Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

[Robert Tulip]

Yes, Earl Doherty applies the methods of scientific enlightenment to show that the evidence indicates there was no Historical Jesus.

It is no wonder Doherty gets slandered by apologists and trolls for his commitment to reason and evidence.

You would struggle to find Dawkins making any claims that are not based on evidence.

[Interbane]

Supernatural does not apply to ogre marauders or fiction. A supernatural event is not fiction. A novel may involve the supernatural, but no one (outside of some very happy individuals) actually believes that the novel is true.

You admit you have no way to show that supernatural events aren't fictional, yet still claim they are not fiction. Explain where I misunderstand. When I use the word fiction, I'm not merely speaking of fiction novels, I'm speaking of anything that's false. It's one of the connotations of the definition of fiction.

Neither is supernatural a placeholder for ignorance, nor for a void of evidence. You seem confused by the meaning of supernatural, so allow me to post an actual dictionary definition:

http://www.booktalk.org/defining-supern ... 12707.html

The difficulty is, I haven't actually said anything about the nature of my experience with God. So, in essence you are pre-judging without having even looked at the evidence.

You're entirely welcome to operate in such a way, but my point is that you can't call that 'scientific.'

But why are you discounting the evidence I've posted? It seems you are the one dismissing evidence. When some unexplained phenomenon comes across my desk, I look for other such phenomenon, and see if there are similarities. If there are a large number of instances of the same type of phenomenon, then the explanations for those are likely to apply to the first. Not definitely, but likely. We need more information.

We have more information, in the form of brain mapping those who express said phenomenon. Patterns emerge and explanations are developed. Search the science journals using various keywords associated with 'internal voices', and see if they are truly unbiased.

They believe with as much certainty and intelligence in the rationality of their internal voices as you. One of the risk factors of schizophrenia is intelligence. A person does not need to be schizophrenic to hear voices from time to time either. I'm not trying to diagnose you. But I wonder if you realize the arguments posited by the "voice" that you believe is god actually come from yourself. You are intelligent enough to convince yourself of something, I'm sure.

a) that science and the tools of formal logic don't work for questions on the existance of God, not because these tools are flawed, but because this question is outside of what they were designed to answer

What works for questions on the existence of god? I think this is the third time I've asked. I assumed you haven't clarified your thoughts here, and were biding your time. Have an answer yet?

c) that if God exists, part of this process of examination can be asking God to reveal himself if he exists

That's a bright red flag for confirmation bias Doulos. If you search for verification that god exists, even if you're unaware you're searching, you will find it. The same is true if your searching for verification that god doesn't exist. We humans aren't well equipped to stave off bias. It takes a great deal of due diligence, and the disheartening internal reprimands where you need to stifle that "feel good" feeling of being correct and analyze it objectively.

b) that this question can only be addressed by individuals in a subjective personal way by weighing the claims of Christianity (not necessarily Christians) and the Bible, just as a court of law might examine evidence in a legal case. Logic and science are used where they can shed light, but witnesses and other applicable evidence are used as well

This comes close. Can you explain what you mean by "weighing the claims of Christianity"? What is the method for weighing them? Is there no method, instead people believe on a whim? Who are the witnesses, and what is the other applicable evidence?

If someone believes something that is shown to be false by science, is the person correct, and science wrong? I'm more of a philosopher than a scientist, so a question I'd rather ask is; if epistemology in general shows something to be false, but someone believes it, is our philosophy wrong, or is the individual wrong?

[Doulos]

Here are some scientists talking about god, and other stuff.

Funny story at 1:22.

Haha!

Thanks Johnson

Some interesting comments from this:
"I've met scientists who are fundamentalist Christian physicists, there are staunch Atheist physicists. I would say the staunch Atheists are probably in the majority."

"I can't prove that there's no God, can't prove that there is one, but as far as belief goes I don't believe that there is one."

Fairly balanced overall, though I would suppose you would get a higher percentage of Atheist responses out of the UK than out of the US.

[Doulos]

What exactly is your source for your statement that "science considers that all supernatural claims are wrong, mendacious or symbolic?"

It is a fairly straightforward reading of the scientific enlightenment tradition from Voltaire through to Dawkins. Scientific enlightenment is grounded in the premise that reliability of claims is a matter of evidence not authority. The scientific method cuts like a sword through all supernatural claims, which are revealed to have evolved like the people's beliefs in the story of the Emperor's new clothes. People finding magical claims to be convenient, and then over time these claims get rusted on, with long tradition used to justify them, even though they run counter to all observation and logic.

