|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2005 : 15:12:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not sure that that is what most theistic scientists believe. The ones I've read more believe that whatever "caused" god is, like god, untestable and so unassailable by logic. The answer isn't that god doesn't have a cause, but that any attempt to find a reason for god's existence is doomed to failure because it is scientifically unanswerable.
God is only "unassailable by logic" because the concept is illogical. You can't claim that a concept is simultaneously not subject to the application of reason and also in accordance with it. It's one or the other.
quote:
No liberal theist I'm aware of even pretends that god is a hypothesis or logically testable. You, H., are the one trying to drive the square peg of faith into the round hole of science in this case, not those who have faith in a "hands off" deity.
Plenty of theists think their beliefs are rational and logically justified. They aren't. That's my only point. I'm not requiring them to scientifically validate their god, but I am saying they need to come to terms with what it is they believe and stop pretending it meshes with reason.
quote:
Only those who are unreasonable would claim that faith is something which one finds through rational conclusions.
I agree.
quote:
So Wegener, at the time he proposed continental drift, was unreasonable, even though he was right. As scientists like to say, a fact is something which so well-evidenced that disbelief would be unreasonable, but you've turned that around and I'm not sure your formulation is correct.
I think Dude already addressed this quite well, but it's worth recapping. 1) Wegener did not have no empirical evidence for his theory. He had the shape of the continents, for one. 2) He would be unreasonable if he had believed that his theory was true without additional evidence.
quote:
quote:
Anyone who believes in God despite these conclusions is not being rational.
Of course, it's a far cry from being insane.
Who said otherwise? I said belief in god is unreasonable, not crazy.
quote:
quote:
Now, like Dave, you may think this no bad thing. Perhaps you believe it is like "love." Faith is just something you have to feel in your heart. I have no problem with that idea, since a feeling isn't something I can argue.
On this, perhaps we agree.
Good.
quote:
Perhaps my problem is with the word "conflict," especially since you seem to be saying that if I entertain the assumptions in the Star Wars movies while watching them, in order to appreciate the story being told, doing so "conflicts" with being rational.
In other words, I've got the ability to let go of the need for science and evidence for the sake of entertainment, without suddenly becoming unreasonable. Why would you deny this ability for those who have faith in a deity, yet are professional scientists?
Theists are not merely "entertaining" an assumption. They are unreasonably believing in something for which there is no evidence. Surely you can see the difference?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/28/2005 15:29:18 |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2005 : 15:23:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Dave, are Storm's beliefs in ghosts rational or are they irrational, and how are they different from the "scientifically untestable" beliefs of scientists in god?
Storm is seeking to get her ideas accepted by science, religion is not. Well, the kind of religion we are talking about at least.
That doesn't matter, Ricky. Plenty of theists are under the delusion that their god can be proven by science as well. The point is, whether Storm realizes it or not, her conceits are constructed in such a manner that makes them immune from logical inquiry. She believes in the existence of an energy for which is impossible to test. This is not a reasonable position. When then is it if not unreasonable?
Dave seems to want claim that while belief in god is not rational, it isn't irrational. I fail to see how this can be possible. If a concept is so constructed as to become impervious to reason, then it is unreasonable. It conflicts with reason.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2005 : 15:31:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Apples and oranges. First, science can tell you a lot about love from the physics of pheromones to the social structure of pair bonds. That doesn't mean science needs to invade your every waking thought and action.
But that's what I was asking about! Was the question that CourseKnot posted ("Will you become less religious if you adhere to scientific facts?") referring to someone who strictly "adheres" to science or not? If yes - meaning this person demands that science "invade" their every waking thought and action - then he/she is out of luck in answering the question, "should I make romantic overtures towards person X," because science cannot answer that. There are far too many things which are currently unknown about the process right now.
But science can answer that 'should' question. One could always weigh the pros and cons based on current evidence.quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So, apples and apples, I'm afraid. Along with making a person less religious, "adhering" to science will make a person a lot less likely to hold any belief which is unevidenced. Anything which is currently just a matter of taste (like "which rock band is 'best'?") would be left out of consideration.
