Notices

View Poll Results: What is your status re: God (anonymous poll)

Voters
46. You may not vote on this poll
  • Atheist

    23 50.00%
  • Agnostic

    10 21.74%
  • Believe in some undefined god

    8 17.39%
  • Subscribe to an established religion

    9 19.57%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 296 of 296
Like Tree79Likes

Thread: Why do so many scientists and scientific minds feel the need to be atheists?

  1. #201  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Perhaps what he should have said, and possibly meant, is why the scientific community pressures their own to be atheists.
    That seems like an entirely different topic. I would prefer it if the thread title said, "Why do scientists tend to be atheists?" or, if you want to address the point you just raised, "Does the science community pressure new scientists into being atheists?" As it is, the title suggests that we're actively defying the convention of religion for some reason.

    It's akin to me asking you, "Why do non-scientists feel the need to not believe in Ra?" It doesn't really make sense. Scientists don't "feel the need to" be atheists. Most of us simply rationalized away God due to our deeper understanding of the mechanics of the universe than the average person.

    To address the idea you mentioned in the post I quoted, I have been working in the scientific community for the better part of a decade and not only have I never been pressured regarding religion in either the workplace or my personal life by fellow scientists, I have never even heard the topic of religion arise. And no, before you ask, we are not actively avoiding it. We've never discussed the possibility of magic or alien visitors, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSixPack View Post
    Not everything needs to be written in an ultra-scienitifically precise manner.
    Even on a SCIENCE forum? I disagree.

    The title is loaded. You have, from the outset, implied that we are actively pursuing an anti-religion stance.

    I know it's hard to accept, but most scientists (at least the ones I know) would rather not waste time even discussing religion. The only time it ever becomes a focus on my campus is when the local churches show up with giant banners calling scientists liars and using the hard work and rigour that WE put into scientific discoveries to try to explain their religion.

    As much as Christians in my country love to play the underdog card, science is very much still under the foot of the religious masses. Fortunately, the fanatics and fundamentalists are decreasing in number (natural selection?)
    Yeah, sorry, as I later clarified I was talking more in the undergraduate/intellectual community with an interest in science than the professional scientific community. I have little first hand experience with the professional scientific community. As for the pressure, I wasn't really indicating people actively disparaging someone's religious beliefs. More just assuming you are less intelligent if you are a theist or assuming you are more intelligent for choosing atheism. Assuming someone is less intelligent for something is a form of pressure, if not a blatant one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,430
    Do most people do it from a belief in G-d, or is it purely cultural for most? Say, the way Shinto is typically practiced in Japan. In your experience, of course.
    In my experience it seems to be something a lot of people1 don't give a lot of thought to and just go along with it. This seems to tie in with the census data where you see a large fraction of the population tick the box saying they belong to an organised religion but the weekly church/temple/synagogue attendances show they are not regular attenders (the baptism, wedding or funerals only attendees) and it isn't really a big part of their life or something they have any real commitment to.

    1. Militant atheists aside, I do know a few of these but not many and not all of them are scientists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Do most people do it from a belief in G-d, or is it purely cultural for most? Say, the way Shinto is typically practiced in Japan. In your experience, of course.
    In my experience it seems to be something a lot of people1 don't give a lot of thought to and just go along with it. This seems to tie in with the census data where you see a large fraction of the population tick the box saying they belong to an organised religion but the weekly church/temple/synagogue attendances show they are not regular attenders (the baptism, wedding or funerals only attendees) and it isn't really a big part of their life or something they have any real commitment to.

    1. Militant atheists aside, I do know a few of these but not many and not all of them are scientists.
    Yeah, I've heard the term Christmas and Easter Christians a lot. For my part, religion is important to my personal life and I do take part in religious communities, but I don't really keep Sabbath anymore and going to my parents for Seder and maybe throwing a Purim party sometimes is about the extent of my festival keeping. So I understand that perfectly, even if I wouldn't say it is something I am not committed to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Given the wording of the poll question, shouldn't one of the options have been, "It's complicated."
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Given the wording of the poll question, shouldn't one of the options have been, "It's complicated."
    Followed by, "In an open religion."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Every time I click on this thread and I read "feel the need to" in the title, I get a little physically ill.
    Perhaps what he should have said, and possibly meant, is why the scientific community pressures their own to be atheists. I've seen this bias a number of times, in such circles there is often an automatic assumption of somewhat less intelligence if you aren't an atheist/atheist leaning agnostic.
    I've worked in university science departments for ~15 years and the subject has rarely been a topic of conversation. I've seen no evidence of this "pressure" at all.
    Let me correct my statement. I'm using the term scientific community loosely, and probably in a way that isn't entirely accurate. I wouldn't know about the actual core of the scientific community, as I only know a couple scientists. People on the edge of science or at the undergrad level along with just general intellectuals with an interest in science seem to assume you are smarter if you are an atheist in my experience. That's not some conspiracy level pressure, people will generally respect your religious and cultural beliefs and won't punish you for it, but an assumption of less intelligence is some pressure. Again, I don't know enough scientists to have an opinion on if this is true or not among true professionals.

    Regardless, it is anecdotal.
    OK fair enough. But, depending on where you are in the world, you may need to aim off a bit. In Europe, where PhDemon and I are located, religion is established tradition and part of the fabric of history, in a low key way. (In fact my old college was originally a monastic institution and still houses Oxford Cathedral within its walls). So low key religious observance (or not) is almost part of the furniture and not much of a subject of comment either way. I do get the impression that in parts of the US especially, religious adherence is quite often much more zealous and extreme. There is even a whole swathe of the country called the "Bible Belt", in which a particularly backward (to my mind) form of extreme Protestantism is dominant. I can quite imagine that people in that environment could quite reasonably equate religious adherence with, let's say, less acute mental faculties.
    Interesting comment. I visited Europe quite a bit over the last 15-20 years. Being religious, I do look at the signs of religion in Europe, and compare to what I have heard in the States (Churches, empty, lot of non-believers, scarcity/decrease in marriage, etc.). I do see some of those signs. A lot of Churches are empty, some converted to other purposes. There are a lot of non-believers and skeptics (I sometimes start up conversations, and people are pretty frank about it). Then there are also pockets of pretty significant religious activity. I do see parts of the US moving this direction.

    But regardless of the direct observations, I feel that the culture is still dominated by Christian ideas. This is evident in the mannerism of many of the people I meet. Also society in Europe is structured to help others (socialism- not that I am saying this is Christian, but it could be interpreted as an attempt to secularize Christian values). I do not feel like I am talking to a non-Chrisitian until I open the conversation about religion.

