Theistic Scientists

[Moontanman]

From an outside perspective, that's what it seems your/Iggy's argument boils down to.

 

 

My view is that it is possible too. I've pointed it out as well. I believe that I operate with a scientific mind, yet I also believe in a "higher being" (post #126). Seeing that science is a process, not a belief system, the two are able to be possessed by the same person. Science is a method by which we can observe the physical world. Religion/spirituality is a way by which to understand things greater than ourselves.

 

Obviously not everyone is going to take the same stance on any one religion or spiritual viewpoint. In the same way, not every scientist interprets data the same way. The key difference is that science doesn't wage wars over the centuries over these views. Both sides take the data and test it on their own to see if everything checks out. The problem is that with spirituality, you can't test the views in a laboratory or draw up mathematical proofs to show that one religion is closer to the Truth than the other.

More to the point you can't show any of them as "The Truth"...

[iNow]

From an outside perspective, that's what it seems your/Iggy's argument boils down to.

No worries. Here's how I see it, though.

 

 

Me: Other than popularity, they are basically the same when it comes to claims of existence. Can anyone name a difference other than popularity?

 

Iggy: You said they are equivalent, prove it!!

 

Me: Here's why I think they are equivalent. Now, can anyone name a relevant functional difference other than popularity?

 

Iggy: No, you have to prove they are equivalent. You're a stupid poopy silly head. I can't believe anyone would make such idiotic claims. You are making all of us look bad.

 

Me: I've shared why I think they are equivalent. Can you cite any relevant ways they are different?

 

Iggy: No, you have to prove they are equivalent. You're a stupid poopy silly head. I can't believe anyone would make such idiotic claims. You said they are equivalent, prove it!!

 

 

Lather, rinse, repeat... for pages and pages and pages.

Edited September 22, 2013 by iNow

[WWLabRat]

More to the point you can't show any of them as "The Truth"...

Part of the reason I didn't phrase it that way is that one could easily say that science can't have an absolute Truth either. That science is fallible. However, science does admit that it hasn't reached perfect truth yet.

[Iggy]

Thank you for making it clear that you are unable to show that there is a difference between God and the dragon because there is no difference.

We can move on now.

 

You get that I never said they're different, but iNow said they're equivalent? You know that?

 

Refusing to answerer how they're different doesn't prove they're equivalent.

 

What part of that is so hard to understand? Read the above sentence again. Then read it two or three... maybe four or five... more times. Still don't understand it?

 

You don't get to say X then beggar everybody else to prove X false. That isn't how it works. You can go ahead and prove your own claims, and iNow can go ahead and prove his. I won't be bothered to do either.

Your paraphrasing is inaccurate. That doesn't come across as a valid summary of the thread...

 

I thought it was pretty good.

[WWLabRat]

You get that I never said they're different, but iNow said they're equivalent? You know that?

 

Refusing to answerer how they're different doesn't prove they're equivalent.

 

What part of that is so hard to understand? Read the above sentence again. Then read it two or three... maybe four or five... more times. Still don't understand it?

 

You don't get to say X then beggar everybody else to prove X false. That isn't how it works. You can go ahead and prove your own claims, and iNow can go ahead and prove his. I won't be bothered to do either.

 

 

I thought it was pretty good.

 

The whole point of repeated scientific processes is to prove that the previous theory/hypothesis was incorrect or inaccurate. And just as they weren't providing evidence of their stance, neither were you. Both sides are in the wrong with this. Don't ask for evidence for something if you are unwilling/unable to provide it yourself.

 

Don't start another endless argument. That was a neutral statement made to let everyone else know why they should just skip over those pages. All those involved have done nothing but prolong the endless empty posts.

Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument.

[Moontanman]

Part of the reason I didn't phrase it that way is that one could easily say that science can't have an absolute Truth either. That science is fallible. However, science does admit that it hasn't reached perfect truth yet.

You are missing my point, none of them have any empirical evidence what so ever, no religion is any more or less likely than the others but science provides useful information about reality, it can be tested and falsified, religion cannot just as invisible dragons cannot and asserting either one adds nothing to human knowledge...

