Scientific religious prejudice.

[Glenn Lyvers]

Wow, what a terrible example of religious tolerance I saw in the post titled "Jesus is a God of Love." I'm not sure it if even fair to use "tolerance" as a descriptor! I was very disappointing to see that. I did not prepare this post in advance so I'm going to wing it.

 

The Pastor featured in the video was not representative of most religious people today, who by one standard or another, believe there is something greater than what exists in the world we experience. (see how good I am getting at not proselytizing!)

 

I would like to speak to scientific prejudice just a little bit. People with a scientific mind, (many of you) are highly prejudice against religion. You have the right to be so, but perhaps not the right to also consider yourself "scientific" and I hope you will stop for a minute to consider my views.

 

I see posts like, (paraphrasing) "anyone who believes in religion is a idiot" - "anyone who believes in religion is crazy to start with so why try to reason with them" - "religion is at odds with science" etc etc. I think most people here have either seen these posts, or made them. :)

 

Let's talk about 4th dimensional space for a minute. It's so fascinating to consider what a tesseract shadow might look like. How a 4th dimensional shadow loses a dimension in its shadow, thus making it possible for us to see, in our 3 dimensional universe, a glimpse of what 4th dimensional space might be. It captures the imagination. I know it fascinates me.

 

Quarks, time travel, time itself being privileged present or temporal - and so many other amazing scientific theories are so enjoyable to consider, and debate. I love science, and I know many of you do too. It's fun to think about these types of things. I'll add that many of you are very impressive too.

 

But what of religion? It is a theory, to answer some scientific questions. It is based on documented eye witness testimony, which I agree is arguable. I'm not suggesting anyone accept or reject religion. I simply suggest that people who completely disregard religious theory as a possible answer to the questions of existence etc, might be guilty of acting in an unscientific way. Why?

 

I believe that the first thing I should do, when examining a theory, about anything, is to first put my bias aside, and offer a charitable amount of consideration to the theory itself. Once I do so, then I can accept or reject it. However, if I have a strong preconceived notion of the validity of a theory, and offer it no consideration, then my closed mind risks missing out on knowledge and I will be prone to drawing wrongful conclusions over time.

 

Double blind studies in medical science, are blind for the purpose of removing bias. This example is simple (fundamental) to us. The bias is proven to skew the results of a test study. Science, should approach all theories this way. To the best of our abilities, people with scientific minds should try to remove all bias, when approaching theories. Of course that does not mean we should automatically accept a theory we have evidence to prove is wrong, or which fails to provide persuasive evidence we can agree with.

 

However, as in the case of the nature of time, where many theories exist, a scientific mind, not having some proof as to the absolute truth, will tend to form speculations about the truth - but, also acknowledge that we cannot completely discount the other theories until the truth is discovered, and established by the scientific method. Of course, many theories we accept and/or discuss with an open mind cannot be tested or established by scientific method (yet) but we continue to work to uncover the truth. (Through science.)

 

Some people who consider themselves scientific, assume that religious people are not scientific (like them). This is not reasonable. If one scientist entertains a theory that another scientist rejects, we do not generally say that such a person is not a scientist at all. Instead, we rightly point out that the science is flawed or speculate that our theory is better. However, we need to be able to scientifically close the door on a theory before we can scientifically discount it completely.

 

In the case of creationism, for example, if a scientist cannot explain the exact cause of creation to a standard which can be tested and proven by scientific methods, then it cannot be the case that any theory has been proven to be wrong. Of course, as in the other examples, a scientific mind might speculate what the most likely truth is (in his/her opinion), but such a person would not profess that other theories are wrong, because they have not been proven wrong.

 

Its a hard concept for people to understand, unless you think about the approach we all have to other issues of a scientific nature. Either we have a scientific approach, or we do not. If we do not, then we can say whatever we want. But if we do approach theories about the nature of our universe etc from science, then we cannot dismiss any theory without cause. Of course, the less substantial the theory is, the more we will be tempted to dismiss it. If we say, some giant apple-headed fish monger created the universe, then of course we will want to jump up and shoot it down. Arguments from nonsense will persist, and some people will create them to contrast with other theories, in order to shift the focus etc. That's not fair minded but even so, science must try to muddle through.

 

Religion is not completely without foundation. It is based on both theory and the evidence of texts and eye witness testimony etc. Of course, such proofs are not beyond suspicion, and a good scientist would be remiss not to point out the fallibility of religious theories. However, that same scientist is also compelled to approach the scientific exploration of theories with a non-bias examination and to earnestly seek the truth, whatever that may be.

 

Defaming religion, those who accept it as a theory and approaching the ideas with a prejudice are not the actions of a scientist. Of course we all do these types of things in our lives. I was an atheist and I count myself just as guilty in my past as the worst offenders to the approach of science. However, it is important to keep in mind, that if we are to make progress, from science, we need to weigh theories but not discount them, or attack those who appose our views until such a time as we have a proven scientific conclusion. Then we can stand on a rock and gloat. But for now, we have a couple of important responsibilities.

 

We must approach every theory, which has not been proven to be wrong, with skepticism. Skepticism includes the tenant of non-bias examination. And even if it is difficult to do, at times when the answers remain unknown to a certainty, we have to accept all possibilities and work earnestly to uncover the truth. When we publicly demonstrate that we are unable or unwilling to act in this manner, then we publicly profess that we are non a scientific person, and worthy of shame.

 

People who are religious, and who blindly accept religious theory without question, and who are not skeptical nor accepting of science are equally guilty of prejudice and bias. A scientific person often looks upon such people and immediately recognizes that they are bias and unfairly approaching their theory. Indeed even trying to dialog with such people can be very frustrating. Unfortunately though, many of these "scientific people" refuse to see the same qualities that they possess. It is important to make the distinction that not everyone shares the same views. Just because someone accepts religious theory does not immediately indicate that such a person does not possess a scientific nature, or even a scientific approach to life in general. We cannot defame people or theories which are different than our own - unless we have scientific evidence.

 

Lastly, let us consider a hypothetical example. If three birds fell out of a nest, we might think that the mother bird pushed them out. This is based on observational facts with other birds. We cannot derive from science that it was the case that the birds fell out due to the mother. Perhaps one was pushed, another simply fell and a predator caused the third. Religious theories exist in a wide range of issues, from morality, existence, creation of man, etc ect etc. If we can derive from science that part of this theory is wrong, then we have done just that. We have established that part of the theory is wrong. People who are scientific will be able to establish what they have and have not proven from science. Some theories which were once explained by religion have now been explained by science. I believe the science in such matters. However, a person of science cannot discount every religious theory simply because a portion were disproved. It is not science to approach theories that way. If science can explain the fundamentals that a group of theories rest upon, then those theories all come down as one. Until then, science has a responsibility to be scientific. This includes a non-bias approach to apposing theory, and not discounting a theory until it is disproved. A healthy skepticism and a common respect of other people and theories will eventually lead to the truth.

[InfiniteNow]

It's funny to me how many mental gymnastics you must perform to justify your belief in unicorns. Also, the religious leader in the video you referenced would never have been allowed the platform to spew such vitriol were it not for his religion justifying.

 

As an aside, here's a wonderfully written personal account of life with him written by his son:

 

Nate Phelps 2009 AA Speech - Atheist Nexus

 

At the age of 7, I could recite all 66 books of the Bible in 19 seconds. My father insisted on this because he was frustrated at waiting as his children flipped back and forth trying to find the verses he was preaching from. Afterwards, if one of us took to long my father would stop in the middle of his preaching, cast a gimlet eye on the offender and demand that, “Somebody smack that kid!”

 

I would like to take a minute to thank a few people for their efforts in making this opportunity possible for me today. David Silverman for inviting me here to speak. Arlene Marie for all her effort and support in slogging through the logistics. John Lombard for his time and invaluable support in helping me get my thoughts down on paper. And finally, my fiancé Angela for her unflagging love throughout this process. And thank you all for being here today.