    I think both atheists and religious people may tend to be more extreme about their ideas in the US. I know there are pockets of extremism in Europe too, but I have not had any contact with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Do most people do it from a belief in G-d, or is it purely cultural for most? Say, the way Shinto is typically practiced in Japan. In your experience, of course.
    In my experience it seems to be something a lot of people1 don't give a lot of thought to and just go along with it. This seems to tie in with the census data where you see a large fraction of the population tick the box saying they belong to an organised religion but the weekly church/temple/synagogue attendances show they are not regular attenders (the baptism, wedding or funerals only attendees) and it isn't really a big part of their life or something they have any real commitment to.

    1. Militant atheists aside, I do know a few of these but not many and not all of them are scientists.
    Yeah, I've heard the term Christmas and Easter Christians a lot. For my part, religion is important to my personal life and I do take part in religious communities, but I don't really keep Sabbath anymore and going to my parents for Seder and maybe throwing a Purim party sometimes is about the extent of my festival keeping. So I understand that perfectly, even if I wouldn't say it is something I am not committed to.
    Agree very much with PhDemon. I think for a lot of people in the UK it is somewhere on a continuum between purely cultural (tradition, ritual, aesthetic, convention, sense of community) and real, thought-through belief. In fact I suspect there is a fair amount of humbug among people who say they are committed believers and that actually these cultural reasons play more of a role than they acknowledge. No doubt the same applies in Judaism and other religions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Why is it so hard to grasp that scientific exploration of a phenomenon MUST rule out the possibility of supernatural forces EVERY time? Science cannot touch the supernatural because it exists beyond ... wait for it ... the natural world....
    Ok. Let's just for the moment go back to my simple example of Michelson-Morley. Keep in mind the state of science at that point. luminiferous ether; some arguments about whether ether is dragged or not; Newtonian cosmology still prevalent (relativity was being studied);

    Forgetting for the moment that Michelson-Morley did measure a positive velocity (just not nearly enough to account for a presumed 30 km/s velocity through the ether), and just considering the results reported.

    The results should have been interpreted as the earth standing still in space. Instead science opted to consider the possibility that the arm of the interferometer pointing in the direction of earth's presupposed motion happened to shrink (why?) just enough to mask the reading (Fitzgerald's hypothesis). This was at the time a tautology (I would argue it still is). Further development led to jettisoning the ether completely. All because they could not consider the possibility that the earth stood still.

    Why? Because it would be very unlikely in a purely naturalistic universe. Statistically, it was unimaginable. But it was what they measured. It was basically half of the possible solutions. If the earth did end up in this special location, it probably leads to existence of a God.

    It was possible then, and is still possible now that the universe is so different then we imagine that this could be possible. The fact that anisotropies in the CMB and other correlations indicate a correlation of the universe at its largest scales to the earth could indicate that the naturalistic Newtonian/Cartesian concept of 3D extension may not really fit the actual nature of the universe (not that extension does not exist, it just may not explain the extent of the universe). The 4D spacetime of Einstein is just an extension.

    But science could not consider half the possibilities because of this principle that if it smacks of the supernatural, then it must not be considered. This does not seem "scientific" to me. If you measure something, and there are two possibilities, both should be considered (the two possibilities were earth standing still or completely revamp science to keep it possible for earth to be moving as presupposed).

    By the way, this is philosophy.
    Last edited by JoeSixPack; May 13th, 2014 at 12:10 PM. Reason: clarify/typos/add
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSixPack View Post

    Interesting comment. I visited Europe quite a bit over the last 15-20 years. Being religious, I do look at the signs of religion in Europe, and compare to what I have heard in the States (Churches, empty, lot of non-believers, scarcity/decrease in marriage, etc.). I do see some of those signs. A lot of Churches are empty, some converted to other purposes. There are a lot of non-believers and skeptics (I sometimes start up conversations, and people are pretty frank about it). Then there are also pockets of pretty significant religious activity. I do see parts of the US moving this direction.

    But regardless of the direct observations, I feel that the culture is still dominated by Christian ideas. This is evident in the mannerism of many of the people I meet. Also society in Europe is structured to help others (socialism- not that I am saying this is Christian, but it could be interpreted as an attempt to secularize Christian values). I do not feel like I am talking to a non-Chrisitian until I open the conversation about religion.

    I think both atheists and religious people may tend to be more extreme about their ideas in the US. I know there are pockets of extremism in Europe too, but I have not had any contact with it.
    Funnily enough we have just had a bit of debate about this in Britain, due to some remarks our Prime Minister made at Easter about the country being a Christian one - which was jumped on by the usual militant atheists, apart from Dawkins, who sat this one out for some reason. What the PM meant was the history and culture of course. (The whole of European culture is quite obviously suffused with Christianity: in fact Norman Davies' tome on the history of Europe almost treats Europe and Christendom as synonymous.) An ex-Archbishop of Canterbury then weighed in to say Britain is largely post-Christian, meaning the culture is there but largely without the faith. But then again, as PhDemon points out, in our last census over 50% described themselves as Christian.
    JoeSixPack likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSixPack View Post
    The results should have been interpreted as the earth standing still in space. Instead science opted to consider the possibility that the arm of the interferometer pointing in the direction of earth's presupposed motion happened to shrink (why?) just enough to mask the reading (Fitzgerald's hypothesis). This was at the time a tautology (I would argue it still is). Further development led to jettisoning the ether completely. All because they could not consider the possibility that the earth stood still.
    That is not quite accurate. A number of different possibilities were considered; but they all had to be weighed against all the evidence (not just the null Michelson-Morley result). Various people (Poincare, Hilbert, Lorentz, etc.) developed the mathematical description of what was happening. Einstein was the one who gave it a solid theoretical basis by deriving the same result from Maxwell's equations.

    But science could not consider half the possibilities because of this principle that if it smacks of the supernatural, then it must not be considered.
    You keep making assertions(*) like this. I see no reason to take them seriously.

    (*) As you claim this is philosophy, you should realise that "assertion" is a pretty damning indictment.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSixPack View Post
    The results should have been interpreted as the earth standing still in space. Instead science opted to consider the possibility that the arm of the interferometer pointing in the direction of earth's presupposed motion happened to shrink (why?) just enough to mask the reading (Fitzgerald's hypothesis). This was at the time a tautology (I would argue it still is). Further development led to jettisoning the ether completely. All because they could not consider the possibility that the earth stood still.
    That is not quite accurate. A number of different possibilities were considered; but they all had to be weighed against all the evidence (not just the null Michelson-Morley result). Various people (Poincare, Hilbert, Lorentz, etc.) developed the mathematical description of what was happening. Einstein was the one who gave it a solid theoretical basis by deriving the same result from Maxwell's equations...
    Weighed against all the evidence AT THE TIME, which was pretty scarce. The only real evidence they could claim was possibly abberation, and this even is questionable. Arago and Airy both saw what could be interepreted as a stationary earth through their telescopes. This led to confusion around ether dragging, etc. So my point is about the reaction of science at the time. The clearest observational evidence they had at that time (say up to the 1920s) was Michelson-Morley and follow-on experiments which continued to validate and extend Michelson-Morley.

