Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If he's the guy I'm thinking of, then no, I didn't buy his books on the Genome project and yes, i did hear him coming out with theist - based fallacy like 'Atheists are illogical in saying that there is no God' which is HIM being illogical as he misrepresents atheist disbelief as a positive claim and conflates a possible 'god' with a particular god. He ought to know better.
However, if that is NOT the person you had in mind, please make your point and don't make me guess.
Certainly, being religious, ingrained with a "Catholic" or Buddhist or Muslim perspective does not necessarily limit one's ability to be logical in pursuing a questioning process, especially when that process has been laid out in great detail.
The problem arises when we come to that necessary part of the process called "Conclusions". You know; the Hypothesis, Method & Materials, Observations/Data, Results and then... OMG:
Conclusions.
That's the only part where the erudite scientist can apply his experience, his biases, the results of his research and independent conclusions on the work of others, to his own findings. And predictably this is also the part where the study's flaws, it's biases and it's errors are all to be muddled through. It's the part where colleagues jump in for their "peer review", and where they call out the obtuse, the illogical, the unsupported and the purely fallacious.
Many non-scientist Christians claim the results provided in this section as the inerrant evidence that so-and-so's work "proves" that there is life after death, or that ghosts do inhabit the attic, or that god had to have made all of us.
Nope. This is just the point where the individual scientist may well demonstrate his own fallibility, his own lack of good judgment or his own research design failings, and the vultures WILL descend, I guarantee it. Unless, of course, the work is obviouslyelegant and thorough and the conclusions are limited to those that can realistically be made, and the purety of the original question and design are obvious.
Grossly over-reaching and exaggerating such conclusions is most often seen in the scientifically illiterate.
But still, anyone with half a brain can apply the method, and sure enough, "answers" will be obtained. On the more difficult philosophical questions about our human origins, our descent into humanity, our purpose; you know: where the results need rational interpretation but which can never be fully and conclusively answered, those individuals whose underlying Christian agenda surfaces will for sure bias their interpretations, and potentially come to the wrong conclusions.
It's also telling that they will not brook any conversation, any debate, on those statements. Unlike unbiased secular scientists, they do not happily invite that cornerstone of good science: the open peer review and the pointing out of design flaws, which are part off nearly every complex study. Nope: they just want us to take their results and their conclusions at absolute face value, else they label us biased and juvenile.
In other words, they chose to ram their conclusions down our throats, or they threaten to take their marbles and leave the playground. (Insert Foot Stomping Here) [NOTE: they also assume they are an indispensable part of the action... ]
Good riddance, I say!
Couldn't rep you but - excellent. You said what I was trying to say, but better.
If he's the guy I'm thinking of, then no, I didn't buy his books on the Genome project and yes, i did hear him coming out with theist - based fallacy like 'Atheists are illogical in saying that there is no God' which is HIM being illogical as he misrepresents atheist disbelief as a positive claim and conflates a possible 'god' with a particular god. He ought to know better.
However, if that is NOT the person you had in mind, please make your point and don't make me guess.
Should read the whole interview but here's an excerpt,
"SPIEGEL: Some scientist don't rule out a belief in God. Francis Collins, for example …
Venter: … That's his issue to reconcile, not mine. For me, it's either faith or science - you can't have both.
SPIEGEL: So you don't consider Collins to be a true scientist?
Venter: Let's just say he's a government administrator."
Snap!
Thank you very much. From the first link:
"The whole tenor of Collins’s argument is that his acceptance of God is based on empirical evidence. In this sense he puts it on the same plane as his science, and this is the pollution that has always troubled me."
As I have said: Theist scientists can do good work and even earn awards for it but there is always the risk that their Faith will compromise their science.
That's good enough. It is far too easy for the atheist to see the worst kind of science - denying Creationist as typical.
However, having said that, taking the view that god - belief is illogical and unscientific, I see a basic conflict and potential compromising of the scientific view (should there be a conflict of evidence v faith) in any scientist having religious Faith. It's true that this may not become apparent. It many never come out.
Nevertheless, as I say, I have heard scientists of faith saying things which did not accord with logic and the scientific method.
Someday science should perhaps be done by mini-robots, but until that day it'll have to be done by people. And I'm skeptical that any functioning human being limits their beliefs only to that which can be shown by logic. Whether it's a belief about justice or liberty or romance or beauty or equality or friendship or defense policy that can not be shown by logic most scientists I think have something. And if they don't I'm skeptical they could be functional, in human terms. (They could probably be functional in doing science and in the "they are not a danger to themselves and others" sense. That's a fairly low threshold though)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Thank you very much. From the first link:
"The whole tenor of Collins’s argument is that his acceptance of God is based on empirical evidence. In this sense he puts it on the same plane as his science, and this is the pollution that has always troubled me."
As I have said: Theist scientists can do good work and even earn awards for it but there is always the risk that their Faith will compromise their science.
Even if you find what he's saying on God illogical is there any evidence it effects his actual doing in science? Or that Venter is even doing anything better in his field?
And really there would be a risk of compromise if they have almost any beliefs of any kind. Socialist, Libertarian, Feminist, Green, etc. If they even have a "belief" that string theory "must be true because it's so elegant", as I think Brian Greene seemed to indicate was his belief, that could bias them against other theories. Humans are not purely impartial or logical. I don't think the scientific system is even set up with that assumption anymore. If an individual scientists' theories are flawed due to their religion or politics or sense of aesthetics or because their ex-wife has an alternate theory the evidence and peer-review is supposed to handle that.
Last edited by Thomas R.; 08-28-2010 at 06:50 AM..
Someday science should perhaps be done by mini-robots, but until that day it'll have to be done by people. And I'm skeptical that any functioning human being limits their beliefs only to that which can be shown by logic. Whether it's a belief about justice or liberty or romance or beauty or equality or friendship or defense policy that can not be shown by logic most scientists I think have something. And if they don't I'm skeptical they could be functional, in human terms. (They could probably be functional in doing science and in the "they are not a danger to themselves and others" sense. That's a fairly low threshold though)
Dreamin' Spires asked me to give an example of theist selective thinking - the inability to take points on board. Bingo. You still cannot get off this 'Straw Vulcan' idea. Science is not done by robots and it doesn't need to be. We need imagination. We need the ability to think outside of the box. We need just the sort of theorizing and guesswork that theists and cultists do. But what we need to do then is to apply logical and scientific rigour to those ideas to test them, falsify then and check them, repeat them and peer - review them.
That is what Theism and cultism doesn't do. Instead they rely at best on fudging the facts to fit, ignoring the facts and relying on Faith and, at worst, dismissing science, fiddling science and decrying science.
Now, Theists scientists generally don't do the latter, though I was astonished to find a 'scientist' working at the Creation museum where, of course, non -Creationists are not allowed to work. But what we do get is mental areas where illogic and poor science such as ID/Creationism is preferred to rigorously following the evidence.
A case in point is Einstein, no less, who would not reappraise his Faith in 'God' who 'does not play dice' and who wasted the rest of his life trying to make it work. Einstein at least was scientist enough to concede that he couldn't. But there are some who are not so scientifically honest, no matter how many books they have published or awards they have won in other areas.
This is not to address the other kind who at least keep the two areas separate - one part of the brain for science, the other for faith. But, if ever the two should clash, look out science.
Quote:
Even if you find what he's saying on God illogical is there any evidence it effects his actual doing in science? Or that Venter is even doing anything better in his field?
And really there would be a risk of compromise if they have almost any beliefs of any kind. Socialist, Libertarian, Feminist, Green, etc. If they even have a "belief" that string theory "must be true because it's so elegant", as I think Brian Greene seemed to indicate was his belief, that could bias them against other theories. Humans are not purely impartial or logical. I don't think the scientific system is even set up with that assumption anymore. If an individual scientists' theories are flawed due to their religion or politics or sense of aesthetics or because their ex-wife has an alternate theory the evidence and peer-review is supposed to handle that.
Science and Faith has rubbed along well enough, I grant you. I ..well I can be fairly tolerant about it, though it don't sound like it. Just that first I had to look at certains 'Many scientists are theists' claims with the implication that theism must be credibly science - based and then finding out that Creationism was (at one time at least) trying to buy the debate by churning out creationists with 'their' "Science" certificates.
And seeing a couple of docus. with theist scientists coming out with illogic - well, it was disturbing.
I do not know any scientist who yet says that string theory is true, much less elegant. It is a theory at least - like Mystic's intelligent nature, but it still requires proving. Perhaps the mathematics has proved it rather like dark Cosmic power, but there's always room for reappraisal - except where Faith is concerned.
As for political and social issues, logic is more appropriate than science, though I do think science can furnish answers as to how and why we think as we do. That said, you do seem to need to disentagle some confused thinking before addressing these matters, if only to give logic and science a fair deal.
Of course, you (and Dreamin') may think I don't give Theism a fair deal. I do try to be logical and evidence based, but perhaps that's what looks like an unfair deal.
So Awk, I take it you didn't buy the hardcovers of Francis Collins' (head of the Human Gnome Project) books?
GldnRule, You'd be far better served by reading Craig Venter's works (the true inventor and ongoing prolific creator of The global genome project) rather than what truly objective scientists realize is Collins' very modified ramblings. He is apparently willing to forgo his professional career status as an unbiased scientist, probably for the temptation of big buck$$$ gleaned from the faithful, who love a good charlatan "scientist" to prop up their opinions and biases.
Collins' singular vote versus hundreds of thousands of credible trained professionals? If in your mind it's a majority-rules vote*, who wins?
*but... scientific truth has never been based on popular votes. See: Darwin.
If he's the guy I'm thinking of, then no, I didn't buy his books on the Genome project and yes, i did hear him coming out with theist - based fallacy like 'Atheists are illogical in saying that there is no God' which is HIM being illogical as he misrepresents atheist disbelief as a positive claim and conflates a possible 'god' with a particular god. He ought to know better.
However, if that is NOT the person you had in mind, please make your point and don't make me guess.
Yeah, that's him. But the books he wrote I'm talking about, are his two books on Faith/Belief.
The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief
Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith
"Collins' singular vote versus hundreds of thousands of credible trained professionals? If in your mind it's a majority-rules vote*, who wins?"
...I mean, you are a great fan of 'Appeal to Authority aren't you?
Oh...most scientists (the top guys anyway) ARE Believers...some just save themselves the hassle by not admitting it.
I have noted before---Belief is the "litmus-test" for the "best of the best" scientists. The VERY top echelon are Believers (with some exceptions, of course)...the lesser, not so much. It appears to be a "sliding scale" correlation--The more Belief, the better the scientist...less Belief, and weeeeeell, you get the picture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
]