 

For me, the story of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church is a very long and painful one. But the first time that the wider community became aware of them was in 1991, when my father led his church in Topeka, Kansas to stage a protest against gays at a local city park. Almost the entire membership of the church consists of 9 of my 12 siblings and members of their immediate families. The community reacted with outrage at the mean-spirited and hateful nature of the protest, and sentiments on both sides escalated quickly. However, far from discouraging my father, this incited him to much greater efforts at publicly protesting all that he decided was wrong. The church was soon staging dozens of protests every week, against local politicians, businesses, and citizens who dared to speak out against him and his church. But public protests weren’t enough. My father equipped his church with a bank of fax machines, and daily sent faxes to hundreds of machines across the city and state, filled with invective and diatribes against anyone who had offended him.

 

To demonstrate the effectiveness of his methods, this tiny church of 60 people, led by my father, is today known not just throughout the United States, but across the world. <

more at the link

>

 

 

Reading the first hand account of his experience is actually rather illuminating.

[Glenn Lyvers]

Please don't align me with the religious zealot in the video. I only mentioned it to elucidate the point that not all people who give credibility to religious theory share his perverted views.

 

My post was principally about the foolishness of men who profess to be scientific, and then approach open theories with prejudice and contempt, thus proving that they are not men of science, or at least (if I am charitable) that they have lost their scientific perspective in certain matters.

 

Moreover, that such men, who seek to defame and insult others, while not paying heed to their own qualities, are worthy of shame.

 

It is not how we "feel" about a scientific theory that changes the facts about it, or gives it creditability It is our approach from science, to derive the truth that matters. Some people are so threatened by religious theory, because it is an inner conflict they suppress or because of some other reason, that they fail to approach it like they would any other theory - using unbiased scientific skepticism.

 

Your comment, "It's funny to me how many mental gymnastics you must perform to justify your belief in unicorns." implies that I have a mission to believe what I do. That it is my intention to bend the facts or concoct a state of affairs to fulfill an agenda so that I can justify a belief. This personal attack, completely discrediting my viewpoint, and my reasons thereof - without so much as asking me how I derived them or otherwise came to my claims, is a good example of what I was speaking to. It is shameful, not only for the simple fact that it is rude to your fellow man for no apparent reason, but also because it is not a valid approach to an important theory which affects our world today. The importance of the issue demands that we use an unbiased scientific approach.

 

I wont go into my personal views on religious theory because I do not wish to be seen as proselytizing. However, I will say this much. I do not give credibility to religious theory because I want to, but because after carefully examine the issue in detail, I am forced to do so, or I would be hypocritical to my beliefs about scientific approaches to theory. However, because my beliefs have not been proven to be right by science, I maintain a healthy skepticism - and I will accept that my ideas are wrong if they are proven to be. Moreover, I accept that other theories which are apposed to religious theory are possibly correct, as they have not been proven wrong. That is the mark of a scientific mind, and I challenge everyone to examine their own views, to see if they measure up.

[InfiniteNow]

Except, religion is not a "theory," it's a conjecture. It is not testable nor falsifiable, based entirely on wish thinking. It makes no predictions, and hence cannot be described as a "theory."

 

 

You act as if the word "theory" refers to some random idea that came to a person at a bar at 2AM after too many beers which was scribbled on a napkin.

 

 

Please review what that word means.

 

 

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:

 

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

 

The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

 

<...>

 

In the sciences generally, theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

 

A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.

 

A major concern in construction of scientific theories is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not.

 

Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world. However, it is sometimes not clear whether the conclusions derived from the theory inform us about the nature of the world, or the nature of the theory.

 

Theories as models

Main article:

Scientific model

 

Theories are constructed to explain, predict, and master phenomena (e.g., inanimate things, events, or behavior of animals). A scientific theory can be thought of as a model of reality, and its statements as axioms of some axiomatic system. The aim of this construction is to create a formal system for which reality is the only model. The world is an interpretation (or model) of such scientific theories, only insofar as the sciences are true.

