Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence

Amadan · Mar 15, 2011

The "formal logical sense" you wave away is the precise point: science is all about formal logical sense, which is why when people claim that scientists are claiming science can disprove God, they are being deliberately and purposefully disingenuous, trying to portray science as just another dogma.

RainyDayNinja said:
...then it's not hard to read between the lines and see what he's really getting at. While they may not be technically the same, I see no practical difference between claiming "Science has disproven God," and "Science has removed all reasons for believing in God, so anyone who still does is a complete idiot."

There is nothing to read "between the lines"; what he says is quite clear. There is no evidence for God. There is no evidence for fairies. There is no stronger reason for believing in God than there is for believing in fairies. We cannot disprove God, we cannot disprove fairies. They are equally likely to exist, and it makes as much sense to believe in one as it does to believe in the other.

If you disagree, then a logical argument would be to present evidence for God that is stronger than the evidence for fairies, not complain that Dawkins is mean and dogmatic for comparing God to fairies.

(And to my knowledge, Dawkins has never said "Anyone who believes in God is a complete idiot," nor has he implied it. This is another lie that is constantly being repeated about him and every other strong advocate of atheism. "Anyone who believes in God is wrong" is not the same thing as "Anyone who believes in God is stupid." Dawkins is aware, as is every atheist, that there are plenty of intelligent and educated people who believe in God. It would be ridiculous to claim that every single believer is an idiot. That doesn't mean they aren't wrong.)

benbradley · Mar 15, 2011

aruna said:
Check out What the Bleep do we Know? Down the Rabbit Hole.

The first bit, the NewsReal, is a bit silly. The serious discussion comes later.

Every time I see mention if that movie I feel compelled to post a link to Quantum Mysticism.

benbradley · Mar 15, 2011

Amadan said:
The "formal logical sense" you wave away is the precise point: science is all about formal logical sense, which is why when people claim that scientists are claiming science can disprove God, they are being deliberately and purposefully disingenuous, trying to portray science as just another dogma.

There is nothing to read "between the lines"; what he says is quite clear. There is no evidence for God. There is no evidence for fairies. There is no stronger reason for believing in God than there is for believing in fairies. We cannot disprove God, we cannot disprove fairies. They are equally likely to exist, and it makes as much sense to believe in one as it does to believe in the other.

If you disagree, then a logical argument would be to present evidence for God that is stronger than the evidence for fairies, not complain that Dawkins is mean and dogmatic for comparing God to fairies.

(And to my knowledge, Dawkins has never said "Anyone who believes in God is a complete idiot," nor has he implied it. This is another lie that is constantly being repeated about him and every other strong advocate of atheism. "Anyone who believes in God is wrong" is not the same thing as "Anyone who believes in God is stupid." Dawkins is aware, as is every atheist, that there are plenty of intelligent and educated people who believe in God. It would be ridiculous to claim that every single believer is an idiot. That doesn't mean they aren't wrong.)

Bertrand Russel covered this (specifically the second paragraph) a while back with his Celestial Teapot.

aruna · Mar 16, 2011

benbradley said:
Every time I see mention if that movie I feel compelled to post a link to Quantum Mysticism.

I note that that wiki article falls back on the old cliche of New Age. That's why I said the video is pretty shallow. But for some people, it might be a beginning; but I do wish this stipd meme of New Age would disappear off the face of the earth. It distorts everything.
Whereas everyone respects and revers science, "mysticism" is just some vague New Age cloud that embraces a thousand various theories, junk mixed up with truth, and nobody takes it seriously.

True mysticicm, which has NOTHING to do with New Age, will probably only be taken seriously by the general population when the scientists themselves begin to take it seriously , and that means in practice, not in theory.
One such scientist was Karl-Friedrich von Weizsaecker, a German physicist who worken on neculear fusion inthe Third Reich. He deliberately stalled the work because he knew that such a thing should never get into Hitler's hands. After the war he turned to philosophy, and in particular to Indian and Advaitic philosophy, which is based on experience.
He later wrote a book on the subject, Im Garten des Menschlichen, which is not translated into English. But his take on the subject -- learnt through his own experience of meditation and a visit to the the most important Advaitic ashram in India will, I predict, one day be taken a bit more seriously. In fact, I've translated a bit from that book for my own non-fiction book. And I'm not going to give it away here!

