|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 01/04/2006 : 02:49:35 [Permalink]
|
And so long we are revisiting this thread...
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
H. seems to say that it isn't unreasonable, but his "unreasonable" is defined only within the scientific context, and doesn't apply to either the religious context nor to the act of switching contexts (no matter what contexts one is switching between).
That's why my prior post was so short: H. wasn't saying that "reasonable" is an inherent property of any particular context, but only a definition that applies in pretty much just the one context.
Yes, but if you would have acknowledged the rest of that post, my point was that accepting one definition "locks" you into that interpretation. I never said you could switch definitions based on context, you said that. I do think that once the scientific understanding of "reasonable" is adopted, it becomes unreasonable to relinquish it, regardless of context.
|
"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 01/04/2006 02:50:31 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 08:42:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Yes, but if you would have acknowledged the rest of that post, my point was that accepting one definition "locks" you into that interpretation. I never said you could switch definitions based on context, you said that. I do think that once the scientific understanding of "reasonable" is adopted, it becomes unreasonable to relinquish it, regardless of context.
To me, a 'reasonable' thing is that which is highly plausible (or logically true) given a certain set of assumptions (a context). Things which are 'reasonable' within one formal logic (an example context) can be unreasonable or even meaningless in another. For example, "1+1=2" is meaning-free in the context of binary numbers, wherein "1+1=10" is reasonable (and flat-out wrong in the context of normal decimal numbers). What is 'reasonable' necessarily changes with context, and it's improper (unreasonable?) to apply the same rules of what's reasonable and what's not from one context to another which doesn't share the same set of assumptions.
With that said, (again) it is unreasonable to believe in a deity which interacts with the world as shown to us by science. (Getting back to the OP, that doesn't mean a person is incapable of doing good science.) Again, for a person who is capable of separating the science world from the spiritual world - probably most of the deists PZ Myers talks about - there exist different contexts which play by completely different rules, and applying science's "reasonable" to the spiritual side isn't valid, and vice versa. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 09:55:09 [Permalink]
|
Can you be a good scientist and believe in God? My answer is still a resounding yes. I offer as support for my views Kenneth R. Miller, who wrote the science book that had members of Dover School Boards knickers in a bind. He was one the main voices for the defense of evolution only in science classrooms at the trial.
This from an interview with a December 2004 with Science and Religion:
quote:
Miller:
I think the biggest difference, and the most direct way to pinpoint that difference, is to say that creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained. So the way in which my view is different from the creationists or intelligent design proponents is that I find knowledge a compelling reason to believe in God. They find ignorance a compelling reason to believe in God.
It's a fascinating interview and I suggest reading the whole thing and then following the provided links…
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.html
http://bms.brown.edu/faculty/m/kmiller/
I hope this clears everything up…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 11:54:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Kil: Can you be a good scientist and believe in God? My answer is still a resounding yes.
I'd agree, provisionally. It depends on what your are of research is and what your definition of god is.
A YEC will not make a good geologist or cosmologist ot evolutionary biologist.
A deist, such as Ken Miller, can obviously be a respectable scientist.
Also required is the intellectual honesty (and capability) to recognize and admit that a belief in a diety is not an evidenced proposition.
I'm sure there are plenty of outstanding scientists out there who hold a belief in god.
|
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 - 01/04/2006 : 18:15:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
To me, a 'reasonable' thing is that which is highly plausible (or logically true) given a certain set of assumptions (a context).
I agree, but since in this instance the "context" we are discussing is "reality," there is never a moment when you would find yourself outside of that context. You are always in reality. The "context" we are discussing is the philosophy one adopts to define their world. You know, all those "assumptions" we went over.
|
"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
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 18:47:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I agree, but since in this instance the "context" we are discussing is "reality," there is never a moment when you would find yourself outside of that context. You are always in reality. The "context" we are discussing is the philosophy one adopts to define their world. You know, all those "assumptions" we went over.
This may be the heart of the problem we've had seeing eye-to-eye in this thread. From my point of view, we've been discussing whether or not it is possible to adopt two distinct philosophies to define two distinct "worlds." The reality of science on the one hand (which you and I are both fine with), and the spiritual "reality" of religion on the other. We both agree that that second "reality" is pure fantasy, but our disagreement arises because I'm not trying to make it play by science's rules, and so don't think it unreasonable to believe certain things about it (so long as they don't encroach on real reality). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 18:59:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude:
A YEC will not make a good geologist or cosmologist or evolutionary biologist.
Well, of course. But with somewhere around four out of ten scientists saying they believe in god, last I heard, my guess is they are not mostly nutballs. At least, not in their approach to doing science.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 19:04:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
From my point of view, we've been discussing whether or not it is possible to adopt two distinct philosophies to define two distinct "worlds."
And I think the question is whether or not it is possible to adopt two distinct philosophies to define the same world. Otherwise, we would see scientists who stop beliving in god the second they start doing science, and religious people who stop believing in science the second they start worshipping their god. Is that the case? Or do they just somehow try to keep both conflicting sets of assumptions "on" at all moments?
|
"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 01/04/2006 19:09:06 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 19:45:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
And I think the question is whether or not it is possible to adopt two distinct philosophies to define the same world. Otherwise, we would see scientists who stop beliving in god the second they start doing science, and religious people who stop believing in science the second they start worshipping their god. Is that the case? Or do they just somehow try to keep both conflicting sets of assumptions "on" at all moments?
"All moments" is a bit of a stretch (I don't know many people who can actively think about two separate issues simultaneously), but the context switching can be pretty quick.
Just like I can be typing in new computer code, thinking about some reply I'd like to make here, and dreaming up new games I'd like to write, all at more-or-less the same time (switch, switch, switch...), I'm sure that plenty of scientists are able to engage in purely scientific thought regarding some scientific problem while also considering the religious aspects of any moral dilemmas they might be facing with family and friends. Sort of like,"Okay, class, we've got this guy who claims that the CNO cycle is responsible for enriching 15N in the Sun..."
Jack took that joke I made about his tie pretty hard. What would Jesus do?
"...but we know that all the nitrogren products of the CNO cycle are simply catalysts, and don't increase or decrease in amount over time..."
I'll just apologize as soon as he gets back from lunch.
"...so we can pretty much ignore this, unless he comes up with evidence instead of guesswork."
And then I'll call my priest, Ned Flanders style. After all, H., I'm not talking about the sort of idiot who might say, "okay, I've got chlorine bleach in flask A, and pure ammonia in flask B... Would Jesus mix them?" And I've already agreed that anyone who tries to explain anything about this world by appealing to a sky fairy is being unreasonable. |
- 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 - 01/04/2006 : 19:55:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
After all, H., I'm not talking about the sort of idiot who might say, "okay, I've got chlorine bleach in flask A, and pure ammonia in flask B... Would Jesus mix them?" And I've already agreed that anyone who tries to explain anything about this world by appealing to a sky fairy is being unreasonable.
No, I know. But to see my point, one only needs to think of Hippy's doomed attempt to formulate his "god science." That really and truly is the sort of mental struggle that should happen when you accept conflicting sets of propositions as true. Obviously, something about the human brain allows people to function (and some scientists quite well, as Kil has pointed out), as if these propositions don't conflict. That has never been my point, which is that they do conflict whether it consciously affects most people or not.
It obviously affects me, otherwise I wouldn't find theism such an untenable position to hold.
|
"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 01/04/2006 20:00:47 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 20:21:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
No, I know. But to see my point, one only needs to think of Hippy's doomed attempt to formulate his "god science." That really and truly is the sort of mental struggle that should happen when you accept conflicting sets of propositions as true. Obviously, something about the human brain allows people to function (and some scientists quite well, as Kil has pointed out), as if these propositions don't conflict. That has never been my point, which is that they do conflict whether it consciously affects most people or not.
It obviously affects me, otherwise I wouldn't find theism such an untenable position to hold.
Right, H., I'm well aware that many people - perhaps even most - allow their religious and scientific contexts to "merge" to some extent or other. In Hippy's case, quite a bit; in Bill Demski's case even more; but in a large number of scientists' cases, not nearly so much. Again, many believing scientists do science in order to understand how God created the world. In those cases, nothing science reveals can "conflict" with their religion, up until the day that science is able to disprove the existence of all possible gods (um, never, I'd dare say).
These "reasonable" theists decided, probably long before they became scientists, that a deity exists. It doesn't matter if they came to that belief through some evidenciary process or not, once they got it, it created its own context with its own rules, one of which is that evidence doesn't trump faith, so it's self-sustaining. And switching between the contexts is easy. |
- 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 - 01/04/2006 : 20:41:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Right, H., I'm well aware that many people - perhaps even most - allow their religious and scientific contexts to "merge" to some extent or other.
Well, this is where you and I really differ. I'm saying the religious and scientific contexts are already "merged" since they both attempt to describe a single reality, and only by an intellectually dishonest process can a person separate the two when performing different tasks. It is the "pretending" that the two don't conflict that disturbs me. At least people like Hippy and Dembski don't go into some sort of cognitive dissonance when doing science. If you believe god exists, it should keep you from being a good scienstist, since you would throw up your hands and admit there is no point to doing science when a supernatural force can simply step in an alter reality at any time it chooses, even without you being aware of it. When one holds the religious perception of reality, science shouldn't even be possible.
quote:
These "reasonable" theists decided, probably long before they became scientists, that a deity exists. It doesn't matter if they came to that belief through some evidenciary process or not, once they got it, it created its own context with its own rules, one of which is that evidence doesn't trump faith, so it's self-sustaining.
Right, and that's fine. But then they should look upon science with nothing but distain.
quote:
And switching between the contexts is easy.
But it shouldn't be.
And with that, I think perhaps we've gone about as far as we can go. I am reasonable enough to understand that this is a topic reasonable people can disagree on, but I just don't happen to share your opinion. And essays like the one from P.Z. Meyers suggest that, on this particular topic, highly-intelligent individuals aren't any more successful at convincing other people of their point of view as I have been, so I know I'm fighting a battle I can't win.
Of course, I did enjoy this debate, but at some point we're going to need to let it drop, hopefully on better terms than we did last time.
|
"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
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 11:27:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Well, this is where you and I really differ. I'm saying the religious and scientific contexts are already "merged" since they both attempt to describe a single reality, and only by an intellectually dishonest process can a person separate the two when performing different tasks. It is the "pretending" that the two don't conflict that disturbs me. At least people like Hippy and Dembski don't go into some sort of cognitive dissonance when doing science.
They may not suffer from cognitive dissonance, but that's only because they're actively lying to themselves. Hippy with his "I'll just vaguely define 'God-science' and pretend it has something to do with science," and Dembski with his denial that his "design inference" is not subject to false positives or his denial that he agreed that false positives are possible, thus making his "inference" unusable. The only "honest" creationists I know of are those who says things like, "I know science will, one day, vindicate Genesis, even though it can't do so today," and I think they number in the single digits.quote:
If you believe god exists, it should keep you from being a good scienstist, since you would throw up your hands and admit there is no point to doing science when a supernatural force can simply step in an alter reality at any time it chooses, even without you being aware of it. When one holds the religious perception of reality, science shouldn't even be possible.
But, that's only one possible ideation of deity out of many. The idea, for example, that God is a "hands off" sorta deity is not an unpopular one.quote:
Right, and that's fine. But then they should look upon science with nothing but distain.
Only if they believe that their religion teaches everything there is to know about the natural world, which is actually a rare attitude (worldwide). Most folks seem to treat scripture and other religious teachings as guidelines on how to get into the good place in the "next" world, about which science says nothing.quote:
And with that, I think perhaps we've gone about as far as we can go.
I suppose so, but I'm disappointed in that we can't even seem to agree on what we're disagreeing about. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 04:11:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I'm saying the religious and scientific contexts are already "merged" since they both attempt to describe a single reality, and only by an intellectually dishonest process can a person separate the two when performing different tasks.
Only some religions attempt to describe the same reality as science. It is possible to concieve of a religion that does not impinge on the scientific context. There are also many situations in which the scientific method is not practical, such as dancing, to take a random example. Although it is not nessessary to use a religious context in these areas, you cannot readily use the scientific context either.quote:
It is the "pretending" that the two don't conflict that disturbs me.
One only needs to pretend that they don't conflict if they actually do conflict, this is not nessessarily the case. Consider the Christian who understands the Bible as a metaphor and who sees God as operating strictly within the laws of nature. As unsettling as such a belief system may be to you it is in fact not in conflict with science.
Now I will readily admit that most versions of Christianity do conflict with science. The Biblical flood and a host of other traditional Christian beliefs are at odds with science.quote:
If you believe god exists, it should keep you from being a good scienstist, since you would throw up your hands and admit there is no point to doing science when a supernatural force can simply step in an alter reality at any time it chooses, even without you being aware of it. When one holds the religious perception of reality, science shouldn't even be possible.
If there were a God then science could still proceed normally in between the times that God alters reality. I agree though that belief in a God that directly alters reality would contradict and potentially compromise science. However, if God is presumed to operate only through natural laws then there is no conflict.quote:
quote:
And switching between the contexts is easy.
But it shouldn't be.
Actually I don't think your problem is with switching contexts in general, but specifically with religion. After all you didn't evaluate the statement "I can make a difference." in an objective context. I think perhaps you feel that religion is unnessessary since you personally have no use for it. For myself I agree with this, but I also note that many individuals seem to have a real need for the religious context.quote:
And with that, I think perhaps we've gone about as far as we can go. I am reasonable enough to understand that this is a topic reasonable people can disagree on, but I just don't happen to share your opinion. And essays like the one from P.Z. Meyers suggest that, on this particular topic, highly-intelligent individuals aren't any more successful at convincing other people of their point of view as I have been, so I know I'm fighting a battle I can't win.
Of course, I did enjoy this debate, but at some point we're going to need to let it drop, hopefully on better terms than we did last time.
Likewise. Feel free to respond or not. I hope some of what I've said rings true for you. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 02:12:32 [Permalink]
|
If god(s) only operate within natural laws, then just what is it they supposedly do? If there's no evidence, then just what is it that's supposed to be there? And if something is there, then there should be evidence.
If you want to believe there is a god that set off the BB and then bowed out, how do you explain all the "Worship Me" crap?
I personally do not believe one can be a scientist and never question one's religious beliefs. You'd have to not look so to speak. Because as soon as you took a real good scientific look, you'd have to wonder how it was all these people believe such nonsense. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
