Why are believers anti-science?

[superluminal]

Ok, I'll stop babbling.

Good. Your inaneness is fucking annoying.

 

[charles cure]

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.

really, a lot of religions have always believed in what is still held to be the best in terms of socialization? no fucking shit. society and culture are reflective of the beliefs of the dominant religion that makes them up. hence, while no women are required to wear veils in america and we see that as the best cultural practice, it is positively antithetical to many muslim cultures. Amish people fuck through a sheet so they dont have to see each other naked because thats what their society dictates based on the dominant religious forces in it. its no mystery that religious ideas of socialization are held up as ideals in society, because religion is a dominant force in society. get rid of religion and come at the subject objectively, and then you will see what the best in terms of socialization is and you can compare it to the religious version.

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.

im going to go out on a limb here and say that this whole paragraph is incoherent to the point of almost absolute absurdity. what the hell are you talking about? this is what i got from it:

1. science is a religion

2. science isn't the truth, its just what is seen with the human eye. (wow)

3. time and space is significantly different for everyone, so we cant know that anything is true or not because we cant depend on science and we cant depend on just our own perspective because chances are we are the only ones who see it that way.

4. you dont like arguing philosophy, yet that does not prevent you from making bad attempts at it.

5. you either need to lay off the weed, or start smoking it, whichever one you arent doing now. :m:

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.

this is where youre wrong. if it cant be observed, then it is meaningless. observation is not limited to sight. you can observe the effect of a force or matter or organism without seeing it. you then attempt to find the source of the effect that you are observing, and eventually you find the thing itself that you could not see or did not know existed. if we dont ever look for the "null" then how exactly is it that scientists got to the point where they have posited the existence of dark matter or black holes? it comes down to your incomplete definition of observation - you can observe a thing in many different ways, but the key is that you can observe anything that has an effect on you. you may not know what you are observing, but without the effect, you would never have any indication that it was even extant to begin with. so, if god has such a great effect on our lives, how come we cant observe it. this in turn begs the question - if god exists and doesnt have any effect, why should we even give a shit?

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.

classic theist fallacy. WHO SAID SCIENCE IS EVERYTHING? you want the answer - you did. no atheist said that science is 100% right all the time, but it is a reliable provider of fact and describer of reality. in addition to that, the lack of evidence for god is so enormous, that it would seem obvious that gods existence isnt a tenable position from a scientific standpoint. where has someone sought out to prove god's existence through science and come up with some good hard facts, and not just a bunch of conjecture about how the universe looks so complex that it had to be designed? that is an opinion or a philosophical stance, not a fact, not a clue, not an empirically supportable position. scientists endeavor to prove a hypothesis, nothing more. if, in the course of having proved a hypothesis, they come up with evidence that supports a new one, they formulate a new one and move on trying to prove it. this is positive, forward progress. a scientist does not set out to disprove something, but possibly to prove the opposite of something. if some scientific theories about the world that hold true tend to contradict a theological stance for which there is very little or absolutely no evidence, too bad. you ask for evidence to disprove god, yet you believe in god with no proof. why should any scientist even accept that kind of idiotic challenge?
the whole point you make here is well, we dont know everything, so we are free to assume anything. well thats fucking stupid. some things are a lot more likely than others, and you can use your mind to sort between the two. try it.

 

[usp8riot]

get rid of religion and come at the subject objectively, and then you will see what the best in terms of socialization is and you can compare it to the religious version.

What are you talking about? Most religions say be nice to one another basically, so does society. Is there a religious version of being nice, like, "hi, how is your day", and a nonreligious version?

you either need to lay off the weed, or start smoking it, whichever one you arent doing now.

So is that how you come to your conclusions? And how they should be faced? Just that is enough to invalidate your basis for argument.

this is where youre wrong. if it cant be observed, then it is meaningless.

So if it can't be observed by a human, it is meaningless. So I guess black holes were meaningless until this century since we couldn't observe them then. Along with bacterium and microscopic matter before man invented a means to observe it. I could provide countless examples. Again, the more you speak the more you wind up invalidating your own credibility. Everything in this universe has meaning.

so, if god has such a great effect on our lives, how come we cant observe it. this in turn begs the question - if god exists and doesnt have any effect, why should we even give a shit?

Whether or not you believe God has a direct affect on us or not, it is the words of His prophets which I believe is ultimately important, not if you can observe Him. And as I discussed before in another thread, the game is over if He has to show Himself. Life is a test and you will not see the one giving the test until it is over when the time has come. Like a parent, you want your child to do right and when the child matures and is able to make his own choices out in the world, you want the child to listen to you not because you said but because of the understanding the child gained by realizing through life all the parent wanted was to keep the child safe and happy along with others. That is the reason to do right. Not because the parent is there watching and waiting for the child to screw up and be scorned. The test is to do what is right not because we know God is there and know what He wants, but because we believe and do it because we love Him and His creation.

you ask for evidence to disprove god, yet you believe in god with no proof. why should any scientist even accept that kind of idiotic challenge?

Look at what you see...what is created. It is created therefore it has a creator. And you call my challenge idiotic? This is only obvious. You see an effect, therefore, there must be a cause. I know not who or what caused the effect, yet I know the motion of the universe is an ultimate effect and does have a cause, and I call that cause God. That is just a simpletons view of it. Look at my other posts for more in-depth views on it. So your views on this are against mine charles? You believe there was no cause for the effect? So what then is the scientific basis to find out the effect? To just assume nothing did it? So who looks more like a scientist now, atheists or God-believing religious? I know better than to actually believe you believe in nothing so elaborate more on what you believe, oh mighty one who is so quick to criticize that which he doesn't understand.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

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.

WEll SAID!

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Charles Cure

You seem to be getting pretty angry on this thread, are you a religious science fanatic or what?

You contradict yourself a lot by the way and turning the tables to say I said science is the whole truth..I never did? And that Riot said Science is everything? He did not....whats that all about?

The question on this thread is why do religious people not accept science and as I tried to demonstrate and Ophiolite later confirmed, there are many scientists that hold religious views.

My answer to the original post is simply: same reason you are the way you are towards people with religious beliefs...intolerance, unaccpetance, lack of undersatnding of the human conditon.

 

[Lerxst]

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

My point is there need not be any overlap.

Spirituality simply doesn't exist.

I understand that you must mean this in the sense that 'a spirit-world does not exist'? Not in the sense of spirituality as a feeling of awe and reverence at the very fact that we exist in such an interesting universe? And that there are many profound mysteries and questions? And that this sense of awe and wonder in turn can give life a sort of deeply, quasi-magical quality?

Because such a sense of spirituality is quite real and need not even extend beyond science - Einstein referred to it all the time, as does Sagan:


"Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word 'spirituality' that we are talking about anything other than matter (including the realm of matter of which the brain is made) or anything outside the realm of science...Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality...The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a profound disservice to both."

Personally I would extend that definition to go outside of the realm of science into the realm of philosophy as well, but I know exactly what feeling Sagan is talking about. Without this kind of feeling, life is pretty grim, IMO. If you can cultivate this sense purely from science, as Sagan did, more power to you. If you feel a deep-seated need to answer the questions that science cannot address, then you will need to look further.

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?

Yes, but the rigor, THE RIGOR!

It is not a quesion of rigor at all. It is a question of applying the right tools for the job. If studying science, then use the rigor you speak of. In philosophical matters outside the jurisdiction of science, it does not follow that the same tools need always apply. Science cannot answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Apply all the "rigor" you like, you still won't have an answer. You'll have to look elsewhere, or just not ask the question. What you decide is a personal matter and has nothing to do with the kind of rigor you can apply when addressing questions of an entirely different class, i.e., those 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?

Well, you are defining something that has specific physical properties, so it sounds like something that is in the realm of science to tackle - I'd advise you use that. These silly "invisible (insert color here) (insert mythical beast here) in my (insert place here)" examples don't really establish anything. It is not the same concept as God, it is not meant to address the same momentous issues that a god-idea addresses, and it is apples and oranges.

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.

The god-idea may indeed have originated from ignorant times, but it's appeal has not waned because it addresses (for many people) some deep-seated and profoundly human concerns.

If a scientist chooses to hold such beliefs and they don't interfere with his professional work, it is irrelevant.

I'd propose a sort of Turing Test, similar to the Pepsi Challenge I offered earlier: If you place two scientists (one theist and one atheist) in two rooms and submit them a series of questions on science, and if you cannot tell the difference between them, then it doesn't matter what their personal beliefs are. And of course, this kind of test is already in place, it is one of the results of peer-review. Journal referees do not ask authors to include a statement of religious beliefs along with their submissions. Because it is irrelevant, as long as it doesn't impact your work.

If you wish to label one a hypocrite, that is just fine, you do that, but it's merely a subjective opinion of yours, because you happen to think that scientific methods need to be applied to a non-scientific philosophical majesteria, which is a personal opinion.

The question of personal spiritual belief is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical one.

(Now, for that sad subset of religious scientists that do try to make god a question of scientific concern - whether through young-earth ideas, creationism, intelligent design, or the silly "fine-tuning of the constants" crap - then we are in complete agreement that such individuals are hypocrites. They are also not doing science and deserve to be ridiculed. And of course, these people are already weeded out through the same peer-review process, so it's not like we need some new mechanism to catch them.)

 

[Ophiolite]

Lerxst, you are unlikely to be able to convince (Q) of the validity of your observations. He is trapped in the same faith based perception of reality that he condemns in the religious. It only becomes relevant in discussions such as this, for it does not effect his ability to apply scientific rigour to the rest of his pronouncements.

 

[charles cure]

What are you talking about? Most religions say be nice to one another basically, so does society. Is there a religious version of being nice, like, "hi, how is your day", and a nonreligious version?

i think that that point is open to debate. the main message of most religions isn't "be nice to one another".

So is that how you come to your conclusions? And how they should be faced? Just that is enough to invalidate your basis for argument.

i've never taken drugs in my life, with the exception of alcohol periodically. i was saying that i think maybe you should do some or stop doing them, whichever one will make you not sound so ridiculous.

So if it can't be observed by a human, it is meaningless. So I guess black holes were meaningless until this century since we couldn't observe them then. Along with bacterium and microscopic matter before man invented a means to observe it. I could provide countless examples. Again, the more you speak the more you wind up invalidating your own credibility. Everything in this universe has meaning.

first of all, you apparently didnt read any of what i wrote. we observed the effects of microscopic bacterium and other organisms long before we could observe the things themselves. they were always there exerting an influence on us, causing problematic situations in our environment that we observed and recorded, but it took us a while to find them. that doesnt mean we weren't observing them just because we couldnt see the actual things themselves. come on, figure it out. if something has an effect on you, you can observe it, with or without microscopes or space travel. you couldnt provide countless examples unless you dont understand what i am talking about, which is evidently the case.

Whether or not you believe God has a direct affect on us or not, it is the words of His prophets which I believe is ultimately important, not if you can observe Him. And as I discussed before in another thread, the game is over if He has to show Himself. Life is a test and you will not see the one giving the test until it is over when the time has come. Like a parent, you want your child to do right and when the child matures and is able to make his own choices out in the world, you want the child to listen to you not because you said but because of the understanding the child gained by realizing through life all the parent wanted was to keep the child safe and happy along with others. That is the reason to do right. Not because the parent is there watching and waiting for the child to screw up and be scorned. The test is to do what is right not because we know God is there and know what He wants, but because we believe and do it because we love Him and His creation.

yeah whatever, there are about a million problems with that. one being that if god has no direct effect on us, why should we listen to anything that its prophets have said? if you cant observe god, for the reason that god has no effect on us, then god doesnt matter. the only reason anyone would ever give weight to the words of god's prophets is because they believe that they issue from god and that to disobey them will incur gods wrath. people listen to the words of god to avoid hell or to get into heaven, not because they are somehow universally true and right. if that were the case there would be no need for a construct such as hell or heaven to act as deterrant and incentive.
now, on to your parent fallacy. god is not like a parent. imagine growing up alone with a parent who is locked in a room somewhere in a house that you cant see or get to, but every morning when you wake up, there is a list of things that you have to do on the table. you do the things on the list, but after a while you say well, who the fuck is leaving this list for me and why am i following it. so you dont do the things on the list the next day, and nothing happens. you throw the list out for the next three weeks and still nothing happens. you selectively do things on the list and selectively ignore others. nothing happens. you do this all of your life and then die. nothing happens. thats god's "parenting". face it, people do what they think god wants to avoid a hell of eternal torture or get into a heaven of eternal pleasure, neither of which actually exist. if what god asked us to do was universally right, then god should have designed humans to want to do right instead of forcing them to counteract their natural urges in order to do right. if life is a test and god is silently judging us all without revealing itself, the test, or the nature of the test, then god, according to my standards is purely evil, and i hope with all my heart that i dont have to spend an eternity in the presence of such monstrous filth and depravity.

