Why are some scientists averse to religion?

[ughaibu]

On point 4, by perception ie evidence, there are no gods, gods do not exist, so there is no requirement for belief in their non-existence, it's self-evident. The parenthetical statement about the burden of proof is an aside answering a point of KickAssClown's that was tangential to the remark to which he responded.

On point 5, I attempted to answer the question about whether I'm an atheist or something else. The only lumping required is that of all gods as imaginary, if there are any non-imaginary gods, such gods can be demonstrated and will generally cease to be gods. I realise that there are people who think that volcanos or Prince Phillip are gods, but I'm discounting these or similar vulgar entities as valid gods.

[Pyrotex]

Not to be a killjoy, but the stated topic of this thread is "Why are some scientists averse to religion?". If you want to argue the existence or non-existence of god, whether god-faith is or is not a "religion", perhaps you should start new, appropriately named threads. In fact, there might already be threads on these topics.

 

Or, (novel idea!) you might steer the conversation back towards this thread's topic.

[IDMclean]

Well, pyrotex, the reason I argue the points that I have is to illustrate why it is that some scientist are adverse to religion.

 

It may not be apparent to those who don't wish to see the point, but then again I suppose I can never get those who will not see to open there eyes.

 

Ughaibu in this instance refuses to admit that he has a concept of god, and refuses to expose what concept of which god(s) it is that he rejects. If I say a coffee cup that I hold in my hand is god, and say that it's power is to hold coffee, and other liquids, then his arguement falls apart.

 

So there is an underlying assumption, a fundamental arguement that is made against a object which is assumed to be defined.

 

That is the crux of the issue.

 

Religion is a term whihc is assumed to be defined, but is not in this context. I myself, am a scientist. strictly. However as I have said, I know that "gods" exist. I have conclusive proof which I have illustrated in other threads. What is rejected in my conclusion by many is the definition of "god".

 

This is why scientist appear to be adverse, in my observation, to religion, and god. What is religion, and what is god? The questions are enormous and science does not have methods to obviously address these questions, define these entities. So on and so forth.

 

As I have said before, and as influential scientist (like Albert Einstein) before me have said, the seperation between religion and science is a fictious division.

 

the seperation here, is one that lies in the definition, the axiom. Scientist are adverse to ill defined, or undefined things. Expecially when they are by definition unknowable, unmeasurable, and otherwise irrelevant.

 

Hence my position on the christian god. (That has the traits of: Anthropomorphic, immanent and transcendent, and supernatural) Versus my position on the "universal" god. (That has the traits of: quantum, physical, natural, immanent, and possibly emergent.)

 

Point being, in summary, only specific forms of religion and god(s) are incompatible with science, and therefore I would bet that in majority it is naive scientist that are adverse to all religion. It is a sad fact that because some of the major religions are incompatible with science, and have perfromed terrible things, that the entire field of religion is thrown out with the bath water.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

One could argue that God is what's behind the universe. I mean, it's a starting point. One could also attribute a purpose for our existence as doing God's work. Logically, that's pretty weak, but, one could say that.

 

There is a big black hole that we all see at some point or another that makes us kind of shudder and 'slip away' when we contemplate it: how did it all begin?

 

It's a mental black hole that just 'sucks' you in.

 

Everything we think we know is derived from our experience, and all of that is just a carpet layed down over time. It's our trail through the ticks. we know we began...and we know we approach our end. I can look at the carpet but I can't step on it again.

 

Except the universe doesn't appear to do that. So we try to make the universe fit to us, i.e. give it a start. We're kind of vague about the end, but then again, ****, we're still alive so there's no rush.

 

That black hole and the fact that we are finite might be what drives us to create religion. It fills that void and perhaps stabilizes our world view. Or it just lets us take our mind off of that friggin darkness. I seriously doubt if anyone who has contemplated that hasn't felt the sheer alien-ness of it. So perhaps religion allows us to side-step that void and move forward and have the confidence to trust (believe) in what we 'know'. I mean, it's that or having to crap our pants all the time.

 

There is nothing more disconcerting than finding out your senses might not be giving you an accurate portrayal of what's really going on. That's a thought that'll get you reaching for the depends every time.