[WWLabRat]

But religion did, at it's origin, create a basis for morals and from there, society had a chance to take hold. So while it may not provide much usefulness for us today, it did play a role in our past. Whether morals would have come into play without ancient religions is anyone's guess. I'm not an anthropologist nor historian, so I won't go down that road. However religious beliefs have woven their way into almost every aspect of society today. In the Western world, it seems to have less hold than that of other regions. However if you look at the middle east, Islam is so tightly woven into their society that it is within their very speech. Whether just saying "Good morning" or "I'll see you later" their equivalent translations involve Allah. Yes, we have our sayings "Oh my God!", "Bless you", and "Holy shit", but it's still possible to keep religion at arms' length.

[iNow]

But religion did, at it's origin, create a basis for morals and from there...

Since this premise is so foundational to your point, I recommend you take some time to validate its accuracy.

 

I know many people think that is the case, but it's probably more accurate to suggest that the basis of morality is the fact that we are pack animals that live in groups, and that certain social norms tended to aid in survival of the tribe and hence were selected for. Those who didn't follow those norms tended to be ostracized from the pack and consequently lost access to protection, resources, food, and partners for mating. Religion merely hijacked those existing behaviors and shaped some of those group norms, but it is hardly the basis for morals. This point is further reinforced when you review actual teachings of most religions (like the bible) and when you review how theistic societies behave relative to more secular ones.

[WWLabRat]

I understand what you're saying, but if that were true, why is there no evidence of a society that had no religious beliefs?

[iNow]

Evidence suggests that essentially all social species display some form of morality, and display behaviors indicative of a knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, even to the point of giving care to the injured and retaliation against those who steal.

 

We see that when mammals engage in play behaviors they tend to follow certain rules, and enforce consequences when certain rules are broken. Most would agree that these are moral behaviors (because, after all, what are morals if not rules and behavioral expectations enforced by the larger group?), and the animals engaging in them include rats, dogs, and chimpanzees. It's even easier to see among primates like the other great apes.

 

By your logic, rats and dogs must practice religion to know what is accepted in the group and to be able to behave "morally." As I think is probably obvious, this is almost certainly false unless you broaden the meaning of religion and dilute it to such a great extent that it becomes practically meaningless.

[WWLabRat]

Those unspoken rules that other species follow could be nothing more than an instinct based on survival. Imagine if a cub were to attack an alpha with actual intent. Many species would show that the alpha would then attack and kill that cub. So out of necessity for survival, it sticks with other cubs. The play fighting that they do also creates a basis for them to learn to hunt and defend territory. Being that these animals are not able to effectively communicate in the same range and degree that humans are, it's impossible to know if they have religion. This is a debate that has been going on for some time.

 

At the same time, we are talking about humans. There are many behaviors within humans that are not present in the rest of the animal kingdom. Examples of this would be commerce. We trade something that is not essential to our survival (e.g. dollar bills, gold, credit) for something that we either want or need (e.g. food, clothing, shelter). We have jobs that do not directly influence our survival as a species. Animals create a symbiosis with their environment, whereas the human race has destroyed vasts portions of the Earth. Many people purposely poison themselves with various substances, whether legal or illegal. There are so many things that set the human race apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. With this being the case, why couldn't religion just be one more thing that's added to that list?

[Moontanman]

At the same time, we are talking about humans. There are many behaviors within humans that are not present in the rest of the animal kingdom. Examples of this would be commerce. We trade something that is not essential to our survival (e.g. dollar bills, gold, credit) for something that we either want or need (e.g. food, clothing, shelter). We have jobs that do not directly influence our survival as a species. Animals create a symbiosis with their environment, whereas the human race has destroyed vasts portions of the Earth. Many people purposely poison themselves with various substances, whether legal or illegal. There are so many things that set the human race apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. With this being the case, why couldn't religion just be one more thing that's added to that list?