No offense meant Robert, but do you have a non-wikipedia source for your views

I'd also appreciate if you could refer to at least a range in the text. I'm rather busy at the moment, and any time saved reading would be a kindness.

[Robert Tulip]

do you have a non-wikipedia source for your views

Maybe you should just read some books Doulos. Observing that the scientific worldview considers supernatural claims to be untrue, or at least facing a burden of proof that has never been met, is about the most basic of historical facts that you could get. The wiki is a good introduction to the cultural clash between reason and faith.

An untrue statement is untrue by design or accident. If by accident, it is an error. If by design, it is either deceitful or allegorical.

That is fairly simple logic, although I am sure we could expand on it if you detect any gaps with your supersonic sonar.

Or do you insist I provide chapter and verse of some dogmatic authority to spoon feed you?

Often an error will arise from a miscommunication regarding a previous act of deceit or symbolism. This is how Christian dogma exercises its pervasive grip on the minds of the gullible.

[Doulos]

You admit you have no way to show that supernatural events aren't fictional, yet still claim they are not fiction. Explain where I misunderstand. When I use the word fiction, I'm not merely speaking of fiction novels, I'm speaking of anything that's false. It's one of the connotations of the definition of fiction.

One difference is fairly easy to identify. People do not claim that ogres or fiction are real, nor do the authors of such things claim they are.

Neither is supernatural a placeholder for ignorance, nor for a void of evidence. You seem confused by the meaning of supernatural, so allow me to post an actual dictionary definition:

http://www.booktalk.org/defining-supern ... 12707.html

Why thank you Interbane for merely copying the definition I wrote in an earlier post

Note that "of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws" does not = "a placeholder term for ignorance"

You also cite Petitio Principii. Might I refer you to your post of May 23rd:

a fallacy is neutral. Many use it as if it were evidence of a false claim. A claim isn't false because of a fallacy, but the fallacy does not support it.

The fallacy here is not due to a false claim, but rather to the nature of the question itself. Science is simply not designed to answer this type of question.

The difficulty is, I haven't actually said anything about the nature of my experience with God. So, in essence you are pre-judging without having even looked at the evidence.

You're entirely welcome to operate in such a way, but my point is that you can't call that 'scientific.'

But why are you discounting the evidence I've posted? It seems you are the one dismissing evidence. When some unexplained phenomenon comes across my desk, I look for other such phenomenon, and see if there are similarities. If there are a large number of instances of the same type of phenomenon, then the explanations for those are likely to apply to the first. Not definitely, but likely. We need more information.

We have more information, in the form of brain mapping those who express said phenomenon. Patterns emerge and explanations are developed. Search the science journals using various keywords associated with 'internal voices', and see if they are truly unbiased.

They believe with as much certainty and intelligence in the rationality of their internal voices as you. One of the risk factors of schizophrenia is intelligence. A person does not need to be schizophrenic to hear voices from time to time either. I'm not trying to diagnose you. But I wonder if you realize the arguments posited by the "voice" that you believe is god actually come from yourself. You are intelligent enough to convince yourself of something, I'm sure.

I haven't discounted it. If you'll note, I've commented to you that such things are possibilities.

These might be entirely possible explanations.

You're actually the one that has spoken of a "voice," not me. As an educator, I'm fairly well aware of certain facets of intelligence, brain functioning, and related research and try to follow it when time allows.

Having said this, let me get to the point.

Knowing all this, and reading your posts (and considering them), I still would affirm to you that I would place my experiences as reliable. They are of course subjective, but the point I'm trying to make is that I've pondered whether there could be alternative explanations for the experiences I've had.

You mention I'm "intelligent enough." If a person is "intelligent enough" and has access to the information you've been seeking to promote... yet still affirms the reliability of their experiences, what does this suggest to you as POSSIBLE conclusions?

a) that science and the tools of formal logic don't work for questions on the existance of God, not because these tools are flawed, but because this question is outside of what they were designed to answer

What works for questions on the existence of god? I think this is the third time I've asked. I assumed you haven't clarified your thoughts here, and were biding your time. Have an answer yet?

I've answered repeatedly, you're even using parts of my answer in your next series of questions.
For the benefit of any other readers' I'll summarize quickly:

a) that science and the tools of formal logic don't work for questions on the existance of God, not because these tools are flawed, but because this question is outside of what they were designed to answer

b) that this question can only be addressed by individuals in a subjective personal way by weighing the claims of Christianity (not necessarily Christians) and the Bible, just as a court of law might examine evidence in a legal case. Logic and science are used where they can shed light, but witnesses and other applicable evidence are used as well

c) that if God exists, part of this process of examination can be asking God to reveal himself if he exists

c) that if God exists, part of this process of examination can be asking God to reveal himself if he exists

That's a bright red flag for confirmation bias Doulos. If you search for verification that god exists, even if you're unaware you're searching, you will find it. The same is true if your searching for verification that god doesn't exist. We humans aren't well equipped to stave off bias. It takes a great deal of due diligence, and the disheartening internal reprimands where you need to stifle that "feel good" feeling of being correct and analyze it objectively.

We all have confirmation bias. I'm afraid it comes with pride and being human. What I'm saying here is actually not confirmation bias, but rather the opposite. I'm saying that a person who DOES NOT BELIEVE GOD EXISTS can ask God to reveal himself. Your definition of confirmation bias is rather extreme, as if you think about it, it applies even more so to your speaking to me now.

If you (Interbane) search for verification that God does not exist, you will find it.
We humans aren't well equipped to stave off bias. It takes a great deal of due diligence, and the disheartening internal reprimands where you need to stifle that "feel good" feeling of being correct and analyze it objectively.

Might I suggest that since you BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD, the danger of confirmation bias is much much greater for you in this conversation than the posit I've made above in c)

Even outside this though, your definition of confirmation bias seems to suggest that people should not seek to learn anything contrary to what they already have accepted... because their confirmation bias will predispose them to find it. A rather strange premise for someone claiming a scientific outlook!

b) that this question can only be addressed by individuals in a subjective personal way by weighing the claims of Christianity (not necessarily Christians) and the Bible, just as a court of law might examine evidence in a legal case. Logic and science are used where they can shed light, but witnesses and other applicable evidence are used as well

This comes close. Can you explain what you mean by "weighing the claims of Christianity"? What is the method for weighing them? Is there no method, instead people believe on a whim? Who are the witnesses, and what is the other applicable evidence?

If someone believes something that is shown to be false by science, is the person correct, and science wrong? I'm more of a philosopher than a scientist, so a question I'd rather ask is; if epistemology in general shows something to be false, but someone believes it, is our philosophy wrong, or is the individual wrong?

You've got two main questions here, so I'll treat them as such:

A) "weighing the claims"
By nature this has to be subjective and personal, since the faculties, resources and current situation of each person is unique. Furthermore, by suggesting a set 'method,' I could predispose the results in my favour. Since extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof, I do advise the full use of all resources available (Logic and science are used where they can shed light, but witnesses and other applicable evidence are used as well), but also recourse to point c)... asking God to reveal himself.

B) "Science vs. Belief"
Not all scientific claims are equally secure, so let us assume a strong scientific claims. Belief (in this case Biblical claims) can also be categorized by strength, so let us assume a weak Biblical claim. My general answer would be that science, as the investigation of the natural world, would hold sway over Biblical claims, especially where you have strong scientific claims vs weak Biblical claims. It should in such a case inform Biblical understanding where there is room for multiple interpretations.

I would suggest YEC vs evolution is such a claim situation. The Biblical claim for YEC is rather weak, with only a single attestation being referred to, and multiple passages suggesting another meaning. The scientific backing for evolution in contrast is very strong, with a tested theory, vast physical/geologic/archeological/genetic/etc evidence, and virtually universal acceptance across science. In such a case, we then must question whether the Biblical passage itself is unredeemable, thus putting the reliability of scripture into question, or whether another Biblically valid interpretation is clearly present.

In this case, the passages arguing against YEC offer a clear stronger interpretation than YEC, which also agree with science. Quite simply that the creation of the world is a vast process over great ages of time.

In a situation where you have a weak scientific claim, and a very well attested Biblical claim, I would favour the Biblical claim.

I would suggest that Abiogenesis vs creation by an intelligent designer (not necessarily proving the Christian God of course) would fall into this area. While we have vague theories for Abiogenesis, we have no real specific explanation, evidence, or empirical study which can prove it to a reasonable degree. We also have highly complex life resulting. What we're talking about here is essentially dust becoming Interbane.

I would suggest that in such a case, the Biblical claim is actually stronger. 'Unexplained' creation of life by nothing vs 'unexplained' creation of life by an intelligence. I would of course be biased towards this conclusion by my faith, but the conclusion could still be arrived at without faith.

Well, that was a fun little mental exercise

[Doulos]

do you have a non-wikipedia source for your views

Maybe you should just read some books Doulos. Observing that the scientific worldview considers supernatural claims to be untrue, or at least facing a burden of proof that has never been met, is about the most basic of historical facts that you could get. The wiki is a good introduction to the cultural clash between reason and faith.

An untrue statement is untrue by design or accident. If by accident, it is an error. If by design, it is either deceitful or allegorical.

That is fairly simple logic, although I am sure we could expand on it if you detect any gaps with your supersonic sonar.

Or do you insist I provide chapter and verse of some dogmatic authority to spoon feed you?

Often an error will arise from a miscommunication regarding a previous act of deceit or symbolism. This is how Christian dogma exercises its pervasive grip on the minds of the gullible.

Why Robert...

Maybe you should provide evidence for your assertions instead of launching into personal attacks?

Do I ask you to post chapter and verse to support your contentions... why YES. That's not spoon feeding. You're the one that's making a assertion of fact. It's not my job to find your proof for you. Wiki is not proof, and this is doubly true when you cite an entire wiki article!

Let's clarify this post of yours.

1) Are you stating or implying that I am unread?
2) Are you stating or implying I am lying?
3) Are you stating or implying that I am gullible?

[Robert Tulip]

Maybe you should provide evidence for your assertions instead of launching into personal attacks? Do I ask you to post chapter and verse to support your contentions... why YES. That's not spoon feeding. You're the one that's making a assertion of fact. It's not my job to find your proof for you. Wiki is not proof, and this is doubly true when you cite an entire wiki article!

You are asking for evidence of one of the biggest cultural clashes in history. Is the sky blue? I am not attacking you, I'm just saying that the conflict between faith and reason is well known. Science has no truck with supernatural explanations, which are by definition unscientific.

Let's clarify this post of yours.

1) Are you stating or implying that I am unread?

If you think that science is comfortable with supernatural claims, then yes. The entire scientific method assumes that natural explanations exist for everything.

2) Are you stating or implying I am lying?

No

3) Are you stating or implying that I am gullible?

I wasn't, but if you think that anyone's imagination is evidence for the existence of entities that lack any corroboration, then I would see that as gullible.

[Interbane]

If you (Interbane) search for verification that God does not exist, you will find it.
We humans aren't well equipped to stave off bias. It takes a great deal of due diligence, and the disheartening internal reprimands where you need to stifle that "feel good" feeling of being correct and analyze it objectively.

Might I suggest that since you BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD, the danger of confirmation bias is much much greater for you in this conversation than the posit I've made above in c)

Actually, you haven't touched on my position. I understand fully that the words I typed apply universally, to myself as well. But in my searching, I have found nothing but bias. I realize said bias leads to false conclusions, so I continue to search. I'm agnostic towards a deity. I don't have enough information.

I could give in to the temptation of my bias, but that's exactly what I'm trying to get across; it takes due diligence to resist bias. It can be done. Never eliminated, but minimized. It takes the restraint of an addict recovering from substance abuse.

So right back at you Doulos. Regardless of the starting position(regardless of what you believe), when you search, you find. But those findings in my experience are primarily biased. If you recognize the bias, you can lessen the effects. Were you aware during your supportive reasoning of the bias that pervaded your thinking?

Why thank you Interbane for merely copying the definition I wrote in an earlier post

Note that "of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws" does not = "a placeholder term for ignorance"

You also cite Petitio Principii. Might I refer you to your post of May 23rd:

Follow the link to discuss the supernatural. Also, let me be clear that I understand a fallacy is neutral, and I wasn't making a claim that you committed a fallacy. I was merely saying that the definition of supernatural begs further questioning. Sorry for using latin.

The fallacy here is not due to a false claim, but rather to the nature of the question itself. Science is simply not designed to answer this type of question.

Then let's use philosophy. Follow the previous link to the Supernatural Definition thread.

I haven't discounted it. If you'll note, I've commented to you that such things are possibilities.

You said I've prejudged without looking at the evidence. I've looked at the possibilities(evidence), which is the only accessible evidence to me. Your anecdote must be taken into account with all other evidence. I can't access your memories directly, if that's what you mean. But I truly don't need to. I believe that you heard what you believe to be god, and whatever was said was convincing enough for you to go from an atheist to theist. In what way would the direct memories further reinforce that point? I'm already convinced of it.

You mention I'm "intelligent enough." If a person is "intelligent enough" and has access to the information you've been seeking to promote... yet still affirms the reliability of their experiences, what does this suggest to you as POSSIBLE conclusions?

