Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

[Robert Tulip]

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?

I think it is possible in recognising bias to assess the ethical standing of contrasting positions.

My bias is to say the universe seen by science is the only universe, and that all supernatural claims are untrue. I recognise this is a sort of faith position, in that science itself expresses uncertainty about claims (like Russell's teapot discussed earlier in this thread) for which there is no evidence and which conflict with all available evidence. However, my biased faith position is to express certainty that religious claims which are better explained as allegory actually are allegory, not real. For example, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and all other miracles are symbols for a deep understanding of nature, not real examples of an interventionist God.

I say that expressing certainty about known reality is a more ethical stance than traditional supernaturalism or than scientific uncertainty. The reason is that without a sense of certainty, we lack motivation to act. Once we are asymptotically certain about something, finding that all available evidence abundantly corroborates it, we should act as if we are absolutely certain. This is the meaning of the parable that faith can move mountains, and that faith the size of a tiny seed will grow into a mighty tree. It is not a source of fanatical ideology, because grounding views in contestable evidence is always open to review if new evidence comes to light.

Science is opposed on principle to faith and belief, and that is something that faithful believers cannot get their heads around. But I say if we have faith in reality and the evidence from observation and logic, we have a true foundation, a rock upon which to build our lives. Denying the centrality of evidence, in the manner of supernatural fantasy, builds a house upon sand, growing weeds rather than fertile crops. These Biblical parables can be turned against the orthodox to suggest the origin of Christianity was in an enlightened understanding, and that this original vision was lost and corrupted by the politics of the church and the psychology of the need felt by believers for a simple historical story.

[DWill]

You're interpreting the Bible, Robert, which is fine, but aren't you being a little greedy in then claiming that the interpretation is much more than that, the raison d'etre for the writings? If you 're saying that in this pre-scientific, pre-rationalistic age, philosophers who saw beyond the general limitations put down these advanced understandings, that raises justifiable skepticism. I think interbane was right in the portion of his post you quoted. Your convictions color what you find to be the case when you examine these historical writings.

[Robert Tulip]

you 're saying that in this pre-scientific, pre-rationalistic age, philosophers who saw beyond the general limitations put down these advanced understandings

They are not advanced understandings. Today I was listening to a radio program on the forthcoming transit of Venus across the sun on Wednesday. It mentioned a fact that is well known, that ancient religion was very much about measurement of time, from the day and month and year to longer cycles such as the eclipse. Stonehenge, dating from thousands of years before Christ, appears to be a sophisticated astronomical measure for predicting the cycles of the moon, as well as a marker for the solstices and equinoxes. Babylonian astronomers kept meticulous records which were used by later Greek astronomers. Although well known, this cosmological role of ancient religion gets neglected in the study of Christianity due to the power of supernatural prejudice.

Sir Norman Lockyer, founder of the journal Nature, in his superb book The Dawn of Astronomy investigates evidence of very ancient Egyptian knowledge of precession of the equinox. The precession is the 'wheel of time' referred to by Ezekiel in his phrase 'wheels within wheels'. There are abundant references to cosmology in the Bible, but they are systematically concealed as allegory, apparently due to the prudent judgment of the authors that hiding their meaning was the best way to preserve it for analysis in a more enlightened age.

Christianity emerged from syncretic combination of the various mystery religions within the Roman Empire. Cults such as Mithraism and the Greco-Egyptian religion of Serapis focused very much on the stars as the markers of heaven, with Gnostic texts describing the stars as angels. The motion of the stars provided the framework of time. Observation of the passage of the equinox across the beginning and end point of the zodiac from Aries to Pisces in 21 AD is the most plausible scientific explanation for the origin of the Christ Myth, marking the celestial Alpha and Omega point of the movement of time through the Ages, the connection between time and eternity, the unique moment when the seasons were perceived to be in tune with the stars.

This is an entirely non-supernatural reading that explains the evolution of supernatural myth. Political hostility to the mystery religions led to their complete suppression, with most texts lost entirely and only the Gnostic cache discovered in Egypt in 1945 providing clear indication of late fourth century views. For the time of Christ we have almost nothing, except the clues concealed in the Bible, indicating that this material was conveyed as spoken word secrets to initiates in the mysteries. The Biblical clues are entirely congruent with a scientific origin for the Christ Myth, based on and aligning completely to available ancient observation of the sky.

[Dexter]

Now if only we can get Robert to give up on his Bible quest, we'd be making progress.

j/k

[Doulos]

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.

I'm not asking you for "evidence of one of the biggest cultural clashes in history."

I'm asking you for evidence of an assertion you presented as fact.

In your Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:09 am post, you wrote:

"science considers that all supernatural claims are wrong, mendacious or symbolic."

If you cannot present support for something you present as a fact, then kindly refrain from making baseless statements. If you do have evidence, then present it!

[Doulos]

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?

There's the rub Interbane.

My whole critique of your line of reasoning is that you say, "I don't have enough information..."

Yet in this discussion, you've put forth a variety of reasons why personal experience of God MUST be false... without actually listening to the evidence. Furthermore, you say, "There is more than enough evidence that says you didn't speak with god." You talk of bias and confirmation bias... are you able to see evidence of these in your own views?

Which is it?

Do you not have enough information, or do you have 'more than enough'?

---
re: "right back at you"
I told you I was in an earlier post.
Do you actually think I WANTED to become a Christian???

[Doulos]

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.

No problem DWIll,

I think it's a good working hypothesis in most cases, and it probably does affect converts who grow up as outcasts or outsiders within largely Christian communities.

Whether it is one of the reasons comes to faith still leaves the core question open though:
Is there a God, and is it the God of the Bible?

[Doulos]

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.

Simply because much of your argument against is excluded by the nature of some of the experiences. You're assuming much in other words... whether it is in Latin, German, or English.

[Doulos]

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?

One will never know unless one looks.

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.

So rather than, "God did it," you would suggest, "It just happened" is superior?

If you feel there is strong evidence, then feel free to present it and we can analyze it. Simply asserting it doesn't make it true.

I haven't forgot the rest of your post, but I'm a bit short time today. If I miss any points you consider especially salient, please do remind me.

Thanks

[Doulos]

you 're saying that in this pre-scientific, pre-rationalistic age, philosophers who saw beyond the general limitations put down these advanced understandings

They are not advanced understandings. Today I was listening to a radio program on the forthcoming transit of Venus across the sun on Wednesday. It mentioned a fact that is well known, that ancient religion was very much about measurement of time, from the day and month and year to longer cycles such as the eclipse. Stonehenge, dating from thousands of years before Christ, appears to be a sophisticated astronomical measure for predicting the cycles of the moon, as well as a marker for the solstices and equinoxes. Babylonian astronomers kept meticulous records which were used by later Greek astronomers. Although well known, this cosmological role of ancient religion gets neglected in the study of Christianity due to the power of supernatural prejudice.

Sir Norman Lockyer, founder of the journal Nature, in his superb book The Dawn of Astronomy investigates evidence of very ancient Egyptian knowledge of precession of the equinox. The precession is the 'wheel of time' referred to by Ezekiel in his phrase 'wheels within wheels'. There are abundant references to cosmology in the Bible, but they are systematically concealed as allegory, apparently due to the prudent judgment of the authors that hiding their meaning was the best way to preserve it for analysis in a more enlightened age.

Christianity emerged from syncretic combination of the various mystery religions within the Roman Empire. Cults such as Mithraism and the Greco-Egyptian religion of Serapis focused very much on the stars as the markers of heaven, with Gnostic texts describing the stars as angels. The motion of the stars provided the framework of time. Observation of the passage of the equinox across the beginning and end point of the zodiac from Aries to Pisces in 21 AD is the most plausible scientific explanation for the origin of the Christ Myth, marking the celestial Alpha and Omega point of the movement of time through the Ages, the connection between time and eternity, the unique moment when the seasons were perceived to be in tune with the stars.

This is an entirely non-supernatural reading that explains the evolution of supernatural myth. Political hostility to the mystery religions led to their complete suppression, with most texts lost entirely and only the Gnostic cache discovered in Egypt in 1945 providing clear indication of late fourth century views. For the time of Christ we have almost nothing, except the clues concealed in the Bible, indicating that this material was conveyed as spoken word secrets to initiates in the mysteries. The Biblical clues are entirely congruent with a scientific origin for the Christ Myth, based on and aligning completely to available ancient observation of the sky.

So you're saying that sources 400 years after an event are more reliable to you than sources written within the lifetime of an event?

For the time of Christ we have almost nothing, except
- the 27 books collected in the New Testament, written by 9 different authors
- Roman sources from 2 of the 4 known sources for the period
- Rabbinic sources
- non-cannonical sources (though most of these are from about 100 years after the death of Christ)


The basic point I'm making is that normally history treats writing earlier to the source time and location as more reliable. Number of extand sources is also a consideration.