    Any statement about mass increasing, length shrinking, time dilating, etc. were tautological at best at the time. There were claims of confirmation in later decades, but I won't get into it here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Haven't read much of the thread but the poll results so far indicate an equal amount of believers and non-believers. That could be because believers are more likely to read such a thread - or could be because more scientists are believers than are prepared to admit to it - other than in an anonymous poll. Or it could mean something else.
    Scientists and religionists can be easily differentiated: one lot is arrogant, irascible and disdainful, the other believes in God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    Haven't read much of the thread but the poll results so far indicate an equal amount of believers and non-believers. That could be because believers are more likely to read such a thread - or could be because more scientists are believers than are prepared to admit to it - other than in an anonymous poll. Or it could mean something else.
    Well, most people on this forum aren't scientists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    You're probably correct. Another interpretation could be required.
    Scientists and religionists can be easily differentiated: one lot is arrogant, irascible and disdainful, the other believes in God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSixPack View Post

    ...It was possible then, and is still possible now that the universe is so different then we imagine...
    I found this interesting (http://users-phys.au.dk/haugboel/pdf/0802.1523.pdf). Just food for thought. Emphasis mine.

    "The issue of homogeneity of the universe has been often dismissed because of the apparent extraordinary isotropy of the cosmic microwave background. However, any mathematician can readily show that isotropy and homogeneity are very different sets of symmetries and one does not imply the other. Nevertheless, if we impose the further assumption, usually stated as the Copernican Principle, that any point in space should be equivalent to any other, i.e. that we don't live in any special place in the universe, then a mathematical theorem states that if all equal observers see the universe isotropic around them, then the universe must be not only isotropic but also homogeneous. What remains to be proven is that all observers are in fact equivalent in the patch of the universe we call the observable universe. Some will be near a large concentration of mass and others will be in large voids. Certainly what these two types of observers see will differ from what an idealised observer living in a perfectly homogeneous universe would see. Unfortunately, we have never spoken to anyone at the other side of the universe.

    The advantage of the present state of Cosmology is that we can begin to pose those questions and hope to get concrete answers, while just ten years ago it would have been futile. Moreover, like with the first inclusion of the cosmological constant in the theory, almost 100 years ago, the physics community is very much puzzled about the nature of this so-called vacuum energy. Its properties defy our basic understanding of quantum physics and, moreover, it reminds us suspiciously of the Maxwellian ether, which led the way (via its disappearance) to a new understanding of physical reality. To put the question straight, are we sure we live in an accelerated universe which is driven by some unknown vacuum energy? Could it be that we have misinterpreted our superb cosmological data and what those photons coming from afar are telling us is something completely different?"
    Last edited by JoeSixPack; May 13th, 2014 at 02:47 PM. Reason: emphasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    the poll results so far indicate an equal amount of believers and non-believers.
    Eh? My results show 19 atheist/agnostic and 9 undefined/religious...
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    I classed the agnostics as believers:

    'The word agnostic was coined by the English biologist T.H. Huxley in the late 1860s as a member of the now defunct Metaphysical Society, in response to what he perceived as an abundance there of strongly held beliefs. The original usage of the term was confined to philosophy and religion, and referred to Huxley's assertion that anything beyond the material world, including the existence and nature of God, was unknowable.'

    Atheists totally deny the existence of a supreme being, whereas agnostics deny the possibility of knowledge about that supreme being, but don't deny its existence. That makes for 14 believers and 14 non-believers. In any event, we have only half of the respondents claiming no belief whatsoever.
    JoeSixPack likes this.
    Scientists and religionists can be easily differentiated: one lot is arrogant, irascible and disdainful, the other believes in God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    I classed the agnostics as believers:
    That makes no sense at all....

    Talk about padding your data.
    adelady and Dywyddyr like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    I classed the agnostics as believers
    What?
    So you completely ignored the fact one can be an agnostic atheist?
    And the other - rather glaring - fact that, since agnostic was given as an option in the poll it was meant in the common-but-wrong-sense of "I don't know one way or the other" i.e. not an actual believer.
    If agnostic was being used in the sense you're (mis)using here then A) it's inappropriate for the poll and B) "gnostic" is missing.

    Atheists totally deny the existence of a supreme being
    Bull. Shit.
    adelady and stonecutter like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Agnostic atheist? That's a new one on me.

    Duck. Feathers.
    Scientists and religionists can be easily differentiated: one lot is arrogant, irascible and disdainful, the other believes in God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    I classed the agnostics as believers:
    That makes no sense at all....

    Talk about padding your data.
    The question I have to ask myself now is whether or not I fancy encouraging you to indulge me in another pointless dialogue. Nah.
    Scientists and religionists can be easily differentiated: one lot is arrogant, irascible and disdainful, the other believes in God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    Agnostic atheist? That's a new one on me.

    Duck. Feathers.
    Your definition of the word isn't wrong, but not as appropriate for a scientific setting. The word has evolved, but in many setting Agnostic and Gnostic are a lot closer to unsure and sure. In this setting, that is probably the best definition.
    Last edited by SowZ37; May 13th, 2014 at 03:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    'The word agnostic was coined by the English biologist T.H. Huxley in the late 1860s as a member of the now defunct Metaphysical Society, in response to what he perceived as an abundance there of strongly held beliefs.'
    Hence agnostics, by definition, were believers.
    Scientists and religionists can be easily differentiated: one lot is arrogant, irascible and disdainful, the other believes in God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    Agnostic atheist? That's a new one on me.
    Then you've obviously not bothered reading numerous threads on this forum.
    As you yourself noted, agnosticism is a stance what (if anything) we can know about "god".
    That's entirely separate from the issue of whether or not one believes in the same.
    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ag...EY-A5AbH14CADw
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    Agnostic atheist? That's a new one on me.
    Then you've obviously not bothered reading numerous threads on this forum.
    As you yourself noted, agnosticism is a stance what (if anything) we can know about "god".
    That's entirely separate from the issue of whether or not one believes in the same.
    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ag...EY-A5AbH14CADw
    But belief came into Huxley's invention of the word - it was coined in response to 'strongly held beliefs'.
    Scientists and religionists can be easily differentiated: one lot is arrogant, irascible and disdainful, the other believes in God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    This poll is meaningless. As pointed out, the selections are incorrectly labeled. One can select all four options. And finally, only 28 or so folks have participated -- too small a number to deduce anything.

    Science by poll is just wrong anyhow.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    Hence agnostics, by definition, were believers.
    Wrong.
    The statement says only that there was an abundance of belief - and also that that was his perception: not an actual fact - (it doesn't even say a majority). It also quite clearly delineates belief from knowledge.
    Ergo: there is nothing whatsoever in those words (which were not all Huxley's) to say that all agnostics are believers nor even that those agnostics were all believers.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    This poll is meaningless. As pointed out, the selections are incorrectly labeled. One can select all four options. And finally, only 28 or so folks have participated -- too small a number to deduce anything.

    Science by poll is just wrong anyhow.
    I second this sentiment. The poll is loaded, poorly structured, and even if it were successful it wouldn't give you any data worth using to make any kind of conclusion.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    This poll is meaningless. As pointed out, the selections are incorrectly labeled. One can select all four options. And finally, only 28 or so folks have participated -- too small a number to deduce anything.

    Science by poll is just wrong anyhow.
    I second this sentiment. The poll is loaded, poorly structured, and even if it were successful it wouldn't give you any data worth using to make any kind of conclusion.
    Disclaimer: This poll has a margin of error of 100 percentage points.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    This poll is meaningless. As pointed out, the selections are incorrectly labeled. One can select all four options. And finally, only 28 or so folks have participated -- too small a number to deduce anything.

    Science by poll is just wrong anyhow.
    I second this sentiment. The poll is loaded, poorly structured, and even if it were successful it wouldn't give you any data worth using to make any kind of conclusion.
    Disclaimer: This poll has a margin of error of 100 percentage points.
    150% if you count the fact that "agnostic" actually means "believer". Someone finally broke statistics.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    23
    I am none of the above. The poll doesn't apply to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    Finding fault where none exists is typical of the indoctrinated. The question marginally philosophical asks YOU to describe your status; and options are offered. If you do not know the meanings of those choices, then why would you respond ? Look them up, study the options.
    " Oh well I do not know.." means you must vote agnostic. as that option best fits your status.. Any doubt of faith or belief, while holding to the thought that there might be, there could be... Agnostic again. Only if you are sure of your resolve that NO god could or can be a reality can you take that Atheist option..( That is me.) The next option is a little vague in that if you believe in a undefined god. Is it god or what..
    If it is the Sun. Can the Sun be called a God ? You can not, Not believe in the Sun without looking like a idiot. but calling it a God...Hmm..
    and finally 'Subscribe to a established religion' -- I can not see why some of you find argument with the question.. It may not list the various faiths but a trend should emerge as to the ratio of 'believers' and others. I find that the members of this science forum are tending to a none belief answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Laredo, TX, USA
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmoot View Post
    Agnostic atheist? That's a new one on me.
    I've been one for a long time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    The question marginally philosophical asks...
    Please identity where the philosophical aspects are with regards to the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    I can not see why some of you find argument with the question..
    I've recommended that the OP ought to undergo a revision for precision and clarity sake in post #81 as did other members here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Clair D. View Post
    I am none of the above. The poll doesn't apply to me.
    Really?
    So you're claiming that you neither believe nor lack belief?
    How does that work?
    astromark likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Clair D. View Post
    I am none of the above. The poll doesn't apply to me.
    Really?
    So you're claiming that you neither believe nor lack belief?
    How does that work?
    By not caring.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Clair D. View Post
    I am none of the above. The poll doesn't apply to me.
    Really?
    So you're claiming that you neither believe nor lack belief?
    How does that work?
    Perhaps they believe in a defined G-d, but not an established religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Clair D. View Post
    I am none of the above. The poll doesn't apply to me.
    Really?
    So you're claiming that you neither believe nor lack belief?
    How does that work?
    Perhaps they believe in a defined G-d, but not an established religion.
    It's religion which defines god.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Clair D. View Post
    I am none of the above. The poll doesn't apply to me.
    Really?
    So you're claiming that you neither believe nor lack belief?
    How does that work?
    Perhaps they believe in a defined G-d, but not an established religion.
    It's religion which defines god.
    There is no need for it to be an established religion. It can be a personal religion or spirituality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    23
    I'm undeclared.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Clair D. View Post
    I'm undeclared.
    In other words a non-believer: atheist.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; May 14th, 2014 at 06:06 AM. Reason: Missed out the word "words". Word!
    astromark likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Clair D. View Post
    I'm undeclared.
    In other a non-believer: atheist.
    I think that's " Another "... yes atheist or agnostic.. fence sitter's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    Atheist wouldnt even be a word if people didnt invent fairytales. So I call being an atheist normal.
    If you count religious vs non-religious people in the world, you could argue that being religious is being normal due to statistics.
    What people fail to realize is that if you take the intelligence and poverty factors out of the account, the number of religious people would be way lower.

    Put 100 children on an island, without ever teaching them religion but otherwise give them regular education and lives. Odds are they would live completely normal lives without ever inventing God.

    I also find it amusing that religious people love to claim monopoly on morals. As if morals couldnt exist on its own without religion.

    You might consider my view on religion hostile. But that is because I find breeding stupidity as malevolent for humankind. Basing a life on a lie or unconfirmed truth is a wasted life, though ofcourse a brainwashed drone wouldnt think that himself because the trademark of fanatically religious people is not thinking for themselves.

    I consider religion the most horrible weapon of mass destruction invented by mankind. Because it spreads, assimillates and corrupts at an unmatched speed and efficiency. Religion, dogma and traditions are the archnemesis of freedom, progress and change.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    ... An ex-Archbishop of Canterbury then weighed in to say Britain is largely post-Christian,...
    Sounds a bit like "post-modern inflation"!
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.6980v2.pdf

    "From the three new problems we concluded after WMAP, ACT & Planck2013 that classic inflation is observationally disfavored [1] – a point which GKN are not disputing [gkn5]. Instead, they claim that classic inflation must be replaced by a more recent paradigm; that we dub postmodern inflation. Post-modern is a term used in literature, art, philosophy, architecture, and cultural or literary criticism for approaches that reject the idea of universal truths and, instead, deconstruct traditional viewpoints and focus on relative truths. The term seems to be appropriate to the new inflationary paradigm in which the physical laws and cosmological properties in our observable universe, although apparently uniform, may only be locally valid, with completely different laws and properties in regions outside our horizon and beyond any conceivable causal contact.""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSixPack View Post
    Sounds a bit like "post-modern inflation"!
    Not really. One is an opinion about beliefs, the other is a scientific model based on evidence.

    You have already demonstrated that you don't have a clue about how science works, so I shouldn't be too surprised by this silly comparison.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    I believe in God not because of indoctrination but because of observation. But at the same time I would be an ardent advocate of ATHEISM. Today we have many social ills and social evils in the world, but they either have religious sanction or are part of tradition. In India among the Hindus there is casteism and superstition. One does not believe that one can change his social and/or economic status by education and positive scientific thought process. These people either blame their caste, fate or God. They should write a letter to God apologizing for adopting atheism. People fight with injustice. Some of them even lay down their lives. But they are few and the number is decreasing. Common man cannot allot time to fight against injustice as he is busy with daily chores which would earn him his bread and butter. Nothing is gained without sacrifice. However there is a notion building in India's political class that sacrifice is not necessary for gaining rights. I myself am going to join an atheist organisation which will have the right amount of character and scientific temper. I am suffering from depression for the last 20 years. I have tried everything from spirituality to astrology and medicine. Though I was treated for depression the whole process was unscientific. Network search engines can play an important role as people will easily be able to find out if they are being duped by the doctor,lawyeretc. I have an IQ of 50, but still I would try to imbibe scientific philosophies. I am not arrogant but I dont want to be lectured by some half baked corn about what should I do or what needs to be done by me under such circumstances. Of course I would listen to those who are my well wishers(believe me there are very few). I will try to confront all my problems and resolve them by scientific thought process. I will welcome fresh thoughts about means to change the impoverished condition of masses. I have learnt that competition is not a good thing nor is perfectionism and control over circumstances necessary. Hard work and realization that improvement comes in bits and pieces is necessary.
    believer in ahimsa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    I believe in God not because of indoctrination but because of observation.
    Unlikely.
    "Observation" and confirmation bias probably.

