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?

[1John2_26]

I merely state that it may be a dangerous thing to come to scientific study with a previously demonstrated deep seated pre-conception (although I don't completely hold this view as my comments about Newton and Einstein prove). This is the point about institutions such as the Vatican Observatory.

Or Secular humanism. The drive to expunge Christianity from schools comes from those with literally a one-track mind. Completely closed.

I'm not sure how your point about Baruch Spinoza applies to this. Spinoza essentially philosophised about a form of pantheism. I don't quite see how this applies here.

Einstein may have been influenced by Spinosa. I would have gone on to show how Spinosa was influenced by Moses Maimonides but that would have been cumbersome for the post. Maimonides of course being completely wrong about literal vistations of God in human form. Maimonides was influenced by Islam. And so the story of history goes.

Nothing more and nothing less. I do believe that smug bast#$@& in elite atheist circles believe Christians with high degrees are idiots. But that would only be because I read what they write. Of course I present the opposite side often. Atheists seem to go into science to prove atheism.

[OccamsRazor]

Or Secular humanism. The drive to expunge Christianity from schools comes from those with literally a one-track mind. Completely closed.

I wonder if you would share the same ideal if Hinduism were to be taught in schools or even the Egyptian Book Of The Dead? Is it purely Christianity you feel should be taught?

Atheists seem to go into science to prove atheism.

And my point is that surely many theists go into science to prove their chosen belief.

I also assert that atheism can never be proven to be true. An entity cannot be proven not to exist. I think that most atheists agree with this assertion.

[harvey1]

I also assert that atheism can never be proven to be true. An entity cannot be proven not to exist. I think that most atheists agree with this assertion.

We can't prove we are not in the Matrix either. So, I don't think this particular criteria of "proof" is useful in discussions such as these where we are equivocating on these terms.

[OccamsRazor]

We can't prove we are not in the Matrix either. So, I don't think this particular criteria of "proof" is useful in discussions such as these where we are equivocating on these terms.

Maybe but it is on this basis that I contest 1John's statement that atheists are out to prove atheism. I am not sure that this is the case because many believe such proof to be an impossibility. Similarly I do not believe that rational scientists would study the sciences to prove that we are not in the Matrix.

[harvey1]

I contest 1John's statement that atheists are out to prove atheism.

I don't agree that atheists are out to prove atheism. Why prove a belief that you are already convinced is correct? I was just pointing out that an atheist could be out to "prove" atheism if they viewed proof in a more scientific sense meaning that they wish to show with scientific evidence and computer simulation that there's no truth in the notion of a divine origin to the world. I don't think this would constitute a proof of God not existing, but I think there are many atheist scientists who believe it would and who would be eager to say that it is.

[OccamsRazor]

...they wish to show with scientific evidence and computer simulation that there's no truth in the notion of a divine origin to the world. I don't think this would constitute a proof of God not existing, but I think there are many atheist scientists who believe it would and who would be eager to say that it is.

Largely I do not see a problem with this though (possibly I have an atheist bias). I see no issue with attempting to prove that a long held belief is not true, rather not attempting such a thing is what hampers scientific study. This applies to proving that there was no creator to removing the AP.

[harvey1]

Largely I do not see a problem with this though (possibly I have an atheist bias). I see no issue with attempting to prove that a long held belief is not true, rather not attempting such a thing is what hampers scientific study. This applies to proving that there was no creator to removing the AP.

I don't see anything wrong with trying to take the knowledge gleaned from science in order to argue for a philosophical position. However, what I object to is the naiveness that often comes with that. Many who engage in garnering scientific support for their philosophy often do not see the philosophical issues behind those issues, and therefore they have almost no clue to their own assumptions.

[OccamsRazor]

I don't see anything wrong with trying to take the knowledge gleaned from science in order to argue for a philosophical position. However, what I object to is the naiveness that often comes with that. Many who engage in garnering scientific support for their philosophy often do not see the philosophical issues behind those issues, and therefore they have almost no clue to their own assumptions.

I completely agree. I think that this is one of the pitfalls that one must be aware of when studying science.

This is like Einstein's famous comment, "God does not play dice". I love Neils Bohr's reply, "Einstein, don't tell god what to do".

