|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/19/2007 : 10:35:01 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
| I would like anyone to show me how Kenneth Miller does not rely on the scientific method, when doing science, simply because he believes in God. |
That is something of a straw-man, perhaps not intentionally constructed, but....
Ken Miller is, at worst, a deist who believes in a deity who created the universe and has not interfered in it since then.
Newton was a much more serious, and literal, believer. He may not have been a YEC, but if I remember correctly he was a firm believer in the whole christ thing, resurrection and all.
Not that any religious belief necessarily has to interfere with the ability to do good science. But some beliefs do interfere. You can't be a YEC and do credible research on cosmology, geology, paleontology, biology, evolution, etc.. for example, unless your belief was weakly held, or you were able to suspend your religious belief entirely (an unlikely scenario, I think).
I agree with your main point though, that religious beliefs don't automatically exclude the possibility of a person being able to contribute to, and do, good science.
|
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 |
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 10:40:16 [Permalink]
|
| Ahhh... No, I have never even read any sort of summary of The Davinci Code. |
The story goes...
There is a secret order (the Priory of Sion) that protects the mortal descendents of jesus and his wife (Mary Magdalene). Many famous historical figures have been involved, and the catholic church is trying to hunt down and kill them all, for centuries.
The movie was mediocre, the book was tolerable but not great.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 10:47:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
The scientific method certainly can't be applied to the supernatural. This does not mean that they are incompatible. |
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
Science is a method for eliminating personal biases in order to discover the truth of reality. Rarely a large truth, and never the whole truth, but some bit of truth. To say that something is not amenable to the scientific method is to say that it requires personal biases. In fact, religion says this overtly--it glorifies self delusion and wishful thinking under the umbrella term "faith." Faith is exactly what the scientific method sets out to eliminate.
| There have been many scientists who are devout in one religion or another. |
This is true...but far from indicating that science and religion are complimentary, it simply demonstrates that the human brain is capable of entertaining contradictions.
| How they do so has a variety of ways. One is certainly compartmentalization. |
Ricky, compartmentalization is only required when one believes two ideas which are incompatible with one another. If they were compatible, one wouldn't need to wall them off in separate compartments.
| Another, which is typically found in the 'Creationist-turned-biologist' is that they are studying God's creation to learn more about God. |
Which is a fairly neat rationalization, except it is belied by the reality that studying the natural world has never led to any insights into the existence of the divine.
|
"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 06/19/2007 10:48:06 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 12:37:10 [Permalink]
|
Science is a method for eliminating personal biases in order to discover the truth of reality. |
Ah, but it eliminates so much more than that. Science can only accept things which are observable, falsifiable, and repeatable. Lose one of these things and it can no longer be part of science. A test which can not be done regularly is certainly not part of science since we must then rely on someone's hearsay.
So let's for the time being focus on the last one, repeatability. I propose a phenomenon which occurs purely at random. I don't mean it appears random to us, I mean it is random. Even worse, it does not occur frequently, say once every hundred years, and we have no idea where it will occur next. This phenomenon must not be a part of science. It is not incompatible with science, as it still exists within our physical universe, it just isn't a part of what we can study, and thus, not a part of science.
On the other hand, the philosophical skeptic in me says that I can not believe in the existence of such a phenomenon. My philosophic view is to not believe in anything outside of science. It is very important to realize that this is a philosophic view and not a scientific one, as science can not talk about anything outside of itself.
| In fact, religion says this overtly--it glorifies self delusion and wishful thinking under the umbrella term "faith." Faith is exactly what the scientific method sets out to eliminate. |
I agree, to an extent. Some religions do so, but certainly not all. Also, science can not touch what is outside of it. Science can't get rid of ones faith in God, otherwise God would not be outside of science. I state this again because it bears repeating, the existence of something outside of science is a philosophic view, not scientific.
| Ricky, compartmentalization is only required when one believes two ideas which are incompatible with one another. If they were compatible, one wouldn't need to wall them off in separate compartments. |
They are not themselves in conflict with each other, but rather it is the thought processes, which you pointed out in the previous quote, which are in conflict.
Which is a fairly neat rationalization, except it is belied by the reality that studying the natural world has never led to any insights into the existence of the divine.
|
Who said anything about existence? I thought we already established that God is outside of science, and thus trying to show the existence or non-existence of God through science is a pointless venture. Those who believe in God typically don't question his existence, and thus, don't care. Many Creationists that I have encountered think that by learning more about life and the planet, they learn more about the works of God. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 06/19/2007 12:39:40 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 13:08:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Ah, but it eliminates so much more than that. Science can only accept things which are observable, falsifiable, and repeatable. Lose one of these things and it can no longer be part of science. A test which can not be done regularly is certainly not part of science since we must then rely on someone's hearsay. |
Yes, science is limited, as any honest inquiry into reality must necessarily be, since human beings are themselves limited. That is the price of discovering truth--we must limit ourselves.
| So let's for the time being focus on the last one, repeatability. I propose a phenomenon which occurs purely at random. I don't mean it appears random to us, I mean it is random. Even worse, it does not occur frequently, say once every hundred years, and we have no idea where it will occur next. This phenomenon must not be a part of science. It is not incompatible with science, as it still exists within our physical universe, it just isn't a part of what we can study, and thus, not a part of science. |
Agreed. But it would be wholly against the scientific method, in practice and in principle, to accept the existence of this phenomenon without the appropriate evidence.
| On the other hand, the philosophical skeptic in me says that I can not believe in the existence of such a phenomenon. My philosophic view is to not believe in anything outside of science. It is very important to realize that this is a philosophic view and not a scientific one, as science can not talk about anything outside of itself. |
I disagree with this. I would say that science is a philosophy--one that has proven itself to work. It has proven itself so successful in fact, that many competing (and ailing) philosophies (or worldviews, if you like) have attempted to subjugate science to its own ends. They pretend that science is merely a tool to be used at one's personal discretion--to accept the results when they are pleasing and disregard them when they are not. And believing in the existence of god, despite the fact that whenever the god hypothesis is run through its scientific paces it gives negative results, is disregarding science when it pleases you. One gets negative results *not* because of some flaw or limitation in science, but because it is a flawed hypothesis.
| In fact, religion says this overtly--it glorifies self delusion and wishful thinking under the umbrella term "faith." Faith is exactly what the scientific method sets out to eliminate. |
I agree, to an extent. Some religions do so, but certainly not all. |
I can think of religions which pay lip service to critical thinking, but none which truly employ it, otherwise they would critically think themselves right out of existence.
| Also, science can not touch what is outside of it. Science can't get rid of ones faith in God, otherwise God would not be outside of science. I state this again because it bears repeating, the existence of something outside of science is a philosophic view, not scientific. |
Ricky, if science cannot "touch" something, then it is because that thing is untouchable by anything. To say that something is "outside" of science is the same as saying "this proposition is indistinguishable from a fiction." There are no alternative methods to science. It's the only way of knowing. There are no "non-overlapping magisteria." We have science on the one hand, and ignorance on the other. That's it. Faith is ignorance.
| They are not themselves in conflict with each other, but rather it is the thought processes, which you pointed out in the previous quote, which are in conflict. |
Well, true enough. Scientific facts need not be in direct conflict with religion, nor do specific religious beliefs need to be in conflict with science. But they are diametrically opposed as approaches to knowledge, which makes them fundamentally incompatible.
| Who said anything about existence? I thought we already established that God is outside of science, and thus trying to show the existence or non-existence of God through science is a pointless venture. Those who believe in God typically don't question his existence, and thus, don't care. Many Creationists that I have encountered think that by learning more about life and the planet, they learn more about the works of God. |
Yes, but such beliefs are nothing more than circular logic. "God created nature. Therefore, by studying nature, one learns how god created." It doesn't at all increase religion's compatibility with science, since the assumptions which go into this tautology are anti-scientific themselves.
|
"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 06/19/2007 13:16:41 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 13:49:56 [Permalink]
|
I see no difference in your description of "science as a philosophy" and "skepticism", so in order to be clear, when I say "skepticism", I mean the same as your "science as a philosophy".
| I would say that science is a philosophy--one that has proven itself to work. |
I disagree and I believe that the error lies in what you believe yourself rather than what science actually is. Science is, by itself, a process. I too believe that science can also be applied as a world view, a philosophy, what is most commonly called skepticism. But you must understand that there are those who practice science, but not philosophical skepticism. Whether you agree that these people are right or wrong does not make a difference. Personally, I think they are wrong as well, but this does not affect the point that they exist.
One can not prove a philosophy, any philosophy. Because they are world views they are not burdened by evidence or theories or data. One can not prove skepticism is best any more than one can prove optimism is best. And to use science to show that science works is by far the clearest example of circular reasoning I've ever seen. And if I've read between the lines to much and you did not mean to be using science to show that science works, then what exactly is it you are using?
| And believing in the existence of god, despite the fact that whenever the god hypothesis is run through its scientific paces it gives negative results, is disregarding science when it pleases you. One gets negative results *not* because of some flaw or limitation in science, but because it is a flawed hypothesis. |
If you are testing god by using science then you have brought god into the realms of science. Did we not already agree that god is outside of science? If not, then I simply suggest considering the deist form of god. What tests can be run on this god? What hypothesis has yielded negative results?
As for the rest of your post, I hope we will both agree that it is all philosophic views. If not, then simply say so and I will go through explaining how I think they are philosophical in nature. Those particular views I agree wholeheartedly with. But what this argument seems to be mostly about is whether or not one can show one philosophical view to be better than another. This is the crux of the issue, all the rest seems to be mostly background noise.
| [Science is] the only way of knowing. |
That is simply false. Here is the Shadrach method of knowing:
Ask me a yes or no question. I flip a coin, if it's tails, the answer is no. If it's heads, the answer is yes.
I think we will all agree that this is a horrible way of gaining knowledge (while still probably better on average than most religion). But nevertheless, it is still a way of gaining knowledge. Because gaining knowledge does not mean that the knowledge gained must be correct. If that were the case, then we must only consider absolute truth to be knowledge.
Edit: I missed this
| But they are diametrically opposed as approaches to knowledge, which makes them fundamentally incompatible. |
Incompatible ways of thinking, yes, I would agree. But one can believe in religion on whatever science can't touch (god), and science on everything else. The so called "God-of-the-gaps" is a horrible philosophic view in my personal opinion, but it shows itself to being logically compatible. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 06/19/2007 13:58:48 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 14:02:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Oh hell, what's the big deal? Almost everyone back then believed in God. Most still do including somewhere around 40% of active scientists. I would like anyone to show me how Kenneth Miller does not rely on the scientific method, when doing science, simply because he believes in God.
Just take what Newton gave us and leave the rest behind. His meanderings about God in no way diminishes his contribution to science.
It doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter…
|
I agree that in our times, sincerely religious people can be fine scientists. This is due to a form of cognitive dissonance that allows people to compartmentalize their world view in to separate natural and supernatural "magesteria" ala Gould. (Dawkins mentions, and to my mind demolishes, this "NOMA" notion in Chapter 2 of The God Delusion.)
Modern science is advanced to the point that conflating the two is essentially impossible (else you come up with nonsense like Egnor's ravings).
Issac Newton was in a much different environment, he was a deeply mystical man, in a basically unscientific world. To Newton, it was all one universe, God and nature accessible (or inaccessible) by the same reasoning. He accomplished wonders for science, despite his mysticism. He can hardly be blamed, and I do not do so, for not inventing modern science singlehandedly. As it is, he contributed major understandings of our universe that helped to build science. Yet his mysticism would have marked him as a crackpot, even by religious standards, in our century.
Still, spending years of research at such labors as searching for secret codes in the Bible, determining the birthdate of Christ, and deducing the exact measurements of the Temple, have got to be considered wastes of time at best. As I recall, the reference (which I have not yet found) about Newton abandoning a line of research, mentioned that he specifically stated that religious reasons for dropping further inquiry. (I vaguely recall it was Einstein who eventually resolved that particular line of research.)
I'll keep looking for this example.
Even as I'm amazed by what he achieved, I have to wonder how much more Newton could have accomplished had he not been shackled by the bonds of religious thought.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 06/19/2007 14:05:10 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 14:13:37 [Permalink]
|
| He can hardly be blamed, and I do not do so, for not inventing modern science singlehandedly. As it is, he contributed major understandings of our universe that helped to build science. |
I think you give Newton too little credit. I see him as the catalyst for science. I may be wrong in this as is it coming out of recollection and I know not where I got it from, but I believe Newton was the first (or at least one of the first) to make a theory which explains two entirely separate bodies of evidence. That is, planetary movement and objects falling towards earth. People took this idea and ran with it. The result of this was evolution, Big Bang, plate tectonics, and even now String Theory, the major theories of biology, astronomy, geology, and physics.
Does anyone know of any earlier theories which did so? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 15:44:30 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
Ken Miller is, at worst, a deist who believes in a deity who created the universe and has not interfered in it since then. |
He identifies as Catholic. I have no idea of how he thinks God does or doesn't do his work, ‘cause Miller hasn't told me.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 18:38:58 [Permalink]
|
About "The Da Vinci Code":
Originally posted by Dude
The movie was mediocre, the book was tolerable but not great.
|
I'm neither book- nor film critic, however I watch a lot of movies.
I personally liked the movie and enjoyed reading the book. In fact, once I started reading I had a hard time taking a pause. I lost a lot of sleep while I was busy reading... 
From the protagonist's view the book takes him on a 24 hour roller-coaster ride, not unlike the TV-series "24"
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 19:09:08 [Permalink]
|
Is the theory of evolution science?
Does evolution fit as accepted science based on this statement by Ricky?
"Science can only accept things which are observable, falsifiable, and repeatable. Lose one of these things and it can no longer be part of science."
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 20:34:04 [Permalink]
|
Has the earths atmosphere reached c14 saturation?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 20:39:37 [Permalink]
|
Fossils only tell us about the animal that died, not its progeny.
What evolution has been observed today?
Which plausible alternatives have been excluded?
When has the changing of a species into another species been repeated?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 22:44:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Fossils only tell us about the animal that died, not its progeny.
What evolution has been observed today? |
Asses, hinnys, donkeys and horses. An ass and a hinny can not reproduce, they are the offspring of a horse and donkey. A horse and donkey can reproduce since they share such close genetic material, however, their offspring are infertile because they are close enough to speciation where they would be unable to reproduce.
| Which plausible alternatives have been excluded? |
Lamarkian genetics.
| When has the changing of a species into another species been repeated? |
Over the past several multiple thousands of years - otherwise we would not be surrounded by the bio diversity we see today.
edited to fix my bad formatting - I'll see about my horses etc part. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
| Edited by - Trish on 06/19/2007 22:46:11 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Newton religious writings displayed in Jerusalem
