Theistic Scientists

[Villain]

How two differing groups can have discussion about x1 (an existing entity) and x2 (a non-existing entity) as if they are both talking about a meaningful x is the real brain teaser. The definition of x is different and therefore the conversation is illogical, you just can't compare apples and pears (no pun intended).

[Phi for All]

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.

If the definition of "believe" being used in an assertion is based on trust, as with something that has lots of evidence that can be studied and tested by anyone with the inquisitiveness to do so, then I would expect the person making it to share that evidence. If they can't, then it's probably based on either wishful hoping or faith.

 

"You shouldn't TRUST in God because he can't be observed in a repeatable, predictable way that allows scientific evidence to be collected about him, the same way as leprechauns and dragons" is entirely correct. If your beliefs are worthy of TRUST, you shouldn't mind following proper methodology and sharing with peers so they can check it out.

 

"You shouldn't have FAITH in God because he's just as supernatural as dragons and leprechauns" is a bad argument. If a person chooses to believe in something anyway that has no evidence for it, that's what FAITH is for. It's not supposed to be rational (when compared to a belief based on TRUST). But again, on a science site you should know that assertions based on FAITH alone are not going to go unchallenged.

 

"You shouldn't HOPE God is real because that's just wishful thinking, like the folks who secretly believe leprechauns and dragons are real" is also a bad argument. If the definition of belief used is HOPE, that usually doesn't engender a bunch of assertions. If someone hopes that their consciousness lives on after their body dies but doesn't assert specifically how that happens, that's just an opinion and should be recognized by everyone as such.

 

Sorry to force my definitions of belief into the thread, but that's the only way I can sort it so it makes sense to me. Belief seems to be grounded in different things, so it makes sense that we actually use different forms of belief depending on what explanation we're talking about.

[iNow]

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.

Besides popularity, in what way(s) do you propose assertions that god(s) exist are functionally different from assertions that corndog defecating dragons exist?

[Euler's Identity]

Besides popularity, in what way(s) do you propose assertions that god(s) exist are functionally different from assertions that corndog defecating dragons exist?

 

I would suppose that corndog defecating dragons may be more likely according to the laws of nature.

[WWLabRat]

In order for corndog defecating dragons to exist, we would have to live in a universe with a relatively low level of entropy. How would the dog get inside the cornbread? How would it be heated? Where would the wood for the stick come from? Do you know of any animal whose every feces looks identical?

[iNow]

Perhaps it has stomach acid made of batter, eats nothing but hot dogs, and they get fried on the way down its intestines. When we're dealing with things not based on empirical evidence, any claim I make is equally plausible. This same problem applies to the god conjecture. It's based on faith, and faith can underlie whatever silly thing you want.

[Euler's Identity]

In order for corndog defecating dragons to exist, we would have to live in a universe with a relatively low level of entropy. How would the dog get inside the cornbread? How would it be heated? Where would the wood for the stick come from? Do you know of any animal whose every feces looks identical?

 

Perhaps the dragon enjoys eating corndogs although he cannot digest them, invisibility could be on account that he is on a frequency that is not perceivable to us, but that goes far too off topic for this thread haha

[Phi for All]

Is anyone still arguing that assertions made here don't have to be backed up by evidence if they're based on faith? That's like having your cake and eating it too, or enjoying special protection as a corporation but wanting the privileges of being a person too. I haven't seen that lately so I can see Iggy's point about the current ridicule being so unproductive it's like a strawman.

 

Science gives limited but trustworthy explanations backed by evidence, and religion gives you an omnipotent god who provides unlimited explanations based on faith in his power. I don't think anyone can ever fully integrate those two approaches, although I can see distinctions that would make being a theistic scientist much easier. "Don't make assertions without evidence" would be a good Rule #2.

[Iggy]

Besides popularity, in what way(s) do you propose assertions that god(s) exist are functionally different from assertions that corndog defecating dragons exist?

I NEVER proposed they are different. You not only proposed, but claimed, they were equivalent. You made the claim, repeated it, told me that you've repeatedly shown that they are equivalent but refuse to point me to a post, and all the while try to shift the burden of proof to everyone else.

 

This is debating 101. I'm not going to prove your claim for you.

 

It would be no different if someone said "there is a God", and you replied "show me him", and they could only manage "well... prove to me that there isn't".

 

I'm not going to define your words for you either.

If the definition of "believe" being used in an assertion is based on trust, as with something that has lots of evidence that can be studied and tested by anyone with the inquisitiveness to do so, then I would expect the person making it to share that evidence. If they can't, then it's probably based on either wishful hoping or faith.

 

"You shouldn't TRUST in God because he can't be observed in a repeatable, predictable way that allows scientific evidence to be collected about him, the same way as leprechauns and dragons" is entirely correct. If your beliefs are worthy of TRUST, you shouldn't mind following proper methodology and sharing with peers so they can check it out.

