conversations with faculty and grad students. I would propose that it is a much wilder speculation, a kind of fantasy, if you will, to have this romanticised notion that all 'true' scientists are a kind of cross between Hawking and Mr. Spock. They are not. I have spent enough time around enough of them to have seen all the warts.

Your personal beliefs, if kept personal, have nothing to do with your professional activites. Shit, one can do solid scientific work and yet even be an idiot in other ways. I offer Nobel laurate William Shockley as a prime example.

Yes, but the rigor, THE RIGOR!

I don't think Martin Gardner is insane.

Dyson was though.

It all comes down to your philosophical POV. And which one you hold is outside the purview of science.

I believe there is a invisible pink dragon in my attic. Should I at least apply some rigor and logic to that or just take it on faith?

Interpretations change about everything. Personally I regard just about everything about orthodox Christianity as fantasy, so I cannot dispute that. If you mean that religious ideas have no evidence to back them up, I agree wholeheartedly. I think many 'religious scientists' would agree. Gardner would agree. But it doesn't entail hypocrisy to entertain the beliefs, it simply means holding a philosophical POV that allows for truths outside of the realm of science.

That's different. One should be able to entertain many such concepts, but certainly not to the point of accepting them.

I think our fundamental disagreement has to do with the application of scientific tools and reasoning to philosophical notions. Personally I don't see that those tools need apply. Science is a method for understanding the physical world. There are philosophical POVs that posit a realm that is beyond the ken of science. Holding that view doesn't invalidate your ability to do science at all. Whether or not it is the 'best' view is up for debate, and it is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

I don't think so, it's more along the lines of myth as opposed to philosophy. Theists claim their god fantasies are in fact reality, that they are part of the physical world or have some connection to the physical world. All of these concepts stemming from an age when mankind was afraid of lightning and thunder. Ridiculous in the extreme.

Yet, those scientists you refer take on those ridiculous myths as being part of their reality, yet refuse to apply simple basic rigor to those beliefs.

Ridiculous and hypocritical.

 

[charles cure]

How can you say science holds all the cards when science is constantly disproving that which it once proved! Although compared to adam and eve stories, yes science holds a more enlightened view but not the whole view.

look i said science holds all the cards because like it or not it is the only way to acheive conclusive proof of the veracity or falsity of a particular hypothesis. there is no such thing as spiritual truth, only subjective opinion. science never claims to provide an answer to a particular question in every situation, what it does is provide factual support for a hypothesis. science doesnt disprove the things it already proved, it simply rounds out its original findings by making them more detailed, or specifies that things are different under previously unconsidered circumstances, or perhaps, a scientist critiques the particulars of another scientist's findings. the view that science is constantly in flux and disproving what "it" (whoever that may be) has already proved only implies that you dont understand what is actually going on in the scientific world.

The mere fact you say science is pro facts and the 'facts' contradict established doctrine...what facts? There are no facts that can demonstrate that the laws of nature were not designed by something? Let me have them if you have them?

the facts have often contradicted established doctrine. remeber the deeply held catholic belief that the world was flat, or that we lived in a geocentric universe? those beliefs were as deeply held as the belief that the universe must have been "designed", and they turned out to be totally false and myopic. yet even in the face of facts, religion continued to deny that these were indeed fundamental truths. i wasnt specifically referring to the ID doctrine as something that has been disproved, but i dont even think that scientists take it seriously enough to be actively crusading to disprove it. i think that scientists are out there and have been for a long time trying to discover how the earth and the universe and life came into being, and eventually they will figure it out and religious people will continue to say "well, just because you know how the earth and universe originated doesnt mean that god didnt do it in that exact way" its bullshit, has always been, and will always remain so. the religious have no proof, nor even strive to find any, because their argument is so convenient that they will never need any, and all the while they continue to squawk about science's "lack of evidence" disproving their theory. its a fallacy. if youre a christian and intelligent design is your hypothesis - prove it with observation and experimentation in a fashion that is repeatable and then you will have the credibility that you desire in the scientific realm. until then ID is no better than a theory you dream up in the morning while youre taking a shower before work.

I have no religious beleifs myself so am not arguing pro religion just seems to me the way people like your self who see science as the whole truth and nothing but the truth (inspite of all the changes to these truths) are as 'blind' as the religious to reality.

look, your major mistake is that you think science is a provider of truth. it isnt. its a provider of fact as it relates to the proof of a specific premise under specified conditions and a describer of the processes of the natural world. for a scientific theory to be credible it has to be tested, tried, and repeated successfully many times by many different people, so if it is eventually revised, the reason for the revision is almost always that we are somehow capable of understanding something or perceiving something that we did not before. that does not negate the validity of the original hypothesis, it only adds to it. so dont go thinking that science proves itself wrong everyday because thats really a pretty ill-informed view, and please dont presume to tell me what i think, you obviously have no idea.

Your science whether you agree or not is your religion. You are religious.

no im not. and whether you agree or not youre a fucking idiot. i dont believe in science, i accept successful results. 1+1=2, based on that you can build a house that doesnt collapse on itself or sink into the ground, but that doesnt mean that you believe 1+1=2, it means that it gets the proper results, so whether you believe it or not it is a fact, and when you dont abide by it, you fail. science works that way,its rather simple.

 

[usp8riot]

Science is always a truth in progress. How many times and how many scientific hypothesis' have been revised in the last 2000 or so years compared to religions. A lot of religions still hold true, or atleast what a lot of people believe best, to this day in pertaining to human socialization. I am all for science but it can be argued it's a religion also. It's not what is true, it is what is percieved by the human eye. It doesn't mean it is universally true. Time/space always differs from the perspective of the observer. Who is to say what we see is true time/space? Anyhow, I don't like debating the philosophical way since, assumedly, anything's possible since there's so many perspectives to it. But it is pretty ignorant to say there's no more to this world than that which is observed, has been observed, or can be observed.
A truth is still a truth whether it is known or not. Just because we or our man-made equipment can only detect certain wavelengths of light, audio, and all other waves, doesn't mean there's other wavelenghts out there which can't be observed by us. All that we see and sense, we sense through motion, or waves. Our eyes, ears, etc. How do we sense motion? Because there is a null motion which tells us there is a motion. There is also that aspect also that we don't observe. Just because we can't sense it doesn't mean it's not there. If you only trust yourself to believe in only what we can observe, how awful it must be to gate yourself in like that. To be unable to come up with a theory for that which isn't or possibly can't be observed. Are atheists bound by their limited IQ to not be able to contemplate null existance? This is not an attack but it's to stir up discussion. I really want to hear scientific reasoning on how God can be disproven and how science is everything. A true scientist leaves all doors open because he studies. And that's it, he studies. He does not know. To study is to observe that which is unsure or unknown and you must leave all doors open when a subject has so many variables. To close a door on a subject is to lose valuable information which can be possibly deductive evidence or persuasive. Ok, I'll stop babbling.