When I was 6 years old I got in trouble for telling my babysitters son that Santa was fake. The whole concept of belief, at least unquestioning belief, seems really wrong to me. Not that it's wrong for you ABM, to each his own, but for me it's hard to imagine.
I don't think I can be called young man anymore, but I get your point. Have a good night brother, I have go to bed now.
going in circles, but again i think the particular semantics you are using here just panders to and aids in validating irrational thinking about questions that happen to be untestable. it happened in the post immediately following the above in this thread. i do understand you don't think that's a big deal, but you at least have to recognize that's how unqualified statements about limits on scientific knowledge like the above are invariably taken by the religious. my opinion obviously, but i think it is beneficial to recognize that all specific questions about objective reality are intrinsically of a scientific nature, even if you choose to apply the term 'unscientific' to the currently untestable. external observation is the only tool we have that has proven to be of any practical value for dealing with this type of question - while introspection, religious revelation, human instinct, and philosophy bereft of observation have a track record of being almost completely unreliable. true, although science has steadily pushed the type of higher power an informed person can rationally believe in away from traditional theism and closer to the deistic end. for the most part that's demonstratably a cultural phenomenon rooted in tradition. i find nothing significant about it.
scientists who are theists tend to a statistical high extent to have specific beliefs in line with the tradition of their cultural heritage. they aren't any different in that respect than the general population (other than that a much lower percentage of scientists are theists than the general population). there's no reason to think the typical justification for the particular traditional belief of a theistic scientist would be any different than that of the general population. scientists aren't robots. they are still human, and they still have the capacity to compartmentalize certain beliefs as the general population does, and not hold those beliefs to the same standard of rationality they would use in their profession. that's why i don't think the fact that some scientists are theists is a significant indication that a 'higher power' is necessarily not a scientific topic. if you want to make that claim there are better arguments.
Just to add to this with an anecdote, of the outspoken religious physics professors I knew in college, most were Jewish, and a couple were kind of ba'hai (I forget the proper term). I didn't know any outspoken christian fundamentalists that were professors.
I hear ya. In that same vein, though, even the Pharisees (who actually witnessed Jesus' various teachings, perform miracles, and the like) were high doubters....or, perhaps, jealous, as they had a large hand in putting Him to death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees The Apostle Paul was a Pharisee.....that is, until that fateful day on the walk to Damascus. That all said, there are scientists out there who claim to be Christians, as well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science There's other stuff out there, too... http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/evolutionary_creation.pdf
Dang I was gone for a couple days and this thread grew 10 pages! I don't even know what the hell everyone is arguing about anymore.
Acknowledging the limitations of the scientific method may indirectly validate those who seek to promote irrational thinking, but I consider the alternative (hiding or ignoring those limitations) worse. You keep using the word "pander", which is a negative, subjective, and (I believe) inaccurate description -- I am simply being honest about the strengths and limitations of science. If I understand your arguments correctly, you read this as "showing weakness to the enemy", and that may be true. But I think it's a better alternative than attempting to obscure the fact that there will always be questions unanswerable by empirical tests, and therefore outside the boundaries of science. I'll admit that there is a gray area in regards to the definition of science and how it relates to questions that are specific and objective, but not currently testable. However, I think it's largely academic. We may be able to formulate perfectly scientific-seeming questions about string theory, and which (if any) version is correct, but unless and until we can actually devise a test to sort the truth out, I have a hard time separating the pursuit from philosophy, which I do not consider to be a science in the modern sense of the word. Again, I acknowledge that this is a fuzzy boundary, and some disagree. Regardless, I think we have to acknowledge the important difference between those empirical questions we can test and those we cannot, and recognize that it is very likely (if not certain) that we will never even come close to a complete understanding of even the objective. You may call the existence of an immaterial "soul" an empirical, scientific question, but if you can't back it up with a test your views will be properly relegated to American Philosophical Quarterly rather than PRL. Absolutely. I certainly don't mean to imply that ALL religious belief is compatible with scientific knowledge. I am continuously surprised and disappointed by the crazy stuff people are willing to believe in the name of "faith". I was responding specifically to this statement: I'm guessing you were actually referring to me here, since I earlier claimed to be "well-versed in science", but I'm not interested in comparing scientific credentials or sharing personal information online. You may not understand how someone versed in science can believe religious narratives, but quite obviously some do (though generally in a much more limited sense than those unfamiliar with science).
Okay I don't know what this whole science and theist debate is all about; but there are plenty of Christian Scientists. And they aren't only the ones on the propaganda sites either. I didn't know where it was going or what it was trying to prove; but doubting this isn't true is ignorant.
Some wanted to know the definition of an agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac. I replied it's someone who lays awake at night....wondering if there really is a dog.