    They should write a letter to God apologizing for adopting atheism.
    Whut?

    I have tried everything from spirituality to astrology and medicine.
    Coming from someone that's just claimed he's "going to join an atheist organisation which will have the right amount of ... scientific temper".
    I find it quite remarkable that you even bothered with "spirituality" and "astrology". Maybe you have a peculiar definition of "science".
    It's also somewhat dissonant that a self-confessed theist wants to join an "atheist organisation".

    I dont want to be lectured by some half baked corn about what should I do or what needs to be done by me under such circumstances
    Then the internet is not the place to look.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    Your entire attitude is full of self-contradictory positions. It undermines any sense of credibility you think you ought to have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Your entire attitude is full of self-contradictory positions. It undermines any sense of credibility you think you ought to have.
    Take that to heart Dywyddyr!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Your entire attitude is full of self-contradictory positions. It undermines any sense of credibility you think you ought to have.
    Take that to heart Dywyddyr!
    Cheeky! You know full well I was talking to parag#
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Your entire attitude is full of self-contradictory positions. It undermines any sense of credibility you think you ought to have.
    Take that to heart Dywyddyr!
    Cheeky! You know full well I was talking to parag#
    No I didn't!
    I make it really clear who I am referring to for that very reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    I am considering ATHEISM as a tool(an ideological tool one may say) to find solution to problems of masses. Though I would like to have a sprinkling of die hard atheists.
    I have found out that very few people accept truth. Most of the people want the "feel good" approach. These selfish people use facts,fiction,superstition,dogmas,doctrines everything just to feel good(of course they also do it to earn their livelihood). Even the belief in God is not due to love of God but due to fear of God(or the unknown one may say).
    believer in ahimsa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    I am considering ATHEISM as a tool(an ideological tool one may say) to find solution to problems of masses.
    Then you obviously have no idea what atheism is. 1

    I have found out that very few people accept truth.
    What does that have to do with atheism?

    Even the belief in God is not due to love of God but due to fear of God(or the unknown one may say).
    Generalise much?

    1 Then again, having read many of your posts, you have no idea about much else either.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,430
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    I have an IQ of 50,
    Based on your posts that sounds high, I demand a recount
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    There was an interesting comment on this matter in one of Melvin Bragg's BBC radio programmes, In Our Time. A recent programme was about Robert Boyle, of Boyle's Law fame and a founder member of the British Royal Society. Apparently, Boyle took an interest in Science because he was religious! It was stated by one of the participants that Boyle saw traditional Philosophy as the greatest threat to Religion, whereas "Natural Philosophy" (what we now call Science) was expected to be supportive of religious beliefs.

    BBC - Podcasts and Downloads - In Our Time With Melvyn Bragg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Forum Freshman jgoti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    Most of the people want the "feel good" approach. These selfish people use facts,fiction,superstition,dogmas,doctrines everything just to feel good.
    "Facts" is a feel-good approach? I'd rather say it's the other four you went on to mention... What do you understand by facts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    I am a Catholic Christian. That is just stated for background. The fact is that any scientist must be a functional atheist. The Philosophical structure of science requires it. As soon as you allow any scientific query to be answered with, "It is so because that is how God wants it to be" or equivalent language, the entire process of science breaks down. I find no difficulty holding both a scientific atheism and a belief in God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    I am a Catholic Christian. That is just stated for background. The fact is that any scientist must be a functional atheist. The Philosophical structure of science requires it. As soon as you allow any scientific query to be answered with, "It is so because that is how God wants it to be" or equivalent language, the entire process of science breaks down. I find no difficulty holding both a scientific atheism and a belief in God.
    Interesting - although I struggle to understand what "scientific atheism" means if it still accommodates a belief in God. I have often wondered what people like Georges Lemaitre thought about the apparent divergence between scientific and christian ideologies. He was a Roman Catholic priest and he also proposed the idea of an expanding universe which, of course, has implications regarding its origin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    Interesting - although I struggle to understand what "scientific atheism" means if it still accommodates a belief in God. I have often wondered what people like Georges Lemaitre thought about the apparent divergence between scientific and christian ideologies.
    I don't see why there should be a conflict. As you noted earlier, Boyle and many other scientists thought that studying science was a way of better understanding God's creation. Many modern scientists still believe that.

    It is only people who take an oddly literal (and, arguably, heretical) view of the Bible who find a conflict. So the conflict is not with a belief in God, but with people's expectations. I assume they would be anti-science anyway and their literalism gives them a handy excuse.

    He was a Roman Catholic priest and he also proposed the idea of an expanding universe which, of course, has implications regarding its origin.
    Which is why I am puzzled that so many fundamentalists don't seem to like the idea. I have no idea what Lemaitre's theological views on this were. As far as I know, the idea came purely from the scientific evidence. He may well have been pleased that it implied a creation event, but it isn't clear that that is what motivated him.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    It is only people who take an oddly literal (and, arguably, heretical) view of the Bible who find a conflict. So the conflict is not with a belief in God, but with people's expectations. I assume they would be anti-science anyway and their literalism gives them a handy excuse.
    I agree with most of what you have written, but have selected the above quote for comment. The "oddly" literal view is puzzling. I doubt than most devout Christians actually take the book of Genesis literally - but what do they accept in its place, or what bits of it do they regard as meaningful? I haven't heard any reject the story of The Garden of Eden outright - most just tend to keep rather quiet about it. Although I must admit that I don't engage in religious conversations often.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    I think the mainstream religious view is (and through most of history has been) that these stories are metaphorical; allegories intended to make particular points. The stories of miracles are, at one level, intended just to show the power of god, but they also have symbolic meanings.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I think the mainstream religious view is (and through most of history has been) that these stories are metaphorical; allegories intended to make particular points. The stories of miracles are, at one level, intended just to show the power of god, but they also have symbolic meanings.
    It's a modern revisionist one.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    I am a Catholic Christian. That is just stated for background. The fact is that any scientist must be a functional atheist. The Philosophical structure of science requires it. As soon as you allow any scientific query to be answered with, "It is so because that is how God wants it to be" or equivalent language, the entire process of science breaks down. I find no difficulty holding both a scientific atheism and a belief in God.
    Interesting - although I struggle to understand what "scientific atheism" means if it still accommodates a belief in God. I have often wondered what people like Georges Lemaitre thought about the apparent divergence between scientific and christian ideologies. He was a Roman Catholic priest and he also proposed the idea of an expanding universe which, of course, has implications regarding its origin.
    It's really not that difficult. A religious scientist simply believes that God created the universe and that science is finding out how He did it. There just can't be any conflict between those two concepts. Catholic theology has rejected Biblical literalism for something like the last thousand years, based on logical inconsistencies within the Bible. St Augutine of Hippo and St Thomas Aquinas both pointed this out. A religious scientist just diciplines himself never to "play the God did it, card". Or at the very least never to play it and claim the remark is science.

    This does not require that one needs to disbelieve in the posiblity of miracles, indeed what is the point of believing in a God, that you believe can't act in the real world? If God is powerless to act He is not God. Similarly if God is constrained to act in the way a natural law is constrained to act then He is not a free being.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    I am a Catholic Christian. That is just stated for background. The fact is that any scientist must be a functional atheist. The Philosophical structure of science requires it. As soon as you allow any scientific query to be answered with, "It is so because that is how God wants it to be" or equivalent language, the entire process of science breaks down. I find no difficulty holding both a scientific atheism and a belief in God.
    Interesting - although I struggle to understand what "scientific atheism" means if it still accommodates a belief in God. I have often wondered what people like Georges Lemaitre thought about the apparent divergence between scientific and christian ideologies. He was a Roman Catholic priest and he also proposed the idea of an expanding universe which, of course, has implications regarding its origin.
    It's really not that difficult. A religious scientist simply believes that God created the universe and that science is finding out how He did it. There just can't be any conflict between those two concepts. Catholic theology has rejected Biblical literalism for something like the last thousand years, based on logical inconsistencies within the Bible. St Augutine of Hippo and St Thomas Aquinas both pointed this out. A religious scientist just diciplines himself never to "play the God did it, card". Or at the very least never to play it and claim the remark is science.

    This does not require that one needs to disbelieve in the posiblity of miracles, indeed what is the point of believing in a God, that you believe can't act in the real world? If God is powerless to act He is not God. Similarly if God is constrained to act in the way a natural law is constrained to act then He is not a free being.
    Not necessarily. G-d is going to act according to His nature. There is only one possible thing He is going to do in a given scenario, because only one choice is the most perfect, so won't he always make that most perfect choice?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Not necessarily. G-d is going to act according to His nature. There is only one possible thing He is going to do in a given scenario, because only one choice is the most perfect, so won't he always make that most perfect choice?
    May be He don't have to choose the most perfect choice, may be the choice he makes inevitably becomes the most perfect one, because if one believes in Him being the Creator, then the perfection itself would be a part of His creation. Just a thought!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Not necessarily. G-d is going to act according to His nature. There is only one possible thing He is going to do in a given scenario, because only one choice is the most perfect, so won't he always make that most perfect choice?
    May be He don't have to choose the most perfect choice, may be the choice he makes inevitably becomes the most perfect one, because if one believes in Him being the Creator, then the perfection itself would be a part of His creation. Just a thought!
    There's no logical connection between being a "creator" and being "perfect". One has no implication towards the other. It's a correlation/causation fallacy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #267  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    There's no logical connection between being a "creator" and being "perfect". One has no implication towards the other. It's a correlation/causation fallacy.
    But the Christian God is thought to be perfect (this is not true of other gods and has not always been true in Judaism) and therefore everything She creates must be perfect (any apparent obvious imperfections are due to our imperfect understanding. Apparently).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #268  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Not necessarily. G-d is going to act according to His nature. There is only one possible thing He is going to do in a given scenario, because only one choice is the most perfect, so won't he always make that most perfect choice?
    May be He don't have to choose the most perfect choice, may be the choice he makes inevitably becomes the most perfect one, because if one believes in Him being the Creator, then the perfection itself would be a part of His creation. Just a thought!
    There's no logical connection between being a "creator" and being "perfect". One has no implication towards the other. It's a correlation/causation fallacy.
    ^^^ that has nothing to do with what I was trying to say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #269  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    There's no logical connection between being a "creator" and being "perfect". One has no implication towards the other. It's a correlation/causation fallacy.
    But the Christian God is thought to be perfect (this is not true of other gods and has not always been true in Judaism) and therefore everything She creates must be perfect (any apparent obvious imperfections are due to our imperfect understanding. Apparently).
    Please establish that Judaism hasn't always thought of G-d as perfect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #270  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Please establish that Judaism hasn't always thought of G-d as perfect.
    I may be wrong. But I thought it the idea of God being perfect was a NT thing. Or perhaps influenced by the Greek philosophers. After all the OT God is rather inconsistent. But I haven't studied Jewish theology so, as I say, I may have misunderstood. This article may have something to say about it: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...imperfect-god/
    The God of Hebrew Scripture is not depicted as immutable, but repeatedly changes his mind about things (for example, he regrets having made man). He is not all-knowing, since he’s repeatedly surprised by things (like the Israelites abandoning him for a statue of a cow). He is not perfectly powerful either, in that he famously cannot control Israel and get its people to do what he wants. And so on.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #271  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Please establish that Judaism hasn't always thought of G-d as perfect.
    I may be wrong. But I thought it the idea of God being perfect was a NT thing. Or perhaps influenced by the Greek philosophers. After all the OT God is rather inconsistent. But I haven't studied Jewish theology so, as I say, I may have misunderstood. This article may have something to say about it: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...imperfect-god/
    The God of Hebrew Scripture is not depicted as immutable, but repeatedly changes his mind about things (for example, he regrets having made man). He is not all-knowing, since he’s repeatedly surprised by things (like the Israelites abandoning him for a statue of a cow). He is not perfectly powerful either, in that he famously cannot control Israel and get its people to do what he wants. And so on.
    I don't know all the explanations for this, of course, and maybe some schools of though have G-d as imperfect. But as I understand it, there isn't really any major schools of thought that say this is imperfection. Maybe they didn't consider him all knowing, but that doesn't necessarily mean He is imperfect.

    I'm not directly arguing with you, either. The understanding for a long time has been that G-d is absolutely simple and perfect, and anthropomorphic descriptors are either non literal or a consequence of interacting with humans, (not real G-dly traits,) but I don't actually know much about pre-medieval Jewish understandings of G-d.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #272  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Please establish that Judaism hasn't always thought of G-d as perfect.
    I may be wrong. But I thought it the idea of God being perfect was a NT thing. Or perhaps influenced by the Greek philosophers. After all the OT God is rather inconsistent. But I haven't studied Jewish theology so, as I say, I may have misunderstood. This article may have something to say about it: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...imperfect-god/
    The God of Hebrew Scripture is not depicted as immutable, but repeatedly changes his mind about things (for example, he regrets having made man). He is not all-knowing, since he’s repeatedly surprised by things (like the Israelites abandoning him for a statue of a cow). He is not perfectly powerful either, in that he famously cannot control Israel and get its people to do what he wants. And so on.
    I don't know all the explanations for this, of course, and maybe some schools of though have G-d as imperfect. But as I understand it, there isn't really any major schools of thought that say this is imperfection. Maybe they didn't consider him all knowing, but that doesn't necessarily mean He is imperfect.

    I'm not directly arguing with you, either. The understanding for a long time has been that G-d is absolutely simple and perfect, and anthropomorphic descriptors are either non literal or a consequence of interacting with humans, (not real G-dly traits,) but I don't actually know much about pre-medieval Jewish understandings of G-d.
    I do know that Jesus was quoted as saying "be perfect" in Matthew 5:38 "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #273  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Please establish that Judaism hasn't always thought of G-d as perfect.
    I may be wrong. But I thought it the idea of God being perfect was a NT thing. Or perhaps influenced by the Greek philosophers. After all the OT God is rather inconsistent. But I haven't studied Jewish theology so, as I say, I may have misunderstood. This article may have something to say about it: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...imperfect-god/
    The God of Hebrew Scripture is not depicted as immutable, but repeatedly changes his mind about things (for example, he regrets having made man). He is not all-knowing, since he’s repeatedly surprised by things (like the Israelites abandoning him for a statue of a cow). He is not perfectly powerful either, in that he famously cannot control Israel and get its people to do what he wants. And so on.
    I don't know all the explanations for this, of course, and maybe some schools of though have G-d as imperfect. But as I understand it, there isn't really any major schools of thought that say this is imperfection. Maybe they didn't consider him all knowing, but that doesn't necessarily mean He is imperfect.

    I'm not directly arguing with you, either. The understanding for a long time has been that G-d is absolutely simple and perfect, and anthropomorphic descriptors are either non literal or a consequence of interacting with humans, (not real G-dly traits,) but I don't actually know much about pre-medieval Jewish understandings of G-d.
    I do know that Jesus was quoted as saying "be perfect" in Matthew 5:38 "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
    Yeah, by Jesus' time Jews would for sure understand G-d as perfect. I don't know of any time that they didn't think he was perfect, but I am no scholar so could be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #274  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSixPack View Post
    It seems that many people today feel that science has "disproven" religion. Aren't these two almost exclusive realms? Science cannot disprve what is not known, and religion may be able to make assertions of fact (i.e., Abraham had 12 children), but is not the scientific method by any stretch.

    Some scientists have been brought to God by science, but it seems that todays bunch of scientists are dominated by atheists and agnostics.
    ~ So this most recent argument of God being perfect or not is a mute point if God can not be proven to exist at all.. It's not about what you may or may not believe. What can be proven to be real. That men of science are tending to find inconsistent the religious view.. Is a perfectly well reasoned argument. Is God perfect... is replaced by Is God Real ? I will offer a answer, no.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #275  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Please establish that Judaism hasn't always thought of G-d as perfect.
    I may be wrong. But I thought it the idea of God being perfect was a NT thing. Or perhaps influenced by the Greek philosophers. After all the OT God is rather inconsistent. But I haven't studied Jewish theology so, as I say, I may have misunderstood. This article may have something to say about it: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...imperfect-god/
    The God of Hebrew Scripture is not depicted as immutable, but repeatedly changes his mind about things (for example, he regrets having made man). He is not all-knowing, since he’s repeatedly surprised by things (like the Israelites abandoning him for a statue of a cow). He is not perfectly powerful either, in that he famously cannot control Israel and get its people to do what he wants. And so on.
    I don't know all the explanations for this, of course, and maybe some schools of though have G-d as imperfect. But as I understand it, there isn't really any major schools of thought that say this is imperfection. Maybe they didn't consider him all knowing, but that doesn't necessarily mean He is imperfect.

    I'm not directly arguing with you, either. The understanding for a long time has been that G-d is absolutely simple and perfect, and anthropomorphic descriptors are either non literal or a consequence of interacting with humans, (not real G-dly traits,) but I don't actually know much about pre-medieval Jewish understandings of G-d.
    I do know that Jesus was quoted as saying "be perfect" in Matthew 5:38 "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
    Yeah, by Jesus' time Jews would for sure understand G-d as perfect. I don't know of any time that they didn't think he was perfect, but I am no scholar so could be wrong.
    But the point of what Jesus was saying is that the perfect God doesn't have favorites. He sends the rain onto the good and the wicked equally.
    Now that makes God out to be incredibly natural in some way. The sun shines on all people equally whether they are good bad or ugly. That is being perfect, when you don't have any special treatment for anyone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #276  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    But the point of what Jesus was saying is that the perfect God doesn't have favorites. He sends the rain onto the good and the wicked equally.
    Now that makes God out to be incredibly natural in some way. The sun shines on all people equally whether they are good bad or ugly. That is being perfect, when you don't have any special treatment for anyone.
    Good analogy! One thing is to remember is, that while trees in the jungle gets nourished by the Sun, water in the ocean gets evaporated by the exact same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #277  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    But the point of what Jesus was saying is that the perfect God doesn't have favorites. He sends the rain onto the good and the wicked equally.
    Now that makes God out to be incredibly natural in some way. The sun shines on all people equally whether they are good bad or ugly. That is being perfect, when you don't have any special treatment for anyone.
    Good analogy! One thing is to remember is, that while trees in the jungle gets nourished by the Sun, water in the ocean gets evaporated by the exact same.
    I was totally amazed by the effect of what I wrote. If it is an example of perfection to be even handed across the board then how do miracles work? For they seem to be so specific in benefit.
    I don't have the answers and I don't think Jesus was in effect equivalent to a scientific atheist when he pointed out how even handed "The Perfect God" was.
    For today, to think that the Sun shines on all, seems so scientifically normal not requiring the action of God. What did they expect; that each patch of ground would get rain, sunshine and pestilence in proportion to how good you've been?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #278  
    Forum Junior AndresKiani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    I have an IQ of 50,
    Based on your posts that sounds high, I demand a recount
    Yeah I have an IQ around 60 something like that, 64. I heard Einstein's IQ was about 150 which would be almost three times both of ours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #279  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,430
    You guys know the IQ results are standardized so 100 is average right? A score of 50-60 puts you on a par with pond-life, or creationists (or Stargate) or are you guys using a different test?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #280  
    Forum Junior AndresKiani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    You guys know the IQ results are standardized so 100 is average right? A score of 50-60 puts you on a par with pond-life, or creationists (or Stargate) or are you guys using a different test?
    I've taken an IQ test twice and each time I scored some where around 60.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #281  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,430
    I'm guessing the tests you are doing are using a different scoring system to the ones I'm familiar with then...

