Theistic Scientists

[doG]

 

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.

Not at all. that ones subjectivity is questionable does not mean they cannot do science but that the science they do is questionable. As an example I would question the subjective research a creationist might do in evolutionary science versus that of an atheist since I would be of the opinion that the creationist would be more biased in favor of creationism. He/she may well do true scientific research in that vein but for me their work would be more suspect of being performed truely subjectively without bias toward the outcome they desire that would support their belief.

[pears]

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...

 

I didn't mention the bible. And whose morals? My morals? Or are you talking generally? My assertion that '"objective morality exists and has its source in God" is a valid belief for a scientist to hold' was made without the context of any particular religion or religious text.

 

 

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. 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.

My religion? I haven't disclosed my private beliefs.

 

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?),

 

 

No. No it's not proof.

 

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!

 

Personally I find the idea of a God as a moral mind that exists behind the present known reality, to be more coherent than a corn-dog pooping dragon. But hey, that's just me.

 

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.

 

Occam's razor rules out God? You mean it is a decisive proof against the existence of God? I didn't know Occam's razor wielded such power. But why not go the whole hog and rule out objective reality as well and say we're all just minds, or maybe we're all just *your* mind?

 

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.

Morality is about self-interest? That's not morality as I understand it. What animals display morality? Why does that rule out morality as an objective phenomenon?

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.

Emotions are biological. That emotions are associated with love does not rule out love existing as an objective phenomenon.

 

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.

Well this is a perfectly valid opinion, but it is not an argument from science, more an attack on specific religious ideas (which I didn't put in my list)

 

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

Did I state that belief in God was scientific? Or that my statements were scientific? I thought I was claiming the opposite. I was arguing that a scientist could hold beliefs on matters outside of the domain of science so I'm not sure what point you are making really. No evidence in your opinion. A person (scientist or otherwise) might say that the existence of a coherent objective reality is evidence of God, to them at least. But scientific research is not going to answer that question is it? How could it?

so, sorry zero out of 4 there.

Would you like to try again?

The scientific arguments you give here are really no more than a statement of your own opinion. You're basically giving a philosophical view of scientific data, reductionism, or materialism perhaps? I see no reason why a scientist cannot hold the beliefs I stated and still be a scientist.

 

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?

Then I'm confused by your creation/evolution statements. I assumed that you meant scientific understanding of evolution contradicted literal interpretations of creation myths found in some religions. If not this, then what did you mean? Has science demonstrated that there is no author or mind behind observed reality such that it would be inappropriate for a scientist to hold such a belief?

Not at all. that ones subjectivity is questionable does not mean they cannot do science but that the science they do is questionable. As an example I would question the subjective research a creationist might do in evolutionary science versus that of an atheist since I would be of the opinion that the creationist would be more biased in favor of creationism. He/she may well do true scientific research in that vein but for me their work would be more suspect of being performed truely subjectively without bias toward the outcome they desire that would support their belief.

 

I agree that having a vested interest in the results of one's research should raise eyebrows. But results should speak for themselves should they not? Otherwise there is something wrong with the scientific method/peer review system.

 

[Iota]

 

 

My religion? I haven't disclosed my private beliefs.

 

So you're not religious?

[pears]

I don't see how my personal views are relevant to this discussion.

[doG]

I don't see how my personal views are relevant to this discussion.

Do you have a vested interest in the outcome?

[pears]

What kind of vested interest? And why do you ask?

[Iggy]

I don't see how my personal views are relevant to this discussion.

 

You should take as a compliment that your arguments are so good the only reply you get is 'yeah, but you're religious aren't you'.

 

Almost like we've run out of strawmen so we're looking for ad hominems

[pears]

Haha, thank you. I will

[iNow]

Personally I find the idea of a God as a moral mind that exists behind the present known reality, to be more coherent than a corn-dog pooping dragon. But hey, that's just me.

While you are, of course, welcome to your opinion, I would like to know more about the logic and reason you applied to arrive at it. So, the question to you regarding the above is... Why?

 

In what way(s) do you believe that asserting that there exists some all powerful entity responsible for the universe and morality is functionally different than a largely equal claim that dragons who shit corndogs exist?

[Moontanman]

I don't see how my personal views are relevant to this discussion.

 

 

That is being more than a bit disingenuous is it not? Personal beliefs are at the heart of this discussion, most here have shown you ours now it's your turn... I can claim all sorts of things if the basis of my beliefs are kept hidden. What are your theistic beliefs? If you don't want us to know it points toward trolling, how can we discuss theistic scientists on an even playing field if we don't know where you stand in that field then we can't know the why of your assertions...

By that reasoning you could say that subjective experiences don't exist because there is no evidence for them.

 

 

Pears, this excerpt is from a video by AronRa, it explains why subjective experiences are meaningless as evidence.

 

Every religion claims to believe as they do because of reason, education, or intelligence given by their god in revelation. But whether they admit it or not, all of them are assuming their preferred conclusions on faith, and this would still be true even if all of their gods exist. Believe as hard as you want to. But convincing yourself however firmly still can’t change the reality of things. Seeing is believing. But seeing isn’t knowing. Believing isn’t knowing. Subjective convictions are meaningless in science, and eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.

For example, if I go into my front yard and I see a large sauropod walking down the middle of my street, I will of course be quite convinced of what I see. I may be even more satisfied when I follow the thing and find that I can touch it, maybe even ride it if I want to. When I gather sense enough to run back for my camcorder, I may not be able to find the beast again, because I don't know which way it went. But that doesn’t matter because I saw it, I heard it, felt it, smelt it and I remember all that clearly with a sober and rational mind. But somehow I'm the only one who ever noticed it, and of course no one believes me. Some other guy says he saw a dinosaur too, but his description was completely different, such that we can’t both be talking about the same thing. So it doesn't matter how convinced I am that it really happened. It might not have. When days go by and there are still no tracks, no excrement, no destruction, no sign of the beast at all, no other witnesses who’s testimony lends credence to mine, and no explanation for how a 20-meter long dinosaur could just disappear in the suburbs of a major metropolis, much less how it could have appeared there in the first place, -then it becomes much easier to explain how there could be only two witnesses who can’t agree on what they think they saw, than it is to explain all the impossibilities against that dinosaur ever really being there. Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that’s what I’d need –since what I propose isn’t just extraordinary; its impossible. But since there's not one fact I can show that anyone can measure or otherwise confirm, then my perspective is still subjective -and thus uncertain. Eventually, even I, the eyewitness, would have to admit that, although I did see it, I still don’t know if it was ever really there –regardless whether I still believe that it was.

 

[Iota]

I don't see how my personal views are relevant to this discussion.

 

Personally, I see that it is relevant. It's not obligatory that you state your beliefs, by any means. The only reason I explicitly asked is because you took issue with me regarding you as a religionist; it goes without saying it seemed to me like you are a religionist, from reading your previous posts. I just wanted a yes or a no answer to clear up the matter.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Iota

[John Cuthber]

 

 

1 My religion? I haven't disclosed my private beliefs.

 

 

2 Personally I find the idea of a God as a moral mind that exists behind the present known reality, to be more coherent than a corn-dog pooping dragon. But hey, that's just me.

 

 

3 Occam's razor rules out God? You mean it is a decisive proof against the existence of God? I didn't know Occam's razor wielded such power.

3.5 But why not go the whole hog and rule out objective reality as well and say we're all just minds, or maybe we're all just *your* mind?

 

4 Morality is about self-interest? That's not morality as I understand it. What animals display morality? Why does that rule out morality as an objective phenomenon?

5 Emotions are biological. That emotions are associated with love does not rule out love existing as an objective phenomenon.

6 Well this is a perfectly valid opinion, but it is not an argument from science, more an attack on specific religious ideas (which I didn't put in my list)

 

7 Did I state that belief in God was scientific? Or that my statements were scientific? I thought I was claiming the opposite. I was arguing that a scientist could hold beliefs on matters outside of the domain of science so I'm not sure what point you are making really. No evidence in your opinion. A person (scientist or otherwise) might say that the existence of a coherent objective reality is evidence of God, to them at least. But scientific research is not going to answer that question is it? How could it?

8 The scientific arguments you give here are really no more than a statement of your own opinion. You're basically giving a philosophical view of scientific data, reductionism, or materialism perhaps? I see no reason why a scientist cannot hold the beliefs I stated and still be a scientist.

 

9 Then I'm confused by your creation/evolution statements. I assumed that you meant scientific understanding of evolution contradicted literal interpretations of creation myths found in some religions. If not this, then what did you mean? Has science demonstrated that there is no author or mind behind observed reality such that it would be inappropriate for a scientist to hold such a belief?

 

I agree that having a vested interest in the results of one's research should raise eyebrows. But results should speak for themselves should they not? Otherwise there is something wrong with the scientific method/peer review system.

 

1 is true by tautology and therefore pointless.

2 clashes with your assertion that "I don't see how my personal views are relevant to this discussion."

3 Occam's razor says that you shouldn't invent any more things than you need to. There is no scientific need for God so you shouldn't invent Him.

3.5 is a strawman: God clearly isn't part of "objective" reality.

4 Yes it is: the sound-bite version is "do unto others as you would have others do unto you": Strictly, it's the enforcement of morality that's self interest, but without enforcement it doesn't amount to much.

Animals like this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html

show morality and they didn't get it from any holy book.

5 nobody said it wasn't objective- it's even measurable. You can measure levels of neurotransmitters and hormones etc and get a pretty good idea of when someone falls in love.

So, that's a strawman too. Love is, however, consistent with ordinary biology- there's no need for any God and also, as I pointed out, the idea of God is love doesn't stand up to analysis.

6

What you put on your list was "That love has objective reality and has its source in God." yet God's love seems to have nothing to do with reality.

 

7

My question was "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)"

Now there are answers to that- the existence of God per se is one of them, but only if you redefine God to essentially doing nothing. The God described by any religion I have heard of doesn't exist. because, if He did, his actions would be observable. The number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is another thing about which you can have a religious view point.

 

One thing these have in common is that they are useless.

 

8 Science is a bit reductionist and materialistic- had you not spotted that?

 

9 ask anyone who has ever had appendicitis- or look at the design of the human eye- it's a cockup.

This is clearly not the output of some mind.

[Iggy]

Personally I find the idea of a God as a moral mind that exists behind the present known reality, to be more coherent than a corn-dog pooping dragon. But hey, that's just me.

 

While you are, of course, welcome to your opinion, I would like to know more about the logic and reason you applied to arrive at it. So, the question to you regarding the above is... Why?

 

I can't speak for Pears, but I can say that your argument is patently absurd.

 

This discussion got started in post 184 where I asked "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?"

 

Your response was the following:

 

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...

 

Which couldn't have been worse. Nobody says that there are "invisible dragons that poop cotton candy and edible corn dogs".

 

It wasn't even worth replying to. Now you're honestly asking Pears why something that billions of people believe is more credible than what you made up that nobody believes.

 

Why is something that billions of people believe more likely than something nobody believes?

 

I mean... you're honestly asking that... and sticking to it like it's a good point.

 

I can't even figure the point out...

 

What billions of people believe isn't credible because nobody believes this thing I made up that isn't believable... seems to be your point.

 

You're going to have to try much harder.

[Moontanman]

Iggy, the number of people who believe something is irrelevant to it's veracity...

[iNow]

I can't speak for Pears, but I can say that your argument is patently absurd.

Of course you can say that, but it doesn't in any way mean you are correct in that assessment.

 

There is nothing absurd about my argument, only the subjects I've used to demonstrate my point. I stipulate that the subjects I've chosen are absurd, but the argument itself is quite sound.

 

Any reasonable observer approaching this discussion in good faith can quite easily see that the absurdity you ascribe to my dragon who shits corndogs applies equally to your idea of a deity. The idea of deities is equally absurd, despite the undue deference and near immunity to criticism such ideas seem to enjoy in our society.

 

Which couldn't have been worse. Nobody says that there are "invisible dragons that poop cotton candy and edible corn dogs".

 

It wasn't even worth replying to. Now you're honestly asking Pears why something that billions of people believe is more credible than what you made up that nobody believes.

That's just it, Iggy. Truth is not a democracy. It doesn't matter if 2 people say that 2+2= yellow or if 2 million people say that 2+2= yellow. It's still a completely rubbish assertion.

 

Yes, I'm honestly asking Pears how claims of the existence of god(s) are in any way, shape, or form functionally different from other ludicrous claims out there... like asserting the existence of corndog shitting dragons or the existence of leprechauns that get erections when unicorns fart. The point is, with the exception of their popularity, these claims are equally absurd and equally ludicrous as claims of the existence of god(s).

 

Now... How about instead of you getting all flabbergasted and acting like an old-fashioned southern belle who's suddenly been overcome by a case of the vapors you actually try addressing my question with a meaningful and thoughtful reply?

 

Your personal offense is not a credible counter argument to my assertion that truth is not determined by popularity and that more people believing in something doesn't make it true in the absence of other objective and corroborating evidence.

 

Why is something that billions of people believe more likely than something nobody believes?

 

I mean... you're honestly asking that... and sticking to it like it's a good point.

 

I can't even figure the point out...

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. Your personal incredulity is not a valid rebuttal to the points I am making. If you have questions about my position, or wish me to clarify something, then ask, but for the love of Thor please stop acting all apoplectic and evading the core point. Edited September 9, 2013 by iNow

[Iggy]

Iggy, the number of people who believe something is irrelevant to it's veracity...

 

Well... that was my point until you compared corn pooping dragons to God, which seemed irrelevant... and then demanded Pears explain why the one was more likely than the other (when it was a comparison you insisted on).

 

We should be asking you. But, we already know the answer to that. It's all emotion.

Any reasonable observer approaching this discussion in good faith can quite easily see that the absurdity you ascribe to my dragon who shits corndogs applies equally to your idea of a deity.

 

Yeah, anybody except for the vast majority of humanity. Sure.

 

That's all fine.

[iNow]

Oh well. I guess a reasonable reply was simply too much to ask. At least I tried.

I also notice that you've chosen merely to double down on your previous position that popularity or total number of believers is in any way relevant to validity and truth. It's clearly not, yet that rests as the foundation of your entire argument.

[Iggy]

I also notice that you've chosen merely to double down on your previous position that popularity or total number of believers is in any way relevant to validity and truth. It's clearly not,...

 

Again, you're the one claiming it. You're the one saying that your private invention which nobody believes is equal to that which the vast majority of humanity believes.

 

It is up to you to prove it. You make the claim... you prove it. I can explain that as many times and in as many ways as you like. I can break it down into predict logic for you if you need. I can engage you Aristotelian-style and just ask you a ceaseless number of questions until you relent, if you like. One way or another, you are going to own the comparison you made.

 

I compare faith in god to faith in your partner's fidelity today and you're able to give me a five point regurgitated layout of how the two are different... but at the same time you can't figure out how corn pooping dragons are different from God. Are you serious with this bullshit?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Which couldn't have been worse. Nobody says that there are "invisible dragons that poop cotton candy and edible corn dogs".

No, but there are many people who actually believe that some creature made the universe.

Is there some reason why that's any less absurd?

[Iggy]

No, but there are many people who actually believe that some creature made the universe.

Is there some reason why that's any less absurd?

 

Are you even following the thread?

 

There is only one person comparing the two, and it is iNow. You don't get to ask why either is less absurd. Only he gets to answer why the two are exactly equivalent... because only he is comparing them.

 

You're like the third person to ask that stupid question. "can't you prove that corn dog pooping dragons are different from God?".

 

If you'd care to compare the two then I'll put you in the same boat as him, in the mean time, please butt out.

[doG]

 

Which couldn't have been worse. Nobody says that there are "invisible dragons that poop cotton candy and edible corn dogs".

 

It wasn't even worth replying to. Now you're honestly asking Pears why something that billions of people believe is more credible than what you made up that nobody believes.

 

Why is something that billions of people believe more likely than something nobody believes?

 

I mean... you're honestly asking that... and sticking to it like it's a good point.

 

I can't even figure the point out...

 

What billions of people believe isn't credible because nobody believes this thing I made up that isn't believable... seems to be your point.

 

You're going to have to try much harder.

Why is that hard for you to understand? If everyone in the world believed invisible dragons existed it wouldn't make it true. It doesn't matter at all how many believe in something. It lends absolutely zero credibility to the truth of it. Belief based solely on faith is not evidence of anything except mental illness.

[Iggy]

Why is that hard for you to understand? If everyone in the world believed invisible dragons existed...

 

Nobody believes it.

 

Putting "if" in front of a false statement doesn't help anything. I could say...

 

"If 2+1 = 9 then..."

 

You understand that I just said something that was really stupid. That isn't too hard for you to understand, right?

[doG]

Who made a statement? I asked a question. That's why I put one of those ? things at the end. Maybe I could ask more plainly to see if you understand. Do you think belief equals evidence? (btw, that's a question)

[Iggy]

Who made a statement? I asked a question.

If you put "if" in front of a false statement then it becomes a question.

 

Honestly! This type of thing isn't worthy of discussion. Where is iNow?

 

That's why I put one of those ? things at the end. Maybe I could ask more plainly to see if you understand. Do you think belief equals evidence? (btw, that's a question)

Hardly

[iNow]

You're the one saying that your private invention which nobody believes is equal to that which the vast majority of humanity believes.

And you have yet to rebut that point.

 

More specifically, I said that the only difference between claims that god(s) exist and claims that corndog shitting dragons exist is that one is more popular and more accepted socially than the other. Beyond that difference in popularity, each claim rests on the same complete absence of empirical and corroborating evidence. I then followed up by repeating the self-evidently true statement that popularity and number of believers is neither relevant nor pertinent to demonstrating the truth of a claim, which is why I am able to validly assert their equivalence.

 

As doG mentioned, claims of the existence of corndog shitting dragons don't become any more valid just because more people believe it to be true... whether it's ten people, ten thousand, or ten million or several billion. The same applies to claims regarding the existence of god(s). Those claims of existence rest on nothing more than faith, and their truth is not somehow bolstered just because lots of people happen to share that faith. Faith doesn't demonstrate truth. It demonstrates belief. That's an important distinction.

 

Again, claims of the existence of god(s) are in no way functionally different than claims that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns, and are in no way different than claims that corndog shitting dragons exist. The ONLY difference is the popularity and commonality of the belief, but they are still little more than beliefs. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, truth is not determined by popularity nor is it determined by the number of believers or people of common faith. Neither faith alone nor the popularity or commonality of that faith serve as acceptable evidence to the validity of a claim, especially one so extraordinary and outrageous as the claim that god(s) exist(s).

 

I compare faith in god to faith in your partner's fidelity today and you're able to give me a five point regurgitated layout of how the two are different... but at the same time you can't figure out how corn pooping dragons are different from God. Are you serious with this bullshit?

Yes, I am serious, and I have laid out the reasons for their similarity. See above in this post and others. If you feel this claim of equivalence is false, then you have the opportunity to share one single relevant difference to prove it wrong. Thus far, you've argued only that one claim is more popular than the other, and it's been repeated demonstrated that popularity is an invalid approach to demonstrating the veracity of a claim, hence your claim of relevant difference has been rendered moot.

 

I might also recommend that you try to relax a little bit and to note that your argument doesn't become in any way stronger just because you use a bunch of exclamation points when presenting it.

 

 

Honestly! This type of thing isn't worthy of discussion. Where is iNow?

I'll respond when I'm free to do so. I do have a life outside of this online community and it would be inappropriate of you to expect that I post to this forum according to your personal schedule and expectations. Edited September 10, 2013 by iNow