[freeztar]

I do not give credibility to religious theory because I want to, but because after carefully examine the issue in detail, I am forced to do so, or I would be hypocritical to my beliefs about scientific approaches to theory. However, because my beliefs have not been proven to be right by science, I maintain a healthy skepticism - and I will accept that my ideas are wrong if they are proven to be. Moreover, I accept that other theories which are apposed to religious theory are possibly correct, as they have not been proven wrong. That is the mark of a scientific mind, and I challenge everyone to examine their own views, to see if they measure up.

 

This is a common claim. "A religious theory is not wrong because science can not prove that it is wrong". In Science, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Yet, Science has debunked several creationist claims. I can not think of one example where religion has debunked a scientific theory.

 

Is it not logical that faith demands its own bias?

 

I think it really boils down to different philosophical approaches. Religion is faith based and as such does not require conclusive evidence. Science is evidence based and does not deal with claims on faith.

 

I think a lot of the prejudice you mention comes from both attacks on science from religion and false data from "religious scientists" (eg. Intelligent Design). These things cause scientists to not only be wary of religious claims marauding as science, but also to feel personally insulted when their life's work is whittled away on a daily basis by fundamentalists.

 

Only those with the most extreme prejudice fail to notice that fundamentalists represent a small portion of religious people. It's a shame they are usually the most vociferous.

 

You might enjoy (or dislike) this thread Glen: http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/15040-science-is-close-minded.html

[Glenn Lyvers]

Hi Freeztar,

 

I respect the way you argue because it seems fair minded.

 

I agree that it is a common argument "A religious theory is not wrong because science can not prove that it is wrong". I also agree it is simply bad business to approach things that way. You make a valid argument.

 

However, the distinction, if you will grant me, is that a religious theory is not "necessarily" wrong, if it is not proven wrong. That is to say, that another theory does not disprove it, until it is proven. So, a person who is giving credibility to the theory that the universe is the result of a creator (some outside force that brought it into being - call it whatever you want), should not profess that this is the only possible answer. I think this is where science becomes frustrated with religion. Because it is a theory, but not the only one, and because it is not disproved does not mean it is proven to be true. Certainly not. But it also does not mean that it is a theory which is closed, and unworthy of skeptical consideration.

 

I disagree, respectfully, that religion is only faith based. This is not true of everyone. I would agree your statement is true of many, but it should be tempered to include those who have valid reasons for believing in the tenants of a religion. Please allow me to offer an example, and I will honestly try to be careful not to proselytize so please be kind.

 

I will spell out one theory quickly (thanks to some notes I took in a class on this once).

 

A design argument for God’s existence starts with the apprehension of an apparent order, design, purpose, or goal to the universe (or some aspect of the universe) and concludes that this perceived order, etc., is best explained by the activity of God. Thus, God exists.

 

It’s also called a teleological argument.

Telos in Greek means goal or purpose.

This type of argument identifies design or purposes in nature.

 

Teleological Argument We’ll Discuss:

The Fine-Tuning Argument (Robin Collins)

 

The Fine-Tuning Argument (Robin Collins)

Premise 1: Physics reveals that there are several physical constants and forces that, though they have definite values, could have a wide range of potential values (e.g. the gravitational constant, the cosmological constant, etc.)

Premise 2: All of these constants are such that, had they been slightly different, life would not have been able to exist.

Premise 3: In light of premise 1, premise 2 is best explained by the existence of a Divine Being who specifically set forces and constants to the values that they have.

 

Examples:

 

Consider G, gravitational constant: the constant that determines how strong gravity is. It could have been much different than it is. How much different? Well, there are four known forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong, weak)

 

The strongest force (the strong force) is 10^40 stronger than gravity.

Gravity could have been at least this strong, reasons Collins.

 

Consider the C, the cosmological constant:

A constant whose value partially determines how fast space expands (since the Big Bang) and how likely it is for planets, stars, etc. to form.

 

This constant could have had many different values. The value it does has permits life, but many more would not.

 

Put more simply:

G (the gravitational constant)

Actual value: 6.7 x 10^-11

Life permitting values: from 10^-5 to 10^-14 (a span of 10^9)

If G were greater than 10^-5, gravity would be too strong and all the mass in the universe would have collapsed back upon itself after the Big Bang, and no stars or planets ever would have formed.