Taste is measurable, and one could do a lot to determine how one's taste develops. I'm not saying you have to use the evidence, but it is within the realm of science to examine decisions of taste, beauty, love and so on.quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Heck, such a person would probably be a real ass, since he would have evidence that people are capable of deceit, but he would have no evidence that any particular person he meets would not be deceitful. In other words, he wouldn't trust anyone - since trust is a leap of faith (much smaller than believing in a god, but a leap nonetheless).
That's silly. Just because people are capable of deceit doesn't mean one can't assess who is more likely, what percentage of people, under what circumstances, etc. But I digress.quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
If you actually look at the evidence you can only reach the conclusion there is no god, (despite Dave's and my long discussions on disproving god).
I've got big problems with anyone who claims that only one conclusion is possible from any given set of evidence. Our knowledge at any particular time is limited, allowing for multiple, testable hypotheses from the same evidence, and thus science which progresses in sometimes unexpected ways. And the clear implication that those who've reached different conclusions from you haven't done their homework is particularly insulting, especially when half the problem I remember you and I having was due to the fact that we were talking past each other.
Wow, I certainly didn't mean anything like this. I do believe there is no god and those who believe there is one are wrong. But that doesn't mean I don't have respect for those folks and their beliefs. I'm sure there are many things you firmly believe and don't expect any new evidence to refute. Anything I currently believe is subject to change with new evidence so you have taken my statement out of context.quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Scientists who are also believers have to suffer a bit of cognitive dissonance to cope with the problem.
How many have you studied? It seems there are plenty who are completely aware of the differences between science and an unevidenced faith in something which created science, and is thus beyond it. Your statement would only be true if being a "believer" meant being a fundamentalist, and this gets back to our previous disputes. There are lots of "liberal" theists who believe that their god "set up" the universe with the laws it has, and has been "hands off" ever since the moment of the Big Bang, but collects the souls and judges them worthy (or not) of everlasting paradise. If I recall correctly, you dismissed this idea of god in our previous disagreements as not matching up with any actual religion, but the fact is that many scientists actually choose this sort of faith for themselves.
Cognitive dissonance entails an ability to hold fast to two or more contradictory beliefs simultaneously. The idea of god described above doesn't contradict any science, and in fact it cannot contradict science, as those who have these beliefs think that science is the process of discovering how god wrought his creation. It simply is not a problem for them, when the act of doing science itself gives glory to god.
I was afraid I'd stir this issue up again. I can't remember how we ended it before. I still hold to the belief that there is sufficient evidence to rule god(s) out. The god you describe above is possible as are multiple universes and whatever exists before the big bang and so on. But for the latter concepts there is a reason to contemplate such things. What we disagree on is the fact that religion appears to be a human made construct which explains belief in god(s). Therefore that leaves no unexplained evidence for which a god construct is needed.
I haven't changed my view and you haven't changed yours. We have different perspectives on this. I understand your god concept and with that and for the sake of this discussion, you can have a scientist believer. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2005 : 21:17:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Dave_W:Your statement would only be true if being a "believer" meant being a fundamentalist, and this gets back to our previous disputes. There are lots of "liberal" theists who believe that their god "set up" the universe with the laws it has, and has been "hands off" ever since the moment of the Big Bang, but collects the souls and judges them worthy (or not) of everlasting paradise. If I recall correctly, you dismissed this idea of god in our previous disagreements as not matching up with any actual religion, but the fact is that many scientists actually choose this sort of faith for themselves.
If that specific belief set were the one in question, then it seems unlikely it would interfere with the scientific ability of an individual who possesed such a belief.
But that is a very narrow circumstance, and it (obviously) rules out any christian, muslim, jew... and, in fact, it is a self contradictory belief set. If god created the universe, and has been 100% "hands off" ever since... then how are they aware of god's existance? Seems that anyone who embraces truly rational thought would easily be aware of that small "problem".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2005 : 18:34:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
If that specific belief set were the one in question, then it seems unlikely it would interfere with the scientific ability of an individual who possesed such a belief.
