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?

[joer]

Thank You QED. Will do! My Bad! Still new here. Won't happen again.

Will you be replying to my last post from 3 days ago?

Thank You Sir. Your friend Joer.

[QED]

Thank You QED. Will do! My Bad! Still new here. Won't happen again.

Will you be replying to my last post from 3 days ago?

Thank You Sir. Your friend Joer.

Well I have now -- although I thought we'd both just expressed some opinions and you were going to go away and look into the Anthropic Principle.

[Matthew7:12]

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

Do you have an objective viewpoint? Your position is bias, you assume all questions related to science can only be described by a naturalist viewpoint, you reject all other possibilities. Yes, theists and atheists can have an objective viewpoint, we enter into science with bias, just as you.

[Cathar1950]

Matthew7:12:

Do you have an objective viewpoint? Your position is bias, you assume all questions related to science can only be described by a naturalist viewpoint, you reject all other possibilities. Yes, theists and atheists can have an objective viewpoint, we enter into science with bias, just as you.

I think the difference is in the subject matter.
One is testable and subject to change and revision the other is not.
This is true for both theist and atheist.

[Matthew7:12]

Matthew7:12:

Do you have an objective viewpoint? Your position is bias, you assume all questions related to science can only be described by a naturalist viewpoint, you reject all other possibilities. Yes, theists and atheists can have an objective viewpoint, we enter into science with bias, just as you.

I think the difference is in the subject matter.
One is testable and subject to change and revision the other is not.
This is true for both theist and atheist.

The creation of the universe is not testable, no one can re-create it, if fact it should not even be call "Theory" of Evolution, because of the fact, it is an assumption. There are round 200-250 conditions that must be meet for the earth to host life. For all of these to have occurred naturally would be 10 to the 200th power, and the number of particals in the universe, I remember it as around 10 to the 80th power.

So the naturalist must get by the math. At the last Origins of Life conference, when questioning scientist, they all agreed at the improbalbily of the naturalistic cause, most though continued to believe in it, to both with the facts.

[theleftone]

The creation of the universe is not testable, no one can re-create it, if fact it should not even be call "Theory" of Evolution, because of the fact, it is an assumption.

I think you're confused about what most refer to when they say "the theory of evolution." The Theory of Evolution is a biological theory. It deals strictly with the changes which arose within life following the origin of life. It does not include theories regarding the origin of life, the creation of planets, the creation of the universe, star formation, etc. It deals strictly with changes in life.

Juliod and Jose are our resident biologists. I'm certain they can explain it better than I can.

[Goat]

Matthew7:12:

Do you have an objective viewpoint? Your position is bias, you assume all questions related to science can only be described by a naturalist viewpoint, you reject all other possibilities. Yes, theists and atheists can have an objective viewpoint, we enter into science with bias, just as you.

I think the difference is in the subject matter.
One is testable and subject to change and revision the other is not.
This is true for both theist and atheist.

The creation of the universe is not testable, no one can re-create it, if fact it should not even be call "Theory" of Evolution, because of the fact, it is an assumption. There are round 200-250 conditions that must be meet for the earth to host life. For all of these to have occurred naturally would be 10 to the 200th power, and the number of particals in the universe, I remember it as around 10 to the 80th power.

So the naturalist must get by the math. At the last Origins of Life conference, when questioning scientist, they all agreed at the improbalbily of the naturalistic cause, most though continued to believe in it, to both with the facts.

While the universe is not 'recreatable', the various cosmological theories can be tested. The different theories will have different predictions about what WILL be found once it is looked for. Instruments are then taken to try to look at the currently unknown evidence. If what is found matches what was predicted, then that theory becomes tronger. If it does not match what is predicted, then that particular theory is falsified.

When it comes to abiogenesis, you are also incorrect about 'going by the math'. What is being done is to look at the way that the pre-biotic chemicals work. It looks at the environment that the evidence lead them to believe that the early earth was, and it looks at the chemical reactions that would occur in that environment. Trying to bring up 'improbabilty arguements for that kind of environment is not how the work is being done, and is usually an argument based on ignorance.

The theory of evolution specifically discusses the model of why there is a change of alleles over time, and the origin of species. It does not deal with abiogensis (the origin of life), nor does it deal with astrophysics. It has to deal with the observation that life changes over time, and trying to come up with models to explain those observations.

For someone to objectively study science, you have to understand what science is, and what the different disciplines are. Astrophysics <> evolution <> abiogensis.

[joer]

OccamsRazor wrote

Can a theist objectively study science
Surely a theist comes to the debate with an agenda.

Later in their discussion Occams and Harvey1 reach a consensus that the scientist as well as the theist both have their agenda or assumptions when presenting or testing their theories. You can see this early in this thread when

Havey1 wrote:
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.

Occams replied
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".

So I think Matthew7:12 is consistent with the consensus that Occams and Harvey1 reached when he wrote:

Yes, theists and atheists can have an objective viewpoint, we enter into science with bias, just as you.

To me it seemed that Cathar1950 strayed from the consensus somewhat by introducing “subject matter” as being a point of divergence from the consensus. He also wasn’t clear when he said , “One is testable and subject to change and revision the other is not.” Then he seems to try to include that divergent point in the consensus by saying, “This is true for both theist and atheist.”

Now I assume he was saying that Science is testable and subject to change and theology is not.

Matthew7:12 responded to Carthar’s ambiguity with what he thought Cathar was referring to and Tselem and Goat seem to be making points of clarification in terms of being clear in the use of terms and definitions of the scientific theories that Matthew 7:12 was talking about that he assumed Cathar introduced.

Now I agree with Occams, Harvey1and Matthew 7:14, that both a theist and atheist can study science objectively and they both come to the debate with their agenda.

I disagree with Cathar’s statement, “I think the difference is in the subject matter. One is testable and subject to change and revision the other is not.” I believe the difference is “our perception of” the subject matter. And both are “testable and subject to change and revision”. When Christ taught our God was a God of Love and not a God of “wrath and vengeance” and that he came to clarify what God is and how He loves us, and when he was tested by the Pharisees and Saducee's henchmen and so wisely evaded their traps, and people began to be changed in their perceptions of God and follow Christ’s teachings it proved that “our perceptions” of God are “testable and subject to change and revision”.

Now my agenda is this that science and religion are not in conflict with each other as many will make them out to be. But they are actually evolving to the point of actually supporting each other like many old scientific theists like Sir Isaac Newton were trying to do in their time.

I found this in my 16 year old daughter's textbook 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 possibility of science and religion’s working together in the future as well.-*

Quantum Mechanics
Religious thinkers have greeted the theory of physics called quantum mechanics as a great opportunity to find harmony with the scientific worldview. Quantum mechanics developed primarily during the middle of the twentieth century, holds that the laws of nature are not so certain after all. Analyses of nature ultimately can arrive at only probabilities, not absolute facts.
The general effects of quantum mechanics 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.

And then there are many current scientific theists like John Polkinghorne.

John Polkinghorne had a distinguished career as a Cambridge physicist before becoming, in midlife, an Anglican priest. This hour we'll hear how he applies the insights of physics to religious mysteries. His perspective transcends our cultural controversies that pit science against religion, evolution vs. creation. John Polkinghorne uses the deepest insights of modern physics to think about how the world fundamentally works and, for example, how the universe might make space for prayer.

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ript.shtml

Now I think Occams and Havey1 dropped this thread because it was clear to them that we all come to the table with our agenda.

I just laid mine out and tried to indicate how I see yours. Thank you all. It’s a pleasure reading your posts and seeing your views!

[OccamsRazor]

Do you have an objective viewpoint? Your position is bias, you assume all questions related to science can only be described by a naturalist viewpoint, you reject all other possibilities.

I make no such assumption and I do not suggest that I have an unbiased viewpoint. I think that, as joer points out, you should read the rest of my posts.

The creation of the universe is not testable, no one can re-create it

Are you sure? Do you absolutely reject that another universe could be created in a lab?

[in] fact it should not even be call "Theory" of Evolution, because of the fact, it is an assumption.

One should note that any theory is not a statement of absolute fact and is also based on assumptions. Any scientific theory must clearly state its assumptions and must be peer reviewed.

There are round 200-250 conditions that must be meet for the earth to host life. For all of these to have occurred naturally would be 10 to the 200th power

I am quite shocked at this statement. Could you provide any references for this? For the probability to make it to 200 orders of magnitude then each of these conditions must have around 10 possible outcomes. I would be suprised to see some accurate figures governing the number of conditions there were and the the number of outcomes that these conditions would have.

Here I come back to the question of objectivity. Surely in this case Matthew, you feel that you already 'know' how the universe and human life was created prior to the analysis of scientific research?

In this thread I do agree that we all come to the debate with pre-conceived ideas, however surely none can be more crippling in this matter than an idea that one already knows the answers before applying oneself to the question.

[Cathar1950]

I should make myself clear. At least as best I can.
I agree we all have bias. A theist is going to have a bias but not necessarily an agenda and I can imagine the same for atheists. But the subject of science is always open for revision.
Religion that is doctrine based will have a bias and it implies it can’t be wrong by nature of its belief. Bible believers do not look for errors in the bible or question their faith in God or Jesus. They look for ways to explain away problems with out compromising their belief system. Others may not have a belief system they need to protect. I often hear some one say “the bible has been proven right again” when all that’s found is a city the bible mentions and only shows they mentioned something historical but the meaning and does not show the bible to be perfect or even trust worthy because it is beyond the scope of the
Findings. But despite the desire to remain with an intact religious system change happens. SJ Case in his book “scientific contributions to religion” shows that change does happen and often they are compatible. But this is not true of everyone. Christology and theology have certainly developed and evolved. Any careful reading of the gospels will make this evident. They are not the same and there is a written evolution of ideas and beliefs. In science verification and explanation are the key goals as well as clarity. In religion these are impossible to verify do to the subject matter. Explanation and clarity take the lead. But like all studies they are not mutually exclusive. A person is able to see the history of these religions and there development with out commitment to the subject’s truth. Any good anthropologist takes into account the belief of the people as a given. It is the Thomas theory that allows for many insights with out the need to believe.
I am not trying to make a statement of falsifying anything rather I am trying to take into account the complexity.