Theistic Scientists

[WWLabRat]

This is plainly untrue. Some sources are very clearly biased, unreliable, and flat out wrong. Those sources are to be rejected, especially when their claims cannot be corroborated. Any good scientist must recognize that, regardless of their theism or lack thereof.

 

I agree. And it's for this reason that any site whose content is able to be edited by literally just about anybody is not viewed as a reliable source for varying levels of debate. To prove this, go to wikipedia's page for New Albany, IN and scroll down under "Notable People". My quick contribution is there, done in under 5 minutes. But being that I'm not sure how quickly that will be resolved, I'll attach a screen shot of it being edited.

 

Unity+, are we using individual religions to debate this idea of theistic scientists or not? I am well aware of how people compartmentalize their beliefs away from reality and a superfluous understanding of a religion allows this compartmentalized belief. My voyage away from religion resulted from a critical investigation of what religion, specifically what I needed to believe to be true vs reality, reality won...

 

I don't see how anyone, much less a scientist, can ignore the disconnect between reality and religion.

 

Compartmentalization might allow a person to believe in rainbows as supernatural effects that have only occurred since Noah's flood as a sign of a promise by god to never murder every one on the earth again but the reality of rainbows calls into question the rationality of the guy who believes this if he knows the true reality of rainbows but prefers to believe goddidit...

 

Moontanman, my view of religion is this: I believe that there is a higher power. I don't fully buy into the fundamentalist bit about everything in the bible being the verbatim recording of everything that happened from the time of first man up to the time that Revelation was written. However, I do see the bible as, for the most part, having hit some key points to living your life in a moral and just way. And no, that doesn't mean trying to conquer nations, wishing plagues on first born children, or the enslaving of the Jewish people. But sometimes it helps to think that there is/was someone/something up there that created us so that we could experience life. I do NOT however believe that the realms of science and religion should mix. As we learn more through the scientific method, the realm of mystery and the unknown within religion is slowly blown away to reveal what is really behind it all. My belief is that at some point there was a higher being who set things in motion and everything after that is just a natural chain of random, albeit phenomenal, chances that led the universe to the point it is now. But in no way do I think anything, whether under religion or not, should not be based on blind faith.

[iNow]

I agree. And it's for this reason that any site whose content is able to be edited by literally just about anybody is not viewed as a reliable source for varying levels of debate.

Except, study after study after study shows wikipedia to be largely reliable, at least as much as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Further, those claims CAN be (and, in fact, usually are) corroborated via other independent sources.

in no way do I think anything, whether under religion or not, should not be based on blind faith.

But faith is blind, by definition, and yet that's the ONLY reason such beliefs can be maintained in an otherwise rational reasonable mind.

[WWLabRat]

Except, study after study after study shows wikipedia to be largely reliable, at least as much as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Further, those claims CAN be (and, in fact, usually are) corroborated via other independent sources.

But faith is blind, by definition, and yet that's the ONLY reason such beliefs can be maintained in an otherwise rational reasonable mind.

But the point is, with a site like wikipedia, anyone can go in there at any moment and change things to whatever they see fit. This makes it unreliable.

 

As far as faith, it doesn't have to be blind. I believe that my faith has some evidence to back it up. I wouldn't say that it's proof, because nothing scientific is ever proven, only tested to be accurate. What's my evidence? The Big Bang. To me, something had to have start everything going. Something had to cause the big bang. You can't start with not having time to all of a sudden it existing. But like I've said before, that is my opinion. If there is a substantial scientific model that shows and is backed up further by other scientists, I will gladly adjust my views to be in accordance. There's too much that science is unable to explain just yet. One day, science will be advanced enough to either confirm or deny evidence of a higher power. And at that moment is when my decision will be known and set in stone.

[iNow]

As far as faith, it doesn't have to be blind.

I disagree, but you are welcome to your opinion. IMO, faith is pretending to know something that cannot be known. If that's not rightly described as blind, then I do not know what is.

[WWLabRat]

That's an inaccurate description of what blind is. Even though someone may not be able to see the coffee table, his shin sure will feel it a few seconds later.

[Moontanman]

 

I agree. And it's for this reason that any site whose content is able to be edited by literally just about anybody is not viewed as a reliable source for varying levels of debate. To prove this, go to wikipedia's page for New Albany, IN and scroll down under "Notable People". My quick contribution is there, done in under 5 minutes. But being that I'm not sure how quickly that will be resolved, I'll attach a screen shot of it being edited.

 

 

Moontanman, my view of religion is this: I believe that there is a higher power. I don't fully buy into the fundamentalist bit about everything in the bible being the verbatim recording of everything that happened from the time of first man up to the time that Revelation was written. However, I do see the bible as, for the most part, having hit some key points to living your life in a moral and just way. And no, that doesn't mean trying to conquer nations, wishing plagues on first born children, or the enslaving of the Jewish people. But sometimes it helps to think that there is/was someone/something up there that created us so that we could experience life. I do NOT however believe that the realms of science and religion should mix. As we learn more through the scientific method, the realm of mystery and the unknown within religion is slowly blown away to reveal what is really behind it all. My belief is that at some point there was a higher being who set things in motion and everything after that is just a natural chain of random, albeit phenomenal, chances that led the universe to the point it is now. But in no way do I think anything, whether under religion or not, should not be based on blind faith.

 

 

Why does there need to be a higher being, why couldn't the origin of the universe be as naturalistic as the formation of the solar system?

[iNow]

That's an inaccurate description of what blind is.

I wasn't describing blindness. I was describing faith.

My belief is that at some point there was a higher being who set things in motion

Then who or what set that higher being into motion?

[WWLabRat]

I disagree, but you are welcome to your opinion. IMO, faith is pretending to know something that cannot be known. If that's not rightly described as blind, then I do not know what is.

 

I wasn't describing blindness. I was describing faith.

Then who or what set that higher being into motion?

 

In your own words, you just argued with yourself.

 

Who/what set a higher being into motion? I don't know. I never claimed to have all the answers. I know that believing in the existence of a deity does take a bit of a leap of faith, but then again, doesn't it take the same level of faith to believe every scientific finding that has been made over the years is true? I mean you, yourself, have not conducted each of the experiments put forth by our scientific predecessors. You have to believe that they were thorough enough that others haven't found a way to disprove their claims.

 

 

 

Why does there need to be a higher being, why couldn't the origin of the universe be as naturalistic as the formation of the solar system?

 

Because for some people like me, you have to take comfort in believing that there is someone/something out there that has a plan. Someone who is in control that helps to shape what happens in each of our lives. I'm referring to a private matter, but if you wish to have some clarity, PM me for it. It's not exactly something I want posted in open forum.

[ACG52]

 

 

I know that believing in the existence of a deity does take a bit of a leap of faith, but then again, doesn't it take the same level of faith to believe every scientific finding that has been made over the years is true?

The latter is testable, verifiable or falsifiable. The former simply requires belief, which requires nothing in the way of rational thought.

[iNow]

I know that believing in the existence of a deity does take a bit of a leap of faith, but then again, doesn't it take the same level of faith to believe every scientific finding that has been made over the years is true?

 

No.

I might add that my acceptance of scientific findings is itself provisional and subject to change in the face of new information.

[Moontanman]

Because for some people like me, you have to take comfort in believing that there is someone/something out there that has a plan. Someone who is in control that helps to shape what happens in each of our lives. I'm referring to a private matter, but if you wish to have some clarity, PM me for it. It's not exactly something I want posted in open forum.

 

 

So this plan includes things like disease, abuse, disasters, crashes, injury, death, if these are part of the plan then i think I can do without being watched over by this planner...

[Thorham]

Why does there need to be a higher being

Who knows? Maybe there's a need, maybe there isn't. There's simply something that has always existed and we don't know what or who it is. What was the initial state of everything? Seems a little hard to answer, especially so seeing how we don't know everything (we can't even see the whole universe).

 

Then who or what set that higher being into motion?

That which has always been has never been set into motion. Not everything has a beginning. If that were the case, you'd get this problem: Something must've caused it, and then that has to be caused, and so on.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Thorham

[iNow]

Who knows? Maybe there's a need, maybe there isn't. There's simply something that has always existed and we don't know what or who it is. What was the initial state of everything? Seems a little hard to answer, especially so seeing how we don't know everything (we can't even see the whole universe).

 

 

That which has always been has never been set into motion. Not everything has a beginning.

If you're willing to apply this logic to god(s), then why not the universe itself?

 

Do you not recognize how equally probable it is that the universe had no beginning and was never set into motion? If you're willing to accept such a leap of logic for god(s), then why not just apply the same thinking to the universe? How does adding an ill-defined, extraordinary, and nonsensical factor called "god" into the equation help aid our understanding or bring us closer to the truth?

 

I posit that suggesting "goddidit" merely takes us farther away from a valid understanding, not closer to it.

[Thorham]

If you're willing to apply this logic to god(s), then why not the universe itself?

You misread my post. I wrote that something has always existed and that we don't know what or who that something is. Could be anything. From omnipotent beings all the way to universes and many things in between.

[WWLabRat]

The latter is testable, verifiable or falsifiable. The former simply requires belief, which requires nothing in the way of rational thought.

 

But our initial understanding of various things, from lightning in the sky to single celled organisms, was at one point unable to be tested due to a lack of technology and understanding of things. As our species has grown, we have learned more which has allowed us to learn that much more, so on and so forth. But until we know everything, literally everything, there's no room for science to say without a doubt that there is no existence of a deity.

 

 

No.

I might add that my acceptance of scientific findings is itself provisional and subject to change in the face of new information.

 

As are mine, both in science and in religion. If my above statement ever comes about, if science is able to prove beyond a doubt that deities do not exist, I will be the first to admit I was wrong and change my view of the world.

 

 

 

So this plan includes things like disease, abuse, disasters, crashes, injury, death, if these are part of the plan then i think I can do without being watched over by this planner...

 

Everything has a reason. Everything. without disease, there would be no need for immunology, there'd also be many more people living into the triple digits. Without abuse, certain people wouldn't have a view of the future to strive against. Disasters is too broad of a term. There's manmade disasters (bombings, school/mall shootings, etc) which is nothing more than people choosing what course to take their lives and how their lives cross with those of others. And there's natural disasters which is weather. Whether that has been going on since before man and will be going on long after. Crashes (see manmade disasters). Injury is another open ended one. There's injuries from disasters, over exertion, and general ass-hattery (ie JackAss). And finally, this last one should even be mentioned at all. Without death this world would have filled up long ago. If everything has a beginning, it must also have an end.

 

Think about this skybound "planner" as being an engineer looking at an area of plains that floods, horribly, every year. Someone wants to build a community there (why, I don't know) but they don't want to have to worry about the entire area flooding constantly. So they bring in an engineer to survey the land and build a manmade river to catch all this rainwater to be able to divert it away from where everyone is staying. Sure, there may be times when the river can't keep up with the rain, but it will still mitigate the negative effects on the remaining populace.

[ACG52]

 

 

But until we know everything, literally everything, there's no room for science to say without a doubt that there is no existence of a deity.

Science has NOTHING to say about the existence of a deity, positively or negatively. Matters of faith are outside the pervue of science. Science deals with the physical universe, not the supernatural.

[WWLabRat]

Science has NOTHING to say about the existence of a deity, positively or negatively. Matters of faith are outside the pervue of science. Science deals with the physical universe, not the supernatural.

Which is what I have said before (in other threads). However, many people on here require physical, measurable data to decide matters of faith. Or rather, they don't view faith as having any basis and as such dismiss it as being inconsequential and pointless in life due to the disconnect between science and religion.

[doG]

 

But until we know everything, literally everything, there's no room for science to say without a doubt that there is no existence of a deity.

 

Science will never look to prove that anything doesn't exist, the possibility always exists that there is some realm beyond our knowledge. In the end that's what science is about, knowledge. We do know that currently there is ZERO evidence for the existence of deities, leprechuans, unicorns, pegasus', SAnta Claus, the tooth fairy, the sandman, etc., etc. so there is no point trying to prove their existence or to accept the existence of any such mystical creatures as fact.

[pears]

There is ZERO scientific evidence for the existence of deities.

 

You're dismissing personal and historical testimony including eye-witness accounts and personal experience.

 

I don't think there is any evidence for leprechuans, unicorns, pegasus', SAnta Claus, the tooth fairy or the sandman which is probably why I've never heard anybody (save small children) profess to believe in them.

[John Cuthber]

Science has NOTHING to say about the existence of a deity, positively or negatively. Matters of faith are outside the pervue of science. Science deals with the physical universe, not the supernatural.

Actually, it may.

If science can prove that God is an illusion or a product of a glitch in the brain, then clearly that's "something to say"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

http://eugrafal.free.fr/Dewhurst-Beard-2003.pdf

I'm not aware of anything that is "supernatural"

Can you provide an actual example

If not, does that mean that religion deals only with things that don't exist?

[doG]

You're dismissing personal and historical testimony including eye-witness accounts and personal experience.

Eye witnesses of deities? Please cite some credible examples...

[pears]

If science can prove that God is an illusion or a product of a glitch in the brain, then clearly that's "something to say"

 

I'd be very impressed if science could prove that every religious experience any person has ever had, or ever will have, was as a result of a glitch in the brain.

 

That science could provide evidence that some religious experiences were as a result of a glitch in the brain seems more feasible.

 

Eye witnesses of deities? Please cite some credible examples...

 

Presumably you won't think the eye-witness accounts of say, Jesus miracles for example, credible but these are the kinds of evidences on which religious beliefs are often based.

Edited September 1, 2013 by pears

[doG]

 

Presumably you won't think the eye-witness accounts of say, Jesus miracles for example, credible but these are the kinds of evidences on which religious beliefs are often based.

What accounts? From the bible? That whole book is hearsay, there's not one word of first person testimony in that book. Like I said before, please cite some credible examples.

[pears]

I just did. The problem here is that YOU don't find that credible. Others do. It's called a difference of opinion.

[doG]

I just did. The problem here is that YOU don't find that credible. Others do. It's called a difference of opinion.

Ummmmmmmmm....no. Opinion doesn't make anything true. That someone has an opinion that something is credible doesn't make it credible.