But that is a very narrow circumstance, and it (obviously) rules out any christian, muslim, jew... and, in fact, it is a self contradictory belief set. If god created the universe, and has been 100% "hands off" ever since... then how are they aware of god's existance? Seems that anyone who embraces truly rational thought would easily be aware of that small "problem".
Perhaps I should clarify that by "hands off," I only meant in terms of micromanaging the universe. There is no point in believing in a God which has never and will never make an appearance, but the theistic scientists I'm talking about believe in (for example) Christ's miraculous ressurection, but disbelieve that God created each "kind" of animal, or that He constantly intervenes to (for example) keep the planets in their orbits. These scientists - again - think of their work as discovering God's method of manufacture of the universe.
I'm not talking about fanatics who are attempting to bend science into proving that their god exists, I'm talking about people who believe that by studying their god's works (the entirety of creation), they are getting closer to their god.
Does this "conflict" with reason? I think we're going to have to get into a discussion of the definition of the word. If "reasonable" is a synonym for "evidenced and scientific," then yes, such beliefs are not reasonable, but then neither is my reason (haha!) for what I do on the SFN, seeing as how I don't have a shred of evidence that my goals are becoming more attainable with my effort. If, on the other hand, a "reasonable" (or "rational") belief is one which is not clearly contradicted by available evidence, then I'm not sure there's a conflict.
Then again, with a conflict there needs to be a direct tension between two things. The idea that the universe can be investigated and measured and probed and reveal its laws and whatnot does not oppose the idea - however unevidenced - that a deity created it all, and does not oppose the idea - however irrational - that said deity will either reward or punish them upon death. Science cannot oppose those ideas, except to say "there's no evidence for that," but those who are scientific and faithful know that already.
Liberal Christians are constantly creating self-consistent (thus internally logical) theologies for themselves which don't compete with science as an explanation for what we can test of the natural world. These theologies don't attempt to answer the question of how humans came into existence, but instead attempt to answer the question of "purpose," for which science can only say, "there is no evidence of any grand purpose." Since that's not the same as saying "human life has no purpose," science does not conflict with these theologies. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2005 : 19:10:18 [Permalink]
|
Dave, theists believe that god is real, that he really exists, and that he made the Universe. That is a belief about external reality, or what most would call "objective" reality. It isn't an internal opinion or emotion only applicable to themselves.
Personal tastes, desires, or hobbies need not be "logical" in the sense that they are universally applicable to everyone. Preferring strawberry ice cream to vanilla need not be justified.
However, as soon as you commit to a universal belief, such as there is a real god and he really did make the universe, now we aren't talking personal opinions. Science is the tool we use to discover what reality is and how it operates. People orginially did think that god's fingerprints would be all over his creation. They expected science to prove god. Over time, that expectation vanished. People now claim that it isn't appropriate to subject god to scientific inquiry. Why not? What changed?
The fact that something which theists believe exists in reality leaves no evidence of its existence is a conflict. People can and do choose to ignore that conflict, but it doesn't mean that it isn't there.
Is the assertion of invisible dragons living in garages "in conflict" with reason? I would say yes. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2005 : 20:30:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Dave, theists believe that god is real, that he really exists, and that he made the Universe. That is a belief about external reality, or what most would call "objective" reality. It isn't an internal opinion or emotion only applicable to themselves.
Since it's a belief about reality which science cannot test, how is it in conflict with science? Frankly, I think discussions of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics as if it were real, and not just a mathematical model, are also completely untestable speculations, but they're not in conflict with reason, and seldom do they appear to make physicists less capable of doing really good science. It's all (both God and the multiverse) unevidenced gobbledegook, but it doesn't necessarily affect a person's ability to use the scientific methods on those things which can be tested.quote:
Personal tastes, desires, or hobbies need not be "logical" in the sense that they are universally applicable to everyone. Preferring strawberry ice cream to vanilla need not be justified.
Then why does preferring a god over no god? Again, we're not talking about fundamentalists out to convert everyone, we're talking about a personal belief in a deity which cannot - by its own definition - be tested.quote:
However, as soon as you commit to a universal belief, such as there is a real god and he really did make the universe, now we aren't talking personal opinions. Science is the tool we use to discover what reality is and how it operates.
And science is completely the wrong tool to use to attempt to probe someone's admittedly-unevidenced faith. Since when is "I believe that God created the universe" not a statement of personal belief. Yes, it's about the whole universe, but then statements like "strawberry is the best flavor ever" suddenly become "in conflict" with reason.quote:
People orginially did think that god's fingerprints would be all over his creation. They expected science to prove god. Over time, that expectation vanished. People now claim that it isn't appropriate to subject god to scientific inquiry. Why not? What changed?
What changed was the subject at hand. We're not talking about using science to prove or disprove god, we're talking about whether or not science is fundamentally opposed to faith - so opposed that the faithful must be less competent at science than the non-faithful.quote:
The fact that something which theists believe exists in reality leaves no evidence of its existence is a conflict. People can and do choose to ignore that conflict, but it doesn't mean that it isn't there.
But they believe there is evidence of its existence, but that evidence cannot be currently tested, and much of it is lost except for what resides in one book. The central tenet of liberal Christianity - that Jesus was spiritually resurrected - simply cannot be refuted by any scientific means. The best we can do is say, "well, there's no evidence for that," but that's a far cry from saying "the very idea contradicts what this law and that theory tell us is true."quote:
Is the assertion of invisible dragons living in garages "in conflict" with reason? I would say yes.
And whether or not invisible dragons exist, I would say that anyone who believes they do is living in fantasy-land. But I would also say that such beliefs only conflict with reason when their proponents claim that the dragon helped out with the welds on their dune buggies. In other words, a conflict arises when unevidenced claims are made which can be empirically tested. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2005 : 21:29:20 [Permalink]
|
You make some valid points, but I think this is where we really differ:quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And whether or not invisible dragons exist, I would say that anyone who believes they do is living in fantasy-land. But I would also say that such beliefs only conflict with reason when their proponents claim that the dragon helped out with the welds on their dune buggies. In other words, a conflict arises when unevidenced claims are made which can be empirically tested.
The conflict with reason is there the moment the assertion is believed. The conflict with empirical evidence is there once a specific claim is made. I see both conflicts as potentially problematic. You seem content to allow the first so long as it never progresses to the second.
Again, I admitted that theists can be good scientists so long as clearly delineate their beliefs as you prescribe, but that is difficult to do in practice. People naturally want their beliefs validated. They often are willing to believe the dragon welded their dune buggy when no one was looking. Can you prove it didn't? Once you accept the assertion on faith, any claim can be equally accepted on faith. How many theistic scientists believe in miracles or the power of prayer? Does it matter if they never wish to scientifically test these claims?
Can a scientist simulataneously accept the evidence for Evolution and also believe that a religious icon cured his wife's cancer? Is there no conflict there? Does a conflict arise when he believes both, or not until he tries to get you to believe both?
Why do people run studies on the efficacy of prayer then? If the study shows that prayers are of no use, should a scientist stop praying? If a study shows that a drug is of no use, should a doctor stop prescribing it to his patients?
These are questions I find important to ask. It seems to me there is some sort of ethics involved here, an intellectual honesty that I feel people should feel obliged to hold to concerning their beliefs. It is that which I feel is being compromised.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/01/2005 21:33:09 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 10:45:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
The conflict with reason is there the moment the assertion is believed.
I've been giving this a lot of thought (so forgive my incomplete reply, my brain is tired), and I'm just not seeing it. There are beliefs which come about through reason, beliefs which originate without the use of reason, and then there are beliefs which are in contradiction to reason. Only the latter, I would say, are "in conflict" with reason, and I don't see how a liberal theology contradicts reason.quote:
Once you accept the assertion on faith, any claim can be equally accepted on faith.
Indeed, even the claim "evolutionary theory is correct" can be accepted on faith, instead of through a reasoned evaluation of the evidence. Does that necessarily put that claim "in conflict" with reason?quote:
Why do people run studies on the efficacy of prayer then?
Because they're idiots who fail to understand that the success of such tests would undermine the validity of science itself, making the tests worthless.quote:
These are questions I find important to ask.
Me, too.quote:
It seems to me there is some sort of ethics involved here, an intellectual honesty that I feel people should feel obliged to hold to concerning their beliefs. It is that which I feel is being compromised.
Isn't "my belief in God is a matter of personal faith, not a conclusion of empiric scientific inquiry" intellectually honest enough? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 12:32:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Why do people run studies on the efficacy of prayer then?
Because they're idiots who fail to understand that the success of such tests would undermine the validity of science itself, making the tests worthless....
I don't get what you are saying here at all. These guys want to show that scientific evidence doesn't contradict their beliefs. They want science to confirm their faith. They want their faith to be proved correct.
I think you separate faith and science in such a purest philosophical way as to leave out the practical aspects of faith. People want their faith to be real, not just philosophical. They want me to go to 'Hell' when I die to prove they were right. Humans love the I told you so factor. Otherwise, why would any of them have a need to "witness", as their latest fad term is used? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 13:23:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Why do people run studies on the efficacy of prayer then?
Because they're idiots who fail to understand that the success of such tests would undermine the validity of science itself, making the tests worthless....
I don't get what you are saying here at all. These guys want to show that scientific evidence doesn't contradict their beliefs. They want science to confirm their faith. They want their faith to be proved correct.
And yet, if a study shows that prayer works, it means that no experimental results are trustworthy. If a physicist, for example, sets up an experiment to test a favorite hypothesis, its success could either be due to the hypothesis being correct, or because the physicist (or his assistants and/or friends) said, "God, I hope this experiment works." Similarly, if prayer really works, it means that (for example) drug failures could be explained by the drug not working, or by a prayer meeting at a rival pharmaceutical company, asking God to smite their enemies.
In other words, if praying to God for intervention really works, then there's no way to know if any scientific conclusion is actually true, or is instead the result of that intervention. And since there's no way to know how long said intervention will continue (further prayers might change things back), then the practice of science is completely undermined, including for the test which proves prayer's efficacy. After all, what if God only answers prayers made as a part of research which seeks to answer the question "does God answer prayers?"quote:
I think you separate faith and science in such a purest philosophical way as to leave out the practical aspects of faith. People want their faith to be real, not just philosophical. They want me to go to 'Hell' when I die to prove they were right. Humans love the I told you so factor. Otherwise, why would any of them have a need to "witness", as their latest fad term is used?
When you want to talk about the faithful scientists that exist out there, instead of these extremists, then maybe we'll have a meeting of minds. The people I'm talking about, and I know of quite a few, might witness if you ask them about their faith, but the idea that any of them might want you to burn in Hell just to prove themselves correct is contrary to the message that they profess, and the compassion they demonstrate. They also know that the only possible "test" of their beliefs will occur at their own death, when they hope to meet their god and pass judgement.
I have no problems with the idea that fundamentalists and other fanatics will make poor scientists in general, since they tend to make no distinction whatsoever between religious "truth" and scientific "truth" (and so claim that if science were "true," it wouldn't change so much). But the question is, and remains, "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?"
I say yes, one can be a good scientist and believe in God, without any cognitive dissonance or conflicts with reason. And I also believe that your average scientist has a much different view of religion than your average religious person, and thinking about the former as if they were the latter is a mistake. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 17:12:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I've been giving this a lot of thought (so forgive my incomplete reply, my brain is tired), and I'm just not seeing it. There are beliefs which come about through reason, beliefs which originate without the use of reason, and then there are beliefs which are in contradiction to reason. Only the latter, I would say, are "in conflict" with reason, and I don't see how a liberal theology contradicts reason.