 

"You shouldn't have FAITH in God because he's just as supernatural as dragons and leprechauns" is a bad argument. If a person chooses to believe in something anyway that has no evidence for it, that's what FAITH is for. It's not supposed to be rational (when compared to a belief based on TRUST). But again, on a science site you should know that assertions based on FAITH alone are not going to go unchallenged.

 

"You shouldn't HOPE God is real because that's just wishful thinking, like the folks who secretly believe leprechauns and dragons are real" is also a bad argument. If the definition of belief used is HOPE, that usually doesn't engender a bunch of assertions. If someone hopes that their consciousness lives on after their body dies but doesn't assert specifically how that happens, that's just an opinion and should be recognized by everyone as such.

 

Sorry to force my definitions of belief into the thread, but that's the only way I can sort it so it makes sense to me. Belief seems to be grounded in different things, so it makes sense that we actually use different forms of belief depending on what explanation we're talking about.

Completely agreed.

[Iggy]

I NEVER proposed they are different. You not only proposed, but claimed, they were equivalent. You made the claim, repeated it, told me that you've repeatedly shown that they are equivalent but refuse to point me to a post, and all the while try to shift the burden of proof to everyone else.

 

This is debating 101. I'm not going to prove your claim for you.

 

It would be no different if someone said "there is a God", and you replied "show me him", and they could only manage "well... prove to me that there isn't".

 

I'm not going to define your words for you either.

 

Completely agreed.

Who did that?

 

Who just gave me a -1? In what way does "you said it, you explain it, I'm not explaining it for you" deserve a -1? And, I was polite the whole time. What form of cowardice does this -1 shite take? You can't seem to hit "reply" and make an argument, so you just figure on doing that. Retarded.

 

If you can't find the courage to leave your cheerleading squad for just a minute and admit what you think here, then PM me. What did I just say that was so wrong? TELL ME! Your disapproval otherwise is nothing but whimpering cowardice.

 

None of you can find an argument against what I'm saying, but you've all gone so far as to -1, 2, 3, times every single one of my posts. This just figures about what I'm saying about this thread.

 

Let's all hear iNow say that God is equivalent to pixie farts again. He'll get a +3 for that. And, you call yourself a science site! HA!

[Euler's Identity]

Who did that?

 

Who just gave me a -1? In what way does "you said it, you explain it, I'm not explaining it for you" deserve a -1? And, I was polite the whole time. What form of cowardice does this -1 shite take? You can't seem to hit "reply" and make an argument, so you just figure on doing that. Retarded.

 

If you can't find the courage to leave your cheerleading squad for just a minute and admit what you think here, then PM me. What did I just say that was so wrong? TELL ME! Your disapproval otherwise is nothing but whimpering cowardice.

 

None of you can find an argument against what I'm saying, but you've all gone so far as to -1, 2, 3, times every single one of my posts. This just figures about what I'm saying about this thread.

 

Let's all hear iNow say that God is equivalent to pixie farts again. He'll get a +3 for that. And, you call yourself a science site! HA!

 

Well we shall start out with what is your argument in the first place? (Sorry have not read all of the posts leading up because this thread is very long)

[Ringer]

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

But. . . You asked me to answer for something. . . I suppose I don't follow what you're trying to say when you accuse me of attempting to intimidate someone.

 

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.

It was said that both are supernatural and neither have empirical evidence to back them up, so both claims are functionally equivalent. As has been said, the comparison is one that is purposefully ridiculous to show one can make any claim if evidence isn't a requirement.

 

But to be honest I don't know what the purpose of the thread is any longer, so I think I will be bowing out of this until some sort of coherence is returned to the thread. I certainly do not seem to be helping it on that course.

[iNow]

Let's all hear iNow say that God is equivalent to pixie farts again.

Besides popularity, in what specific way(s) do you suggest they are functionally different from one another?

[Moontanman]

Besides popularity, in what specific way(s) do you suggest they are functionally different from one another?

One has claims written down in a book claimed to be written at the behest of a god..

[iNow]

Give me a bit of time and I promise I can find a book about pixies where the author has claimed divine inspiration.

Scratch that. Give me a few grad students to do it for me. Point being, such books almost certainly exist.

[Iggy]

 

Let's all hear iNow say that God is equivalent to pixie farts again.

Besides popularity, in what specific way(s) do you suggest...

 

White noise.

 

I'm glad to show how they are equivalent. In fact, I've done so repeatedly...

Please do.

 

Please do so in your next post. Please don't ask me any questions first. Please prove to me that pixie farts and dragon poop are equivalent to god.

 

In the mean time... stop saying they are!

[pears]

Ants provide no explanation for anything, they exist. So explanation is not a criteria for existence or for making sense.

 

What is the purpose of a hypothesis if not to explain? Surely all scientific hypothesis including the multiverse hypothesis seek to explain. Not that I'm saying God is a scientific hypothesis but I would have thought that in general a hypothesis that seeks to explain something is different in some way to one that seeks to explain nothing.

 

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?

 

Some people believe they have seen and heard. But subjective experience does not count as evidence on a science forum. Personally I think personal experience is reasonable evidence for a personal belief. But that is not a view shared here.

 

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 don't.

 

But to be honest I don't know what the purpose of the thread is any longer, so I think I will be bowing out of this until some sort of coherence is returned to the thread.

 

I completely understand. And thank you for the links on the multiverse I appreciate it. I am still working through the paper and will reply when I'm done if I feel I have more to say on that topic.

Edited September 18, 2013 by pears

[Phi for All]

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?

This is what you DON'T get to do, question the rationality of faith. As long as it's a personal belief, you can offer your opinion to counter their opinion, but faith isn't supposed to be rational; you can't use reason to question it.

 

Unless, of course, that faith becomes an assertion of fact; then it goes under the microscope. Until then, it's all anecdotal and personal opinion. Capable of being brought into question, certainly, but not in a scientific or rational way.

 

Personally I think personal experience is reasonable evidence for a personal belief. But that is not a view shared here.

 

If, by personal belief, you're talking about faith, I wouldn't call it evidence of anything. Evidence needs to be testable and repeatable, which most personal spiritual experiences are not. An angel came down in a wash of light and told you about God? Did you get a photo? Can you get him to do it again tomorrow at six? It's a powerful personal experience but it doesn't count as evidence in science.

 

Faith isn't supposed to require evidence, it's a belief in something irrational that can't be supported by evidence. I think most of the problems people have here with religion is because they want their beliefs NOT to be considered irrational and look for ways that it's not.

 

 

 

 

 

I think the Theistic Scientist needs to draw fine distinctions on what requires evidence to support it, and what is actually harmed by trying to collect evidence. Natural vs Supernatural. I get that science needs to keep an open mind, but it's seemingly impossible to deal scientifically with anything that's outside nature. Just not the right tool, like trying to measure the length of your sofa with a poem.

[pears]

It's a powerful personal experience but it doesn't count as evidence in science.

 

Which is what I said. I've never claimed it is scientific evidence, but it's personal evidence on which to base a personal belief. Someone without the experience might not hold that belief (faith). Someone with it might. So to them it's evidence.

 

I get that science needs to keep an open mind, but it's seemingly impossible to deal scientifically with anything that's outside nature. Just not the right tool, like trying to measure the length of your sofa with a poem.

 

I agree.

Edited September 18, 2013 by pears

[Euler's Identity]

This is what you DON'T get to do, question the rationality of faith. As long as it's a personal belief, you can offer your opinion to counter their opinion, but faith isn't supposed to be rational; you can't use reason to question it.

 

Unless, of course, that faith becomes an assertion of fact; then it goes under the microscope. Until then, it's all anecdotal and personal opinion. Capable of being brought into question, certainly, but not in a scientific or rational way.

 

 

I disagree, unless you have a personal experience which provokes you to believe something (really strong event) then blind faith can be questioned with reason. Its simple, unless you have experienced what I have stated above there is no reason to believe anything that doesn't make rational sense to the natural world without empirical evidence to support it. If you HAVE experienced something like that then I would suggest its no longer faith anyways, but as everyone seems to agree you shouldn't expect anyone else to take it as evidence.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Euler's Identity

[Phi for All]

I disagree, unless you have a personal experience which provokes you to believe something (really strong event) then blind faith can be questioned with reason. Its simple, unless you have experienced what I have stated above there is no reason to believe anything that doesn't make rational sense to the natural world without empirical evidence to support it. If you HAVE experienced something like that then I would suggest its no longer faith anyways, but as everyone seems to agree you shouldn't expect anyone else to take it as evidence.

 

Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

You're trying to argue that having faith in God is wrong, based on how irrational it is. Faith is NOT a rational belief to begin with. "Faith is wrong" is not an argument you can support in any way with regard to a personal belief or opinion.

 

I've tried to show, in other threads, that faith isn't as strong as most people think. I tried to show that it's actually the weakest form of belief. But I can't say it's wrong, not until it's used to support an assertion and then is subject to all the rigor reasoned thought can bring to bear.

 

Again, as long as faith isn't expressed as fact, it's a personal opinion. You don't get to tell me my logic is flawed because I think chocolate is the best flavor in the world, until I say "Chocolate IS the best flavor and I have evidence to prove it!" At least for our purposes of discussion here, trying to convince someone their faith is misplaced is every bit as much preaching as those who're trying to convert you to their faith.

 

Which is what I said. I've never claimed it is scientific evidence, but it's personal evidence on which to base a personal belief. Someone without the experience might not hold that belief (faith). Someone with it might. So to them it's evidence.

 

Then it's probably a semantics issue if you feel anyone here is attacking your stance undeservedly. Personally, I wouldn't use the word "evidence" in anything but a scientific context, just like I don't use the word "theory" when I mean "an idea I've pondered whilst showering". Precise terminology is something a theistic scientist would have to be more than normally attentive to.

 

I think it's only evidence if it can convince others through rational thought. If it can't but you still think it's evidence, then I think you're invoking faith, in which case you shouldn't need evidence. Does that make sense?

[Iggy]

Then it's probably a semantics issue if you feel anyone here is attacking your stance undeservedly. Personally, I wouldn't use the word "evidence" in anything but a scientific context, just like I don't use the word "theory" when I mean "an idea I've pondered whilst showering". Precise terminology is something a theistic scientist would have to be more than normally attentive to.

 

I think it's only evidence if it can convince others through rational thought. If it can't but you still think it's evidence, then I think you're invoking faith, in which case you shouldn't need evidence. Does that make sense?

 

That can be a minefield though.

 

If one person says "I saw Jesus", and another person says "I saw Jesus too", then what part of that is exactly irrational. One person has just verified by the testimony of another person that which he believes he saw with his own eyes.

 

I get that it's difficult to call that evidence, but I'm also not sure "convincing others through rational thought" is exactly the demarcation.

 

If there is a demarcation then I'm honestly not sure what it is.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I have been reading " the 4 % Universe. On page 123 , while discussing the vague aspects of the cosmic background radiation , Robert Waganer a PHd supervisor at Stanford University was saying to Turner who was involved in the CMB ( Cosmic background Radiation :

 

The one thing any theory needs to be scientific : A prediction to verify or falsify

 

i would have thought from the religious side there appear to be many Predictions that have been made over the 1000's of years . verified or falsified. surely this is what all the Prophets are about. And similarly from the geology and biology direction there must be ample evidence to verify or falsify .

[Iggy]

i would have thought from the religious side there appear to be many Predictions that have been made over the 1000's of years . verified or falsified. surely this is what all the Prophets are about. And similarly from the geology and biology direction there must be ample evidence to verify or falsify .

 

Science is continually wrong. Newtonian mechanics was trusted for so long until it was falsified, and the paradigm shift introduced us to general relativity.

 

It isn't exactly that science is right and verified while religion is wrong... it's more that science accepts that it can be wrong. It is skeptical in a way that faith can't be. For that... I trust science far more.

[Phi for All]

 

That can be a minefield though.

 

If one person says "I saw Jesus", and another person says "I saw Jesus too", then what part of that is exactly irrational. One person has just verified by the testimony of another person that which he believes he saw with his own eyes.

 

I get that it's difficult to call that evidence, but I'm also not sure "convincing others through rational thought" is exactly the demarcation.

 

If there is a demarcation then I'm honestly not sure what it is.

 

More definitions problems. Scientific evidence is different than legal evidence, so while eye-witness testimony is admissible in court (if the witness is credible), it's not enough on its own to support a theory. If Einstein had claimed to witness something in his lab that he couldn't reproduce for colleagues to verify on their own, it still wouldn't be considered evidence since it couldn't convince others through rational thought.

 

Don't we always have problems with misapplied terminology? Even in science, different fields use certain words with varying emphasis and meaning. "Field" is actually a good example. A field of science? Math uses "field" differently than physics, which is different from the way computer science uses the term.

 

I think the root of this problem lies with the term "irrational". If you think it means "not requiring evidence in order to be believed", it doesn't seem wrong to apply it to faith. If you think it means "crazy and superstitious", you're probably not happy having it applied to your religion.

I have been reading " the 4 % Universe. On page 123 , while discussing the vague aspects of the cosmic background radiation , Robert Waganer a PHd supervisor at Stanford University was saying to Turner who was involved in the CMB ( Cosmic background Radiation :

 

i would have thought from the religious side there appear to be many Predictions that have been made over the 1000's of years . verified or falsified. surely this is what all the Prophets are about. And similarly from the geology and biology direction there must be ample evidence to verify or falsify .

 

But the predictions that are verified have more natural explanations than goddidit. Or they attempt to explain one aspect while ignoring the trivially refuted basis of the argument (like trying to "prove" that the remains of Noah's ark exist without first explaining how all those animals could fit on a boat that size). Or biblical testimony for eyewitness accounts are used as "evidence", even though some of those eyewitness accounts contradict each other. How do you know which account to trust?