A single instance, I would weigh the anecdote as more influential to the conclusion. But after many instances, it appears that there is an underlying cause that is explained naturally. This is the case because the 'many instances' reference a pool of experiences that are mutually exclusive or unrelated. They can't all be true. At least in some of the instances, an alternative explanation is required. What makes your anecdote the special case?

Even outside this though, your definition of confirmation bias seems to suggest that people should not seek to learn anything contrary to what they already have accepted... because their confirmation bias will predispose them to find it. A rather strange premise for someone claiming a scientific outlook!

That would be silly. Bias can be tempered, minimized. But you must recognize it and put forth due diligence. What's beautiful about the scientific process is that it is concerned precisely with that type of due diligence. Parameters are in place to lessen the bias and unintended influence of human error. That is why science is so highly valued. Bias is a huge issue for humanity in general. But for some reason, the entire religious community is blind to the effects of bias, or even to it's existence.

Science is the best tool we have at combating bias. But we must each be critical thinkers and put forth due diligence in our daily lives.

I would suggest that Abiogenesis vs creation by an intelligent designer (not necessarily proving the Christian God of course) would fall into this area. While we have vague theories for Abiogenesis, we have no real specific explanation, evidence, or empirical study which can prove it to a reasonable degree. We also have highly complex life resulting. What we're talking about here is essentially dust becoming Interbane.

I would suggest that in such a case, the Biblical claim is actually stronger. 'Unexplained' creation of life by nothing vs 'unexplained' creation of life by an intelligence. I would of course be biased towards this conclusion by my faith, but the conclusion could still be arrived at without faith.

What is the religious explanation for abiogenesis? I missed it. There is no competition to the scientific explanation. The best you can do is "goddidit", which is also nothing more than a placeholder for ignorance. It is not an explanation at all. Instead, it merely pushes the answer one step further. You still cannot explain how god did it, or who god is, or any of the other thousand questions that remain unanswered.

There is plenty of evidence that abiogenesis was caused naturally. There is a tremendous amount, in fact. But what religious folks focus on is that with all the evidence, we still don't have a clear picture. Lack of a clear picture does not mean we revert to "goddidit". It means we continue to clarify the picture.

By nature this has to be subjective and personal, since the faculties, resources and current situation of each person is unique. Furthermore, by suggesting a set 'method,' I could predispose the results in my favour

Are you suggesting a set method? If you haven't heard, we've distilled a few methods that are extremely reliable at arriving at the truth. We don't need to mention science. There are methods within critical thinking(epistemology) that are essential to recognizing and combating bias. Those methods are essential to filtering the wheat from the chaff.

If you use the methods of critical thinking along with science and logic(you'll have to show me if there are other methods, I'll go out on a limb and say there aren't), then you'll see that asking god to reveal himself isn't an option. You can't rule out your own bias or personal errors. This is evidence in how so many people across the globe have spoken to their own gods(different from your own), to include aliens and Cthulu.

One difference is fairly easy to identify. People do not claim that ogres or fiction are real, nor do the authors of such things claim they are.

Some people believe these things. But in anticipation of your rebuttal, I included other examples where the authors did intend for people to believe their claims were real. Scientology is a fun example. There are other threads on Booktalk where a list of this specific type of example is posted. I'll try to find it. Google will give you examples in droves, if you want more.

[DWill]

Thank you for such a straightforward reply. You don't think, though, that your epiphany (you say it was a sudden thing) had to do with a strong yearning for identity? That is my current take on religion as well as other areas of group-ness, that we in general have a powerful need for identity, making the beliefs themselves very much secondary. When we assert our beliefs, whether about God or country, we're really expressing our need to identify with our fellows and to something greater than ourselves. As social beings, we fear being divorced from a group, and we actually fear solipsism as well. This can apply to atheists as well as believers, sports fans, liberals and conservatives, and the list goes on.

I don't think it had much at all to do with identity, rather the opposite actually. When these events occurred I was a successful mid-30s professional with a wide circle of friends of both sexes. In accepting Christ, I actually had to deal with leaving my 'identity' and social groups, as most were either heavily involved in Atheism, partying or both. It's actually quite difficult entering into 'Christian' culture, as especially the more devout strands often have difficulty understanding/relating to people who have been raised outside both their Biblical and cultural thought paradigms.

Thank you for introducing me to a new word

It was just a thought. I think there might be some general applicability for it, but apparently it doesn't fit your own experience. There is no one-size-fits-all, but we keep looking for it.