 

But I'd still rather have the truth. I assume I'm designed to handle it. That is, I believe I am. :Waldo:

[arkain101]

^Agreed

 

There are so many things like that when you get into it, that don't correlate to the universe, and suggest otherness. One example is time. The same question as to where did it call come from we can ask; why does time have a specific position? (now). Especially if you consider it linear.

[ughaibu]

KickAssClown: A coffee cup is not god, it's a coffee cup, I've already covered this in my previous post's explanatory note to point 5. If this is what you mean by me refusing to admit that I have a concept of god, it's nonsense. The universe as a totality is not god, it's the universe, try as you like you will not be able to sensibly redefine god in a manner that allows you to validly claim that I am religious. Some people are not religious, what's your problem with that?

[Pyrotex]

...The universe as a totality is not god, it's the universe, try as you like you will not be able to sensibly redefine god in a manner that allows you to validly claim that I am religious...

There is a category of fallacy, whose name I cannot remember right now. Basically, the fallacy says, "if I call that object a dog, and show that the object has one or more doggy attributes, then it must be a dog".

 

The truth is, calling a llama a 'dog' does not make it a dog.

 

On the other hand, we can use metaphor to gain an understanding of an object or process. I can call the totality of all natural laws a 'god', and perhaps draw some insight from that. And this may be very useful. But that usefullness does not 'prove' that the totality of all natural laws is (identity) a 'god'. A metaphor is, after all, only a linguistic structure.

 

Scientific argument does not allow for any overlap of 'real' and 'metaphoric' logic (typically). Psychology, literary analysis and theology allow for a great deal of overlap between the two. Where to draw the line in any given argument topic is a real challenge. Or maybe it's a 'challenge' only metaphorically. :rolleyes:

 

In any case, neither a coffee cup, nor the universe, is really 'god'. Even if they share some godly attributes. On the other hand, the huge dust-bunny that lives in my closet really is god, and she told me to tell all of you that KAC is a false prophet. So is Mel Gibson. In fact, she said that KAC is Mel Gibson. So there.

 

Some scientists (such as moi) are not religious simply because concepts such as 'god', 'soul', 'afterlife' and such cannot be understood in terms of concrete physical principles and concrete physical experience. Trying to 'believe' becomes a tiring and frustrating exercise in 'play-pretend'.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

^Agreed

 

There are so many things like that when you get into it, that don't correlate to the universe, and suggest otherness. One example is time. The same question as to where did it call come from we can ask; why does time have a specific position? (now). Especially if you consider it linear.

Well, after contemplating the threads on time by InfiniteNow and thinking about the stuff DoctorDick said and rereading that part of McCutcheon's book, Time is the one thing I actually feel comfortable with now. (hard not to pun that).

 

Time exists only in our heads. Outside of us is only Now. And if a scientist says otherwise, well, I think he's being subjective because he cannot experience yesterday or tomorrow directly (so doesn't that make it non-existent?). And, if that's correct, well, then time is considered an entity because we believe it is and only because we believe it is.

 

And from my favorite movie of all time... Spaceballs...

 

Dark Helmet: "When will then be now?"

Sidekick: "Soon."

[IDMclean]

Disclaimer:
Nowhere in this post is god defined as a [i]specific deity[/i]. I.E. "Christian God", "the Holy Trinity", "YHWH", "Allah", Etc.

The framework under which the concept, word, and object of god is discussed is purely in either a scientific or philosophical sense. It is [i]not[/i] in reference to any kind of religion or as before stated, specific instance of god.

The use of god in this post is in the universal sense of the concept, word and object. If it is defined more specifically than that, it will be indicated.

 

Some scientists (such as moi) are not religious simply because concepts such as 'god', 'soul', 'afterlife' and such cannot be understood in terms of concrete physical principles and concrete physical experience. Trying to 'believe' becomes a tiring and frustrating exercise in 'play-pretend'.

 

Unless convinced otherwise this is my last post to you, Ughaibu.

 

I have given, and repeated that god is A) not exclusive to religion. That is god does not equate to religion. :) There is no standard, universal, formulized definition (and therefore metric) by which to build theorem or axiom from, to measure, or observe such a thing from. As such there are no standard, universal properties by which one may identify a god or gods.

 

As such, references to the word god, without specification as to the meaning of that reference. Is grammatically useless and without intrinsic meaning.

 

From this is where I call out your affirmation in the negative of either the concept of "god" or of the existence of "god". For all I know you are talking about a coffee cup because you have not defined the word or concept within the scope of your argument.

 

As such it would seem that there are several blinding and confusing attributes in the discussion of the word "god". It would seem to me that there is a bias that surrounds the words of religion and god. Which in colloquial discussion is fine and all, but in strict formal discussion does not serve the purposes of examination, testing and evaluation of the terms involved. These biases serve to confuse the matter.

 

All I purpose is that there are definitions available, definitions which it is obvious that you simply will not consider, under which even science could accept a given concept of god (and therefore specific instance). To me, a coffee cup is god. This results from an hierarchy of inheritance. A coffee cup being a sub-class of god. In my view god is everything that you see, feel and otherwise experience. My definition is, in laymen's, god is pattern.

 

I am not saying that you must be religious or anything like that. That is simply your perception, that I am in any way shape or form trying to "convert" or otherwise force you into a religious mold. If you read my latest definition of religion you would understand, given that you read it with an open mind, that I can not make, force or otherwise coerce a given individual into any religion what so ever.

 

I am merely stating that religion (the general sense, not specific) is generally rejected because it (specific instances of religion) hold certain concepts and objects to be axiomatically existent despite inability to falsify their existence. For some it is rejected based on personal bias, as you have so aptly demonstrated, which in consideration by scientific or logical methodology is unacceptable as it leads to many fallacies, in general.

 

This is the contention point between religion and science; scientific method omits (will not say anything about) things which by definition are irrelevant to physical reality; religious method is inclusive for things which by definition are irrelevant to physical reality.

 

By irrelevant I mean something which can not be known, falsified, observed, measured and be influenced materially.

 

Alright, Ughaibu, I am done. If you wish to carry this on then we can do so in a different thread, but as far as I am concerned I have justly laid out my position and it's relevance. I do not feel that my position has been considered by you, and I do not feel that further communication on the subject to you will necessarily be beneficial or worth while. I hope that you will be more open minded in the future and that we will be able to hold a proper dialog.

[hallenrm]

A really sensible post dear KAC, I whole heartedly approve every sentence of it. I wanted to rep you but I cannot, because of the constraints of the foru :)

[ughaibu]

KickAssClown: You have still not explained what you mean by me "rejecting" a concept of god. From your latest post, I take it that you are describing my statement that gods, evidently, do not exist. This point has been explained, as there is no god, no specific concept of god is required, and god can not be brought into existence simply by redefining existing things as god. There is no difference between a non-existent cat and a non-existent mouse, neither is any form of thing and neither has any attributes.

You appear to be ignoring my responses to you and I venture to suggest that this illustrates, one reason, why a lot of people, including some scientists, are averse to religion. Religion is often less about understanding and communicating about reality, than it is about promoting an agenda. As far as I can see, this also applies to your behaviour on this thread.

 

Hallenrm: Do you seriously approve of the sentence "to me, a coffee cup is god"?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Pyrotex:

There is a category of fallacy, whose name I cannot remember right now. Basically, the fallacy says, "if I call that object a dog, and show that the object has one or more doggy attributes, then it must be a dog".

 

The truth is, calling a llama a 'dog' does not make it a dog.

 

On the other hand, we can use metaphor to gain an understanding of an object or process. I can call the totality of all natural laws a 'god', and perhaps draw some insight from that. And this may be very useful. But that usefullness does not 'prove' that the totality of all natural laws is (identity) a 'god'. A metaphor is, after all, only a linguistic structure.

 

Scientific argument does not allow for any overlap of 'real' and 'metaphoric' logic (typically). Psychology, literary analysis and theology allow for a great deal of overlap between the two. Where to draw the line in any given argument topic is a real challenge. Or maybe it's a 'challenge' only metaphorically.

lol. You're a man after my own heart. Metaphors allow us to look at something from different angles and positions and perhaps adds a little 3D to our understanding.

And thanks for the type of logical fallacy observation. I wish there was more of that, uh, but I'd prefer if it wasn't directed at my stuff. That of course is without logical fault. (Har!)

[Vagabond -SC2-]

Just a couple (3) observations on what appears to be confusion:

 

1. ughaibu The coffee cup is an example that is so far pushed to the side that it is silly and ridiculous (but that in itself is the point).

2. you also state that there is no god thus you do not need to define and just out right reject it (but the question is which definition are you rejecting). This is where confusion starts, if one can not prove or disprove the existence of something then one can not say it does not exist (one can only say that they believe it does not exist). You can also say that the christian, jew or whomever’s' god does not exist (other gods have different definitions). If you did not know that dogs existed (never saw one nor evidence of one) that does not make species dog disappear.

 

One other observation is that you still seem to tightly link the belief in a god with religion. One does not have to be religious nor belong to an organized religion to believe in god. Now what god is, as others have pointed out, can be many different things to many different people. To some a christian god, some nature, some the forces that hold the smallest building blocks of matter together, and to some perhaps whatever it was that started the big-bang (if that is how we all started). This is where faith and belief in a god (whatever that is) comes into play and science cannot really prove or disprove.

[ughaibu]

Vagabond -SC2-: There are various named and existing things, for example coffee cups, the universe, etc. If I ask a visitor, to my house, to get a coffee cup from the kitchen, if they comply with my request they will be able to get a coffee cup, this is because coffee cups exist. If, on the other hand, I ask them to bring me god, they will not be able to do so, this is because there is no existing thing that corresponds to the symbol "god". As there is no existing thing that corresponds to the symbol "god", god does not exist (except in the imagination). As god doesn't exist, god is not a thing, instead, god is nothing, and nothing has no attributes. It is irrelevant how god is defined.

[Tormod]

There is a big black hole that we all see at some point or another that makes us kind of shudder and 'slip away' when we contemplate it: how did it all begin?

 

I'll take exception to this...the idea of a beginning is the most interesting concept. It was the magnet that made me interested in cosmology in the first place (after Carl Sagan's Cosmos TV series had shown me how exciting the universe is...). ;)

[Tormod]

Ok, if Atheism is non-belief then if one asks an Atheist if there is a god what is the answer? Would they answer no? (they have no real proof of no god.

 

Others have pointed this out (and I have said this several times in other, earlier threads). Your approach is non-scientific. You cannot *prove* nonexistence with the scientific method. Due to lack of evidence you can *state* that "thus my conclusion is such and such".

 

The scientific method is not based on faith, but on interpretation. Mixing interpretation with faith is fine, but it becomes bad science (because it becomes horribly biased).

 

Christians can be (and don't get me wrong, most will be) excellent scientists, so long as they are able to separate their religion from their science. They may feel that their scientific results support their belief, which is fine. But they cannot claim their scripture as evidence, because they need empirical data.

 

That is NOT to say all atheists are good scientists, of course. They may be just as biased, but the bias will not be faith-based.

 

Perhaps a better term may be Agnostic?

 

An agnostic is a person who does not know if there is a god. Many Christians and atheists will fall into this category, but if an atheist denies that he is an agnostic, then he is not.

 

I am a nontheist myself. I do *not* believe in a "non-god". I do not have faith as a part of my life.

 

That does not mean I do not have *beliefs* or a "value system". These are disctinct traits of human beings. Religion has an impact on those two, but the two do not imply religious thought.

 

Anyway is an atheist even capable of answering the question, is there a god?

 

Of course. She will answer either "no" or "Who cares". ;)

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I'll take exception to this...the idea of a beginning is the most interesting concept. It was the magnet that made me interested in cosmology in the first place (after Carl Sagan's Cosmos TV series had shown me how exciting the universe is...). ;)

Thank you for the careful consideration. I'm with you on this Tormod. It takes courage to embrace the alien-ness of creation and the beauty contained in the wonder. It's like what it must have felt like when men sailed into the unknown.

I'm anxious to see what you guys are doing to the ship. ;)