One English book which can, for the most part, give a useful understanding of the subject is The Holotropic Mind by Grof .... something.

Fact is, we, including scientists, know squat about the mind. And there is a very definitie link between quantum physics and avaita. Advaitists have said for thousands of years that there is no difference between space, time, mind, and matter. And that this knowledge can be directly experienced.

Amadan · Mar 16, 2011

aruna said:
True mysticicm, which has NOTHING to do with New Age, will probably only be taken seriously by the general population when the scientists themselves begin to take it seriously , and that means in practice, not in theory.

Why should they? "Mysticism" is no different than God. It's a belief in supernatural, unfalsifiable phenomena.

Fact is, we, including scientists, know squat about the mind. And there is a very definitie link between quantum physics and avaita. Advaitists have said for thousands of years that there is no difference between space, time, mind, and matter. And that this knowledge can be directly experienced.

What does that have to do with quantum physics?

aruna · Mar 16, 2011

Amadan said:
Why should they? "Mysticism" is no different than God. It's a belief in supernatural, unfalsifiable phenomena.

You prove my point. You have a definition for "mysticism", and dump everything ridiculous into that. No differentiation whatsoever, no neutral examination.

What does that have to do with quantum physics?

Everything.

The importance of Advaita Vedanta is that it makes the claim that at the ultimate level, the universe will be seen to have as its origin, not in discrete, multiple particles, but a single homogenous structure beyond time and space.

(Not perhaps the best website, just the one that popped up first.)

Amadan · Mar 16, 2011

aruna said:
You prove my point. You have a definition for "mysticism", and dump everything ridiculous into that. No differentiation whatsoever, no neutral examination.

Give me a definition for "mysticism" then. Sounds like "Supernatural stuff I believe in but want to deny is religious or supernatural in nature."

(Not perhaps the best website, just the one that popped up first.)

Yeah, more quantum flapdoodle. I'm not a physicist and frankly, most quantum theory goes way over my head, but I know when I'm reading nonsense that takes some vague elements of quantum physics, links it to vague mystical premises like "The universe is all one," and claims that a bunch of equations demonstrate that their religion can be proven with quantum physics.

From the site:

"Physicists during their years of learning quantum physics have learnt to accept one impossible fact every morning before breakfast, so that they are capable of believing anything as long as it is supported by theory and experiment."

Yeah, this is exactly the sort of bullshit people who don't actually understand science say about science, people who think that you can just substitute the word "quantum" for "magic."

Maxx · Mar 16, 2011

Amadan said:
Yeah, this is exactly the sort of bullshit people who don't actually understand science say about science, people who think that you can just substitute the word "quantum" for "magic."

You might even say that relativistic Quantum physics has taken the dynamic wonder out of magic and put it into science. For example, the concept of the aether was used as a dumping ground for anything that required a lightspeed interval -- for example, electromagnetic fields or radiation -- but that dumping ground was cleaned up and analyzed into a number of different aspects such as vaccum energy, relativistic dynamics, pair-production (where a high energy pulse can become matter) and so on.

veinglory · Mar 16, 2011

Except that magical think as more to do with: I can change the world just with my willpower, and if I am good the physical universe will reward me.

Maxx · Mar 16, 2011

veinglory said:
Except that magical think as more to do with: I can change the world just with my willpower, and if I am good the physical universe will reward me.

Magical systems also can use elaborate systems of correspondences, which makes them scientifically useful at a certain stage of cataloging. Or at least it did in the early 17th century when reporting networks and printing presses began to make the assemblage of information into a public process.

Of course by the late 19th century,the number of physical functions to be performed by such undefined mechanisms as "the aether" or "developmental archetypes" made the world seem a bit more magical and some of this anticipated magic ended up in quantum physics and genetics by 1930. And the popular comprehension of the world seems to have stopped acquiring new mechanisms in about 1920, or about 10 years before the magical aura would have been shifted into an entirely new area of human expectation.

Mara · Mar 16, 2011

You know, I find it kinda interesting that agnostic scientists are often treated as atheists when people talk about statistics. That's kinda like the habit in the LGBT community of ignoring bisexual people and counting them as straight or gay, depending on the speaker's bias and what argument they're trying to make. Like when someone counts anyone above a zero on the Kinsey Scale as "gay" in order to artificially inflate our numbers.

So, that Stephen Jay Gould survey shows that of the top scientists, one-fourth are not atheists. That's a pretty sizable number, much larger than the tiny numbers that are often cited. For example, in this thread, walkingcontradiction cites a figure of 92% for NAS scientists who are atheists, then links an article that clearly says it's only 79%.

There's still a clear atheist majority, and I'm not really interested in getting in a big dispute over science vs. religion (because I side with science, and though I am a theist or agnostic, I worship a God who's an atheist--yeah, it's weird), but I just kinda felt like it would be ironic to discuss science without focusing on accuracy and nuance.

Amadan · Mar 16, 2011

Mara said:
You know, I find it kinda interesting that agnostic scientists are often treated as atheists when people talk about statistics. That's kinda like the habit in the LGBT community of ignoring bisexual people and counting them as straight or gay, depending on the speaker's bias and what argument they're trying to make. Like when someone counts anyone above a zero on the Kinsey Scale as "gay" in order to artificially inflate our numbers.

So, that Stephen Jay Gould survey shows that of the top scientists, one-fourth are not atheists. That's a pretty sizable number, much larger than the tiny numbers that are often cited. For example, in this thread, walkingcontradiction cites a figure of 92% for NAS scientists who are atheists, then links an article that clearly says it's only 79%.

There's still a clear atheist majority, and I'm not really interested in getting in a big dispute over science vs. religion (because I side with science, and though I am a theist or agnostic, I worship a God who's an atheist--yeah, it's weird), but I just kinda felt like it would be ironic to discuss science without focusing on accuracy and nuance.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Most surveys either specify "atheists and agnostics" (or "non-religious") or specify "atheist" and do not include agnostics in that category. (I personally believe that most agnostics are atheists, but I won't argue with someone who insists on calling himself or herself an agnostic.)

aruna · Mar 17, 2011

Amadan said:
Give me a definition for "mysticism" then. Sounds like "Supernatural stuff I believe in but want to deny is religious or supernatural in nature.

"

I don't believe in anything supernatural. I don't believe in a God sitting up in heaven, fairies, ghosts, auras, crystals or any other New Age stuff.

Advaita is a very ancient teaching that is entirely respectable, studied at doctorate level at top universities, based entirely on reason, and verifiable.

Its central teaching is that there is no matter, no space and time, nothing but one substance. Matter is not real; it is all only energy.

This central statement is being proven, it seems., by Quantum Physics.
The approach is different, that is true: Advaitists approach it through strict analysis of mind (because mind too is ove that one substance), scientists through strict analysis of matter. The end is the same.

I've no quarrel with words. If "mysticism" for you inherently means "flapdoodle", then OK, Advaita and other similar Eastern teachings do not belong in that category. But to dismiss everything that is not analysis of matter just because it is not analysis of matter is not scientific. It is a rejection based on emotion, a refusal to look at anything outside your own familiar terrirtory as a neutral observer.

aruna · Mar 17, 2011

veinglory said:
Except that magical think as more to do with: I can change the world just with my willpower, and if I am good the physical universe will reward me.

That too is typical New Age speak. Nothing like that appears in Advaita; it's known as "spiritual narcissism" and is actually the very opposite of any spiritual practice worthy of the name, and highly discouraged.
In fact, all the genuinly "spiritual" people I know (is that word too contaminated?) are extremely stoical. Hardship is welcomed as much as good times, or even more so, because nothing is more conducive to spiritual growth than hardship; it develops backbone. A good example are the Japanese in this time of trial.

veinglory · Mar 17, 2011

I was describing magical thinking, so more your neo-shaman,witch,confused eclectic such as I have met in large numbers in the UK and US at conventions that sell dream catchers and angel tarot decks on the same stall and run sessions on how to heal your dogs chakra points with crystals (I kid you not). (Why was I there, well, it's all kind of fascinating in a weird way).

aruna · Mar 19, 2011

Nothing worse than Americans or Brits who spend a couple months in Asia, Africa or South America, pick up a few inaccurate indescriminate soundbites from several very old, established traditions, mix them all up in a stew, inject them with their own made-up Instant Enlightenment techniques, and then give courses, write books, and organise seminars to Spread the Word and Change the World. That, in a nutshell, is New Age.

veinglory · Mar 19, 2011

That an a similar treatment of what they imagine Celtic historical culture was like.

kowalskil · Apr 6, 2011

Ninjas Love Nixon said:
Hi Kowalskil,

I think the 'violence' between certain deists and scientists is less epistemological, and more political.

Science is not an ideology, it is a methodology. It has nothing to say about anything that cannot be hypothesised and measured. Scientific findings can certainly be leveraged against theological positions, but rhetoric (on different sides) has sought to grotesquely monumentalise 'science' for motives that are neither scientific nor theological.

I don't see the issue as 'theology versus science', but 'vested power versus deconstruction.'

That is certainly part of it. I am trying to focus on what seems to be basis, futile "we know better" conflicts between theists and atheists. Addressing differences between religions, political uses of religions, etc. would complicate the issue. One topic at the time is already a challenge.

Ludwik
.

kowalskil · Apr 6, 2011

WalkingContradiction said:
The position advocated by person 2 (on your posted website) is 'non-overlapping magisteria', short NOMA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

The problem with it is that it's wrong. If sciene can't say anything about it, why on earth would theology be capable of contributing anything new? Admittably, there are scientists who hold this view (including Stephen J. Gould who coined the term), yet they obviously lack the epistemological understanding of why the scientific method is so important. In my view, such people may be good scientists 'in the lab', but not in the true, philosophical sense (I see good philosophy and science as closely linked together).

Take for instance the infamous case of Francis Collins (head of the human genome project), who turned to Christianity after seeing a frozen waterfall that reminded him of the trinity. What is going on there? It's an interesting case of double-standards, if one of his scientists came to a conclusion about science in such a way in the lab, Collins would most likely personally fire him!

Yet there are also other positions apart from NOMA. There are scientists who believe science validates God. Now this view is definitely smarter than the above, but it's also most likely wrong. All the 'design' arguments have been discredited so far, and there just isn't any other tangible evidence for any sort of God.

There's the interesting phenomenon about lots of physicists being deists. But you also have to be careful there, first of all, most of the time their beliefs have nothing whatsoever in common with a personal God. In some cases it hardly even qualifies as deism. When Einstein said 'god doesn't play dice', he just meant the elegant order of the universe. I find it an interesting semantic phenomenon that physicists keep referring to such principles as 'god', when in fact they have nothing in common with Yahwe or any other religiously based god figure. Same with Hawking, who now finally distanced himself from the god mataphore.

Not to forget, according ot a 1998 survey, 92% of the National Academy of Sciences physicists are still atheists, so the 'many religious physicists' only make up 8% in that field. Still, it is more than biologists (only 5.5% believers), for the obvious reason that evolution shows how complexity arises spontaneously, thereby destroying and even inverting any form of the ontological argument. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Kenneth Miller, a very smart biologist that, among other things, testified in the Dover trial in favor of evolution, wrote a book called 'Finding Darwin's God'. In it he tries to first convince creationists that evolution is right. I'm pretty sure that because he himself is a Christian, and because he uses excellent arguments (including theological ones for why a creationist god would be a fraud), his book is much more convincing to creationists than Dawkins' 'The Greatest Show on Earth'. So that part of the book is good. But now comes the problem: in the latter part of the book, Miller starts to babble about esoteric interpretations of quantum mechanics. He's not a physicist! This illustrates the desperate attempts of rationalization for religious scientists. This isn't scientific! Miller would be appalled if some physicist claimed to have found God in the 'intelligent design of nature'. Not to mention that even many theologians would have serious problems with Miller's descriptions of his god.

Altogether, it can be said that while religious scientists do exist, they're being fundamentally untrue to the scientific method.

By the way, I used 'atheists / agnostics / non-believers' interchangably because to me they're effectually identical; the only difference being how the people interpret their own disbelief. Are there people agnostic about the tooth fairy? If yes, they're in the same sense agnostic than most agnostics AND atheists are agnostic about god.

It's often said that you can't prove god nor disprove him. I agree that you most likely can't prove god, that's cus he most likely doesn't exist. If he existed, one could find evidence for it.

And obviously in most cases one can't prove a negative. Yet I wouldn't even go as far an a priori accept that god is non-disprovable. Clearly, a squared circle is disprovable because of internal inconsistencies. Apply that concept to the definition of 'god', and depending on the definitions there are lots of huge inconsistencies! More to this approach here: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/110595

Sorry I didn't mean to write the essay for you haha. I'll look at the comments at the website you posted again, maybe something else worth mentioning will occur to me.

Thank you for the very informative essay. I plan to post a better draft, perhaps this evening or tomorrow.

Ludwik
.

rwam · Apr 18, 2011

I'd be wary of ANY survey that attempted to pinpoint the percentage of scientists who believed in a god. It would seem to me that some scientists may feel embarrassed (or fear losing credibility) if they answered 'yes'.

aruna · Apr 30, 2011

Amadan said:
There is nothing to read "between the lines"; what he says is quite clear. There is no evidence for God. There is no evidence for fairies. There is no stronger reason for believing in God than there is for believing in fairies. We cannot disprove God, we cannot disprove fairies. They are equally likely to exist, and it makes as much sense to believe in one as it does to believe in the other.

.)

rwam said:
I'd be wary of ANY survey that attempted to pinpoint the percentage of scientists who believed in a god. It would seem to me that some scientists may feel embarrassed (or fear losing credibility) if they answered 'yes'.

It's really a question of definitions. The word "God" does not have a specific definition written in stone. If you are to say that God is some kind of supernatural being living up inthe sky who created the world and holds the strings in his hands -- then no, I don't believe in God and obviously, such a being cannot be proven. It's IMO not helpful at all to insist that that is the only defintiion of God. I don't know a single person who still believes in such a God. Not one. He's a straw man.

God as pure spirit, however, the first source and fundamental building block of all there is, universally present: yes, I believe in that, and I have no problem calling "it" God. And many scientists do believe in such a God -- and can prove its existence.

Amadan · Apr 30, 2011

aruna said:
It's really a question of definitions. The word "God" does not have a specific definition written in stone. If you are to say that God is ome kind of supernatural being living up inthe sky who created the world and holds the strings in his hands -- then no, I don't believe in God and obviously, such a being cannot be proven.
God as pure spirit, however, the first source and fundamental building block of all there is, universally present: yes, I believe in that, and I have no problem calling "it" God. And many scientists do believe in such a God -- and can prove its existence.

How?

Zoombie · May 1, 2011

If anyone could prove there was a god, there would be no question about worship. That's the idea behind proof!

aruna · May 1, 2011

Again, definitions are necessary.
What do you mean by God?
What by worship?
Worship is only possible with a separate god up in the sky.
Think beyond that, and worship is superfluous.

Amadan · May 1, 2011

aruna said:
Again, definitions are necessary.
What do you mean by God?
What by worship?
Worship is only possible with a separate god up in the sky.
Think beyond that, and worship is superfluous.

You said:

God as pure spirit, however, the first source and fundamental building block of all there is, universally present: yes, I believe in that, and I have no problem calling "it" God. And many scientists do believe in such a God -- and can prove its existence.

How can scientists prove the existence of such a God?

Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence

It's a doggy dog world

It's a doggy dog world

On a wing and a prayer

On a wing and a prayer

Got the hang of it, here

volitare nequeo

Got the hang of it, here

Clever User Title

On a wing and a prayer

On a wing and a prayer

volitare nequeo

On a wing and a prayer

volitare nequeo

On a wing and a prayer

Dragon of the Multiverse

On a wing and a prayer