As a believer myself, I am constantly barraged by a series of comments elsewhere (everyone here is at least polite in allowing me my little indulgence) that tend to paint any belief in a supreme being as being unscientific and therefore nonsense and stupidity.
I would say it is ascientific, since the concept of an infinitely powerful intelligence that is able to alter or abrogate any physical or mathematical law - hence able to not only do anything but also to conceal every shred of evidence it had - tends to render any sort of scientific inquiry pointless.
It is true that proving the existance of a supreme being is not possible using the tools/techniques available to common scientific research. To automatical assume, therefore, that such a being does not exist then falls to reason, personal experience, and logic. I know many downplay the significance of personal experience, but I don’t.
Great, but personal experience is the worst kind of evidence, so scientists tend to discount it. As I have often said, to atheists as well as theists, science adopts a position of methodological naturalism, i.e. you must assume whatever you are studying obeys natural physical laws, even if only statistically, otherwise there is no point trying to look for them. This is not the same as philosophical naturalism, which suggests that everything, everywhere, everywhen obeys only natural laws, which is not provable.
A great many very religious people can do good science because they believe God does not directly intervene in every little thing, but is more like a watchmaker who, having crafted an immensely intricate mechanism, has wound it up and let it run (with perhaps only the occasional tweak to the hands to keep it in good time). They can practice methodological naturalism while rejecting philosophical naturalism because they believe that what they are studying is part of their god’s design.
I believe that since we are all imprisoned in our white bone cells, (heads) that we must ese whatever means at our disposal to clarify our own existance and the how the world functions around us. We can augment our own senses with tools, but we are still using our own senses. As long as one is not trying to force their own observations on another, there should be no problem. But there is! I think Kathleen is refering to the common experience of being talked down to our ridiculed merely for saying that , in our opinion, there is a supreme being. Nothing makes our deductions any less valid than anyone else’s as long as we don’t try to force this belief on others.
The problem is that unless you are a hardcore solipsist, there is an external reality to be observed. Hence some observations can be less accurate than others, so to say “they’re all observations and so equally right” is not true. Perhaps if there were a way to repeat the observations, maybe even get somebody else to independently verify them, we could end up with a list of observations we could be more confident about, and a list of the ones we should perhaps consider more tentatively.
Believers, however, are not often given that same courtesy. Often those of a scientific belief system feel that they are somehow ‘superior’ or ‘smarter’ than those who believe. They have ‘seen the light’ in their own way, and forcefully push their beliefs on others! That is why some believers refer to the science community as ‘over-zealous’ and partakers of their own religion.
A great number of people with a ‘scientific belief system’, and a great many people in the scientific community, also believe in God. So when believers refer to the ‘scientific community’ as anything they are very likely stereotyping.
Here on the forum, however, that does not seem to be the case. (Or I wouldn’t be here.) If someone wants to belive that Blinky the Clown delivers their xmas packages, then so be it. More power to them! Just don’t try and make anyone else here belive it!
No, by all means try. But don’t expect holy books to go unquestioned, personal accounts to go unchallenged or factual errors to go unnoticed. Belief in gods is no different to belief in UFOs or perpetual motion or LifeWave patches; if you have it yourself fine, but if you want to pass it along it’s not that you can’t, it’s just that a some of us might need quite a bit of convincing.
The problem is that unless you are a hardcore solipsist, there is an external reality to be observed. Hence some observations can be less accurate than others, so to say “they’re all observations and so equally right” is not true. Perhaps if there were a way to repeat the observations, maybe even get somebody else to independently verify them, we could end up with a list of observations we could be more confident about, and a list of the ones we should perhaps consider more tentatively.
Ever heard of a “group of believers”.
I think what you are referring to is not that the observations can’t be duplicated, but rather that since the observation are duplicated for some and not for others that it is not considered valid. The ‘observations’ are then placed in the ‘anecdotal evidence’ bin and promptly relegated to the same status as belief in Blinky the Clown. In other words, no value at all.
I think I will stay with the quote in my posts: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”-Carl Sagan.
and
“Lack of evidence does not mean lack of existence.” (Don’t know where that one’s from)
Every person has their own threshold of proof that must be reached before they consider a theory or belief to be valid. Some people have a very high threshold. Others, a very low threshold. I would like to think I am somewhere in the middle. It just so happens that I have met many others with a very similar threshold level. I am sure you have as well. That is our “comfort” zone. That is, I believe, the reason there are so many different belief systems out there.
Just because my threshold is not the same as someone else’s does not make my threshold any less valid. (Or theirs to me.) It is in stretching our limits that we learn and or grow. When someone challenges our belief structure, we respond with our own observations just to be told they are not valid in someone else’s opinion. I agree totally.
Usually, it’s put as “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” and is normally immediately followed by an argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of anything.
And observations shouldn’t be open to opinion, if you are saying something is true about the real world, I’m assuming you can back it up if challenged. If you can’t it’s not an observation, but a belief. That doesn’t make it false, but it doesn’t make it true either.
The main problem seems to be one of communication. When a scientist says ‘theory’, he means a well tested and confirmed explanation of a set of firmly established observations, but a creationist hears ‘guess’. And when he says ‘observation’, he means a systematically applied and quantitative collection of data on a particular event and under specified or controlled conditions, not a noteworthy remark on something noticed or observed.
Observations of the Jerry Seinfeld category might be true, or they might not, and we can have no high degree of confidence as to which.
Stargazer, NOBODY in this thread has suggested anything that’s contrary to science. Nobody. Other threads, perhaps, but not here, and not by me. (And in my case, I don’t believe I’ve ever suggested anything contrary to science. If I have, point it out.) Just to be clear, I happen to believe in science, including evolution, so I’m not sure who you are arguing with here re. creationism, but it’s not me.
I apologize if I said that poorly. I wasn’t trying to accuse anyone of doing that, especially you, Kathleen. I was just using Creationists as an example. What I was trying to say relates to what you are saying below. To restate: I don’t remotely begrudge someone who has a belief about something outside of reality and I don’t think they are any less intelligent. (By outside of reality, I mean, like, God.) Where I have a problem is when people ignore reality and replace it with a belief of theirs. That’s all I was saying. Young Earth Creationists are just an example.
It is when somebody argues about something that cannot be proven or disproven by fact or reason and pretends that it can—something such as the lack of existence or the existence of God—that’s when we enter what I have referred to as the smug territory. It’s true that I can’t prove there is a God. Neither can those smug (or fearful?) religious people who claim they can. But it’s equally true that nobody can prove that there isn’t one. And I don’t think I need to argue with you on that. It’s a plain fact, after all.
Correct, but that doesn’t matter. In science, we are concerned with what can be proven. As I stated, I also can’t prove that there isn’t an invisible monkey in my room. But it’s meaningless and it shouldn’t be a premise in an argument. Therefore, when someone is healed, I don’t start with the premise “Maybe the invisible monkey healed him” and I don’t start with the premise “Maybe God healed him”. Either one is begging the question and unscientific.
And, again, I’m not trying to make any argument that anyone who believes that God healed them is less intelligent than I am. I’m just noting that it’s a flawed argument. If you aren’t interested in creating a reason-based argument, then there’s no problem.
So you can argue with creationists as much as you like and you won’t hear a word of criticism from me. But I reserve the right to criticize anybody who assumes, “If you believe in God, it’s because you haven’t thought about it.” Because that is not necessarily the case. I assure you, I’ve thought about it a lot. Even though you’ve come to a different conclusion that I have, I’m sure you have thought about it, too. Let’s just respect that about each other.
And I’ve never said that, either. In fact, I’ve never even claimed that there isn’t a God. I personally find it very unlikely myself, but I’ve never claimed that there isn’t a God. I have claimed that I have zero evidence to believe in one and that is true.
May I just point out that I haven’t asked anybody to believe a major life change was caused by God? That may be what I believe has happened at times, but I have not urged anybody to agree with me, nor do I actually expect anybody to. And I could be wrong, but I don’t think Dave has, either. I think he was just saying, “This is my experience.” Well, it was his experience—his and not yours. Just as “Faith = potentially harmful” is Stargazer’s experience and “I have doubts that (epiphanies) are caused by a higher power” is your experience, Chary.
I’M CUTTING A BIG CHUNK OUT TO SAVE SPACE
Again, I’m not saying anybody here does that. But this is something I’ve thought of before but never managed to articulate. And everytime somebody starts preaching about how you haven’t prayed enough or read the Bible enough, because if you had, you’d realize _____…or preaches that you are allowing superstition to override Reason or haven’t read Darwin or whatever, because if you had, you’d realize _____…it’s all the same. And it’s not right.
I’m on board with what she said. I tend to find the types that find religion unscientific or without reason to look down their nose at those that have a faith or system of belief just as intolerant and condescending as the religious fanatics.
I’m tempted to class it as a type of fanaticism, actually. Same staunch refusal to consider the other side or understand how the other side of the coin thinks. Why people can’t just say “Alright, let’s hear your side of it” instead of “Prove there’s a God or give me reason to believe in him” (or, indeed “Prove God didn’t do this or that”).
Science provides the how to people, religion or God or whatever provides the why.
As for my personal opinion, I was talking to a physics student at a party who told me something my flatmate has told me- almost all physicists/ atomic scientists/ I’d give more examples but I don’t know many types of science/ etc. believe in God or some higher power, simply because science can’t explain what they know about the universe. They reach a point where science runs out, doesn’t explain the why. I’m down with that.
As for my personal opinion, I was talking to a physics student at a party who told me something my flatmate has told me- almost all physicists/ atomic scientists/ I’d give more examples but I don’t know many types of science/ etc. believe in God or some higher power, simply because science can’t explain what they know about the universe. They reach a point where science runs out, doesn’t explain the why. I’m down with that.
[quote author=“ABC News”]Almost 52 percent of the 1,646 scientists who participated in the study have no current religious affiliation compared with only 14 percent of the general population. More than 31 percent said they do not believe in God, and another 31 percent said they do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out—a whopping 62 percent of those surveyed.
Mind you the 1916 Larson study of NAS members found that about 65% of biological scientists and 79% of physical scientist did not have a positive belief in God (i.e. were atheist or agnostic, the distinction wasn’t made so strongly then). Interestingly, mathematicians were the most likely to believe in God, but then mathematicians believe all sorts of weird things, so don’t count.