None of those apply, animals do all of them in some form or other, we might do it in a much more complex way but they do it as well. The money thing is the least obvious but animals do indeed exchange goods for services, ie animals that bring a kill to impress the female, birds and mammals do this, even spiders. Animals go out on organized hunts, that is the same as earning a living, you hunt or starve, pack hunting means everyone eats whether or not you actually down the prey... Animals will indeed get intoxicated, elephants are known as mean drunks and intentionally consume fermented fruit for shits and giggles, even invading breweries to get the beer... Squirrels will eat 'shrooms and go to a nest to sleep it off, can you imagine the psychedelic dreams of a squirrel? Nonhuman animals even pass down technology, apes teach the younger generation how to make simple tools, as do Crows... Many animals spoil their environment, locusts come to mind as well as fire ants, red tides, where I live schools of menhaden become so thick they use up all the oxygen and have massive kills for no reason other they are too stupid to spread out a little bit. No intelligence has no strangle hold on any of those. You are not giving animals their due...

 

You left out the one thing we do that animals do not do, animals do not store information to be passed down to the next generation, we build libraries, but it is also true that for much of mans existence nether did we...

And for reference...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr3q6Cid1po

Edited September 22, 2013 by Moontanman

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Refusing to answerer how they're different doesn't prove they're equivalent.

 

After a while it becomes clear that what you are doing is the equivalent of small child saying "I know what the answer is, but I'm not telling you". They are trying to cover for the fact that they don't really know, but don't want to admit it.

Of course, it would be easy to prove me wrong- just explain the difference- but you can't do that, can you?

Edited September 22, 2013 by John Cuthber

[WWLabRat]

None of those apply, animals do all of them in some form or other, we might do it in a much more complex way but they do it as well. The money thing is the least obvious but animals do indeed exchange goods for services, ie animals that bring a kill to impress the female, birds and mammals do this, even spiders. Animals go out on organized hunts, that is the same as earning a living, you hunt or starve, pack hunting means everyone eats whether or not you actually down the prey... Animals will indeed get intoxicated, elephants are known as mean drunks and intentionally consume fermented fruit for shits and giggles, even invading breweries to get the beer... Squirrels will eat 'shrooms and go to a nest to sleep it off, can you imagine the psychedelic dreams of a squirrel? Nonhuman animals even pass down technology, apes teach the younger generation how to make simple tools, as do Crows... Many animals spoil their environment, locusts come to mind as well as fire ants, red tides, where I live schools of menhaden become so thick they use up all the oxygen and have massive kills for no reason other they are too stupid to spread out a little bit. No intelligence has no strangle hold on any of those. You are not giving animals their due...

 

You left out the one thing we do that animals do not do, animals do not store information to be passed down to the next generation, we build libraries, but it is also true that for much of mans existence nether did we...

And for reference...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr3q6Cid1po

 

The point I was making with that paragraph was that much of what we do, as humans, is not necessary to our survival. An animal taking a large kill to impress a potential mate is not the same as us spending money to buy things that are not needed. In this example, that kill is still something that would be needed to feed the rest of the group. Buying that memory foam mattress may feel better, but it's not something that's essential. Also, bringing in a kill as a group is still essential for their survival, but is running a coffee shop going to make or break society as a whole? For that matter, almost any business isn't essential to humanity's survival. Animals may feast on fermented foods, but how does that scale with manufactured drugs that are bottled as prescriptions or worse? Things like Methamphetamine, cocaine, acid, PCP, etc all of which require a level of refinement to be created, that don't rely on natural means for their manufacture. And although locusts do destroy the land that they inhabit, they still do so in a moderation and the land grows back naturally when the locusts have died off. But they also don't pollute the air and sea. Yes, the red tide does increase the Oxygen Demand, this killing off other creatures in the bay, this again is something that cycles through the seasons (at least as much as I've read of it).

 

I do agree though that other animals do pass down knowledge. Sometimes in observable ways, sometimes in a form that's not readily observable, like instincts. And I didn't mention levels of intelligence because again, that's up for debate among many circles dealing with other terrestrial life. All I said was that they don't communicate the same way that we do and so it is difficult for us to be able to understand what they may actually be "saying".

 

And I do recognize that Koko is an exception to this, but an episode of Star Trek TNG that I recently saw (a couple hours ago) reminded me that when cultures are first starting to learn each other's language, what is said between the two may not be completely understood. In the episode, Counselor Troi holds up a clear glass of tea for Captain Picard to observe. She calls it a word in a foreign language and asks the Captain what she just said. He guesses at her having said "cup". She says in reply that she could just as easily have been saying "brown", "liquid", or "hot". So what Koko is able to sign to us may have been misunderstood when she was learning and is therefore being mistranslated when talking back to us.

[pears]

Isn't purity of faith the goal, whether it's attainable or not? Isn't faith supposed to be strong and abiding, complete and without doubt? If you tell your priest you have doubt, isn't he going to try to fix it, help you remove your doubt?

 

Even among those who will admit that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, faith in the concept is supposed to be as strong and abiding and unflagging as possible, isn't it? Doubt is to be erased; see your pastor, start praying immediately so it can be removed.

 

I've been mulling this over and I don't see how faith can ever be "pure" in theism. Theist religions always involve some form of interaction with the divine, be it revelation, incarnation, healing, answered prayer, historical tradition, personal experience of the divine. Whatever. Surely, in that belief system, part of the purpose of such intervention is to give the theist a "leg-up" so to speak. i.e. to be "evidence" on which to base faith. (Not scientific or empirical evidence, but informal or personal or testimonial type evidence - sorry I can't think of a better word than evidence, otherwise I'd use it.)

 

Only the purest faith could be achieved in deism - where there is no interaction. But in that case (assuming deism => indifferent deity) then the faith would be redundant anyway I suppose.

 

So while 'faith' might be a goal in theism, perhaps purity of faith isn't? It's just that 'some' faith is required and so it's the presence of faith that must be maintained, rather than any particular quality, or level of it? I dunno, just my ponderings.

 

 

I'm totally willing to admit that my personal experiences with Christianity may not be typical, but the majority of the most devout people I know, those who are held up as shining examples of the faith, ALWAYS talk about God and Jesus as fact. Unalterable, undeniable, unquestionable Truth.

But what they're really doing is expressing is very strong opinion. Is this again another issue with semantics? People in every day circumstances use 'know' when they mean 'convinced'. (I know I left my pen in here, but I can't see it anywhere.) Should such a person be forced to learn in detail about epistemology and ontology perhaps they would qualify their statement of fact as a statement of very strong belief.

 

I think quite a few theists think science is here to provide proof. And when they perceive a threat to their beliefs from science, they try to counter with proof of their own. Then things go bad quickly.

 

So how can we make (shape, nurture?) theistic scientists out of people who probably avoid studying very much of it? When we say "There is no evidence that will prove our explanations as Truth, that's why we work with theory", it gets thrown back at us as weakness, a sign that faith in God is stronger than trust in theory.

 

We have this problem everywhere strong opinion is present. People with strong opinions (at least in religion and politics) tend to listen to supporters and talk over detractors. I think the scientific community would be willing to let folks have any opinion they want about theism, but they'll never be able to stand by while opinions, misinformation and flat-out wrongness gets labeled as Truth.

 

OR...

 

Is it the non-theist scientists who need to change? Can they afford to ignore it when a theist misinterprets something they can correct? Science doesn't work in a vacuum, it needs funding. Much of the basic core research funding that doesn't generate profit comes from public funds. Theism, especially in the US and Australia, is heavily influencing the allocation of those funds, so it's important that EVERYONE knows why such funding is critical.

 

Can non-theist scientists allow that something supernatural could be behind everything we know to be real and natural, but also allow that such a being can't be defined or observed by science so It's not within their purview? IOW, just don't make assertions about your god, leave science to us and you can have all the faith you want, we won't bother you. Could scientists do that and would theists accept it?

 

 

It sounds like there is a bit of a chasm between two camps here and plenty of potential for people to understand each other more. How that is achieved though, is a good question.

[Moontanman]

The point I was making with that paragraph was that much of what we do, as humans, is not necessary to our survival. An animal taking a large kill to impress a potential mate is not the same as us spending money to buy things that are not needed. In this example, that kill is still something that would be needed to feed the rest of the group. Buying that memory foam mattress may feel better, but it's not something that's essential. Also, bringing in a kill as a group is still essential for their survival, but is running a coffee shop going to make or break society as a whole? For that matter, almost any business isn't essential to humanity's survival. Animals may feast on fermented foods, but how does that scale with manufactured drugs that are bottled as prescriptions or worse? Things like Methamphetamine, cocaine, acid, PCP, etc all of which require a level of refinement to be created, that don't rely on natural means for their manufacture. And although locusts do destroy the land that they inhabit, they still do so in a moderation and the land grows back naturally when the locusts have died off. But they also don't pollute the air and sea. Yes, the red tide does increase the Oxygen Demand, this killing off other creatures in the bay, this again is something that cycles through the seasons (at least as much as I've read of it).

 

I do agree though that other animals do pass down knowledge. Sometimes in observable ways, sometimes in a form that's not readily observable, like instincts. And I didn't mention levels of intelligence because again, that's up for debate among many circles dealing with other terrestrial life. All I said was that they don't communicate the same way that we do and so it is difficult for us to be able to understand what they may actually be "saying".

 

And I do recognize that Koko is an exception to this, but an episode of Star Trek TNG that I recently saw (a couple hours ago) reminded me that when cultures are first starting to learn each other's language, what is said between the two may not be completely understood. In the episode, Counselor Troi holds up a clear glass of tea for Captain Picard to observe. She calls it a word in a foreign language and asks the Captain what she just said. He guesses at her having said "cup". She says in reply that she could just as easily have been saying "brown", "liquid", or "hot". So what Koko is able to sign to us may have been misunderstood when she was learning and is therefore being mistranslated when talking back to us.

I don't think I've ever had anyone work that hard to make my point... Animals do all sorts of things that do not contribute to their survival, they play, yes even as adults, all those things you claim are unique to humans are just more complex analogs of the human behaviors you cite.

 

Lets break it down dude...

 

Buying that memory foam mattress may feel better, but it's not something that's essential.

Animals make sleeping nests, they are often quite complex and comfortable and the animals go to great lengths to make sure they are comfortable sometimes making a new large comfortable nest every day...They can survive with out the nest but they do it anyway...

 

Also, bringing in a kill as a group is still essential for their survival, but is running a coffee shop going to make or break society as a whole? For that matter, almost any business isn't essential to humanity's survival.

If you give this some thought you'll see how this confirms what i am saying, these humans behaviors can be seen in animals but just not on as complex a level as humans, the star bucks may not be required for for the survival of humanity but individuals to indeed work there to make money to live and coffee is a drug. The businesses you cite are just complex versions of how animals survive.

 

Animals may feast on fermented foods, but how does that scale with manufactured drugs that are bottled as prescriptions or worse? Things like Methamphetamine, cocaine, acid, PCP, etc all of which require a level of refinement to be created, that don't rely on natural means for their manufacture.

T hank you again for making my point. Animals have been documented using drugs many times, we just do it in a more complex manner...

 

And although locusts do destroy the land that they inhabit, they still do so in a moderation and the land grows back naturally when the locusts have died off. But they also don't pollute the air and sea. Yes, the red tide does increase the Oxygen Demand, this killing off other creatures in the bay, this again is something that cycles through the seasons (at least as much as I've read of it).

Again thank you, if locusts were as widespread as humans nothing green would be left on the face of the earth. Animals do all those things and in spades they just don't use technology to help themselves do it this of course assumes a beaver building a damn that drastically changes the local environment isn't technology. And BTW the things human do are just as natural as red tides and beaver damns, humans are not apart from nature...

 

And Koko, yes Koko the talking gorilla, she communicates quite accurately, she uses sign language and communicates quite complex things as well as holding conversations so yes we do know what she is saying and she makes up her own words to describe novel situations or ideas, in fact she makes up swear words so in the immortal words of Koko "Shit on you" an animal that can decide to make up insults blows the idea of simply just parroting what she has been taught out of the water, in fact parrots do not always just parrot what they are taught...

