The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

postcynical

Malty, I should clarify: The assumptions I referred to were the assumptions that there is harmony in nature. The Greeks naively found links between various sciences on this assumption, Newton too (regardless of the truth of this story or not). Dirac postulated the existence of antimatter on the basis that some underlying mathematical equation had to have meaning. All antimatter has since been found by following similar logic. Even today physicists look for the "God particle", the Higgs boson using apriori assumptions about the way things should be.

As you point out, Einstein was also inspired by a strong sense of the way things should be. Without these insights the scientific enterprise is just Brownian motion.

Turtwig

postcynical wrote: »

Even today physicists look for the "God particle", the Higgs boson using apriori assumptions about the way things should be.

When many Physicists refer to GOD they are referring to something entirely different to an omnipotent power/being. GOD is the way the world works, that and only that.

But yeah I agree all science must begin with a rational assumption.

marco_polo

postcynical wrote: »

Malty, I should clarify: The assumptions I referred to were the assumptions that there is harmony in nature. The Greeks naively found links between various sciences on this assumption, Newton too (regardless of the truth of this story or not). Dirac postulated the existence of antimatter on the basis that some underlying mathematical equation had to have meaning. All antimatter has since been found by following similar logic. Even today physicists look for the "God particle", the Higgs boson using apriori assumptions about the way things should be.

As you point out, Einstein was also inspired by a strong sense of the way things should be. Without these insights the scientific enterprise is just Brownian motion.

In fairness the whole God Particle thing was a ill advised pun by a single author that has stuck. The only assumptions that physicists are making about the Higgs Bosson is that it should the have properties as predicted by Standard model Physics, and have built a large collider to search at those energies where it ought to appear.

Although Hawking has been quoted as saying it will be "more interesting" if we don't find the Higgs, because that means that something is wrong with the current models.

postcynical

Malty_T wrote: »

When many Physicists refer to GOD they are referring to something entirely different to an omnipotent power/being. GOD is the way the world works, that and only that.

But yeah I agree all science must begin with a rational assumption.

Deism is a rational position.
It's a small hop from Deism to Theism;)
From there one hasn't far to go (find the right god, and right covenant):)

However even if Deism is not irrational, it is irrational to expect to explain or describe God in human terms. Hence there is no need to explicitly include God in any science, even if it is implicitly understood that He is there in the background.

It is bad science to explicitly airbrush Him out of the picture though, and just plain bad to airbrush scientists out of positions of influence simply because they can demonstrably appreciate nonscientific truths.

Turtwig

marco_polo wrote: »

Although Hawking has been quoted as saying it will be "more interesting" if we don't find the Higgs, because that means that something is wrong with the current models.

I'm hoping that too. It isn't exciting knowing stuff; it's more fun searching for it. If we just knew everything the world would be a boring place, it's not knowing that makes us interested.

postcynical

marco_polo wrote: »

In fairness the whole God Particle thing was a ill advised pun by a single author that has stuck. The only assumptions that physicists are making about the Higgs Bosson is that it should the have properties as predicted by Standard model Physics, and have built a large collider to search at those energies where it ought to appear.

Although Hawking has been quoted as saying it will be "more interesting" if we don't find the Higgs, because that means that something is wrong with the current models.

I know. I realised as I typed that mentioning the 'G-d' particle would possibly give the thread another tangent. My basic point (which is self-evident to any scientist) is that people have an a priori feel for what should happen in an experiment. Backed up perfectly by the search for the Higgs Boson. If the anecdote about Newton was true, he was still guided by some numerology, a primitive version of our standard model of particle physics.

Turtwig

postcynical wrote: »

.

Deism is a rational position.

As is atheism, or atheism agnosticism.

It's a small hop from Deism to Theism;)

Indeed, vice versa and to Agnosticism and Atheism

However even if Deism is not irrational, it is irrational to expect to explain or describe God in human terms. Hence there is no need to explicitly include God in any science, even if it is implicitly understood that He is there in the background.