    IQ classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #282  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    In the 60th percentile, maybe? (i.e. a score around 105-ish?)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #283  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    You guys know the IQ results are standardized so 100 is average right? A score of 50-60 puts you on a par with pond-life, or creationists (or Stargate) or are you guys using a different test?

    It's also very likely they are taking online IQ tests. I don't put a lot of stock in it, but I tried looking up the best three online and my scores ranged from 116 to 136 which is such a massive fluctuation that I threw the whole thing out. Real administered tests are likely to be more valuable, I'm sure, but I don't care enough to pay any money.

    Quote Originally Posted by AndresKiani View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    I have an IQ of 50,
    Based on your posts that sounds high, I demand a recount
    Yeah I have an IQ around 60 something like that, 64. I heard Einstein's IQ was about 150 which would be almost three times both of ours.
    Although Einstein isn't necessarily three times smarter than someone with an IQ of 60. While I don't know if you can measure, "X person is twice as smart as Y person," if you could, Einstein would be more than three times as smart as that person. Einstein would be a full 6 standard deviations above someone with an IQ of 60.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #284  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    I had a proper MENSA test when I was about 12 or 13. I thought I'd heard that IQ got lower as you get older, and I know I'm not as smart as I used to be. I used to have as IQ of 178 but not anymore, I'll bet. Plus, the MENSA IQ test only really tested for pattern recognition, from what I remember of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #285  
    Forum Junior AndresKiani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    I had a proper MENSA test when I was about 12 or 13. I thought I'd heard that IQ got lower as you get older, and I know I'm not as smart as I used to be. I used to have as IQ of 178 but not anymore, I'll bet. Plus, the MENSA IQ test only really tested for pattern recognition, from what I remember of it.
    Wow you guys have off the roof IQs, I'm not sure why I'm a 60, I get As all my science classes... Maybe it means I don't think as quick. Though, either way 178 is ridiculous, and no IQ doesn't generally change with old age. People who get older tend to use their brain less and less, unless the person gets a stroke or Alzheimer's or any other neurological disease at that age.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #286  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    In a self confessed moment of indulgence of 'self'.. I once responded to a MENSA invitation. I scored 124 and was invited to register for some sort of diploma.. I never did. I run with the thought that 'they' were just stroking my ego for the extraction of funds.. there was a cost of application for the said diploma.. ~ Another view I consider worthy is.. The native tribesman has no structured education and can not communicate by verbal or written language.. yet it would be 'Him' I would nominate to accompany me on a survival type adventure.
    Making a attempt to return this subject back to purpose.. I favor the working Education as a stronger survival tool for life than the dogma of religiously held structures.. Science has a tenacity to release nonsense as nonsense. As for the IQ tests.. relevance wins the test.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #287  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The Wiki link is pretty accurate. IQ test are only reliable in the 70 to 130 range, good enough to capture more than 95% of the population. I'd be surprised if anyone here is below 80 or so and even at that they'd have great difficulty communicating or understanding most conversations, or even being capable of learning most science abstractions.

    Also interestingly even though the test were designed assuming 100 is average and IQ is normal distribution, neither is entirely accurate. Flynn effect, which is a rise of intelligence in developed nations probably due to better nutrition and education, has risen the averages there by as much as 10 points; Flynn effect can even be seen in a single generation. Distribution has always been skewed to the high side with far more people having say a 130 than 70 IQ.

    --
    As for the thread's question, science and reasoning go hand in hand. As such scientist tend to lean towards evidence-based views on what to think. Most of scientist that I know that still cling to religion (most don't) are either particularly good at compartmentalizing their world views, or more often, continue their religion out of deference to family or for the religion's supporting social network and sense of community.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; June 21st, 2014 at 07:49 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #288  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    --
    As for the thread's question, science and reasoning go hand in hand. As such scientist tend to lean towards evidence-based views on what to think. Most of scientist that I know that still cling to religion (most don't) are either particularly good at compartmentalizing their world views, or more often, continue their religion out of deference to family or for the religion's supporting social network and sense of community.
    ~ I am in full agreement with this view.. As a amateur astronomer and having some experience with Radio astronomy and data accumulation. Some of the scientists I have worked with have talked of " That to have a faith based belief structured ideology just does not work for the scientific mind.. It simply can not be." and that to imagine a God could have any relevance.. is nuts.
    So from this you can understand the complete denial of the possibility of creation in regard to it having been a, or any God..
    That the combined forces of and materials available to nature. We have a Universe that was naturally created by the moment of it's own energy. No God was required. The scientific view simply prohibits the words used; Faith and belief. I make no simpler statement than.
    It just does not stand the scrutiny of scientific revue. As a belief or faith based on values associated with family or group. Fine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #289  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    Why do so many scientists and scientific minds feel the need to be atheists?

    Because the arrogance of scientists does not allow them to believe in God.
    believer in ahimsa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #290  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,430
    Do you ever get tired of posting rubbish?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #291  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    Why do so many scientists and scientific minds feel the need to be atheists?

    Because the arrogance of scientists does not allow them to believe in God.
    Which God?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #292  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    Why do so many scientists and scientific minds feel the need to be atheists?

    Because the arrogance of scientists does not allow them to believe in God.
    Which God?
    The Goddess Pele is my favorite.

    --
    More seriously the charge of arrogance is usually only made by religious apologist who are woefully ignorant to the basics of science. At it's core, the process of science is extremely humbling with demanding evidence-based requirements for even the simplest observations and strict peer-reviewed, repeatable support for hypothesis, a good number of which when even after been accepted are found to be incomplete. It takes decades and reams of interdisciplinary work before anything is accepted as theory; even then, its subject to continuous scrutiny to figure how generally applicable it can be applied, or whether it will be subsumed into a broader theory at some point.

    Taken against these rigorous standards, most theological claims are either so flimsy they can't even be framed as a hypothesis, or can be directly disproved.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 22nd, 2014 at 03:43 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #293  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Do you ever get tired of posting rubbish?
    If he didn't post rubbish, he couldn't post anything and couldn't affirm his existence.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #294  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    84
    i am not a scientist but i belive that i think like one.

    this is just personal observation.

    Scientists like things explainable, if their not they explore it and explain it, god can't be explored therefor there won't be a explination for what is god, where did it come from, who created it and so on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #295  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    What would a God be made of? What would be the evolutionary history of God's species?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #296  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    What would a God be made of? What would be the evolutionary history of God's species?
    You don't like asking easy questions do you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Possible Fantastic Idea. Need Scientific Minds to Review
    By TreyLong in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: February 24th, 2014, 11:36 AM
  2. Replies: 31
    Last Post: August 16th, 2013, 02:23 PM
  3. Have you ever wondered what goes through people's minds?
    By Hestha in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 11th, 2013, 03:04 PM
  4. Non-scientists in scientific excursions?
    By sleidia in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 6th, 2007, 12:08 PM
  5. Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists?
    By BioHazard in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 135
    Last Post: September 10th, 2007, 08:40 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •