SCIENCE IS AN AMAZING WORK WHOS PURPOSE IS TO EXPLAIN GOD'S CREATIONS.

[imatfaal]

 

 

Peer reviewed science is wrong because you found a newspaper article in which a survey asked a different group of people a different question, which discovered a different result.

 

Rightio then.

 

 

Just as a query - is correspondence in Nature peer-reviewed?

 

I thought it was merely editorially checked - not that I am downplaying the merit of piece of correspondence published in Nature. And the LA Times article is based on a Pew Research paper (who are no mugs). If I had to make a choice between (presuming non-peer reviewed) the two it would probably come down to sample size (250 and 2500) and survey methods and people (one did NAS and the other AAAS).

 

Wouldn't surprise me at all if the difference all came down to the population characteristics - ie both surveys validly represent their population, but the populations are different; age, spread of interests, height up the greasy ziggurat etc... I have a terrible sinking feeling that a degree of difference is also time - the Pew Paper is ten years more recent than the Nature paper. Anecdotally, I come into contact with a greater proportion of young religious Americans than old; the AAAS paper in 2009 will have a far greater proportion of young scientist who grew up under Reagan --> Bush than the paper based on the more prestigious (read older) scientists in the NAS in 1998 who will almost all be children of the 60s and earlier. You take your choice of your definition of Scientist and choose your paper.

 

I agree with your sentiments and disagree with Zorro completely - just feel we need to be super-vigilant in order to avoid the possibility of dismissing out of hand those papers whose result we disagree with, especially in such a vexatious topic where the majority of the forum is already decided.

[Arete]

Just as a query - is correspondence in Nature peer-reviewed?

 

I've reviewed a letter for the journal, so I assumed they were - from their website, it seems that most aren't so you're query is valid - it may well not be.

 

I'm totally open to the pew survey being legitimate. My criticism is at Zorro for simply dismissing a source because you found another that supports your version of the story.

 

Finally, my statement was "a rough estimate in the UK and the US puts the number of scientists who believe in some form of personal God at 3% and 7% respectively" To which Zorro responded "That is an unreliable Source. The LA Times found around 40% Theist Scientists." Which is:

a) False. The Pew Research Center found it and they reported 51% of respondents say they "believe in God or a higher power", only 33% or respondents say they "believe in God." 40% is not reported anywhere.

b) Shifting the Goalposts. "Believing in God or a higher power" is not equivalent to believing in "a personal God". I was careful in the OP to specifically define what the precentages refer to. Putting an exact number on "how many scientists believe in God" is ultimately a cloudy issue - what sort of God? Does a Spinoza style version count? What qualifies you as a "scientist"?

 

The Larson et al survey asks a pointed, direct question ("Do you believe in a personal God") of a select group of elite (i.e. you must be invited to be a member) of widely esteemed scientists.

The Pew survey asks a more general question ("Do you believe in God or a higher power?") of a subscription (i.e. anyone interested can join) group of self purported scientists.

 

There's an expected difference in results, but the conclusion of both studies is that belief in God is much lower in the scientific community than the community at large.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Arete

[zorro]

 

!

Moderator Note

I thought we had dealt with this: it was named the God particle by the publishing industry, not scientists. Straw-man arguments, especially repeated, are against the rules.

 

!

Moderator Note

Being dismissive of a legitimate question that was posed is also not going to fly.

 

!

Moderator Note

Explain why the numbers are unreliable. Bald assertions are not evidence.

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

I thought we had dealt with this: it was named the God particle by the publishing industry, not scientists. Straw-man arguments, especially repeated, are against the rules.

 

!

Moderator Note

Being dismissive of a legitimate question that was posed is also not going to fly.

 

!

Moderator Note

Explain why the numbers are unreliable. Bald assertions are not evidence.

hello mod,

 

Changes made thanx,

 

God Particle is used by CHERN in a creation context so it is allowed to use it. It's origin of usage is unknown

 

His tears condemned my colors which is allowed for clarity.

 

You judged this unfairly at me and not to his intrangences.

[krash661]

hello mod,

 

Changes made thanx,

 

God Particle is used by CHERN in a creation context so it is allowed to use it. It's origin of usage is unknown

 

His tears condemned my colors which is allowed for clarity.

 

You judged this unfairly at me and not to his intrangences.

this needs to be read and understood, all this data,

 

http://home.web.cern.ch/search/node/higgs%20boson%20language%3Aen

 

and,

 

 

 

 

other than that i have to say,

there's nothing more going on here other than just plain ole' preaching.

Edited August 14, 2013 by krash661

[iNow]

Please, stop trolling.

Yesterday when you made this suggestion I stated that I didn't think it was trolling, that I felt zorro was sincere in his beliefs, just mistaken and/or misguided. I think at this point, however, it's quite clear that I was mistaken and you were correct in this early assessment that he's simply trolling.

 

He clearly doesn't seem to care about learning or being correct, or even engaging in any sort of rational discourse. He's just in it to get a response and a rise out of the members, much like a child who acts out because mommy didn't pay him enough attention.

[imatfaal]

 

I've reviewed a letter for the journal, so I assumed they were - from their website, it seems that most aren't so you're query is valid - it may well not be....

 

First off - that's a very cool opening. Letters - iirc - are all reviewed, correspondence only very occasionally. For some bizarre reason letters and correspondence refer to very different concepts within Nature; I have heard them described as letters to the scientific world (which are reviewed) and are basically mini-articles, and correspondence with the editor which are more like comments or opinions.

 

Far more than Zorro's rant - I am interested in what I believe are honest and well run surveys and can produce significantly different answers to what, on the surface only perhaps, is a very similar questions. I am doing an online stats course at Berkeley at present and see stats and their interpretations everywhere.

 

Out of curiosity - do you have access to this

 

Larson, Edward J. "Scientists are still keeping the faith." Nature 386 (1997): 435-436. It's Larson's review of scientists in general rather than the "greater scientists" of the NAS

From the correspondence piece you quoted I think the figure of disbelief will be closer to the AAAS survey (who were all actual scientists - not just any old member)

[zorro]

God Particle

 

 

CERN's work can bemuse neophytes, but the researchers find ways to make it simple.

"Everybody knows what an electron is, especially if they put their finger in an electric socket," joked Pierluigi Campana, whose team has just provided the most exhaustive confirmation to date of the Standard Model, the chief theoretical framework of particle physics conceived in the 1970s.

They achieved the most accurate measurement yet of a change in a particle called a Bs, showing that out of every billion, only a handful decay into smaller particles called muon, and do so in pairs.

For the experts, that finding was almost as thrilling as tracking the Higgs Boson—nicknamed the God Particle.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-higgs-breakthrough-cern-readies-cosmic.html#jCp

Yesterday when you made this suggestion I stated that I didn't think it was trolling, that I felt zorro was sincere in his beliefs, just mistaken and/or misguided. I think at this point, however, it's quite clear that I was mistaken and you were correct in this early assessment that he's simply trolling.

He clearly doesn't seem to care about learning or being correct, or even engaging in any sort of rational discourse. He's just in it to get a response and a rise out of the members, much like a child who acts out because mommy didn't pay him enough attention.

hello inow, zzzzzzzzz

[krash661]

God Particle

 

 

CERN's work can bemuse neophytes, but the researchers find ways to make it simple.

"Everybody knows what an electron is, especially if they put their finger in an electric socket," joked Pierluigi Campana, whose team has just provided the most exhaustive confirmation to date of the Standard Model, the chief theoretical framework of particle physics conceived in the 1970s.

They achieved the most accurate measurement yet of a change in a particle called a Bs, showing that out of every billion, only a handful decay into smaller particles called muon, and do so in pairs.

For the experts, that finding was almost as thrilling as tracking the Higgs Boson—nicknamed the God Particle.

 

 

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-higgs-breakthrough-cern-readies-cosmic.html#jCp

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78057-science-is-an-amazing-work-whos-purpose-is-to-explain-gods-creations/?p=760936

[swansont]

hello mod,

 

Changes made thanx,

 

God Particle is used by CHERN in a creation context so it is allowed to use it. It's origin of usage is unknown

 

His tears condemned my colors which is allowed for clarity.

 

You judged this unfairly at me and not to his intrangences.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

No, you aren't being judged unfairly. You made a claim, it was debunked, and you continue to make the claim. It's pretty clear.

 

Restating a claim after solid evidence has been presented to debunk it falls under rule 8

"Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them."

 

I don't know what a "creation context" is, and I assume you mean CERN, so if you are going to claim that CERN is talking about creation, you had darn well better cite a source. Speculations rules specifically state the need for evidence.

 

If you have responses to moderator input please use the report post function rather than drag the conversation off topic.

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Science is an incomplete investigation into the truths of God's. God created Everything From Nothing and gave mankind some tools to explain a bit of it.

 

Since Science is an explanation of God's elegant creations. The closer we get to Scientific reason, the closer we understand God's Works.

 

So far, "The Big Bang" says it all. .... At 10**-64 sec, science establishes that God finishes all his Plans (Word) then get's on the way to creation, Everything from Nothing.

 

Carry on Science.

 

Copernicus looked to God (not religion) and changed how we look at science and interpretations.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHUWP9zu4W8

 

 

Zorro Comments Above :-

 

 

It's difficult to read through the many pages of this thread, and his thread posts on ( theistic scientists by unit 3 +) without tripping over all the Ack, Ack, fire. But this opening statement by Zorro seems to be suggesting Science is a tool for exploring and explaining the Universe in a way that enables an appreciation of God.

 

I asked ( on one of Zorro 's threads ,) how many scientists believed in a higher power , which seems to be unresolved.

 

I think there is a " Kings suit of clothes" phenomenon at work here.

 

While a number of prominent scientists speak openly of their detestation of anything to do with a god ( Like Richard Dawkins, and a few others) Who wants to stand up and say " look , the king has got no clothes on" .

 

I propose that IF a prominent Scientist Said openly that they had a change of heart say with good reason , a lot of other scientists would jump ship fairly quickly. [ perhaps the percentages would become clearer and include the 'behind the scenes' believers in a higher power ]

 

I have read a few books lately , by well known science names , where respected scientists are HINTING at something for and with due reasons . Just hinting, but with arguable reasons. Perhaps their reasoning and hints are a pre-cursor to something else, BUT ..may be not.

 

Mike

Edited August 14, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[zorro]

 

 

Zorro Comments Above :-

 

 

It's difficult to read through the many pages of this thread, and his thread posts on ( theistic scientists by unit 3 +) without tripping over all the Ack, Ack, fire. But this opening statement by Zorro seems to be suggesting Science is a tool for exploring and explaining the Universe in a way that enables an appreciation of God.

 

I asked ( on one of Zorro 's threads ,) how many scientists believed in a higher power , which seems to be unresolved.

 

I think there is a " Kings suit of clothes" phenomenon at work here.

 

While a number of prominent scientists speak openly of their detestation of anything to do with a god ( Like Richard Dawkins, and a few others) Who wants to stand up and say " look , the king has got no clothes on" .

 

I propose that IF a prominent Scientist Said openly that they had a change of heart say with good reason , a lot of other scientists would jump ship fairly quickly. [ perhaps the percentages would become clearer and include the 'behind the scenes' believers in a higher power ]

 

I have read a few books lately , by well known science names , where respected scientists are HINTING at something for and with due reasons . Just hinting, but with arguable reasons. Perhaps their reasoning and hints are a pre-cursor to something else, BUT ..may be not.

 

Mike

 

hello mike

My post #46 shows a 51% Theist among scientists. The article goes on to say some 60% to 70%may be a better number.

http://articles.lati...sci24-2009nov24

According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not. .......

zorro

Edited August 15, 2013 by zorro

[Ringer]

 

 

hello mike

My post #46 shows a 51% Theist among scientists. The article goes on to say some 60% to 70%may be a better number.

http://articles.lati...sci24-2009nov24

According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not. .......

zorro

 

 

The rub with that finding is the "God or higher power". You'll notice in the actual survey those who believe in god are only 33%, which is drastically lower than the public's 83%. Since theistic means believing in a god that number would be a better number to use.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

The rub with that finding is the "God or higher power". You'll notice in the actual survey those who believe in god are only 33%, which is drastically lower than the public's 83%. Since theistic means believing in a god that number would be a better number to use.

Are you saying , if you keep it to " higher power " , its 83% . If that is the case then we are down to definitions . That is interesting ?

Edited August 15, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Phi for All]

 

The rub with that finding is the "God or higher power".

 

Agreed. "Higher power" is so vague it allows people who don't really believe in a personal god to allow for something more powerful than us. Higher power ≠ personal god.

 

Precise words are necessary when tests are run, polls taken. Somewhat related, when I was much younger I had to take a lie detector test for a cashier job I had. The test questions were rigged to find thieves everywhere, since that's what the investigators had been hired to do. I was honest to a fault in my job but when they asked me if I had "taken" money from the cash register that didn't belong to me, my mind assumed they meant "stolen", so I said no. It showed up as a lie because of course I had "taken" money out of the register that didn't belong to me, that's part of the job, giving change to the customer.

 

If you want accurate answers, your questions must be equally accurate.

[zorro]

The topic mentions God's creations. ....It is generally agreed that a Singularity hit at time zero. This event has been called the Big Bang. Science backs into it from Hubble's Expanding Universe down to the singularity, Theists start infinitely before the BB wherein planning and creation and goals are tested. There is agreement from just after the BB( say 10**64sec) to the making of man.

 

This casm is consuming the debate because of religion politics (where religion is not God) in history. Given that Mass and Energy are here to stay, what is the ultimate goal of the production of all stuff. To cool to a Dark Matter dust and then disappear or to revert to prior BB existence's forever in another Universe.??

 

Both take "faith" as does investigating the Singularity. The tipping point is to be drawn to a higher order then jump to where your comfort zone is them criticize everyone else. Both sides are exclusive or on autopilot to Dark ash.

Scientists can investigate only the existing, Philosophers the, so what. Why can't either explain a higher order without demeaning the other.

[ACG52]

This belongs in a religion forum, not in speculations, which is supposed to have at least a passing reference to science, and not empty, ignorant personal preaching.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

This belongs in a religion forum, not in speculations, which is supposed to have at least a passing reference to science, and not empty, ignorant personal preaching.

 

As the proposal by Zorro is that the aggregate of all proven scientific phenomenon has been 'allowed/given access to' , for the purposes of explanations [ if that is what he meant ] as some form of illumination of "Creations" or a "Creation procedure ", , Should it not be proved or disproved as with the normal science issues. Namely by discussion of the points proposed. Evidence provided . This is what is proposed, as opposed to a particular religion /religious forum . We are after all NOT discussing a religion but the very STUFF that science itself is investigating and trying to get to the bottom of .

 

Surely it was in open Forum that Darwin had to put his points across, Why not make this proposal as open as Darwin's bombshell..

 

If the proposal is deemed right then it is in the right place, If it is deemed wrong then , well, as they say " God Help somebody ."

Edited August 15, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ringer]

Are you saying , if you keep it to " higher power " , its 83% . If that is the case then we are down to definitions . That is interesting ?

No, in the general public belief in god is at 83% and among scientists it's 33%. If you only use 'higher power' you have 18%, but the article he presented used the qualifier 'or' so they added the 33% who believed specifically in god and the 18% who believed in a 'higher power' to falsely claim that the majority of scientists are theistic/religious. There are a couple problems with that, mainly 'higher power' could be virtually anything you want it to mean.

[zorro]

This belongs in a religion forum, not in speculations, which is supposed to have at least a passing reference to science, and not empty, ignorant personal preaching.

Yes and no. I feel that both sides are interested in the Big Bang so should sit across the same table. Here in Speculations both are more comfortable and Creation or the first 20 **-64sec is opened up.

There is a need to have a separate forum for God, and a Higher Being. ...... Completely separate from Religion.'!!!!!!!!!!! Religion has been detrimental to both God (Higher Being) and Science.

[Ringer]

There is a need to have a separate forum for God, and a Higher Being. ...... Completely separate from Religion.'!!!!!!!!!!! Religion has been detrimental to both God (Higher Being) and Science.

Yeah, you're going to have to explain that one.

[zorro]

Yeah, you're going to have to explain that one.

 

 

It seems to me that science folks are frightened by Religion as well as by a loud Atheistic minority banter that is organized with a political agenda. I think it started around Copernicus’s time when he was reluctant to publish until his deathbed. …..Then in the Inquisition time, Science Leaders were chastised, punished and either banned from their work or killed. …. Then it was the affair of Religion vs. Galileo wherein he was punished, not for his Science, but for his audacity to reveal that he can and does interpret the Bible. This all for the struggle to place religion as the only contact with God and sidetrack sciences. ….Then to Darwinism and it’s effect / controversies surrounding biological evolution. ……. Now this fear is carried by Guru Priest as Richard Dawkins against God and to eliminate God altogether and thrash Religion.

 

Scientists want to do their work in isolation and see who gets the Nobel. But most Scientists find the Universe and Species to be complex and elegantly arranged. They are afraid to confront the Atheists and so Sciences, God and Religion are splitting. They have a notion of origination and have formed: evolutionary thought, the God Particle and Big Bang and notions to pull sense into their works.

 

Now because all seem comfortable with Higher Order Deities, we have Religion Sciences, God Sciences and Higher Order Deities that could be separated to various forums more comfortably as stated above.

Edited August 17, 2013 by zorro

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

It seems to me.........

 

Instead of both sides vehamently saying YES NO. no yes

 

Can we not ask the question :-

 

" Is there anything in evidence by observation of the state or workings of the cosmos, either locally or in deep space and deep time from the infinite past to this moment, among the very small or very large, " ?

 

" that can in any way be viewed as evidence of some form of Higher Power being(s) than us humans.? " Say like the monoliths in 2001 a space odessy or something funny in the DNA or something that can not be chance , but deliberate, or some control mechanism .

 

Leave for the time being putting a name on it/them . As that immediately puts some form of presupposed ( loved or hated image of it/them/he/she ) .

 

If we find we have some form of positive answer, then we can ask. Yes but How much higher, how much more informed, how much older than our civilisation .

 

If we draw a complete BLANK . Then we can decide what to do next ! or what does this mean ?

 

Mike

Edited August 17, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[zorro]

Instead of both sides vehamently saying YES NO. no yes

 

Can we not ask the question :-

 

" Is there anything in evidence by observation of the state or workings of the cosmos, either locally or in deep space and deep time from the infinite past to this moment, among the very small or very large, " ?

 

" that can in any way be viewed as evidence of some form of Higher Power being(s) than us humans.? " Say like the monoliths in 2001 a space odessy or something funny in the DNA or something that can not be chance , but deliberate, or some control mechanism .

 

Leave for the time being putting a name on it/them . As that immediately puts some form of presupposed ( loved or hated image of it/them/he/she ) .

 

If we find we have some form of positive answer, then we can ask. Yes but How much higher, how much more informed, how much older than our civilisation .

 

If we draw a complete BLANK . Then we can decide what to do next ! or what does this mean ?

 

Mike

Nothing we can view in the cosmos would prove a higher Deity. We will likely find a new life form before a dirty. We now have the complexity of the eye as well as order of the elements wherein light frequency lines and redshift the same thought the Cosmos . We have argue that energy and mass can neither be created or destroyed so that back before our ancestor or first God Particle something big and intelligent happens. If you have faith that something was void then you must argue that you, your mother and child are void. That is too much faith for me.

[Moontanman]

Nothing we can view in the cosmos would prove a higher Deity. We will likely find a new life form before a dirty. We now have the complexity of the eye as well as order of the elements wherein light frequency lines and redshift the same thought the Cosmos . We have argue that energy and mass can neither be created or destroyed so that back before our ancestor or first God Particle something big and intelligent happens. If you have faith that something was void then you must argue that you, your mother and child are void. That is too much faith for me.

 

Interesting take zorro, let me get this straight, you are asserting the completely natural process of child birth confirms god or they are voids? Hmmm... no sorry makes no sense what so ever to me... care to try again?

No! Wait! I guess it does support my vast Brobdingnagian creature that mindlessly excretes universes as part of it's natural digestive system... whew! Almost missed that one...

 

BTW what does the complexity of the eye have to do with anything?

 

Come on zorro, don't ignore me, you've made some serious assertions here, how does a void before the beginning of the universe have anything to do with the completely natural process of child birth? I have personally been present for child birth from beginning to end nothing supernatural about it, no miracles, no faith required and definitely no void...

Edited August 18, 2013 by Moontanman

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Nothing ...

 

I Thought your original proposition was one that Science has equipped us to see .? As never before .

 

.

Is this not where we are ?

 

Mike

Edited August 18, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos