Theistic Scientists

[John Cuthber]

...the ideas are different.

One is a made up fanciful construction- and the other is a dragon.

 

They are not different ideas.

 

Also, while you might not think you are trying to convince me that He exists, His existence is a prerequisite of His meaningfully having properties.

Edited September 15, 2013 by John Cuthber

[pears]

 

I could equally say the dragon is from outside the universe. I could equally say that his corn-dog defecations are moral in nature.

 

Haha that's priceless. That doesn't even make sense in plain English!

 

If you guys really can't see a difference then good luck to you. I won't be able to convince you otherwise and I've already wasted enough hours of my life in this discussion.

[John Cuthber]

Congratulations on spotting that it doesn't make sense.

Now, if you could just notice that the same is true if you put the word God, instead of the dragon we would be making real progress.

 

Because the dragon is made up we can assign any properties to it that we like.

The same is true of God.

But if God's properties are arbitrary then He can't be real.

[Phi for All]

I accept that it is one of many reasonable possibilities

 

Like some people accept God as a reasonable possibility.

 

 

I think "reasonable" should be defined on a science site as "capable of using reason and rationality to explain natural phenomena". The very basis of faith means there is no rational, reasonable explanation behind it. It's simply supposed to be taken as utterly, unquestionably True, and that's not "reasonable" at all.

[Ringer]

So how are you calculating this probability?

I, personally, have not. But based on how certain aspects of quantum theory work you can use Bayesian statistics to work out the probability may be true based on the evidence we currently have.

 

 

OK.

 

Let's consider the two ideas side by side.

 

God: let's define this as a mind that isn't part of the physical universe, that is moral in character, and is the mind which is responsible for the laws of physics and the existence of the physical universe.

So it breaks every single law of the natural world? How is that in any way a definition that can be defended with more than 'because magic'.

 

 

Inows dragon: an invisible dragon who shits corn dogs living in his garage.

 

So something that breaks less rules of the natural world is less probable?

 

 

Let's look at the features of each.

God:

A mind that is not part of the physical universe.

Not subject to the laws of physics but rather their source and therefore one possible explanation for the existence of a coherent universe.

Moral in nature therefore one possible explanation for the existence of moral ideas in humans.

 

There's a variety of problems with this. One is that you're explaining something that could be explained easier without a god just to justify a God. It's not the least bit reasonable. There is absolutely nothing about any of those statements that follow from anything except our 'because magic' explanation.

 

 

Dragon:

A creature that is part of the physical universe with a particular location and biological functions.

Physical in nature therefore should obey the laws of physics.

Provides no explanation for anything.

 

There is no known mechanism in physics where biological creatures can be invisible. There is no known mechanism in biology where creatures can shit corn-dogs.

 

Ants provide no explanation for anything, they exist. So explanation is not a criteria for existence or for making sense. If we say that the dragon is biological, we could explain it being invisible by it having exceptional camouflage in iNow's garage. We could also explain the corn-dogs by it eating corn-dogs but is unable to digest them. By that we have a more likely scenario that makes more sense than something that follows no physical rules, but somehow interacts and is the cause of all physical rules.

 

 

A physical biological creature that doesn't obey physics or biology is internally incoherent.

 

That actually made me laugh. It's only incoherent because it's not God that is breaking those rules?

 

 

 

This just sounds like an opinion. What is this probability? 10% 50% 90%? How is is calculated

I already said above.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Ringer

[overtone]

I still don't think handling the invisible dragon style of deity exhausts the issue - even among the gods we have at hand: there are some sopshisticated conceptions of the Christian mono-deity, for example, that keep much of the vocabulary and approach while not putting themselsves at risk of comparisons with unicorns etc.

 

There are deities avaialable to the scientist, in other words.

[iNow]

By that reasoning, though, there are also dragons available to scientists... Dragons that are more "sophisticated" and with better "vocabularies."

[Euler's Identity]

Why would one want to live their lives, make decisions, and base their belief system on the worship of a being that could possibly rationally exist simply because it cannot be disproven. Despite the fact that they have not seen, heard, or logically proven their existence whatsoever?

[pears]

I, personally, have not. But based on how certain aspects of quantum theory work you can use Bayesian statistics to work out the probability may be true based on the evidence we currently have.

 

You're saying that the existence of a multiverse is probable because of something to do with quantum mechanics and an application of Bayesian probabilties. That's all rather vague. References please.

 

I think "reasonable" should be defined on a science site as "capable of using reason and rationality to explain natural phenomena". The very basis of faith means there is no rational, reasonable explanation behind it. It's simply supposed to be taken as utterly, unquestionably True, and that's not "reasonable" at all.

 

I'm confused. What is the purpose of the religion section of this forum?

Edited September 16, 2013 by pears

[Euler's Identity]

 

Forum for the discussion and examination of the rational foundations of religion.

 

This is as the forum description says, but as I am new to these forums I wont attempt to answer any further lol

[pears]

So if reason is defined as "capable of using reason and rationality to explain natural phenomena" doesn't that preclude religion by definition? So what is the point of having a religion section?

[Villain]

So if reason is defined as "capable of using reason and rationality to explain natural phenomena" doesn't that preclude religion by definition? So what is the point of having a religion section?

 

Not undermining anything else that you've written in this thread but you got it right when you said:

 

 

 

I won't be able to convince you otherwise and I've already wasted enough hours of my life in this discussion.

[Phi for All]

So if reason is defined as "capable of using reason and rationality to explain natural phenomena" doesn't that preclude religion by definition? So what is the point of having a religion section?

 

There are plenty of places you can go on the web to have your beliefs substantiated by like-minded people. For those who worry about that kind of indoctrination, there are places you can go that will challenge those beliefs. And for those who have a scientific approach to life, there is at least one place on the web you can go to discuss religion using rational and reasonable methodology.

 

We have members who have religious beliefs here that don't feel a need to speak in absolutes and Truths and are more than willing to admit that their beliefs can be personal without being sacred and unquestionable. I think you'll find most people who are arguing against the religious stance are arguing against blanket assumptions and assertions of fact. Science goes out of its way to allow for the possibility of being wrong, so it uses "theory" instead of "proof". Religion often makes assertions it can't possibly support, and makes matters worse (scientifically) by requiring "faith" in those assertions. Faith seems like the strongest form of belief to religious people but it's the weakest from a scientific standpoint.

 

For those who allow they could be wrong but believe anyway, there is little to gainsay. It's an opinion you're completely entitled to. For those who want to assert that their beliefs are True and unassailable and that your god is NOT supernatural, well, SFN is going to ask you to support those assertions the same way we would with any natural explanation.

[pears]

For those who want to assert that their beliefs are True and unassailable and that your god is NOT supernatural, well, SFN is going to ask you to support those assertions the same way we would with any natural explanation.

 

I'm still confused. Are you saying I have claimed this? Or is this a general comment on the purpose of the section?

[Villain]

And for those who have a scientific approach to life, there is at least one place on the web you can go to discuss religion using rational and reasonable methodology.

 

 

 

That sounds awesome, can you share the link to that place please?

[Phi for All]

 

I'm still confused. Are you saying I have claimed this? Or is this a general comment on the purpose of the section?

 

I'm sorry, I quoted the part I was responding to, why we have a religion section on a science site.

 

 

That sounds awesome, can you share the link to that place please?

 

I would, but it doesn't work well when you're there.

[Villain]

 

I would, but it doesn't work well when you're there.

 

I believe the correct response is:

 

Photos or it didn't happen

[Ringer]

You're saying that the existence of a multiverse is probable because of something to do with quantum mechanics and an application of Bayesian probabilties. That's all rather vague. References please.

You're still shifting the goalposts and the burden of proof, but anyhow:

http://astroweb1.physics.ox.ac.uk/~philcosmo2009/shtml/talk_shtml/pdf/s7.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953

 

Are two that touch on the subject, since I don't work or study in the QM I don't have a bunch of specific papers on hand nor am I inclined to spend a bunch of time searching them out for you. Here's a wiki entry that you could have easily googled:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Probability

 

I'm confused. What is the purpose of the religion section of this forum?

To discuss religion in a reasonable manner, though it very often doesn't work very well.

[Iggy]

You're still shifting the goalposts and the burden of proof...

Not just shifting it, but perhaps just shifting it slightly off topic.

 

It's ok. We can shift that burden of proof back.

 

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...

Aren't we all glad iNow can prove the above claim scientifically? I've seen him attack at least a dozen people based on it, so we're all happy to hand him the bag and let him prove it.

 

I'll be grinning ear to ear when you do it, iNow. It will be a new dawn for mankind. I'm an atheist, I can tell you... "Winter is coming" won't be in our lexicon any more when you do it.

 

In the mean time... STOP doing it on a feakin' science site... and more than all... stop attacking ppl with it!

There are plenty of places you can go on the web to have your beliefs substantiated by like-minded people. For those who worry about that kind of indoctrination, there are places you can go that will challenge those beliefs. And for those who have a scientific approach to life, there is at least one place on the web you can go to discuss religion using rational and reasonable methodology.

 

We have members who have religious beliefs here that don't feel a need to speak in absolutes and Truths and are more than willing to admit that their beliefs can be personal without being sacred and unquestionable. I think you'll find most people who are arguing against the religious stance are arguing against blanket assumptions and assertions of fact. Science goes out of its way to allow for the possibility of being wrong, so it uses "theory" instead of "proof". Religion often makes assertions it can't possibly support, and makes matters worse (scientifically) by requiring "faith" in those assertions. Faith seems like the strongest form of belief to religious people but it's the weakest from a scientific standpoint.

 

For those who allow they could be wrong but believe anyway, there is little to gainsay. It's an opinion you're completely entitled to. For those who want to assert that their beliefs are True and unassailable and that your god is NOT supernatural, well, SFN is going to ask you to support those assertions the same way we would with any natural explanation.

You haven't been following the thread, I can tell.

 

The thing is... now that you realize that Pears isn't the one making all kinds of "specific" claims based on her personal beliefs... but it is rather others, what are you going to do? What does your scientific sense tell you? If it's "an opinion that you're completely entitled to" (and not even a belief she's admitted or argued from) what then about the people who cut her down for having this ghost belief? What about their strawmen?

 

Nothing I suspect.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Iggy

[Phi for All]

You haven't been following the thread, I can tell.

 

I can tell you didn't follow what I recently wrote in the thread.

 

The thing is... now that you realize that Pears isn't the one making all kinds of "specific" claims based on her personal beliefs... but it is rather others, what are you going to do? What does your scientific sense tell you? If it's "an opinion that you're completely entitled to" (and not even a belief she's admitted or argued from) what then about the people who cut her down for having this ghost belief? What about their strawmen?

 

Nothing I suspect.

I responded to pears' question about why we have a religion section if we want to keep the discussions rational. I didn't respond when she made "all kinds of 'specific' claims based on her personal beliefs" because she didn't make any.

 

Are you asking me to respond to pears' detractors as a moderator? I try not to moderate threads in which I'm participating.

 

I'm not really interested in the whole God = pooping dragons argument, since it falls on deaf ears. People are free to believe what they want, and I have no problem with it. Personally, I have at least one irrational belief, but I don't tout it as fact or believe it with all my heart and soul. It's more of a wishful thought, and I keep it that way. I don't need anyone else to believe it with me.

 

I would hope that people who practice science (especially Theistic Scientists) can see the difference between belief built solidly on trust, belief supported by faith and belief brought on by wishful thinking. And I would hope that someone posting in the religion section of this particular science site can see the difference between "I believe in God despite there being no evidence" and "God is real, I've seen Him and scripture proves it".

 

Btw, your suspicions were right, I'm going to do nothing about pears, except continue to read her excellent posts. I think you're being alarmist and over-protective and she really doesn't need it. The rant about the kid's blanket actually hurt her stance, imo. I don't like to guess at motives, but I'm pretty sure you just wanted to take some of the heat off her, 'cause you're basically a good guy.

[Iggy]

I can tell you didn't follow what I recently wrote in the thread.

Yeah, I think we're both in the wrong there.

 

 

I responded to pears' question about why we have a religion section if we want to keep the discussions rational. I didn't respond when she made "all kinds of 'specific' claims based on her personal beliefs" because she didn't make any.

 

Are you asking me to respond to pears' detractors as a moderator? I try not to moderate threads in which I'm participating.

Now, that's fair. I'm not calling you out specifically. Yours was a convenient post by which to hit reply, but you're right, this isn't your issue.

 

I'm not really interested in the whole God = pooping dragons argument, since it falls on deaf ears. People are free to believe what they want, and I have no problem with it. Personally, I have at least one irrational belief, but I don't tout it as fact or believe it with all my heart and soul. It's more of a wishful thought, and I keep it that way. I don't need anyone else to believe it with me.

 

You're even making my argument in so many words.

 

I'm sorry for the last post. Really.

 

It's iNow and Ringer that need to answer why they're browbeating somebody for refusing to answer personal questions.

[Phi for All]

It's iNow and Ringer that need to answer why they're browbeating somebody for refusing to answer personal questions.

 

As with much of the discussion on this site, how one words their arguments is paramount. I think a lot of the "browbeating" that goes on is more about showing how the assertion "God is REAL!" requires more to support it than the opinion "I think God is real". It can get repetitive and seem very heavy-handed but the alternative is to let people assert anything they want without challenge.

 

Scientists, including theistic scientists, aren't (or shouldn't be) very good at lending tacit approval to poor arguments. They tend to speak up. And unfortunately, most arguments that try to "prove" something science classifies as super-natural lack support in basic ways that lead to easy dismissal. And then the argument gets treated like any concept based on a weak premise ("GR is WRONG so I have my own theory!") and the dragons start pooping corn and invisible unicorns start living in garages.

 

Assertions should be treated consistently, don't you think? Religion shouldn't get a pass on a science site if assertions are made regarding it. Faith is based on belief without evidence. Is it too much to ask that it be considered opinion, at least here?

 

I do wish that the knee-jerk reactions could be less boilerplate, less automatic. It does come off as heavy-handed and, because it really does involve opinion, it often seems directed at the person and not the argument. I'm not sure what the alternative is. There are places where people can assert whatever they want about their beliefs and not only go unchallenged but be encouraged by people who believe the same way. I have to assume they're here instead of there for a reason.

[Iggy]

And then the argument gets treated like any concept based on a weak premise ("GR is WRONG so I have my own theory!") and the dragons start pooping corn and invisible unicorns start living in garages.

Yes, but it's an equivocation fallacy when it happens. "you shouldn't believe in God because he's nothing more than leprechaun erections and fairy dust" is an equivocation fallacy. It is the weak argument. It is the assertion.

 

Assertions should be treated consistently, don't you think?

I absolutely do, and I can prove it. Tar frequently does the inverse of what iNow does. He says "You should believe in God because he's no different from the majesty of the universe" (a pantheism argument), and he can tell you how far I've taken the argument to him for him to stop doing it. It's an equivocation fallacy all the same.

 

There's no point in either of them doing it. It's not good science. That's all I'm saying.

 

And, it really isn't about protecting Pears. She can obviously handle herself. It's about being annoyed that every other post is dragon poop and leprechaun erection fallacies that seem to serve no purpose but insult and making us atheists look bad. It's hypocritical and annoying.

[Ringer]

It's iNow and Ringer that need to answer why they're browbeating somebody for refusing to answer personal questions.

I don't feel like I have been brow beating. And, again, if Pears feels that my part has been in any way abusive or dishonest I hope she says so.

 

I will say that iNow's comparison may feel insulting, but it was an attempt at show that one can make up almost anything and defend it the way any supernatural phenomena can be defended. It is a similar analogy to one that Carl Sagan used, with the addition of the corndogs. Just because the addition of the corndogs may seem insulting to a belief, it does not invalidate the analogy.

[Iggy]

I don't feel like I have been brow beating. And, again, if Pears feels that my part has been in any way abusive or dishonest I hope she says so.

Please ignore my belligerent tone and concentrate on what I'm saying.

 

it does not invalidate the analogy.

This is an analogy:

 

Just like "Corndog pooping dragons exist", "God exists" is unfalsifiable... they both therefore make a bad scientific hypothesis"

 

I would be fine with something like that. What happened wasn't an analogy.