 

Animals take slaves, grow domesticated plants for food, keep livestock, build huge cities, and I am just talking about ants, the list goes on and on...

 

Birds collect shiny objects to impress their mates... seriously they really do... and the guy who works at star bucks is just doing what every other animal does, seeking food and shelter the best way he can, it's not different from what animals do to survive it's just more complex and hidden under many layers of complexity. The guy who works for star bucks is just the modern equivalent of a hunter gatherer...

WWLabRat, I think we have skidded way off topic, I suggest you start another thread if you want to continue down this road...

[Iggy]

After a while it becomes clear that what you are doing is the equivalent of small child saying "I know what the answer is, but I'm not telling you". They are trying to cover for the fact that they don't really know, but don't want to admit it.

 

 

Yeah, you're going to compare me to a small child. In a bit you're going to compare me to woman, and after that it'll be every other nasty thing you can think of. You said "there is no difference". You just in the last day said that. I'm just standing here wondering how you're going to show that corn dog shitting dragons are equivalent to God.

 

It sounds fun. There are all kinds of principles of logic that could be applied to your faith. I'm just standing here wondering how you're going to do it. It's fascinating to watch. And, of course you compare me to a kid in the mean time. Of course you do.

 

I'm sorry, "there is no difference"? Can you repeat that?

[Moontanman]

I will assert there is no difference, can you demonstrate there is? Both have exactly the same amount of evidence.. imagination...

[Iggy]

I will assert there is no difference

Between corn dog pooping dragons and God? Do you own a dictionary?

 

This is getting more and more embarrassing.

 

It's called an equivocation fallacy. You can't assert that there is no difference while two things are distinctly different.

 

It's just an equivocation fallacy. That's all you're doing.

 

Where is Tar? That guy does it like nobody else. He'll tell you that god is no different from the laughter of children. "There is no difference?" That's what you say? Tar is going to be unbelievably happy about this.

 

 

can you demonstrate there is?

Yeah, I'm going to prove your claims for you. Sure.

[Moontanman]

Between corn dog pooping dragons and God? Do you own a dictionary?

 

This is getting more and more embarrassing.

 

It's called an equivocation fallacy. You can't assert that there is no difference while two things are distinctly different.

 

It's just an equivocation fallacy. That's all you're doing.

 

Where is Tar? That guy does it like nobody else. He'll tell you that god is no different from the laughter of children. "There is no difference?" That's what you say? Tar is going to be unbelievably happy about this.

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm going to prove your claims for you. Sure.

My claim is self evident, of those, god or invisible dragons, both have exactly the same amount of evidence of their existence...

[Iggy]

My claim is self evident

Isn't that exactly what every religious person you've ever met said? They say something stupid, like "I can't prove anything I'm saying, but it's all perfectly self-evident"

 

I don't believe it from you any more than I believe it from them.

[Moontanman]

Isn't that exactly what every religious person you've ever met said? They say something stupid, like "I can't prove anything I'm saying, but it's all perfectly self-evident"

 

I don't believe it from you any more than I believe it from them.

Good then we are at least communicating accurately because that's what your argument looks like to me so far... I am not trying to say god and dragons are the same thing but as far as evidence for their existence goes they both have the same amount...

[Iggy]

I am not trying to say god and dragons are the same thing...

Could you go so far as to ask iNow to stop doing it too? I realize it's a lot to ask... but if you could. Also.. if you could stop saying "I will assert there is no difference" then that will be fine too.

 

It's like you're attacking me, and I honestly don't know why.

[Moontanman]

Could you go so far as to ask iNow to stop doing it too? I realize it's a lot to ask... but if you could. Also.. if you could stop saying "I will assert there is no difference" then that will be fine too.

 

It's like you're attacking me, and I honestly don't know why.

I can't figure out why you keep asserting there is some difference in the evidence in support of either one...

[Iggy]

I can't figure out why you keep asserting there is some difference in the evidence in support of either one...

Yeah, I said that. You can quote it. Sure.