|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2008 : 11:09:37 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo: Anyone that believes in a supernatural solution to a problem has a problem with science. If they don't believe in a supernatural solution to a problem, then they are not theists, they are atheists who call themselves theists. |
Nonsense. Scientists who attributes the knowledge we gain by pursuing scientific investigations and sees that knowledge as a window into gods creation can and do contribute to our general knowledge about science and do not have a problem with science.
While we may not agree with their theistic views, show me how Kenneth Miller or that Catholic Astronomer that Maher talked to have a problem with science. The problem is Gorgo that anything can be attributed to god. Nature, which is what scientists investigate, can act as it does because that's how god wants it to act, if you hold that view. Belief does not have to pose a barrier to studying nature.
Kenneth Miller or an atheists approach to the study of biology are exactly the same. And they draw the same conclusions in a scientific sense. What the two take away from that on a personal level says nothing about the science itself.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2008 : 11:16:46 [Permalink]
|
Nonsense. If those people believe in supernatural solutions to problems, then they have a problem with science and have nothing to do with those people who reject religion in order to do science. If they believed in supernatural solutions to problems, they'd pray instead of work on solutions.
The fact that you think they think they don't have a problem is irrelevant. |
I know the rent is in arrears The dog has not been fed in years It's even worse than it appears But it's alright- Jerry Garcia Robert Hunter
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2008 : 11:36:43 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo: The fact that you think they think they don't have a problem is irrelevant. |
I don't happen to agree with them but I fail to see the problem in a scientific sense. Show me the paper that Miller has written that mentions god or supernatural solutions.
You are aware that not all people who believe in god are fundamentalists, right? The idea that all people who have a thirst for knowledge and have theistic views on a more personal level have a problem with science is demonstrably false.
You do realize that people have the ability to compartmentalize, right? Miller does good science. He has also written some great text books on science (including the one that caused the stink in Dover Pennsylvania.)
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2008 : 11:56:41 [Permalink]
|
To the extent that he believes in supernatural solutions to problems, if he does, then he has a problem with science. Tell me where he believes in supernatural solutions to problems. |
I know the rent is in arrears The dog has not been fed in years It's even worse than it appears But it's alright- Jerry Garcia Robert Hunter
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2008 : 12:32:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
To the extent that he believes in supernatural solutions to problems, if he does, then he has a problem with science. Tell me where he believes in supernatural solutions to problems.
| The problem with your request is that what Miller believes on a philosophical level, a belief in god, says nothing about how he does his science. To Miller, knowledge is a window into gods creation. But he doesn't bring that to his actual study of science. He is a theist and he does good science and has no problem in that area.
Your contention is: "Anyone that believes in a supernatural solution to a problem has a problem with science."
If you mean that the believer who brings his belief, in a specific sense, to the study of evolution, for example, to help draw conclusions from, you are correct.
If you mean that a scientist can't have a personal belief in god and do good science, you are not correct.
You also contend: "If they don't believe in a supernatural solution to a problem, then they are not theists, they are atheists who call themselves theists."
Kenneth Milller and Philp Johnson debate evolution for Nova: Finally, Phillip, your mention of "materialist philosophy" entirely misses the point of how science works. You imply that if we do not understand the exact mechanism of a process (like evolution) we must allow for intervention by the "Creator." Sorry, but science doesn't work that way. Consider what happens when a living cell divides and its chromosomes move apart. We do not, in fact, know exactly what produces the force that moves chromosomes. Do I make a "materialist" assumption when I say that the force is probably generated by biochemical mechanisms? Of course not. But your logic would claim there is no mechanism, and the Creator Himself has to push every chromosome around. C'mon. |
And:
Kenneth Miller to Phillip Johnson, same debate:
In your last installment you revealed the real reasons for our disagreements, and I hope every reader noticed. You clearly stated what I have suspected all along. Your objections to evolution aren't scientific. They are religious.
You wrote that a successful mechanism for evolution would "get the Creator out of the picture," and that is why the mountain of scientific evidence on my side of this debate is irrelevant to you. Phillip, as a religious person myself, I would love to have a thousand words to explain why one does not have to reject evolution to believe in God, but that would shift our debate into theology. However, I am truly grateful you revealed the real source of your objections to evolution. |
The bolding is mine.
Kenneth Miller is a theist who doesn't bring supernatural solution's to problems of science. So the second part of your statement is wrong.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2008 : 20:50:45 [Permalink]
|
After a mere 19 days, Religulous has grossed over $9 million, and is now the 9th-place top-grossing documentary of all time, and the #1 documentary of 2008.
And somehow, they did it without bribing church groups and schools. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2008 : 03:30:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Kenneth Miller is a theist who doesn't bring supernatural solution's to problems of science. So the second part of your statement is wrong.
|
Well, what I said was that to the extent someone believes in supernatural solutions to problems, they have a problem with science. I don't know what you read.
From Boston.com :
Miller believes that God reigns above nature, providing a moral order to the universe, an ingrained right and wrong that guides people through all the questions science can't |
From Finding Darwin's God
Each of the great Western monotheistic traditions sees God as truth, love, and knowledge. This should mean that each and every increase in our understanding of the natural world is a step toward God and not, as many people assume, a step away. If faith and reason are both gifts from God, then they should play complementary, not conflicting, roles in our struggle to understand the world around us. As a scientist and as a Christian, that is exactly what I believe. True knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason.
A nonbeliever, of course, puts his or her trust in science and finds no value in faith. And I certainly agree that science allows believer and nonbeliever alike to investigate the natural world through a common lens of observation, experiment, and theory. The ability of science to transcend cultural, political, and even religious differences is part of its genius, part of its value as a way of knowing. What science cannot do is assign either meaning or purpose to the world it explores. This leads some to conclude that the world as seen by science is devoid of meaning and absent of purpose. It is not. What it does mean, I would suggest, is that our human tendency to assign meaning and value must transcend science and, ultimately, must come from outside it. The science that results can thus be enriched and informed from its contact with the values and principles of faith. The God of Abraham does not tell us which proteins control the cell cycle. But he does give us a reason to care, a reason to cherish that understanding, and above all, a reason to prefer the light of knowledge to the darkness of ignorance.
|
Miller trumps science with God by saying that God makes us moral, that faith gives us meaning and knowledge. He believes his life isn't worth very much, that he needs to make up gods to give his life worth. He believes that science cannot tell us how evolution works to make us moral or immoral. These are supernatural ideas to him. Does he "do good science?" Sure. Great. Can't argue with that. Does he have a problem with science? Maybe. Maybe not. Seems like it. |
I know the rent is in arrears The dog has not been fed in years It's even worse than it appears But it's alright- Jerry Garcia Robert Hunter
|
Edited by - Gorgo on 10/21/2008 03:37:33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|