Theistic Scientists

[doG]

 

If no one responds to this, we could give WWLabRat a shot at a better intro and his own title....

I think the appearance of Cosmos is an example of what the thread is about, a proclaimed theistic scientist. His exemplary display of accepting hand-me-down hearsay as evidence is exactly what makes the subjectivity of a theistic scientist questionable.

[Phi for All]

I simply stopped trying because we clearly can never stay on the same topic.

I think the appearance of Cosmos is an example of what the thread is about, a proclaimed theistic scientist. His exemplary display of accepting hand-me-down hearsay as evidence is exactly what makes the subjectivity of a theistic scientist questionable.

 

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant please don't respond to WWLR's tangent about "Money is the only observable god", so those posts don't get split to become a new thread. This will give him the chance to start the thread and title it on his own. Again, sorry.

[Iggy]

God and Dragons are equivalent in one undeniable way... the amount of evidence for their existence...

I picture Eddington in 1919 sitting in the blistering heat of equatorial Guinea waiting for a solar eclipse... you know, like people do. He's thinking about Newton's law of gravity.

 

The law is scientifically perfect. It is fully self-consistent, and for 250 years it had been tested, verified, confirmed, supported, and hailed as the pinnacle of science.

 

But, there is a different idea that lives in Einstein's imagination. General relativity says that Newton and 250 years of verified observations are wrong, and as Eddington sits there he thinks, "this bizarre private belief of Einstein has not one thing to support it". Not one supported observation. Nothing.

 

Then Eddington thinks, "General Relativity and dragons are equivalent in one undeniable way... the amount of evidence for their existence". So he gets up and walks away -- not even looking up when the moon eclipses the sun.

 

He probably walks into the jungle chuckling, "GR and dragon poop are equivalent", so sure he is that Newton is right -- and we live in a very different world indeed.

 

Every significant scientific achievement has happened directly because someone was willing to imagine the bizarre existence of something that had never been observed. And, real scientists like Eddington are willing to test the ideas instead of comparing them to dragon poop, don't you think?

[Unity+]

I picture Eddington in 1919 sitting in the blistering heat of equatorial Guinea waiting for a solar eclipse... you know, like people do. He's thinking about Newton's law of gravity.

 

The law is scientifically perfect. It is fully self-consistent, and for 250 years it had been tested, verified, confirmed, supported, and hailed as the pinnacle of science.

 

But, there is a different idea that lives in Einstein's imagination. General relativity says that Newton and 250 years of verified observations are wrong, and as Eddington sits there he thinks, "this bizarre private belief of Einstein has not one thing to support it". Not one supported observation. Nothing.

 

Then Eddington thinks, "General Relativity and dragons are equivalent in one undeniable way... the amount of evidence for their existence". So he gets up and walks away -- not even looking up when the moon eclipses the sun.

 

He probably walks into the jungle chuckling, "GR and dragon poop are equivalent", so sure he is that Newton is right -- and we live in a very different world indeed.

 

Every significant scientific achievement has happened directly because someone was willing to imagine the bizarre existence of something that had never been observed. And, real scientists like Eddington are willing to test the ideas instead of comparing them to dragon poop, don't you think?

You are on to something, which will be the point of this post.

 

There are many speculations and hypotheses that provide a supposed mechanism for a self-caused Big Bang not relying another force to activate such a reaction. Many would argue that these are more rational than the existence of God. Well, in any case I would argue that these are also equivalent to the speculative idea that dragons exist. Therefore, wouldn't this mean that Atheists who rely on these speculations as their answer are basing the same amount of evidence for their own beliefs as the amount of evidence for the existence of dragons?

[Iggy]

You are on to something, which will be the point of this post.

 

There are many speculations and hypotheses that provide a supposed mechanism for a self-caused Big Bang not relying another force to activate such a reaction. Many would argue that these are more rational than the existence of God. Well, in any case I would argue that these are also equivalent to the speculative idea that dragons exist. Therefore, wouldn't this mean that Atheists who rely on these speculations as their answer are basing the same amount of evidence for their own beliefs as the amount of evidence for the existence of dragons?

 

I don't believe so, no.

 

An atheist who says "I don't believe in God" doesn't have to explain the cause of the big bang (if there even is a cause).

 

An atheist who says "God does not exist" has bigger problems than needing to explain the big bang, and it is a very rare atheist indeed who says that outright.

 

My point is only that there are scientists like Einstein who are willing to imagine God, and even try to explain how the idea makes some sense. People like Einstein who take the idea seriously... are immeasurably more scientific than people willing to compare God to dragon poop and leprechaun erections.

 

And, Moontanman's willingness to take UFOs seriously (because I forgot to say this before) is praiseworthy indeed.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Iggy

[iNow]

...we clearly can never stay on the same topic.

Which is what, though? Can scientists believe in god(s)? Of course they can. What exactly is the question that remains to be answered or discussed here?

Every significant scientific achievement has happened directly because someone was willing to imagine the bizarre existence of something that had never been observed. And, real scientists like Eddington are willing to test the ideas instead of comparing them to dragon poop, don't you think?

And tell us then, how would one test for the existence of an ill-defined ambiguous deity? Therein lies the reason your comparison is invalid. At least the ideas of Eddington and Einstein were both testable and falsifiable. The same cannot be said for extraordinary claims about extraordinary beings that shat the universe into existence.

My point is only that there are scientists like Einstein who are willing to imagine God, and even try to explain how the idea makes some sense. People like Einstein who take the idea seriously... are immeasurably more scientific than people willing to compare God to dragon poop and leprechaun erections.

Two things. One - Einstein existed during a different time. Clearly, belief in god(s) is influenced by the surrounding culture. Two - Einstein used god as a synonym for "cosmos" or "the entirety of nature." Those alternate terms could have just as easily been used by him, just perhaps less poetically.

[CharonY]

To further iNow's point, he decidedly rejected the notion of a personal god and considered himself mostly an agnostic.

[Iggy]

And tell us then, how would one test for the existence of an ill-defined ambiguous deity? Therein lies the reason your comparison is invalid. At least the ideas of Eddington and Einstein were both testable and falsifiable. The same cannot be said for extraordinary claims about extraordinary beings that shat the universe into existence.

Eddington was testing Einstein's idea. One idea, not two.

 

You ask how a deistic god could be tested. One can't rule out the possibility that it could be. The storyline for stargate universe is the first example that comes to mind. If an intelligence created the universe then we may yet find evidence of that. It is verifiable.

 

You confuse that with falsifiable... I agree, a deistic God is not falsifiable while GR certainly is. They are, therefore, not even in the same ballpark. Relativity is far more scientific. Where you go wrong is calling my comparison invalid. This is what Moontanman said:

 

God and Dragons are equivalent in one undeniable way... the amount of evidence for their existence...

GR and Newton's gravity were equivalent in that same one undeniable way prior to Eddington. If that is all Eddington saw then he never would have been testing Einstein's theory. If "god is equivalent to dragon poop because they both lack evidence" is all an atheist sees then they likewise wouldn't be trying to falsify god.

 

A major part of science has been the falsification of religion. It is precisely for that reason that "god is equivalent to dragon poop because they both lack evidence" is profoundly anti-scientific.

To further iNow's point, he decidedly rejected the notion of a personal god and considered himself mostly an agnostic.

 

Why does that matter to my point?

 

Einstein talked about how positivists lose something when they think that all meaning and truth comes from verified empiricism, as do positive (or 'strong') atheists. He can personally believe in a pantheistic god and still make the same point.

[iNow]

A major part of science has been the falsification of religion.

It's not the fault of science that religion so frequently makes patently absurd claims.

It is precisely for that reason that "god is equivalent to dragon poop because they both lack evidence" is profoundly anti-scientific.

This seems completely nonsequitur to me. Will you elaborate on why you think it's unscientific to suggest that the evidence for god(s) is lacking in the same way as evidence for corndog shitting dragons is lacking, and on this front the two can be treated as equivalent?

[WWLabRat]

Eddington was testing Einstein's idea. One idea, not two.

 

You ask how a deistic god could be tested. One can't rule out the possibility that it could be. The storyline for stargate universe is the first example that comes to mind. If an intelligence created the universe then we may yet find evidence of that. It is verifiable.

 

You confuse that with falsifiable... I agree, a deistic God is not falsifiable while GR certainly is. They are, therefore, not even in the same ballpark. Relativity is far more scientific. Where you go wrong is calling my comparison invalid. This is what Moontanman said:

 

God and Dragons are equivalent in one undeniable way... the amount of evidence for their existence...

GR and Newton's gravity were equivalent in that same one undeniable way prior to Eddington. If that is all Eddington saw then he never would have been testing Einstein's theory. If "god is equivalent to dragon poop because they both lack evidence" is all an atheist sees then they likewise wouldn't be trying to falsify god.

 

A major part of science has been the falsification of religion. It is precisely for that reason that "god is equivalent to dragon poop because they both lack evidence" is profoundly anti-scientific.

 

Why does that matter to my point?

 

Einstein talked about how positivists lose something when they think that all meaning and truth comes from verified empiricism, as do positive (or 'strong') atheists. He can personally believe in a pantheistic god and still make the same point.

 

I'm not sure what scientific body you are a part of, but science has never sought to falsify religion. The two don't even mix. Science only deals in matters of, well... Matter. Science can only handle that which is measurable, testable, and physical. Religion deals in matters of spirituality and the nonphysical world. The two don't mesh. Science is water and religion is oil. There's matters of science that religion falls back on at times, but only when it's point is needing to be made. However this isn't reciprocal. Science doesn't rely on religion for squat. Science has no need or desire to disprove anything about religion. It is stable enough just on its own.

[Iggy]

It's not the fault of science that religion so frequently makes patently absurd claims.

This seems completely nonsequitur to me. Will you elaborate on why you think it's unscientific to suggest that the evidence for god(s) is lacking in the same way as evidence for corndog shitting dragons is lacking, and on this front the two can be treated as equivalent?

 

Let me give you an example that doesn't involve religion in case you're missing the point based on feelings on the topic.

 

"A philosopher's stone exists which can turn lead into gold"

 

The above is a profoundly stupid thing to say, but think of how much knowledge mankind gained trying to test it. A lot of chemistry came from that profoundly stupid claim. Imagine, instead, if philosophers ignored the claim because it had no supporting evidence.

 

The attitude of science is NOT to dismiss things that have no evidence solely on the basis of that lack of evidence.

 

I'm not sure what scientific body you are a part of, but science has never sought to falsify religion.

 

Now turn it around.

 

Think of how much science was done by religious people who were trying to prove the claims of religion true (but ended up falsifying them). Those people... those theistic scientists... are doing science when they do that. Testing the claim "the earth is 10,000 years old", and proving it wrong, is what science is all about.

[WWLabRat]

By your own admission, you said that those scientists were trying to prove their religious claims, not falsify. So you agreed with me.

[John Cuthber]

"The two don't even mix. Science only deals in matters of, well... Matter. Science can only handle that which is measurable, testable, and physical. Religion deals in matters of spirituality and the nonphysical world. "

Would someone please explain that to the religious world.

 

Stop them pretending that they know anything about, for example, the origin of the earth, the age of the solar system, the evolution of life, the importance of contraception on a finite world, the fact that killing people because they "worship" their god on a different day of the week is unhelpful to all concerned and so on.

In fact, apart from contemplating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and what colour the Almighty's underwear is, religion has nothing legitimate to say about anything.

Would religion please butt out of Science's domain.

 

It's also a mistake to say "A major part of science has been the falsification of religion. ".

Science was interested in finding out the truth. It would have come to exactly the same conclusions about, for example, the age of the earth, even if there had never been any religion .

It only appears to be "falsifying religion" because religion got so many things wrong. If religious beliefs were founded on the basis of "revealed truth" they would be factually correct and science could never falsify them.

Edited September 26, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Iggy]

By your own admission, you said that those scientists were trying to prove their religious claims, not falsify. So you agreed with me.

I don't follow. I said, and you replied, to the following:

 

A major part of science has been the falsification of religion.

You may be arguing against something I didn't say. I said to turn your statement around in order to make a point about the thread's title.

 

You'll have to show me exactly what you're disagreeing with and how. By "the falsification of religion" I mean, for example, proving things in the bible wrong.

It's also a mistake to say "A major part of science has been the falsification of religion. ".

Science was interested in finding out the truth. It would have come to exactly the same conclusions about, for example, the age of the earth, even if there had never been any religion .

 

Seriously? My point is that it would be inappropriate for science to ignore the age of the earth and say "Hey... it's up to religious people to answer that. They claimed it first and they have no evidence".

 

How do you think what you just said in any way disagrees with what I said? Galileo was falsifying a religious claim. His motive doesn't matter. I'm saying that it would have been anti-scientific for him to put the telescope down, and tell religious people that their idea is stupid and it's up to them to investigate the heavens because their claims about it are stupid.

[WWLabRat]

You may be arguing against something I didn't say. I said to turn your statement around in order to make a point about the thread's title.

You'll have to show me exactly what you're disagreeing with and how. By "the falsification of religion" I mean, for example, proving things in the bible wrong.

 

Think of how much science was done by religious people who were trying to prove the claims of religion true (but ended up falsifying them). Those people... those theistic scientists... are doing science when they do that. Testing the claim "the earth is 10,000 years old", and proving it wrong, is what science is all about.

 

This means that the intention of science was not to disprove, but to prove.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

Seriously? My point is that it would be inappropriate for science to ignore the age of the earth and say "Hey... it's up to religious people to answer that. They claimed it first and they have no evidence".

Seriously, nobody said that, and your point is a strawman.

Religion should have realised at the outset that it had no legitimate idea how old the earth was, and no basis to claim that it knew.

 

Galileo didn't seek to refute the scriptures- far from it, he was hoping to understand God's work- the work of a God he believed in absolutely.

However his observations told him that the scriptures were wrong.

Galileo didn't falsify a religious claim.

The evidence did.

Galileo was just the guy who pointed this out.

[Iggy]

Seriously, nobody said that, and your point is a strawman.

I didn't say that anybody said "that".

 

Religion should have realised at the outset that it had no legitimate idea how old the earth was, and no basis to claim that it knew.

Of course they should have. I didn't say otherwise.

 

Galileo didn't seek to refute the scriptures-

I didn't say that he did.

 

 

However his observations told him that the scriptures were wrong.

We agree there.

 

 

Galileo was just the guy who pointed this out.

I can tell you're trying to disagree with me, John, but... maybe you could read the last page or so of discussion because it looks like you're trying to argue against an implication that was never there.

[WWLabRat]

How do you think what you just said in any way disagrees with what I said? Galileo was falsifying a religious claim. His motive doesn't matter. I'm saying that it would have been anti-scientific for him to put the telescope down, and tell religious people that their idea is stupid and it's up to them to investigate the heavens because their claims about it are stupid.

 

 

I didn't say that he did.

 

How is it possible to consistently contradict yourself? You're accusing John of not reading through other people's posts when you yourself aren't even reading your own posts. You did claim in the post that he was replying to that Galileo was seeking to falsify religion.

[Iggy]

 

Think of how much science was done by religious people who were trying to prove the claims of religion true (but ended up falsifying them). Those people... those theistic scientists... are doing science when they do that. Testing the claim "the earth is 10,000 years old", and proving it wrong, is what science is all about.

This means that the intention of science was not to disprove, but to prove.

 

No, it says (and means) that the intention of theistic scientists might be to prove.

 

Like John just said with Galileo.

 

How is it possible to consistently contradict yourself?

Galileo did falsify a religious claim. He was not trying to falsify a religious claim. His motives and the result of his actions are distinctly different things.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Iggy

[Moontanman]

I simply stopped trying because we clearly can never stay on the same topic.

 

 

I agree, I thought this thread was about theistic scientists, which demonstrably do exist, not whether or not god exists...