[joer]

Howdy gentleman. I was having an interesting exchange with QED on another thread. Here's the link if you like:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7542#57542

Since QED seems to be on hiatus, it seems appropriate for discussion here. Here's my last post I'm waiting for a response to. Let's see if anyone here is interested.

QED thank for your post. It stands well when it's within the bounds of your post. But (here it comes the introduction to the contradiction again) how well does it stand with the perspective of just one other human being.

It’s really quite easy to sit back and marvel at the world and the way it suits us. Everything seems perfectly matched to its apparent purpose and we can only stand in awe and amazement at the evident organization seen in nature. From the cycles of the skies and seasons to the providence of the land -- everything looks as though it might have been put there especially for us. And whosoever put it there must have been thinking of our needs and must also be mightily powerful to engineer everything in this way.

Your first paragraph makes it seem like everything is hunky dory here on our little spinning sphere. And it alludes to a mighty engineer

“whosoever …must also be mightily powerful to engineer everything in this way.”

Who made everything just the way we need it to be. I don’t know about you but especially in recent years with the tsunami’s earthquakes hurricanes and natural disasters of the likes many of us haven’t seen in our lifetime, makes it look like that engineer better get another calculator when that Mighty Engineer makes his next world.

I was disappointed that you next paragraph gave such a weak historical explanation of the origin and development of Faith and Belief in God through the ages. But I guess this is just “a post” Right? Or course you wouldn’t want to give too much support to the opposite point of view or it might make your position look weaker. Right? Anyway I thought you’d give it a little more strength.

This is just about the only conclusion we can reasonably expect from people taking everything at face value in ages past and would be so obvious to them that it would surely inspire a great deal of faith and belief in that which cannot actually be seen. This is no doubt why so many different ideas about God(s) have occurred to men at various times. After all, Monotheism is not the only expression of faith in there being some higher powers that control the world and hence give sustenance to man

.

The next paragraph begins to dump the opposition.

So historically speaking faith is bound to be very strong but (we all know the BUT is) it is also very possibly misguided as well, for modern understanding of the capacity for the world to organize itself into the harmonious structures we see throws up numerous ambiguities.

I think the numerous ambiguities were known thousands of years ago. It's at least apparent since the beginning of written history and since that was based on thousands of years of oral history that preceded it, I guess we can “safely” assume that those numerous ambiguities as well as all of the ones waiting to be discovered already existed.

Critical thinkers will be quick to point out that

And they always will be quick to point out.

Any living thing that is adapted to an environment has two ways of viewing providence.

I’m sure they found more than two.

One is the traditional view

Should'nt it say “One tradition view is" rather than "One is 'the' traditional view"?

That nature has bent to the needs of the individual,

Oh that must have been the Moses parting the Red Sea part. – nature bent to the need of the individual. LOL good one.

but the evidence is now overwhelming that it is the other way around, with life adapting to whatever conditions are available

.

Correct. My daughters would say “Duh” thinking it was a euphemism for No *hit. But I prefer Correct.

And now the coup de tat.

Despite the fact that it might be argued that this is how the divine plan was actually implemented,

I agree it could be argued.

it runs counter to what we are told in the "users guide to existence" that some call the holy bible,

I haven’t heard that reference before. I have heard it called “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth” I thought that was cute acronym.

And here comes the coup de grace.

The last line where you side step two good arguments.

and as such I feel it cannot therefore be the word of God

This one you avoid arguing the percentage leaving it at 0%. I guess that’s fair but not fun or educational.

And on this one you avoid the existence of God argument. Which logically I figured would be a precedent necessary to carry on the % of the Word of God in the Bible argument. Oh Well!
Another post. another time.

even if he does exist (which I very much doubt).

O.K. QED I guess I’ll just have to launch into it and see if you help me out. I was looking forward to getting into string theory, how science is the discovery of God’s creation, and stuff like that.

Let’s see how do you prove something that can’t be proven empirically? The reality of God is based on faith and belief. And somebody who is willing to explore the esoteric theorized realities of science that have not yet been proven but refuses to do the same thing in the field of Faith and Belief. Would you call that open mindedness or deselective reasoning?

Just as in evolution certain evolutionary paths hit a dead end, but that doesn’t stop the scientist from exploring more. Someone who is willing to seek the ethereal meanings in science but refuses to recognize the ethereal indications of a creator Being, what’s that? Someone is dedicated to blocking the exploration of such ideas of Faith as if in reaction to the dedication of the Inquisition to blocking scientists in the exploration and discoveries of scientific ideas centuries before. Is that right?

Just as the consolidation of five seemingly disparate lines of thought on string theory into the “M” theory opened up a multitude of possibilities of new discoveries and ways of looking at things that will hopefully achieve the impossible task of unifying Gravitational theory and Quantum Theory. I mean God (used here again only as a manner of expression) isn’t it exciting? I see no unbridgeable difference between science and spirituality. Some day I to expect a unifying theory of those two ideas as they are not disparate as they appear. We just need to look for the connections. What’s the common denominator?

You know QED you made a pretty interesting statement in your previous post:

Now there are some mighty impressive structures that have been put in place over the last few thousand years. Men have laboured hard to create a coherent and organized presence for the almighty here on Earth. Living as I do not far from the ruins of Glastonbury Abbey I have often stood in awe and admiration for the inspiration of men in the past. But every work, be it painting, hymn or entire cathedral is crafted by men to a plan proposed by men. There is something inevitable about all this, something that is bound to occur to sentient beings like us if we ponder extremes.

As you know man is still labouring (ou British usage) hard to create those structures as I’ve mentioned with the string theory and such. But what is the highest structure that man can postulate? Wouldn’t the Creator of Everything, Basis of Everything, Source of Everything theory, qualify for that. 50 years ago science was debunking the GOD of the archaic Religion of that time. But as the concept of God develops with the advances of science how could we know that we won’t reach our highest structure: The basis of everything, The understanding of everything? No my friend QED we’re travelling this road together right now. You see us as separate BUT I see us together. You’re unwittingly discovering the God that I postulate and you deny.

Who knows perhaps when we find out what the other 7 dimensions of “M” theory are or the proof of the postulation of the graviton and the expected confirmation at the time of completion of the atom smasher in Scandinavia that I believe is 7 times more powerful than our current most powerful smasher, we may find some new esoteric meanings to the GOD theory. Exciting isn’t it. Also there’s the expected discovery of heavy tiny synchronous particles that are counterparts to our known electrons, protons, neutrons etc. I wonder if any of these are comparable to the basic unit of matter? If we find that perhaps we will have another clue to the Great Source and Center. You guessed it GOD. (Guardian of Destiny for lack of a better acronym)

Thank You for your patience QED. Lead me to my source.

P.S.

You said that:

Doc Proc is asking "Is there actually any decent reason to believe that the Bible is 100% the word of God?" This is a very fair question

I don't think it's a fair question because I don't believe Doc believes in the existence of God. So the 100% is irrelevant. Is should just say "...is the word of God" Yes or No Then it would be fair question not a leading question. Do you know what I mean?

Be well my friends. All positive direction and affirmation be with you!

Now since I posted this I found this in my 16 year old daughter's text book for her religion class. And it supports my position by making a similar proposition that science and religion can work together in the future.

World religions
A Voyage of Discovery
2nd edition
by Jeffery Brodd
copyright 2003


Page 290

Religion and Science An Emerging Harmony
As our discussion so far has suggested, while religious and scientific worldviews sometimes conflict, they also have he potential to complement one another. This has been true historically, and new scientific discoveries hint at the possiblity of science and religion’s working together in the furture as well.-*

Quantum Mechanics
Religious thinkers have greeted the theory of phisics called quantum mechanics as a great opportunity to find harmony with the scientific worldview. Quantum mechannics developed primarily during the middle of the twentieth century, holds that the laws of nature are not so certain after all. Analyses of nature ultimatly can arrive at only probablities, not absolute facts.
The general effects of quatum machanics is the incorporation of such vital religious concepts as free will and moral choice within a scientific view of reality. Such circumstances invite harmony between religion and science, even as the latter forges ahead with new discoveries.

[QED]

Howdy gentleman. I was having an interesting exchange with QED on another thread. Here's the link if you like:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7542#57542

Since QED seems to be on hiatus, it seems appropriate for discussion here. Here's my last post I'm waiting for a response to. Let's see if anyone here is interested.

joer - let's keep any further discussion regarding that topic in the original thread. I replied to the post you've copied up here. Double posting like this is not very helpful as it leaves people unsure of where to reply.