Why does is matter how one comes to their beliefs? I'm saying the belief itself is unreasonable. Even if someone chooses not to examine their religious beliefs critically, if one did, one would find them unreasonable. That's the point. I do not care about the manner in which someone acquires the belief, I care about how they categorize it afterward.
quote:
Indeed, even the claim "evolutionary theory is correct" can be accepted on faith, instead of through a reasoned evaluation of the evidence. Does that necessarily put that claim "in conflict" with reason?
No, because the claim itself is reasonable. It is supported by the evidence. The manner in which someone accuires the belief isn't relevant. Granted, I would hope that someone wouldn't accept Evolution as a matter of faith, but only because it is so unneccessary to do so. Evolution is a "belief" that can be investigated and found to be justified.
quote:
Isn't "my belief in God is a matter of personal faith, not a conclusion of empiric scientific inquiry" intellectually honest enough?
That's a misleading statement because it is incomplete. I might "take it on faith" that the Earth revolves around the sun. I have never seen the Earth from space, nor have I done the calculations which would prove the matter to myself. Yet I do not consider heliocentrism to be "a matter of personal faith." Why? Because the belief can be justified. Belief in a god cannot. That makes it an unreasonable belief to hold (regardless of how it was acquired).
I feel to be intellectually honest, one must state "my belief in God is a matter of personal faith that runs counter to all reasonable standards of evidence, the standards which I have sworn to uphold in my scientific work." That would at least be admitting the conflict is there.
quote:
I say yes, one can be a good scientist and believe in God, without any cognitive dissonance or conflicts with reason.
A theist can make a good scientist in the same way a person who doesn't find it at all wrong to steal can make a good cop. He can follow the rules even if he does not feel they should always be enforced. I don't see how one can accomplish it without a great deal of cognitive dissonance, however.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/02/2005 17:22:14 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 21:13:52 [Permalink]
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, H., but you seem to be saying that the only reasonable beliefs are those which are both empirically testable and found to be correct. In other words, not only are incorrect beliefs unreasonable, but so are beliefs which can't be tested at all, ever.
So, what would you call a belief which can be empirically tested, but no testing has yet occured, and/or no validation has yet come about? Is it reasonable to believe in something which might be justified someday?
Does SETI conflict with reason? Yes, extraterrestrial life is predicted by other evidence and logic, but what does that matter if our only method of detection continues to reveal nothing?
I apologize if I seem to be rambling, but I'm a bit astonished by the turn this thread has taken. It really does seem as if you're telling me that my own goals for participating at the SFN are themselves in conflict with reason. In other words, that the very presence of the SFN mission statement makes the SFN an unreasonable Web site.
I'll think about this more, but right now I've got a job to do... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 22:22:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Correct me if I'm wrong, H., but you seem to be saying that the only reasonable beliefs are those which are both empirically testable and found to be correct. In other words, not only are incorrect beliefs unreasonable, but so are beliefs which can't be tested at all, ever.
I am most decidedly am not. But I am saying that barring empirical testing, a belief concerning the nature of external reality cannot be based on nothing more than "gut feeling" and be called reasonable. If you recall, I treated the "prime mover" argument as something which could be logically considered in the absence of testable evidence. When even such philosophical arguments are found wanting, there quite simply is no "there" there. There isn't anything to hang your hat on. Nothing but an irrational hope--which is perfectly fine if that's enough for someone, but just have the courtesy to call it what it is.
The rest of your post seems to rest on the presumption that I consider any claim without empirical evidence bunk, which is positively untrue, and so I think requires no rejoinder. And I can't see anything in the Mission Statement that would run contrary to anything I said unless for some reason you do not consider "God exists" to be a statement of fact.
*Edited to add: Perhaps another example would help illustrate my point better.
Regarding an enterpise like SETI, is it reasonable to consider that life on other planets is likely or even probable, but it would be unreasonable to consider life on other planets a foregone conclusion in the absence of evidence. It would be unreasonable to say "Life absolutely exists on other planets" at this time. So most of what makes a theist's belief unreasonable is not only the absence of empirical evidence, but the total conviction with which the belief is held despite that lack. The deficiency of any compelling logical or philosophical arguments only emphasizes how utterly irrational their position is.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/02/2005 22:40:05 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