[Iggy]

You did claim in the post that he was replying to that Galileo was seeking to falsify religion.

I'm sorry, I did not.

 

I agree, I thought this thread was about theistic scientists, which demonstrably do exist, not whether or not god exists...

I know, Right?

 

I just made this post:

 

Think of how much science was done by religious people who were trying to prove the claims of religion true (but ended up falsifying them). Those people... those theistic scientists... are doing science when they do that. Testing the claim "the earth is 10,000 years old", and proving it wrong, is what science is all about.

trying to get us back on topic, and now we've spent a page arguing over something it doesn't even say.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Iggy

[WWLabRat]

 

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant please don't respond to WWLR's tangent about "Money is the only observable god", so those posts don't get split to become a new thread. This will give him the chance to start the thread and title it on his own. Again, sorry.

 

Done

[iNow]

"A philosopher's stone exists which can turn lead into gold"

 

The above is a profoundly stupid thing to say, but think of how much knowledge mankind gained trying to test it. A lot of chemistry came from that profoundly stupid claim. Imagine, instead, if philosophers ignored the claim because it had no supporting evidence.

 

The attitude of science is NOT to dismiss things that have no evidence solely on the basis of that lack of evidence.

But it can dismiss things that cannot even be defined, even more so when there isn't a lick of evidence for it.

 

For example, at least we have evidence that "stones" exist. That puts the philosophers stone conjecture on a much more secure footing than god(s). Likewise, at least we have evidence that combining elements often lead to new or different elements... again lending credence to (or increasing the likelihood of) the philosophers stone.

 

Additionally, science is not dismissing god(s). While you are correct that there is no evidence for god(s), it is a possibility. Even I stipulate that. I just find it so exceedingly unlikely that it's quicker (and probably more accurate) to assume god(s) don't exist and that they are a product of human imagination and culture.

 

Likewise, I don't dismiss god(s) "solely on the basis of a lack of evidence," that's just ANOTHER reason to dismiss it. I also dismiss gods for lack of a coherent and testable definition... A criteria that is at least met by your philosophers stone.

 

Now... maybe if instead of "a philosophers stone exists" you said, "a bumble doopers hoggledey bop exists" then I might be able to agree with you more quickly. The first is NOT, in my opinion, a "profoundly stupid thing to say" as you claim. Quite the contrary, it's rather possible that it exists and it's at least consistent with other knowledge we have about the natural world. It's just unlikely.

 

The latter, however, IS a profoundly stupid thing to say, and is similar to god(s) because it's an undefined string of words that also happen to lack any evidence in support of their existence.

[Unity+]

An atheist who says "I don't believe in God" doesn't have to explain the cause of the big bang (if there even is a cause).

I don't really care what a person believes or doesn't believe. However, my point was towards outspoken ones that would try to compare two things just to use word choice and imply a negative connotation to it.

Seriously, nobody said that, and your point is a strawman.

Religion should have realised at the outset that it had no legitimate idea how old the earth was, and no basis to claim that it knew.

 

Galileo didn't seek to refute the scriptures- far from it, he was hoping to understand God's work- the work of a God he believed in absolutely.

However his observations told him that the scriptures were wrong.

Galileo didn't falsify a religious claim.

The evidence did.

Galileo was just the guy who pointed this out.

The observations never proved that the scriptures were wrong. If you are implying that scripture states that the Earth is at the center of the Universe(though it technically is, as well as all things in the Universe are by Hubble's law), then you are completely wrong. It doesn't state anything of the sort.

[Moontanman]

I don't really care what a person believes or doesn't believe. However, my point was towards outspoken ones that would try to compare two things just to use word choice and imply a negative connotation to it.

The observations never proved that the scriptures were wrong. If you are implying that scripture states that the Earth is at the center of the Universe(though it technically is, as well as all things in the Universe are by Hubble's law), then you are completely wrong. It doesn't state anything of the sort.

 

 

No the Earth orbits around the Sun, you might be able to justify making the claim that the sun is the center but clearly the earth is not...