Theistic Scientists

[Moontanman]

 

 

 

I'm not trying to be intentionally obtuse. If someone goes to the doctors complaining of a pain, the doctor does not insist on a brain scan to see if they are indeed having that subjective experience. But it is taken as a piece of evidence that something is wrong with the patient. The doctor may or may not go on to carry out further tests. Sometimes a diagnosis is made purely on the basis of dialogue with the patient. I am not saying testimony of personal experiences is conclusive proof. I am not even saying that such evidence has to be believed. That is a judgement call. The doctor could accuse the patient of imagining things, or exaggerating. (Perhaps they are a known hypochondriac). All I am simply saying that empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence. I don't think it's that controversial.

 

 

You cannot. You have to take my word for it on trust. It's not empirical evidence.

 

 

But the patient is not expected to provide a brain scan to prove they are experiencing pain. Their word is good enough in this context.

 

 

Pears, do you not see the difference in magnitude of the claim that my head hurts and the claim god talks to me?

[iNow]

But the patient is not expected to provide a brain scan to prove they are experiencing pain. Their word is good enough in this context.

Please clarify in what way you feel this is relevant and how it relates to the comment I made, which was:

 

At best, one could show there is neural activity when one claims a subjective experience, but to claim the individual's description of the experience is anything more than subjective or hallucination they would need to offer some objective corroborating evidence.

 

The patient is not being asked to demonstrate the existence of a subjective experience. They are being asked to provide details describing their sensation of pain. So again, what's your point?

[doG]

I'm not trying to be intentionally obtuse. If someone goes to the doctors complaining of a pain, the doctor does not insist on a brain scan to see if they are indeed having that subjective experience. But it is taken as a piece of evidence that something is wrong with the patient. The doctor may or may not go on to carry out further tests. Sometimes a diagnosis is made purely on the basis of dialogue with the patient. I am not saying testimony of personal experiences is conclusive proof. I am not even saying that such evidence has to be believed. That is a judgement call. The doctor could accuse the patient of imagining things, or exaggerating. (Perhaps they are a known hypochondriac). All I am simply saying that empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence. I don't think it's that controversial.

 

The patients claim is just that, a claim, not evidence of actual pain. It gives a reason for the doctor to explore for the truth.

 

FWIW, my own dad went to the doctor to complain of pain he felt in his foot, the one that has been amputated. The doctor explained to him that it was a phantom pain sensation, a known medical condition suffered by amputees. It was a claim of pain, not evidence of one, and the doctor already had evidence to believe the claim because of the known condition associated with amputations based on previous work by other doctors. The doctor could have ordered neurological tests for evidence if he felt he needed them but since that has already been done with other amputees he assumed the claim was valid.

[pears]

Pears, do you not see the difference in magnitude of the claim that my head hurts and the claim god talks to me?

 

Yes perfectly. One is a commonly reported subjective experience, the other far less so. I am not arguing about the *content* of such evidence, but the *form*.

 

Please clarify in what way you feel this is relevant and how it relates to the comment I made, which was:

 

At best, one could show there is neural activity when one claims a subjective experience, but to claim the individual's description of the experience is anything more than subjective or hallucination they would need to offer some objective corroborating evidence.

 

The patient is not being asked to demonstrate the existence of a subjective experience. They are being asked to provide details describing their sensation of pain. So again, what's your point?

 

That personal testimony constitutes evidence.

The patients claim is just that, a claim, not evidence of actual pain. It gives a reason for the doctor to explore for the truth.

 

FWIW, my own dad went to the doctor to complain of pain he felt in his foot, the one that has been amputated. The doctor explained to him that it was a phantom pain sensation, a known medical condition suffered by amputees. It was a claim of pain, not evidence of one, and the doctor already had evidence to believe the claim because of the known condition associated with amputations based on previous work by other doctors. The doctor could have ordered neurological tests for evidence if he felt he needed them but since that has already been done with other amputees he assumed the claim was valid.

 

You make a good point and I like your reasoning, it helps me to understand your position. I'm not going to say I share your view but I can see more clearly where your philosophy differs from mine. It's always good to gain understanding about alternate points of view.

[Iggy]

That personal testimony constitutes evidence.

It gets tricky because a lot of people tend to use opinion polls as evidence, but like wikipedia says "in general, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain"

 

If we can't trust the content of an anecdotal, subjective account told by a person, then how can we trust the subjective accounts told by lots of people? But, the religion forums here are knee deep with Gallup polls that apparently give evidence of something.

[pears]

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and relating a subjective experience.

[iNow]

That personal testimony constitutes evidence.

It is a type of evidence, but that is not the type of evidence being discussed when one requests evidence for deities. Much like thunder is not evidence that Thor exists, personal testimony is not evidence that Yahweh or any of the other countless many ridiculous gods invented by humans through the millenia exist anywhere outside of fiction and human imagination.

[Iggy]

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and relating a subjective experience.

 

I think so too. I meant 'expressing an opinion' more like "personal testimony".

 

I suppose in the context of theistic scientists... as long as they keep their testimony personal then it's alright by me.

[iNow]

If we can't trust the content of an anecdotal, subjective account told by a person, then how can we trust the subjective accounts told by lots of people?

Technically speaking, we cannot. Subjective accounts are something that might encourage further investigation, but alone they are little more than evidence that lots of people think they saw or experienced something. For more common mundane claims, we tend to have a much lower hurdle of evidence. For extraordinary claims, that hurdle is raised significantly.

 

If ten people say there was loud music coming from the neighbors house on Friday night, that is a relatively mundane claim and generally we wouldn't require a bunch of corroborating evidence that is objective (like a print out with a time stamp from a decibel meter that has GPS coordinates associated with the reading). We could, however, use such a meter to validate the subjective claim if we wanted to. The claim can be explored objectively and falsified.

 

However, if ten (or even a hundred or even a thousand) people say there is an invisible dragon that has DVDs as scales, giant diamonds for eyes, and that poops cotton candy and edible corn dogs from its butt... and that this invisible dragon is living in your garage... That is NOT a mundane claim. That claim is quite extraordinary, and hence the accounts of just those ten people will never satisfy anyone who is not unfathomably naive and gullible. At best, it reason to explore the question further in an objective manner with diagnostic tools and instruments (such as the decibel meter and GPS described above).

 

Any reasonable and rational person will stipulate that claims of the existence of god(s) are more akin to the invisible dragon claim than to the claim that loud music was emanating from the neighbors house last Friday evening.

 

But, the religion forums here are knee deep with Gallup polls that apparently give evidence of something.

They give evidence that a poll was conducted and that some population of respondents answered various questions in a given way. That is about it.

[pears]

It is a type of evidence, but that is not the type of evidence being discussed when one requests evidence for deities. Much like thunder is not evidence that Thor exists, personal testimony is not evidence that Yahweh or any of the other countless many ridiculous gods invented by humans through the millenia exist anywhere outside of fiction and human imagination.

when one requests empirical evidence. It depends who is making the request for evidence and what type of evidence they are willing to accept.

 

 

I think so too. I meant 'expressing an opinion' more like "personal testimony".

 

I suppose in the context of theistic scientists... as long as they keep their testimony personal then it's alright by me.

Ah yes - theistic scientists... it's about time they got a mention

[iNow]

when one requests empirical evidence. It depends who is making the request for evidence and what type of evidence they are willing to accept.

Yes, and you're posting this at a science forum. Which do you think people mean when they request evidence?

[pears]

Scientists presumably, if they were conducting a scientific investigation into the existence of God would request scientific evidence. But people formulating personal beleifs on matters they believe to be outside of the realm of science would not necessarily demand scientific evidence.

 

The point is there are different types of evidence and different types of requirements. What does it matter that I post this viewpoint in a science forum? Are scientists not allowed to hold religious views? Are scientists not allowed to beleive that some things do not belong to the domain of science?

Edited September 4, 2013 by pears

[iNow]

What does it matter that I post this viewpoint in a science forum?

Because you will be viewed roughly equivalently as someone who believes there is an invisible dragon who shits corn dogs living in his garage.

 

Are scientists not allowed to hold religious views?

Of course they are. Why would you ask such a silly thing?

 

Are scientists not allowed to beleive that some things do not belong to the domain of science?

They can believe any damned stupid thing they want, but this does raise an interesting question regarding their rationality and the consistency with which they approach the universe for exploration. It would mean they are applying a double standard. It would mean they are being hypocritical.

 

What you are referring to here is the concept of non-overlapping magisteria as raised by Gould. Many scientists and mathematicians ascribe to this view, but it is quite plainly a rationalization that is quickly shown to be flawed and without much merit.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria

Edited September 4, 2013 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

Are scientists not allowed to hold religious views?

Religious views on what?

The creation?

Well, no, not really.

The religious view doesn't tally with the evidence so a scientist would have to reject it.

How about evolution?

Nope, same problem.

Abiogenesis?

Nope, still a non starter.

Same sex marriage?

Well, I guess it depends but same sex courtship is observed occasionally in other species, and there's no evidence for actual harm from allowing it.On the other hand, there's ample evidence for harm for oppressing people so, once again, the evidence doesn't agree with (the commonly held) religious view so it looks like no again.

 

Perhaps you'd like to tell us what a scientist might have a religious view about (If it conflicts with the evidence, it's ruled out)

[overtone]

I said that my post was correct regardless of the definition of God (so long as a definition is given).

You underestimate the possibilities.

 

If one builds a religion around the recognition of the reincarnation of spiritual essence in various beings, say, one could (although it's apparently not necessary or recommended and many don't) define as one's God(s) various overall pattern(s) that provide the context of each of those essences (which are themselves patterns of mental and physical relationship two levels above sensory processing - "personality", etc).

 

One could have as one of one's gods the spirit of little sisterhood, say. (That's one I've been arguing for)

 

Good luck trying to argue those don't exist.

 

And such possibilities are available to scientists, many of whom recognize a problem with the overreach of reduction in handling "high" or outer contextual logical levels of mental functioning - mind. What a scientist cannot do is square and incorporate one of the standard fundie religious dogmas into their worldview. But the Gods are more subtle than that.

Edited September 4, 2013 by overtone

[Iggy]

You underestimate the possibilities.

 

If one builds a religion around the recognition of the reincarnation of spiritual essence in various beings, say, one could (although it's apparently not necessary or recommended and many don't) define as one's God(s) various overall pattern(s) that provide the context of each of those essences (which are themselves patterns of mental and physical relationship two levels above sensory processing - "personality", etc).

 

One could have as one of one's gods the spirit of little sisterhood, say. (That's one I've been arguing for)

 

Good luck trying to argue those don't exist.

 

And such possibilities are available to scientists, many of whom recognize a problem with the overreach of reduction in handling "high" or outer contextual logical levels of mental functioning - mind. What a scientist cannot do is square and incorporate one of the standard fundie religious dogmas into their worldview. But the Gods are more subtle than that.

I remember about you that you don't stop an argument.

 

The post said:

 

The point is that "God does not exist" is a perfectly good and scientific hypothesis (assuming that 'God' is well-defined).

"well-defined"

 

You may be missing the thing that I was refuting... that God could not be part of science because it could never be proven in the negative. The idea was that science would have to know *everything* to show that "god does not exist"... therefore not part of science.

 

That needed refuted.

 

My point was that scientific laws are usually formatted that way. "perpetual motion machines of the first kind do not exist" is the first law of thermodynamics. Scientific laws are universal, and "god does not exist" is the negation of an existential statement which is logically equivalent to a universal statement.

 

"God does not exist" is perfectly formatted to be a scientific law (assuming 'god' is well-defined). The particular definition is irrelevant to my point. It could be a Greek god living on mt. olympus. It could be the emperor of Japan. When you say "Good luck trying to argue those don't exist" it makes me pretty sure you don't understand what I'm saying.

 

The point is that "God does not exist" is falsifiable. Maybe one day you meet Zeus on Mt. Olympus, or maybe Japan hears the voice of their Emperor God on the radio for the first time in 1945. The hypothesis can (in principle) be proven wrong, just like the first law of thermodynamics could in principle be proven wrong if you built a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.

 

"God exists", on the other hand, could never be proven wrong. It is conceptually, and logically, impossible to disprove it. It is unfalsifiable -- and therefore a very bad scientific hypothesis.

[doG]

But people formulating personal beleifs on matters they believe to be outside of the realm of science would not necessarily demand scientific evidence.

 

 

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"^[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.^[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.

 

 

Science is about knowledge, not belief. Science is about the facts, regardless of belief. Scientists do not claim as fact to know that anything exists without proof of existence, testable proof. An individual that proclaims existence based solely on their faith of belief is not a scientist.

[pears]

Because you will be viewed roughly equivalently as someone who believes there is an invisible dragon who shits corn dogs living in his garage.

Holding the view that subjective experience might be valid evidence on which to base personal beliefs makes people think that? Wow!

 

Meh. People can view me as they will. It's their concern not mine. But one more thing on this, wonderful though your image of an invisible corn-dog pooping dragon is, I wouldn't really place it in the same category as a deity. I mean, it's a bit arbitrary isn't it? Regardless of whether a deity is real or not, in fact lets just suppose it's not real, it's just an imaginary idea, the same as your dragon, are the two ideas really categorically equivalent? The deity idea, perhaps as a potential explanation as to why things exist at all, or as a potential source of objective morality has a bit more coherence than your dragon doesn't it, even if it's completely false?

 

Of course they are. Why would you ask such a silly thing?

 

Because you asked me why I posted this viewpoint on a science forum, as though such views were not permitted here, or by "science".

 

They can believe any damned stupid thing they want,

 

Well it's very magnanimous of you to allow it

 

but this does raise an interesting question regarding their rationality and the consistency with which they approach the universe for exploration. It would mean they are applying a double standard. It would mean they are being hypocritical.

Why should this bother you? I mean this is just your opinion right? Is it important? Unless it affects their work as a scientist and their claims about the physical world I don't see the issue.

 

What you are referring to here is the concept of non-overlapping magisteria as raised by Gould. Many scientists and mathematicians ascribe to this view, but it is quite plainly a rationalization that is quickly shown to be flawed and without much merit.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria

 

 

Is believing that some things are beyond the scope of science really the same as full-blown NOMA? I mean you could have an intersection, and still have some areas where there is no overlap. In fact this is what NOMA critic Francis Collins suggests. He's a christian and a scientist. (Imagine that!!)

 

Religious views on what?

The creation?

Well, no, not really.

The religious view doesn't tally with the evidence so a scientist would have to reject it.

How about evolution?

Nope, same problem.

Abiogenesis?

Nope, still a non starter.

"The religious view." You mean that single homogeneous religious viewpoint on creation that all religious people hold regardless of their religion?

I think what you mean is that some religious people hold a religious view that doesn't tally with science with regards to evolution etc. There are plenty of religious folk who accept a purely naturalistic evolution while maintaining that God is author of the natural world. Personally I agree, a scientist ought to respect scientific understanding. But I also think anyone should be free to hold any opinion they like (regardless of how unorthodox it is scientifically, as long as they don't call that opinion 'science') regardless of their profession. IMO it's a mistake for the religion to disregard science, but you cannot control people's opinions even if you disagree with them. People are allowed to be wrong sometimes! Even scientists.

 

Same sex marriage?

Well, I guess it depends but same sex courtship is observed occasionally in other species, and there's no evidence for actual harm from allowing it.On the other hand, there's ample evidence for harm for oppressing people so, once again, the evidence doesn't agree with (the commonly held) religious view so it looks like no again.

 

 

Again there is not a single viewpoint within religion on this, in fact I personally know a same-sex married couple and they're religious. As for your scientific response, I suppose a religious person might respond that humans are not *mere* animals and observed behaviour in the animal kingdom is thus not necessarily relevant. One observes many different kinds of behaviour in the animal kingdom from monogamy to cannibalism.

 

Perhaps you'd like to tell us what a scientist might have a religious view about (If it conflicts with the evidence, it's ruled out)

 

That God exists.

That objective morality exists and has its source in God.

That love has objective reality and has its source in God.

That God is the reason the universe exists.

 

Scientists do not claim as fact to know that anything exists without proof of existence, testable proof.

 

I agree, though I would word it slightly differently: scientists ought not to claim as fact to know that anything exists without evidence of existence, testable evidence.

 

An individual that proclaims existence based solely on their faith of belief is not a scientist.

What do you mean by proclaims? Do you mean that someone working in a lab somewhere conducting scientific experiments and furthering scientific understanding, in a purely scientific context, but who also has a faith and, for example, preaches it in church on a Sunday, is somehow not a scientist?

[Moontanman]

Pears, you said this....

 

That objective morality exists and has its source in God.

 

 

If that is true then killing homosexuals is moral. killing unruly children is moral, wearing clothing made of more than one type of fiber is immoral, Taking female children as sex slaves is moral, genocide is moral, God calling two she bears to murder a group of children who are taunting your prophet for being bald is moral, killing a girl who is not a virgin on her wedding night is moral.

 

The list goes on and on and if you really based your morals on the bible you would be jailed in any first world nation on the planet...

[Iota]

 

 

Regardless of whether a deity is real or not, in fact lets just suppose it's not real, it's just an imaginary idea, the same as your dragon, are the two ideas really categorically equivalent? The deity idea, perhaps as a potential explanation as to why things exist at all, or as a potential source of objective morality has a bit more coherence than your dragon doesn't it, even if it's completely false?

 

The only difference between your religion and iNow's corn dog (hot dog?) pooping dragon, is that your religion comes complete with a book of mythology. If iNow agrees to write a book on it, will you be willing to worship it? I'm willing to vouch for the existence of this dragon (which is basically proof, right?), and I know others have seen it too. It came to me in a vision, bringing me laws on morality and explained to me how the universe came to be.

 

Be warned though. If you don't worship it you can't come to hot dog heaven, instead you'll go to hell and your ever-regenerating flesh will be mutilated and cooked to make hot dogs for everyone in heaven, because you did not believe. REPENT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!

[John Cuthber]

Perhaps you'd like to tell us what a scientist might have a religious view about (If it conflicts with the evidence, it's ruled out)

That God exists.

That objective morality exists and has its source in God.

That love has objective reality and has its source in God.

That God is the reason the universe exists.

Nope, there's no evidence for God and Occam's razor rules Him out.

Morallity (as has been pointed out) has nothing to do with God- who seems to be an utter shit, but it has a lot to do with self interest for a member of a social species. It is exhibited by animals who don't seem to have much religion.

Love is biological- many, if not most complex animals need to learn from their parents. That requires that the parents )or, at least one parent) hangs round long enough to do so.

No need for God there and also God's idea of love- wiping out practically the whole species, condemning those who don't worship Him to eternal torture etc- is so warped as to be unrecognisable as love in any normal sense of the word.

And the Creation doesn't need a God either and there's no evidence for Him so that's not scientific either.

so, sorry zero out of 4 there.

Would you like to try again?

Incidentally, what I meant by "the religious view" on creation is exactly the one you put forward- God made everything.

Odd as you may think, that is pretty much "that single homogeneous religious viewpoint on creation that all religious people hold regardless of their religion? "

Had you not noticed?

[overtone]

"God does not exist" is perfectly formatted to be a scientific law (assuming 'god' is well-defined). The particular definition is irrelevant to my point.

My contention was that definitions of deity are available that are relevant to that assertion, and in fact invalidate it - I attempted to present an example, of a perfectly well defined God regarding which the statement "God does not exist" was unfalsifiable and therefore by your criterion not well formatted as a scientific law.

 

If I am correct, you need more than "well defined" - you need a particular category of God, defined in ways challengeable by science.

Edited September 7, 2013 by overtone

[doG]

What do you mean by proclaims? Do you mean that someone working in a lab somewhere conducting scientific experiments and furthering scientific understanding, in a purely scientific context, but who also has a faith and, for example, preaches it in church on a Sunday, is somehow not a scientist?

 

That an alleged scientist that claims deities exist even though there is no supporting evidence makes their subjectivity questionable at best. Science is about knowledge, not belief and those that show that they can set aside the quest for knowledge in favor of unsupported beliefs place doubt on their ability to do true science.

[Moontanman]

In the interest of fairness i think it should be pointed out that Robert T. Bakker, the paleontologist who was the model for the scientist in Jurassic Park is a Pentecostal Preacher and holds two doctorates, one from Yale the other from Harvard...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Bakker

 

Religious beliefs[edit source]

An Ecumenical Christian minister, Bakker has said there is no real conflict between religion and science. He has advised non-believers and creationists to read the views put forward bySaint Augustine, who argued against a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis.^[7]

 

[arc]

 

That an alleged scientist that claims deities exist even though there is no supporting evidence makes their subjectivity questionable at best. Science is about knowledge, not belief and those that show that they can set aside the quest for knowledge in favor of unsupported beliefs place doubt on their ability to do true science.

 

The evidence of past seekers of knowledge that include Galileo, Leonardo da Vinci‎, Newton and Einstein, as well as many others, all of whom made reference to a deity would seem to make your assertions incorrect. They may be accused as being of simpler and more naive times, lacking the evidence that you have utilized to make a superior assessment to the chances of the existence of such a deity.

 

But it also itself seems unlikely that any of us could assume these obviously superior intellects did not spend a great deal of time pondering such a fundamental question, one that even us lesser minds consider often.

 

And also consider this example of two people I have admired greatly since early in my life. They may be considered more average by scientific standards, yet applied scientific principles as well as any of their contemporaries and even by today's standards would show little bias.

 

This is from a post I made several weeks ago so some may recognize it.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78004-religious-dogma-has-infected-the-world-of-science/

 

The development of flight, that is, the scientific discovery of the characteristics of flight was systematically revealed over several years through careful experimentation by the Wright brothers.

They first invented, again through careful experimentation, the instruments to study flight. They built the first wind tunnel that would later test over 200 scale wing configurations, one of which actually flew at Kitty hawk Dec. 17 1903. It was their discipline to the scientific process that enabled their success.

To discover human flight and not be killed while doing it was a direct consequence of the control that a diligent and thorough scientific study can produce. They flew their Wright glider one year earlier and accomplished their goals for tethered flights and returned home to Ohio by train. They carefully went over their data and returned the next year for their first powered flight. Careful, systematic accumulation of knowledge allowed human flight. A fact well sharpened with the knowledge that only one of them completed high school.

While the Wrights experimented some of their fellow seekers of flight died or were crippled as the first true crash test dummies.

The Wright brothers could have likely flown on the 13th of Dec. instead of the 17th. The weather was perfect, but they were the devout sons of a bishop and would not work on or attempt to fly their life's dream on a Sunday. Then weather and mishap delayed them until the 17th.

Their religious devotion encumbered them very little even though there were many religious commentators stating at the time that if man was intended to fly God would have given him wings. The Wrights could apparently accommodate both and be great scientists.

These debates seem rather pointless in my opinion, for me to judge minds, either long dead or now present, that are clearly greater than mine, about their opinion on either side of this subject would be hypercritical in my view and accomplishes nothing to further a definitive answer to this contentious debate.

I will instead devote my precious time to questions that are within my realm of understanding and can be answered within a scientific process. But that being said, I do not believe that a belief either way in this debate can be used as a qualifier for ones subjective abilities in science. The proof will be in ones work, not in the pondering's of the unknown or even unknowable.