Why not? God can be described in words can't he, someday we'll understand how this world works and someday hopefully we'll understand the concept of God. I do not accept that he is outside our realm of understanding. It may well be sometime after I die, but I believe (yes believe!) that we will understand everything in due course. Our life on this beautiful earth is a miracle of gigantic proportions, one that needs to be appreciated and wholly understood by ourselves.

Your quarrell is with Wicknight not me regarding the last part

Morbert

J C wrote: »

..WHY SHOULD he have to be prepared to assume that all phenomena have effective natural explanations ... when some phenomena, like the origins of life OBJECTIVELY don't ????!!!!

To engage in science, at any level, you must be willing to adopt methodological materialsim. This, incidentally, is why creationism and intelligent design are not scientific.

I have snipped the rest of your post because it was full of statements that were both untrue and unimportant.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

He already has imposed conclusions based on his faith on science. He concluded that science confirms the existence of God for crying out loud.

...I have ALREADY told you that science HAS proven that an Intelligence of God-like proportions HAS created life .... so get used to it!!!!:eek::(

Could I remind you that this is not just 'any old scientist' ... Prof Collins was the LEADER of the Human Genome Project ... and if he says that science confirms the existence of God, we should ALL sit up and LISTEN.
I don't expect anybody to accept it with a blind faith in Prof Collins ... they should obviously question every aspect of the claim closely (like ye have done for the past 16,000 + postings with me) ... but asking for the guy to be sacked, just because his considered conclusions threaten the Atheists Worldview would be an injustice on the monumental scale of the 'Galileo debacle'!!!!

...I don't believe that President Obama will change his mind on this one ... at least, I hope that he doesn't.

My primary concern, however, is for all of the OTHER Christian Scientists out there .... IF the leader of the Human Genome Project can come within a whisker of being sacked because he is a Christian what hope would an 'ordinary' scientist have under such circumstances?
...the clear conclusion from reading the postings by Atheists on this thread would be 'slim to NONE'!!!!!:(:eek:

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight: It's interesting that you make out that science excludes the possibility of the supernatural when it actually doesn't. This is why his belief in God is irrelevant. If you interpret science as something that is only atheist compatible, of course Collins won't fit. That's exactly what you and Harris do. Believing in God doesn't impact your scientific ability or your ability to carry out that post effectively.

It's nothing to do with misrepresentation, that's the reality of the situation. Many great scientists believe in God, and no doubt many great scientists will continue to believe in God. Deal with it!

Look, the article shows that Collins has trouble separating his religious beliefs from his scientific endeavours and shows inconsistencies in his positions when the evidence doesn't go his way.

On the one hand we have this:
Dr. Collins has written that science makes belief in God “intensely plausible”

And on the other we have this:
Collins will say that God stands outside of Nature, and thus science cannot address the question of his existence at all.


Either science can address the question or it can't, it is inconsistent to change your position when the evidence doesn't go your way.

The five slides mentioned in the article show assumptions that are not supported by science in any way and have no place in a science lab. Believing these things does not necessarily make someone a bad scientist, Christians are capable of being good scientists as long as they leave their beliefs at the door and operate using the scientific method but this particular Christian has shown that he has trouble doing that because his scientific position changes when the evidence doesn't go his way.

He might still be capable of the job but I would rather have someone in charge of a $30 billion budget which is to be allocated to scientific projects who has not shown an inconsistent approach because of his beliefs

robindch

postcynical wrote: »

If the anecdote about Newton was true, he was still guided by some numerology, a primitive version of our standard model of particle physics.

I wouldn't imagine that's a view shared by many of the world's physicists.

postcynical wrote: »

It is bad science to explicitly airbrush Him out of the picture though, and just plain bad to airbrush scientists out of positions of influence simply because they can demonstrably appreciate nonscientific truths.

The issue is not that Collins can "appreciate nonscientific truths", but that he thinks non-scientific falsities are true.

You wouldn't hire somebody to build your house who believed that fairies kept his buildings up. Why would one hire a geneticist who believes something analogous to this in his field?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I wouldn't imagine that's a view shared by many of the world's physicists.The issue is not that Collins can "appreciate nonscientific truths", but that he thinks non-scientific falsities are true.

You wouldn't hire somebody to build your house who believed that fairies kept his buildings up. Why would one hire a geneticist who believes something analogous to this in his field?

What do you mean by 'non-scientific falsities'? Are you saying that Collins holds beliefs that have been scientifically falsified? Or are you, from your biased standpoint, equating theism with belief in fairies?

If its the former then that would be a cause for concern. If it is the latter then you would do well to remember that the person who is doing the hiring (Obama) and the majority of the people who stump up the taxes to finance scientific research, share such a belief.

The kind of atheist bigotry I'm seeing in this thread is, IMHO, more anti-science than Creationism. By seeking to discriminate against Collins on the grounds of his religious beliefs it alienates the well-wishers that are needed if scientific research is to be funded and to be successful. If you try to turn scientific research into a purely atheist preserve then don't be surprised if you end up having to pay for your private party by yourselves.

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...
On the one hand we have this:
Dr. Collins has written that science makes belief in God “intensely plausible”

And on the other we have this:
Collins will say that God stands outside of Nature, and thus science cannot address the question of his existence at all.
...

In fairness, peoples opinions can change. What I'd like to know is whether or not he's constantly doing this and under what context? Is he trying to appease science and religon to the general public, or are these really his genuine beliefs?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Jakkass what is the sub-title of Collin's book?

A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

Sam Vimes

Again, Collins has shown that because of his religious beliefs, his scientific position can change if the evidence doesn't go his way. He personally has shown that he has trouble being objective because he believes to be true things that have not been shown to be true

Having apprehension about such a person being in charge of a $30 billion scientific administration budget is not discrimination

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

Which there is plenty of. So, he's perfectly entitled to make the argument as his own personal opinion, which he did, didn't he?

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

In fairness, peoples opinions can change. What I'd like to know is whether or not he's constantly doing this and under what context? Is he trying to appease science and religon to the general public, or are these really his genuine beliefs?

It's mentioned in the article. He came out saying that science presents evidence for God, eg the apparent order of the universe and when presented with contradictory evidence he gave the standard theistic get out clause, "science cannot address the question of God". It can when he thinks the evidence is going his way (although it's not really)

philologos

That would be your opinion Sam. Francis Collins thinks based on indication that the science leads back to a higher power. You are entitled to disagree. There is nothing 100% factual about either statement. Although I am with Collins admittedly :pac:

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Again, Collins has shown that because of his religious beliefs, his scientific position can change if the evidence doesn't go his way.

Where?

He personally has shown that he has trouble being objective because he believes to be true things that have not been shown to be true

Personal and scientific personas are two entirely different things. If what your saying is true, then only an agnostic can be scientist??

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

That would be your opinion Sam. Francis Collins thinks based on indication that the science leads back to a higher power. You are entitled to disagree. There is nothing 100% factual about either statement. Although I am with Collins admittedly :pac:

He's entitled to think whatever he wants but changing his position when the evidence doesn't go his way is inconsistent and unscientific

philologos

Sam Vimes: Have you read the Language of God at all? It would be a bit difficult to gain a view on how he regards science and religion without the dripping bias of Sam Harris clouding your judgement.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes: Have you read the Language of God at all? It would be a bit difficult to gain a view on how he regards science and religion without the dripping bias of Sam Harris clouding your judgement.

No I have not read the book just like I know that you at least didn't read the god delusion properly because I mentioned a story from it and you demanded to know where I got my information from.

However, Sam Harris gives in his article two contradictory quotes from Collins where his position changed when the evidence didn't go his way. Unless you're suggesting that Sam Harris is lying about those quotes just because of who he is then reading the book is not going to change my position on it. Maybe you should read the article properly instead of using your dripping bias against Harris to assume that he's making the quotes up

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Personal and scientific personas are two entirely different things. If what your saying is true, then only an agnostic can be scientist??

No anyone can be a scientist as long as they can separate their personal beliefs from their scientific endeavours. Collins has shown that he has difficulty doing this

robindch

PDN wrote: »

What do you mean by 'non-scientific falsities'? Are you saying that Collins holds beliefs that have been scientifically falsified?

I'm saying that Collins holds beliefs that are non-scientific, which I believe are false. You can find a list of some of them here.

PDN wrote: »

you would do well to remember that the person who is doing the hiring (Obama) and the majority of the people who stump up the taxes to finance scientific research, share such a belief.

Where exactly has Obama said that he believes everything that Collins is promoting in the slides from the list above?

PDN wrote: »

The kind of atheist bigotry

FWIW, and just so you can put your accusations of bigotry back into your drawer, I certainly don't have any great problem with Collins and I haven't seen much evidence that his religious beliefs are going to be detrimental to his ability do a good job.

PDN wrote: »

I'm seeing in this thread is, IMHO, more anti-science than Creationism. By seeking to discriminate against Collins on the grounds of his religious beliefs it alienates the well-wishers that are needed if scientific research is to be funded and to be successful.

I must confess that I can't quite follow your logic here.

A few days back you mentioned that you actually recommend christians to discriminate against non-christians in professional life.

Are you saying today that it's now wrong for it to happen the other way around, where non-christians might discriminate against christians based upon their religious beliefs?

Sam Vimes

Dr. Collins has said: “science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence”

I don't want someone who thinks like that in charge of the budgets of thousands of scientists. Why would I allocate money to people who want to find these answers if I thought they were going to fail because science cannot find them?

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

A few days back you mentioned that you actually recommend christians to discriminate against non-christians in professional life.

:eek:

That's pretty shocking tbh

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Dr. Collins has said: “science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence”

I think Collins is right in saying that a disembodied "science" doesn't answer many questions, especially those that religion does offer answers to.

That said, it's not science, but philosophy that answers these questions, or more usually, suggests that the questions being asked are meaningless, or that one can have no rational confidence that the answers being provided actually reflect anything more than the hopes and desires of the person doing the asking.

It's a subtle point and while I'm quite sure that most people miss it, I'm much less sure about whether or not Collins appreciates it. But in just strict linguistic terms, I do think that what he's saying on the epistemological front is pretty much on the money.

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

I think Collins is right in saying that is doesn't answer many questions, especially those that religion does offer answers to.

It might not right now but that doesn't mean it never can. Science is chipping away at everything that people used to turn to religion for.

robindch wrote: »

That said, it's not science, but philosophy that answers these questions, or more usually, suggests that the questions being asked are meaningless or that one can have no rational confidence that the answers being provided actually reflect anything more than the hopes and desires of the person doing the asking.

It's a subtle point and I don't know whether or not Collins has emphasized it, but in just strict linguistic terms, I do think that what he's saying on the epistemological front is pretty much on the money.

Right, so science can't answer philosophical questions but neither can religion, nothing can answer these questions. All we can do is philosophise about them and pick whichever philosophy we agree with.

But things like morality and ethics have a naturalistic, evolutionary explanation. With enough work, science can completely explain the origins and ongoing evolution of morality but they may never find the answer because the man who's responsible for allocating the budget for the project doesn't think they'll ever find it

ozzirt

Sam Vimes wrote: »

:eek:

That's pretty shocking tbh

A very "Christian" thing to do,.. NOT!

Give me a good honest Atheist any day.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

A few days back you mentioned that you actually recommend christians to discriminate against non-christians in professional life.

Are you saying today that it's now wrong for it to happen the other way around, where non-christians might discriminate against christians based upon their religious beliefs?

I don't need to stick up for PDN but that post specifically states that PDN would : "...discourage them (Christians he Pastors) from forming business partnerships with them (non Christians)..."

Pastoral advise to fellow congregants or those under a Pastor's watch in matters where he/she (the Pastor) envisages problems down the line with regards to forming business partnerships with non-Christians is a far cry from discriminating against non Christians within business at a policy level.

Wake up yall!!!