If G were less than 10^-14, gravity would be too weak, and masses never would have been attracted together to form stars and planets.

Range of possible values: 10^-22 to 10^29 (a span of 10^51)

 

OK so that being said, (I hope your following the obvious logic)

 

The upshot of all this talk about gravity…

Life permitting values of G: from 10^-5 to 10^-14 (a span of 10^9)

Range of possible values of G: 10^-22 to 10^29 (a span of 10^51)

This means the chance of G having a life permitting value are 10^9 divided by 10^51 which is 1 / 10^42.

So if G is just random, there was only a 1 / 10^42 chance that our universe would ever have life in it.

 

The same is true with the Cosmological Constant

C (the cosmological constant)

Life permitting values of C: 0 to L

Possible range of values of C: 0 to 10^53*L

 

That means the chance of C having a life permitting value is 1 / 10^53.

 

If the Range of Possible Values for C was represented by a dartboard that covered the entire visible Milky Way Galaxy, the “life permitting” values of C would be represented by a “bulls-eye” one inch in diameter.

 

So Collin's concludes (Please note - Collins deserves credit for this not me)

 

The universe is “fine-tuned”. The constants are set perfectly for life to form.

The only realistic explanation of this is that an intelligent, powerful being set the constants (like gravity and the cosmological constant) to the right values to permit life.

This being is God. Therefore, God exists. (Collins)

 

But while religion provides from texts and documented testimony that God is the answer, and that our particular universe, as an accident seems nearly impossible, God isn’t really the only explanation. There are other possible explanations for the constants of the universe being what they are of course, and any good scientist would be remiss not to mention them.

 

The Atheistic Single-Universe Hypothesis

 

States that there is only one universe and no God to create it. The constants were determined completely randomly and it is purely a lucky accident that the constants are the way there are and that there is life in the universe.

 

In other words, we hit the lottery in a big way. Most universes that could have formed would not have had life in them. We got very lucky (like 1 / 10^53 lucky) that ours has life.

 

So, what you have here is a theory, and some scientific data which tends to support it, but I will agree that it is possible ((like 1 / 10^53)) that the universe is just a big accident. And, again, I would be remiss not to point out other theories from science persists.

 

Other theories can have supportive data too. But, to say as a scientist that religious theory is not worthy of consideration, supported only by faith and professed by brainless drones who have no idea about real science is not entirely fair... wouldn't you now agree?

 

I think one of the biggest hurdles mainstream science has with accepting religious theories is that they assume it has no value before they even look. (Or at least most do.) Indeed, for some people, no matter how much is provided in the way of supportive data, they will always (as a matter of policy) wiggle around the issues and discount the theory based on the fact that it has "something to do with religion".

 

Now, you might be salivating at the mouth to attack the teleological argument, and for the purposes of this letter, the validity of the argument and the data is unimportant. I do not wish to argue it at this time. The more important point is that one cannot say that it is not an argument at all. It is.

 

Some observations (that of existence) are made, and a theory as to the origin has been put forth, that of a creator. It is supported by multiple arguments based on scientific data, not only the one above. The compilation of which is compelling to many, and rarely even investigated carefully by people who discount the arguments. Nonetheless, it is a theory, one which is not mindless or based solely on faith. So to that extent, it deserves scrutiny, and fair minded skeptical consideration. Maybe it will be proven to be untrue, and maybe you feel like it already has been - but feelings have no place in science. Because it is an open theory, it deserves scientific scrutiny (unbiased and fair minded), as do other open theories.

 

I hope you think this is a fair statement.

 

Glenn

[freeztar]

Some observations (that of existence) are made, and a theory as to the origin has been put forth, that of a creator. It is supported by multiple arguments based on scientific data, not only the one above. The compilation of which is compelling to many, and rarely even investigated carefully by people who discount the arguments. Nonetheless, it is a theory, one which is not mindless or based solely on faith. So to that extent, it deserves scrutiny, and fair minded skeptical consideration. Maybe it will be proven to be untrue, and maybe you feel like it already has been - but feelings have no place in science. Because it is an open theory, it deserves scientific scrutiny (unbiased and fair minded), as do other open theories.

 

I hope you think this is a fair statement.

Can you give me evidence for this creator you speak of? Supporting the argument of "multiple arguments based on scientific data" will suffice.

[modest]

Hi Freeztar,

 

I respect the way you argue because it seems fair minded.

 

I agree that it is a common argument "A religious theory is not wrong because science can not prove that it is wrong". I also agree it is simply bad business to approach things that way. You make a valid argument.

 

Freeztar does make a good point. It is, in point of fact, a true statement regarding science:

In Science, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

Yeah, that's hard-core scientific truth right there. According to the scientific method a theorist who is hypothesizing the existence of something has the burden of providing evidence that it exists. While this may annoy the theorist having to go through all the trouble of finding some shred of evidence for his/her theory, it's really quite necessary.

 

Can you imagine if the burden of proof was on science to disprove every wacko making up stories about Xenu and intergalactic DC-8's. Not being able to prove non-existence might be a small roadblock to that strategy.

 

However, the distinction, if you will grant me, is that a religious theory is not "necessarily" wrong, if it is not proven wrong. That is to say, that another theory does not disprove it, until it is proven. So, a person who is giving credibility to the theory that the universe is the result of a creator (some outside force that brought it into being - call it whatever you want), should not profess that this is the only possible answer. I think this is where science becomes frustrated with religion. Because it is a theory, but not the only one, and because it is not disproved does not mean it is proven to be true. Certainly not. But it also does not mean that it is a theory which is closed, and unworthy of skeptical consideration.

 

Infinitenow also had a good point about the scientific use of the word "theory"... :)

 

Teleological Argument We’ll Discuss:

The Fine-Tuning Argument (Robin Collins)...

 

Your argument is better-known as the anthropic principle and it certainly was not developed by Robin Collins (whoever that is). The argument makes several bad assumptions and mistakes regarding the nature of physics.

 

It, for example, calculates the probability of carbon-based life forming in the universe as opposed to carbon-based life not forming. Notice we are not calculating the chance that 5-dimensional intelligent lifeforms made of pure energy would be populating a universe the size of my Jeep. Of course, had that happened then our energetic jeep-going friends would no doubt be calculating the improbability of their own anthropic coincidences. I don't think we have to assume this universe is special just because we're in it.

 

And we might consider: f the probability of a universe capable of sustaining human life is small then how does proposing a Designer increase the probability? You would then have to calculate the probability that a life form intelligent enough to design and create the cosmos somehow came into being... which is probably quite improbable. Questions like: which is more probable, a universe capable of evolving human life or a God capable of designing a universe capable of evolving human life seem pointless and nonsensical at best.

 

So... to sum things up... Please stop calling relation a "theory" and please recognize the scientific method includes the axiom: If an object cannot be shown to exist then the default scientific position is that it does NOT exist.

 

~modest

[Glenn Lyvers]

Freeztar,

 

Respectfully, not in this post. The point is not the existence of God, of the proof thereof. You are a person possessing of a brilliant mind, and I can see from the many posts I have read. If you will permit me, I merely wish to redirect you to the issue I wrote about, not to disregard your question or be disrespectful in any way by not answering directly.

 

My point, to reiterate, is simply this and nothing more. A person can be both religious and scientific. The arguments they make should not be based on faith alone, as you rightly pointed out. Faith based arguments should be considered weak, but perhaps not impossible. However, when such a person proposes a theory which is not based solely on faith, but on the evidence of texts, documented witnesses and probabilities or other scientific data - whatever it may be (I don't want to debate one point or even a dozen), then the source of the theory is irrelevant. It is not important how someone feels about the source of a theory, or even if the conclusion is something a scientist thinks is impossible at first glance. All theories should be approached by a scientist the same way - methodically.

 

People with scientific minds should not approach theories with bias, regardless of how they suspect the theory will eventually be proven or disproved. The personal belief of a scientist should be set aside, and each theory should be individually scrutinized from fair minded non-biased skepticism. Until proven otherwise, a scientific mind will consider all possibilities. Perhaps rightly ordering them from most plausible to least, but not excluding any until they are proven excluded.

[Glenn Lyvers]

RE: mootanman

 

Thanks for the negative feedback again. Your note: "Glenn , please read the previous posts, you thinking magically. Faith means nothing in science." simply goes to demonstrate the prejudice I was discussing in my post. Additionally, if you read my post, you will see that I specifically note that faith based arguments are weak and that people should not approach arguments from that perspective.

 

Oddly enough, you might actually agree with me more if you read it, unless you are just blasting me because you hate your fellow man for not sharing your views, in which case, I guess I'll just have to accept that and try not to hold your unscientific prejudices against you. ")

[Glenn Lyvers]

Modest,

 

Thanks for pointing out the other source. I will look that up, the Collins source was a book author and you sound like you know it so I'll try to learn more and not make that mistake again. I am aware, as you rightly pointed out, that there is some debate about the argument. I wished only to demonstrate it was indeed an argument, and not something argued from faith alone.

 

You are a interesting person. I read some of your posts here. I appreciate you taking the time to carefully consider my post and to reply like that. I know it takes time and effort, which is valuable - and it adds to my education to consider other views.

 

Thanks again,

Glenn

[Moontanman]

Oddly enough, you might actually agree with me more if you read it, unless you are just blasting me because you hate your fellow man for not sharing your views, in which case, I guess I'll just have to accept that and try not to hold your unscientific prejudices against you. ")

 

Glenn, I hate no man, I did not blast you, If I did that I would be kicked off the forum, I do not care if you share my views, if you are looking to have sunshine blown up your skirt you are talking to the wrong person. As for me being unscientific, WOW you are really a long ways up a river in Egypt.

[freeztar]

My point, to reiterate, is simply this and nothing more. A person can be both religious and scientific.

 

It seems we are in complete agreement here. It raises certain questions of consistency for me, but I'm nonetheless perfectly happy to accept anyone with a scientific mindframe, regardless of their religious beliefs.

 

The arguments they make should not be based on faith alone, as you rightly pointed out. Faith based arguments should be considered weak, but perhaps not impossible. However, when such a person proposes a theory which is not based solely on faith, but on the evidence of texts, documented witnesses and probabilities or other scientific data - whatever it may be (I don't want to debate one point or even a dozen), then the source of the theory is irrelevant. It is not important how someone feels about the source of a theory, or even if the conclusion is something a scientist thinks is impossible at first glance. All theories should be approached by a scientist the same way - methodically.

 

Ok, but if you don't give examples, how can we possibly understand the practicality of the points you set forth? When you say "However, when such a person proposes a theory which is not based solely on faith, but on the evidence of texts, documented witnesses and probabilities or other scientific data - whatever it may be (I don't want to debate one point or even a dozen), then the source of the theory is irrelevant", you set the stage that many others have before. If you are not referring to ID, then I'm not sure what you are referring to. In any case, I find your last sentence highly suspect. How can the sources of *any* theory be irrelevant? :naughty:

 

People with scientific minds should not approach theories with bias, regardless of how they suspect the theory will eventually be proven or disproved.

 

I've given a relevant example of why bias can be useful. Can you give an example to support your claim?

 

The personal belief of a scientist should be set aside, and each theory should be individually scrutinized from fair minded non-biased skepticism.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement!

(of course, we're still debating the non-bias issue...)

[Donk]

As InfiniteNow said, religious belief is a conjecture, not a theory.

 

Here's an example of the difference: I stroll to work each morning and back each evening along a canal path. Last year at this time the water was thick with mallard duck families: mom, pop, and up to twenty little fluffy youngsters. One day I estimated over 400 ducks on a half-mile stretch of canal. This year is very different. This afternoon I counted about twenty adults, and just one family of a dozen or so chicks. Why the difference?

 

First conjecture: we had a very cold snap a couple of months ago. Maybe it killed off most of the ducks?

 

Evidence against: there were a lot of ducks on the canal AFTER the thaw. A lot more than there are now.

 

Second conjecture: perhaps the canal duck population is just overspill from the nearby river. Maybe they prefer the river, especially for breeding, but population pressure forces them out. If there are, say, 50 ducks on the river to one on the canal, a small population drop of 2% would depopulate the canal. And the depopulation would happen after the thaw, as observed.

 

That's the scientific mind on idle: to confirm either conjecture, or find out what's really happening, would take research. I could do a duck census, using pattern recognition, tagging, DNA sampling to see where ducks were coming from and going to. It would take a lot of work and a lot of equipment to do it, but it could be done.

 

The point I'm making is that just saying to yourself "I wonder how that happens? Ah - here's an explanation that fits!" doesn't automatically lead to the truth. It's a start, but scientists need more. If you don't supply evidence you're either asking us to take your words on faith or you want us to do the work for you. Neither position will gain you much respect around here.

[lawcat]

Glenn, I agree whole heartedly. Science wages war against religion for its lack of proof, or scientific methodology. Science calls religion blind and idiotic for that reason. "How can someone believe in something which has no proof?" or "How can someone believe in something that has been claimed for thousands of years, yet in thousands of years no warrant has been supplied?"

 

Well, its simple. The logic and pholosophy may tell you that there is God, of whatever form one envisions it, even though there is no tangible proof. This is sufficient for a belief.

Science may not like the judgment of a believer. Moreover, science must say that believer's judgment is unscientific--which is true. Nonetheles, it is a judgment of another human being and it is entitled to considerable deference.

 

What is it to science to refute existance of God, when they can not do it by positive proof, but only by negative implication. If negative implication is a matter of only logic, then science in matters of God is no more skilled than religion.

 

The problem is that in scientific community God is looked upon as a negative satanic figure. No doubt, science has a very dogmatic, doctrinal, ignorant, and arrogant stance towards religion. Yet, religion is nothing more than a philosophy.

[freeztar]

Glenn, I agree whole heartedly. Science wages war against religion for its lack of proof, or scientific methodology. Science calls religion blind and idiotic for that reason. "How can someone believe in something which has no proof?" or "How can someone believe in something that has been claimed for thousands of years, yet in thousands of years no warrant has been supplied?"

 

Well, its simple. The logic and pholosophy may tell you that there is God, of whatever form one envisions it, even though there is no tangible proof. This is sufficient for a belief.

Science may not like the judgment of a believer. Moreover, science must say that believer's judgment is unscientific--which is true. Nonetheles, it is a judgment of another human being and it is entitled to considerable deference.

 

What is it to science to refute existance of God, when they can not do it by positive proof, but only by negative implication. If negative implication is a matter of only logic, then science in matters of God is no more skilled than religion.

 

Yep! :)

The problem is that in scientific community God is looked upon as a negative satanic figure. No doubt, science has a very dogmatic, doctrinal, ignorant, and arrogant stance towards religion. Yet, religion is nothing more than a philosophy.

 

I disagree!

Science does not reject religion as dogmatic etc. (well, not all scientists anyway)

 

Science has very little to do with religion except through historical context. Scientists may individually deride religion and that is their perogative, much the same as an anti-science religious person. (of course, such things are frowned upon here)

[InfiniteNow]

Science wages war against religion for its lack of proof, or scientific methodology. Science calls religion blind and idiotic for that reason.

What an ignorant comment. Science is a method. How exactly do you propose a method does anything... like wage war and label things?

 

What you mean to say is that people who engage in the method of science know better than to accept the religious mumbo-jumbo based on the bronze age fairy tales from barely literate tribal peoples, and that it is worthy of neither their deference nor their respect.

 

I find it humorous that the religious try to act all persecuted instead of addressing the criticisms... I suppose it's easier to call foul than to step up and respond with solid answers... Easier to avoid critical questions with claims of prejudice than to address them with integrity and merit.

 

Go figure. :eek2: