Can a theist objectively study science

[OccamsRazor]

When studying cosmology I encountered a fundamental Christian who believed in the creation as described in Genesis. I always wondered how he reconciled the empirical evidence he was studying with his belief system.

I have also long wondered about the Vactican observatory. Surely Catholic astrophysicists working for the Vatican must be trying to prove something that they find axiomatic before they look at the evidence.

My question is do theists or strong (or positive) atheists really have an objective viewpoint from which to study the fundamental sciences?

[harvey1]

My question is do theists or strong (or positive) atheists really have an objective viewpoint from which to study the fundamental sciences?

I guess it all depends on what you mean by "objective." In my opinion, there are no really objective perspectives except that of God, and everyone living in the domain of man is terribly subjective to a lesser or greater extent.

However, I think anyone can learn the craft of doing science if they are willing to restrict themselves to scientific norms and practices and are reasonably intelligent. I don't think atheists have any inherent advantage in this respect. If the theist, though, spends time trying to pursue scientific theories that somehow vindicate supernaturalism, then in that sense that kind of theist might be at some disadvantage. However, an atheist might spend time thinking of ideas that have their own waste of time.

[OccamsRazor]

everyone living in the domain of man is terribly subjective to a lesser or greater extent

Absolutely, I agree. Even Neils Bohr (My Avater pic if people did not know) suggested that Quantum Mechanics came from a shift in modal opinion rather than purely a new scientific approach. Anyone studying the sciences must evaluate their own ideals and attempt to identify any such predisposition.

This said however, theists already come into the discussion with a clearly defined predisposition for a given belief system as do strong atheists. Does simply being aware of this sufficiently negate its effect?

This brings me back to the Vatican Observatories. How can they study cosmology without being influenced by their relgious precepts?

[harvey1]

...

I suppose my stance on moral religious superiority has tainted your perspective of me..?

This said however, theists already come into the discussion with a clearly defined predisposition for a given belief system as do strong atheists. Does simply being aware of this sufficiently negate its effect?

I don't think it has much effect at all, really. If one is committed to the methodology of science, then they simply won't spend much research time in pursuing hypotheses that either are too lacking in evidence, or the interpretation of that evidence is just too much outside of the methodological naturalist presumptions of science. It's actually helpful though, to have many different belief systems producing scientific hypotheses since even if the belief system is not right, the unique approach to the problem might be. For example, I really don't think that Einstein was right regarding quantum mechanics having hidden variables which he perhaps held for philosophical/religious (e.g., Spinoza theological) reasons. However, no one can argue that this philosophy didn't perhaps serve him well in his earlier scientific breakthroughs.

This brings me back to the Vatican Observatories. How can they study cosmology without being influenced by their relgious precepts?

Perhaps they cannot be. But, if they cannot, then their science will fail to be published and eventually aspiring scientists won't want to work for the VO and that will create pressure to shift their thinking into a different, perhaps more naturalistic, paradigm--if necessary.

[OccamsRazor]

...

I am terribly sorry.
I have got so used to arguing with him I guess it was just a reaction.

Sorry

[OccamsRazor]

I don't think it has much effect at all, really. If one is committed to the methodology of science, then they simply won't spend much research time in pursuing hypotheses that either are too lacking in evidence

I am not so sure. My personal opinion that the concept of ID has arisen from people using scientific methodology as tools to justify a pre-concieved belief system.

Re Einstein: no one can argue that this philosophy didn't perhaps serve him well in his earlier scientific breakthroughs.

You are correct and this could probably be even more pertinent with the case of Isaac Newton who, while he made (in my opinion) the biggest contribution to science of any individual, he was also a passionate Christian and believed in the alchemical myth of the Philosopher's Stone.

[harvey1]

I am not so sure. My personal opinion that the concept of ID has arisen from people using scientific methodology as tools to justify a pre-concieved belief system.

Sure, but the selective process of science has a way of naturally eliminating such departures from scientific methodology. Atheists also might shoot off in the wrong direction. Just think how long it took for the big bang cosmology to be taken seriously despite the very intriguing evidence coming from Hubble and Einstein's GR equation needing a cosmological constant to avoid expansion. I would submit that as an example of atheistic thinking slowing the progress of science. The experiments of Penzias and Wilson might have been conducted in the 1940's had the Hubble evidence been taken more seriously as it should have been in hindsight.

[OccamsRazor]

Atheists also might shoot off in the wrong direction.

I absolutely agree. I did mention atheism in my opening gambit but may be guilty of placing too much emphasis on pointing the finger at theists.

Sure, but the selective process of science has a way of naturally eliminating such departures from scientific methodology.

I hope that you are right and that this will always hold.

[QED]

Atheists also might shoot off in the wrong direction. Just think how long it took for the big bang cosmology to be taken seriously despite the very intriguing evidence coming from Hubble and Einstein's GR equation needing a cosmological constant to avoid expansion.

Is this a really a good example? Surely the dominant paradigm of steady-state was shared by all up until this time? Out of curiosity, what other examples of Atheistic thinking do we know of that have thrown research off the tracks?

[OccamsRazor]

Is this a really a good example? Surely the dominant paradigm of steady-state was shared by all up until this time?

This is not entirely true. Although you are correct that the steady state idea was shared across the scientific community Einstein's personal issue with the GR equation is that it suggested that the universe had a beginning and in his mind this meant that it was a suggestion of the existence of God. He did not wish to accept this conclusion so added the cosmological constant (ironically it was a clergyman who convinced him to remove it).