Yet another damn terrorist attack

[Jon Miller]

The issue is about whether the belief in God is opposed to science.

It is not only I and other theist scientists who recognise that science has nothing to say about the idea of existence of God. It is also my athiest colleagues. The idea of an infinite multi-universe seems to be an idea that we would never be able to investigate even with infinite technology/mathematics. Just like the existence of God.

Really, you are just as ignorant about the nature of science as my creationist relatives.

JM

[Sava]

But why should I or anyone care what you think about science?

I am the scientist (a physicist even).

JM

You seem to only employ a scientific approach in your job.

Hey, there are lots of people like you. Fat personal trainers. Therapists who are more hopeless than their patients. Doctors who smoke. Priests who rape children.

You wouldn't be the first person to work at a job and hold diametrically opposed values

[Jon Miller]

As I said, it isn't just me, it is a majority of scientists (and not just scientists that are theists).

JM

[Aeson]

I think it's one thing to hypothesize about what might be, and another to claim without evidence that it is. Agnosticism seems the logical stance to take.

If a belief is for pragmatic reasons ("it makes me feel better", or "it helps me be a better person") then I don't see any problem with believing in something. (I hold some beliefs like this. Though I think it's important to be able to intellectually accept they are just beliefs and not reality.)

[kentonio]

The issue is about whether the belief in God is opposed to science.

It is not only I and other theist scientists who recognise that science has nothing to say about the idea of existence of God. It is also my athiest colleagues. The idea of an infinite multi-universe seems to be an idea that we would never be able to investigate even with infinite technology/mathematics. Just like the existence of God.

Really, you are just as ignorant about the nature of science as my creationist relatives.

JM

You're trying to use your fellow scientists perfectly rational position that the unprovable is indeed unprovable as an shield for your own religious beliefs, and even worse trying to use them to hide behind as you throw accusations of ignorance at others. It's actually sad that you think that wasn't incredibly transparent.

[Jon Miller]

But who are you to be the arbitrator?

What we were discussing is what is science. Some questions are understood to be (By the majority of scientists. both atheist and theist) not science. Requiring scientific evidence (empirical evidence) in such situations is illogical.

We could replace all occasions of 'God' or 'theism' in my recent posts with 'infinite multi-verse' or 'belief in the infinite multi-verse' and it would be the same post.

That wouldn't mean that it was invalid to believe in God or the infinite multi-verse, only that to do so would be part of a different philosophy than pure science.

JM
(and we know that one is required to have a belief system that is more than just science)

[Jon Miller]

You're trying to use your fellow scientists perfectly rational position that the unprovable is indeed unprovable as an shield for your own religious beliefs, and even worse trying to use them to hide behind as you throw accusations of ignorance at others. It's actually sad that you think that wasn't incredibly transparent.

Your requirement that belief in God should require empirical evidence (for rational people) is pure ignorance, ignorance of science is and of the scientific method in particular.

That fact that you hold irrational positions is no reason to lash out at me; maybe you can consider it when you feel like being introspective.

JM
(It is of course purely rational to say "I believe there is no God" just like it is purely rational to say "I believe that there is a God". It is just that neither of those beliefs depend on empirical evidence. It is also purely rational to say "I don't know whether there is a God or not because I choose to not believe in things which can not be empirically proven". What is incorrect is to say is "It is more scientifically correct to only believe in things that are possible to be empirically proven and therefore ....".)

[Sava]

As I said, it isn't just me, it is a majority of scientists (and not just scientists that are theists).

JM

Sorry. I'm calling bull****. Show me a poll that shows the majority of scientists believes God talks to them and has "impressed" upon them the fact that stuff like rape and murder is wrong.

[Sava]

Your requirement that belief in God should require empirical evidence (for rational people) is pure ignorance

I sense a new meme. Scumbag scientist.

/relies on empirical evidence

/says empirical evidence isn't required



I hope this is a troll. Otherwise, you've seriously deluded yourself.

[kentonio]

Your requirement that belief in God should require empirical evidence (for rational people) is pure ignorance, ignorance of science is and of the scientific method in particular.

Given that I said absolutely nothing of the sort, perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension before you start throwing insults around like a child with ADHD? I've said numerous times that people can believe whatever they want, but if those beliefs are completely unsubstantiated, defy rationality and don't even make sense within their own context then don't try and tell me that those are beliefs I have to hold the slightest respect for.

Oh and please stop trying to claim that I'm ignorant of the scientific method, you're just making yourself look like a ****.

That fact that you hold irrational positions is no reason to lash out at me; maybe you can consider it when you feel like being introspective.

The only position I've really expressed here is that belief in something fantastical should not carry equal weight to disbelief in the fantasical. If you consider that irrational, then perhaps you need to grow up and move beyond the intellectual level of a child reading a Peter Pan book?

It's also worth mentioning that the 'lashing out' started with one person, and that person was you. The line was..

Whenever see posts like this from people who oppose theism, I wonder how they can be so unthinking.

..it's a pain when things like empirical evidence exist to disprove your theories, isn't it..

[Lorizael]

Sorry. I'm calling bull****. Show me a poll that shows the majority of scientists believes God talks to them and has "impressed" upon them the fact that stuff like rape and murder is wrong.

He's saying that most scientists, whether atheist or theist, adhere to a philosophy known as methodological naturalism. Apply the scientific method to questions about nature; don't apply the scientific method to questions not about nature (either because there is nothing beyond nature, or because science has nothing to say about that which is beyond nature).

[Sava]

He's saying that most scientists, whether atheist or theist, adhere to a philosophy known as methodological naturalism. Apply the scientific method to questions about nature; don't apply the scientific method to questions not about nature (either because there is nothing beyond nature, or because science has nothing to say about that which is beyond nature).

Ah. Okay. Thank you for clearly communicating this. Jon Miller is not a very good communicator.

[Jon Miller]

I think I agree with that.

JM

[Sava]

aw no frowny JM

now I feel bad

It is more frustration on my part. I read your statements and they sound very... odd. I realize what you are trying to say. Lori did a great job of clearly expressing that idea. I'm just having a bit of fun with you.

[Jon Miller]

If you want to see me being terrible at communicating (at probably the best forum I have ever had) you can watch me

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neutrinos14/miller/

In my defence as an experimentalist I always give powerpoint talks and giving a blackboard talk (Even one that I had given before in powerpoint form) was a lot more difficult than I expected.

JM