Look at what you see...what is created. It is created therefore it has a creator. And you call my challenge idiotic? This is only obvious. You see an effect, therefore, there must be a cause. I know not who or what caused the effect, yet I know the motion of the universe is an ultimate effect and does have a cause, and I call that cause God. That is just a simpletons view of it. Look at my other posts for more in-depth views on it. So your views on this are against mine charles? You believe there was no cause for the effect? So what then is the scientific basis to find out the effect? To just assume nothing did it? So who looks more like a scientist now, atheists or God-believing religious? I know better than to actually believe you believe in nothing so elaborate more on what you believe, oh mighty one who is so quick to criticize that which he doesn't understand.

no, the difference between you and i is that you see the universe as an effect and call the cause GOD, because you want to believe in god. you therefore observe an effect and assume a specific cause without any analysis or evidence. i also see the universe, its motion, its existence, as an effect, but i do not assume a specific cause for it. i admit that at this point we do not know for sure, and i am open to evidence for or against hypothetical causes, but i refuse to use the sole fact that the universe exists to justify god, because thats a fallacy. you dont look like a scientist now do you, you still look like an idiot. what you do is confuse the definitions of knowledge and belief to the point where you think they are one and the same, because it bolsters the strength of your mindless faith in an unobservable diety.

 

[charles cure]

Charles Cure

You seem to be getting pretty angry on this thread, are you a religious science fanatic or what?

no, i just hate stupidity.

You contradict yourself a lot by the way and turning the tables to say I said science is the whole truth..I never did? And that Riot said Science is everything? He did not....whats that all about?

ok where did i contradict myself? i never said science is everything. i said science is the best way we have to collect facts. i said that evidence is meaningful as a way of proving a hypothesis. i never said that everything that scientists say is automatically true just because they say it. that is the way a theist sees things, because they believe that everything the bible or the koran says is true just because it is written there. USP8TRIOT said that i said science was everything, i didnt, but he makes the assumption that i think so and then critiques my arguments based on his assumption that i think of science as a provider of absolute truth despite the fact that i continue to say i dont, and continue to describe how i think the scientific process actually works. he also refers to "science" as a whole all the time as if it is a religion or unified group of believers or something. its not. its millions of people all over the world making use of a process in order to provide evidenciary support for a wide array of different ideas. theres no such thing as a concept that "science" says is true. thats a load of trash. there are accepted scientific theories, and they get that way because they are successfully tested over and over again by many people with acceptable results. science isnt a religion, its a process. you dont have faith in the process, you understand the process. thats what thats all about. so why dont you come on and tell me now where exactly my ubiquitous self-contradictions are?

The question on this thread is why do religious people not accept science and as I tried to demonstrate and Ophiolite later confirmed, there are many scientists that hold religious views.

so what? i dont think that just because a scientist thinks something that it is automatically correct. a scientist who believes in god and doesnt have any proof still holds the same foolish belief that any other non-scientific theist does. the only thing that seperates the two, in my opinion, is that the scientist should know better. a scientist though, when it comes down to it, is nothing more than a person who makes successful use of the scientific method. the method is important, the facts and results of experimentation are important as they relate to supporting or refuting a particular hypothesis, the person conducting the experiments is simply the conduit for the process. they may certainly add to it, but they are not the source of the ultimate veracity of the hypothesis, the facts must be there for the scientist to find. so, in short, how does the fact that some scientists are religious even matter? they are, by and large, an exception to the rule. you can see the attacks that religious people make on scientific data all the time now on the news. i was under the impression that we were discussing them.

My answer to the original post is simply: same reason you are the way you are towards people with religious beliefs...intolerance, unaccpetance, lack of undersatnding of the human conditon.

i understand the human condition well enough. that doesnt mean i view ignorance as a virtue. i am not intolerant, yet, i do support what is correct, and lament the ruining of the world by clashes between religious views. as for "unacceptance", youre absolutely right, i do not accept god or religion in my life because i see it as a flaw of ignorance. i happen to live in a place where i am not required to accept it personally. the problem that i find, is that like it or not, in my country it appears as though we are being forced to accept it publicly, and that is something i will always do my best to struggle against. if thats not ok with you, well, tough shit.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Charles: blah blah blah to most of it....repeating I am not a theist, and re the last bit about being forced to accept religion publicly, well sympathies, cos thats just not right..each to their own.

You don't come across as remotely knowledgable of the human conditon, if you were you wouldn't be such an intolerant hot head, 'ignorant this' 'ignorant that', you're right not everyone is as educated as you and not everyone wants to dismiss a belief system that helps them get through shitty patches in their lives, that science couldn't do!

Religion has its place, yes there is a lot of abuse associated with it but some good comes out of it, thats why I am tolerant of religion without being religious myself. NO I'm not a theist....I don't care to promote /advertise what I believe in its not relevant to point of thread,

you are doing my point whole world of good though, so keep the insults coming.

Meanhwhile

 

[charles cure]

blah blah blah

hahahahahahahahahahaha. man you cant come up with shit can you? good reply. i found it instructive.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

hahahahahahahahahahaha. man you cant come up with shit can you? good reply. i found it instructive.

I have the edited version, I was doing kids dinner, oops apologies for having a life religious scie nce fanatic dude! What do you live off micro...chips...lol lol

 

[(Q)]

I understand that you must mean this in the sense that 'a spirit-world does not exist'? Not in the sense of spirituality as a feeling of awe and reverence at the very fact that we exist in such an interesting universe? And that there are many profound mysteries and questions? And that this sense of awe and wonder in turn can give life a sort of deeply, quasi-magical quality?

I'm not aware of such a definition for spirituality. Sure, one can have awe and reverance for the universe, which will continuously challenge us with mysteries and questions, but that in no way should alude to a quasi-magical quality. You can't simply map spiritual concepts into empirical evidence and make it a reality.

Because such a sense of spirituality is quite real and need not even extend beyond science

That's not spirituality, that is merely the imagined concepts of purpose, that there exists some reason as to why we exist.

Without this kind of feeling, life is pretty grim, IMO. If you can cultivate this sense purely from science, as Sagan did, more power to you. If you feel a deep-seated need to answer the questions that science cannot address, then you will need to look further.

What questions do you refer that science wouldn't be able to answer?

It is not a quesion of rigor at all. It is a question of applying the right tools for the job. If studying science, then use the rigor you speak of. In philosophical matters outside the jurisdiction of science, it does not follow that the same tools need always apply. Science cannot answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Apply all the "rigor" you like, you still won't have an answer. You'll have to look elsewhere, or just not ask the question. What you decide is a personal matter and has nothing to do with the kind of rigor you can apply when addressing questions of an entirely different class, i.e., those of science.

Those questions are again questions of purpose of existence. And one could go on imagining any such purpose they wish. Science would probably conclude no such purpose is necessary for life to exist.

But if a such a purpose did in fact exist, science would be the first to reveal it.

Well, you are defining something that has specific physical properties, so it sounds like something that is in the realm of science to tackle - I'd advise you use that. These silly "invisible (insert color here) (insert mythical beast here) in my (insert place here)" examples don't really establish anything. It is not the same concept as God, it is not meant to address the same momentous issues that a god-idea addresses, and it is apples and oranges.

The 'god-idea' addresses the imagined borne from ignorance and fear and was meant to explain the world around us. We've grown beyond that ignorance and fear and now have many answers that explain much the world around us, which also has shown that no gods were required.

The god-idea may indeed have originated from ignorant times, but it's appeal has not waned because it addresses (for many people) some deep-seated and profoundly human concerns.

No, the god-idea has not waned because many would rather choose it over the answers that do explain the world around us. They would much rather imagine a contrived purpose in which they are somehow special and that their presence here is immortal. Those human concerns are silly questions of purpose, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Religion and spirituality attempt to answer that question, all from the realm of the imagination and the need to believe.

If a scientist chooses to hold such beliefs and they don't interfere with his professional work, it is irrelevant.

It's very relevant. It shows that the scientist is a hypocrite for accepting those imagined concepts as part of their reality, even if they may have found their professional work would undermine those very beliefs.

If Miller suddenly came to a discovered or observed conclusion which thwarted his beliefs, would he still go on believing? Would he not be a hypocrite for continuing to believe?

I'd propose a sort of Turing Test, similar to the Pepsi Challenge I offered earlier: If you place two scientists (one theist and one atheist) in two rooms and submit them a series of questions on science, and if you cannot tell the difference between them, then it doesn't matter what their personal beliefs are. And of course, this kind of test is already in place, it is one of the results of peer-review. Journal referees do not ask authors to include a statement of religious beliefs along with their submissions. Because it is irrelevant, as long as it doesn't impact your work.

Ok, and if the scientific questions happened to fly in the face of the theist scientists beliefs, they might answer them since that is their profession. However, the theist scientist cannot accept those answers and sustain his beliefs at the same time, one must eventually give out to the other, if not, then that scientist is a hypocrite.

The question of personal spiritual belief is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical one.

Yes, I clearly understand that which you keep repeating. And I'm trying to get you to see that ones philosophical views and beliefs can only be imagined without the use of science. They are questions that can only be answered if a god does in fact show himself to all one day, or if science finds enough answers that those questions have no meaning.

My point is that there are enough answers already available to easily extinguish such imagined beliefs. Therefore, science could answer the question, " Why is there something rather than nothing?" There is NO reason why there is something rather than nothing, there simply IS because the physical laws of science have been at work to produce that very something.

(Now, for that sad subset of religious scientists that do try to make god a question of scientific concern - whether through young-earth ideas, creationism, intelligent design, or the silly "fine-tuning of the constants" crap - then we are in complete agreement that such individuals are hypocrites. They are also not doing science and deserve to be ridiculed. And of course, these people are already weeded out through the same peer-review process, so it's not like we need some new mechanism to catch them.)

But you see, those pseudo-scientists should get more respect than those others you refer, since they, at the very least, are standing firm in their beliefs and their convictions, and do not accept the answers science has provided.

Of course, they are not doing science and deserve the riducule, I myself pass that riducule along every chance I get.

But they should, at the very least, deserve the respect over those others who would have their cake and eat it too.

 

[(Q)]

Lerxst, you are unlikely to be able to convince (Q) of the validity of your observations. He is trapped in the same faith based perception of reality that he condemns in the religious. It only becomes relevant in discussions such as this, for it does not effect his ability to apply scientific rigour to the rest of his pronouncements.

Gee, thanks O! Am I now forced to go back and glean from your posts the very same fallen entrapment you accuse of me? Oops, I already have and would be happy to PM those to you and avoid the embarrasment of public humiliation.

I understand completely what Lerxst is arguing, but that doesn't mean I should whole-heartedly agree, does it?

If I am remiss in trying to understand exactly how a set of ancient faith-based myths can be reconciled in the minds of those who would hold them over other such myths as some sort of reality, please do enlighten me?

And please do explain how it is possible those same faith-based myths to have any validity whatsoever when that has never been shown outside of the imagined?

Ok, it's fine that a scientist holds faith-based myths as a reality, regardless of whether his professional work cannot show it to be valid, or would discount those beliefs as mere nonsense. And to go on believing is something he must to do in order to satisfy his own need to believe in such things. That is exactly the hypocrisy I refer.

I have not made any claims that his professional work is influenced by his beliefs, only that to hold such beliefs while doing that work is hypocritical, especially if the work would invalidate those beliefs such that he is forced to modify them to fit the work.

So, he continues to refine the work, finding more and more evidence that does NOT suggest devine influence in any way, yet that scientists beliefs never wane. He continues to beleive that a god did it. Hypocrisy.

And then comes the day one of two things must occur. Either a god suddenly appears to everyone satisfying all our questions, or enough scientific information will reveal itself to conclude no such gods could possibly exist.

I am forced to adhere to the latter and shelve the former as a derelict notion of an era long gone. To hold onto it as some possibility would only serve to prop up those derelict notions that should have been discarded long ago.

 

[Ophiolite]

Gee, thanks O! Am I now forced to go back and glean from your posts the very same fallen entrapment you accuse of me? Oops, I already have and would be happy to PM those to you and avoid the embarrasment of public humiliation.

Please proceed with the public humiliation. All I ask is that before doing so please quote the post where I state that I am immune to faith based perceptions of reality.

 

[Gustav]

ooooh
watching!
can we then execute? a ripping of entrails? ravenous dogs perhaps

All I ask is that before doing so please quote the post where I state that I am immune to faith based perceptions of reality.

strawman. it is a condition that you are being accused of having. q does not allege that you have made a statement of immunity to said condition. therefore, no statement has to be quoted

 

[(Q)]

Please proceed with the public humiliation. All I ask is that before doing so please quote the post where I state that I am immune to faith based perceptions of reality.

Sorry, my bad, I was under the impression that you weren't also refering to yourself when you said:

He is trapped in the same faith based perception of reality that he condemns in the religious.

 

[Vindicator]

Yes, belief is useful. Let us not forget the placebo effect. Believe.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I do not reject science by the way! Haven't said anywhere here that I do.

Kids believe in father Christmas, its harmless and brings them great joy, how many scientist dads here are so stuck on science they don't allow their children the joy of this illusion?

 

[Lerxst]

What questions do you refer that science wouldn't be able to answer?

The kind I've been mentioning - why is there a universe at all? Are there other levels to reality we cannot perceive? Is there a god or gods? etc...

Those questions are again questions of purpose of existence. And one could go on imagining any such purpose they wish. Science would probably conclude no such purpose is necessary for life to exist.

I don't feel that such questions of human meaning are in the purview of science. Neither did Stephen Jay Gould.

But if a such a purpose did in fact exist, science would be the first to reveal it.

I honestly don't know - but I doubt it.

No, the god-idea has not waned because many would rather choose it over the answers that do explain the world around us.

See, but you keep separating the world into atheistic scientists and theists that reject science. Someone like Miller does accept everything science says about the world around us. He doesn't look to the bible for geological and biological theories. He only looks to it for questions that nothing in science can answer. There is no conflict.

It's very relevant. It shows that the scientist is a hypocrite for accepting those imagined concepts as part of their reality, even if they may have found their professional work would undermine those very beliefs.

It's not hypocrisy if they religion and science are non-overlapping majesteria.

If Miller suddenly came to a discovered or observed conclusion which thwarted his beliefs, would he still go on believing? Would he not be a hypocrite for continuing to believe?

I don't know, it's a good question. I suspect that the set of all Miller-like scientists will contain some that would go one way and some that would go the other. Just like any other group, there will be variation. So what?

Ok, and if the scientific questions happened to fly in the face of the theist scientists beliefs, they might answer them since that is their profession. However, the theist scientist cannot accept those answers and sustain his beliefs at the same time, one must eventually give out to the other, if not, then that scientist is a hypocrite.

Which scientific questions might those be, exactly? Give me an example, please.

Yes, I clearly understand that which you keep repeating. And I'm trying to get you to see that ones philosophical views and beliefs can only be imagined without the use of science. They are questions that can only be answered if a god does in fact show himself to all one day, or if science finds enough answers that those questions have no meaning.

Those are the only ways to get definitive answers, maybe. But I don't see god coming out of the clouds to answer them, and I don't see science doing it either. Science cannot tell me if we are just a vast simulation being run by some other intelligence.

So I look at all these philosophical questions and I know that I cannot KNOW the answers. I speculate because it is interesting. I don't make any leaps of faith, my mind doesn't work that way. It does work that way for others. Fine. If they can do that and still accept/practice science, which is in a different realm, fine.

My point is that there are enough answers already available to easily extinguish such imagined beliefs.

I have to disagree. I don't see that at all.

Therefore, science could answer the question, " Why is there something rather than nothing?" There is NO reason why there is something rather than nothing, there simply IS because the physical laws of science have been at work to produce that very something.

Why those physical laws and not others?

But you see, those pseudo-scientists should get more respect than those others you refer, since they, at the very least, are standing firm in their beliefs and their convictions, and do not accept the answers science has provided.

No, they are guilty of cross-contamination between two realms that are not meant to overlap. And they are a far, far greater danger because they try to sell shit-science as real science. Miller et al. do not.