Theology and Science (Split from "Females")

[Steve Weiss]

This thread has been split from here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=205049), and discusses means by which some meld their deistic beliefs with their work in science.


*****


You have posted a series of unsupported ("faith based")assertions, one apparently based on a survey you heard about on a "local radio station". I posted the results of a study that refuted that assertion. You have not commented on that. You have simply made another series of apparently "faith based" assertions.

I have made no unsupported assertions. Although I am a theist, I have not even asserted that "God exists". Yet you have the gall to insist that you cannot discuss "faith" with me unless I first reject it.

Is it any surprise to you that other people don't want to discuss philosopy, science, maths with you? A discussion with someone who merely asserts things to be true without argument or evidence is not possible, as I am sure you will be the first to agree. And yet you have done this, and I have not.

I don't think females are the problem here, Steve. Think about it.

Cheers

Lizzie

You are a theist but you have not asserted that a god exists? Please explain that one. You also state that you are a Christian, and yet you don't assert that god exists. Do words have meanings, or do you make them up as you go along?

[Febble]

You are a theist but you have not asserted that a god exists?

Sure, I'm a scientist, I don't assert anything. I'm an "evolutionist" too. What that means is that I accept that the theory of evolution is supported by the evidence. I do not assert that it is true. It may not be. That's the beauty of science. But for all practical purposes I assume that it is true, because it is a hard-working theory that enables good science to be done. I do some of it myself.

Similarly, I as a theist I do not assert that God exists. There is no way of knowing for sure, and, moreover, unlike a scientific proposition, it cannot be falsified. So to assert it as an objective statement would be meaningless. But I assume that it is true, for the practical purposes of living my life, just as I assume that I have free will, for the practical purposes of living my life. I don't assert that either God or free will exist, because I have no evidence, and can have no evidence, for either proposition.

And what this has to do with "females" goodness only knows, except that I am one, I am a scientist, and I don't make unsupportable assertions (having as much respect for logic as any man, and more than some).

Do words have meanings, or do you make them up as you go along?

No, but I do expect people to read the ones I write.

[Steve Weiss]

Sure, I'm a scientist, I don't assert anything. I'm an "evolutionist" too. What that means is that I accept that the theory of evolution is supported by the evidence. I do not assert that it is true. It may not be. That's the beauty of science. But for all practical purposes I assume that it is true, because it is a hard-working theory that enables good science to be done. I do some of it myself.

Similarly, I as a theist I do not assert that God exists. There is no way of knowing for sure, and, moreover, unlike a scientific proposition, it cannot be falsified. So to assert it as an objective statement would be meaningless. But I assume that it is true, for the practical purposes of living my life, just as I assume that I have free will, for the practical purposes of living my life. I don't assert that either God or free will exist, because I have no evidence, and can have no evidence, for either proposition.

And what this has to do with "females" goodness only knows, except that I am one, I am a scientist, and I don't make unsupportable assertions (having as much respect for logic as any man, and more than some).



No, but I do expect people to read the ones I write.

What would distinguish you from an agnostic? To say that you are a Christian and a theist would appear to commit you to position of support for the existence of a deity, no? It also seems that you support the arbitrary based upon assumptions or whims, if you like. You just believe even though admit that you have no evidence and can have no evidence for your views. That is a very female way of looking at things. You hold your ideas, not because they are valid or true but because you feel like it. And you claim to be scientific?

[Febble]

What would distinguish you from an agnostic? To say that you are a Christian and a theist would appear to commit you to position of support for the existence of a deity, no? It also seems that you support the arbitrary based upon assumptions or whims, if you like. You just believe even though admit that you have no evidence and can have no evidence for your views. That is a very female way of looking at things. You hold your ideas, not because they are valid or true but because you feel like it. And you claim to be scientific?


This post is mostly irrelevant to the OP. I have asked several times for you to discuss these things in another thread/forum. The part that IS relevant to the OP is YET ANOTHER unsupported assertion (bolded above), of the kind that you accuse me of making (and which I have not made).

:rolleyes:

[Febble]

What would distinguish you from an agnostic? To say that you are a Christian and a theist would appear to commit you to position of support for the existence of a deity, no?

I postulate a deity. I live my life on the assumption that there is a deity. I do not assert the existence of a deity.

It also seems that you support the arbitrary based upon assumptions or whims, if you like.

I don't "support the arbitrary" based upon assumptions. I live my life on the assumption that there is a good God. That is not "supporting the arbitrary". All it is "supporting" is the principle that goodness matters. I don't think that it is an "arbitrary" principle.

You just believe even though admit that you have no evidence and can have no evidence for your views.

I think I made it clear in another response to you that I do not "believe" anything. I am a scientist. Scientists don't do "belief". You raised the issue (elsewhere) of facts. I don't even "believe" in facts. What we call "facts" are merely theories supported by data. The more strongly the theory is supported by data, the more likely we are to call it a fact. But not even the most widely regarded facts are truly facts in which we "believe". They are simply theories well supported by data.

However, not all models concern data - or, to put it differently, not all models are predictive. Some are normative. My God-model is normative.

That is a very female way of looking at things.

I see no evidence to support this assertion.

You hold your ideas, not because they are valid or true but because you feel like it.

Some ideas concern the natural world. Their truth can be validated or falsified against data - they can generate scientific hypotheses. That's the domain of science. It's what science is. However, some ideas concern things like morality, justice, value. They are not the kinds of ideas that can be validated or falsfied against data. They are nonetheless a perfectly legitimate category of idea. And there is nothing particularly "female" about them.

And you claim to be scientific?

Yes.

[Cacofonix]

I don't care about your religious beliefs or pendantry on typos <edited>!

[peanutaxis]

Febble,

I have always looked distrustfully at people like yourself as performing mental 'pirouettes' with regard to faith and science.

You have given me a new perspective and detail on what such a position entails, and I now have more respect for your position.

Cheers!:)

[kennethamy]

I postulate a deity. I live my life on the assumption that there is a deity. I do not assert the existence of a deity.



I don't "support the arbitrary" based upon assumptions. I live my life on the assumption that there is a good God.



If you assume (postulate) a deity, don't you then believe there is a deity, and are you not then asserting there is a deity? I imagine you are saying that although you assert the existence of a deity, you are not absolutely certain that one exists. Some astronomers say the same thing about extra-terrestrial life.

[Steve Weiss]

If you assume (postulate) a deity, don't you then believe there is a deity, and are you not then asserting there is a deity? I imagine you are saying that although you assert the existence of a deity, you are not absolutely certain that one exists. Some astronomers say the same thing about extra-terrestrial life.

The position that is being taken is purely arbitrary. No evidence for the something (unspecified) that is believed is admitted, yet the individual chooses to believe in something (we and she know not what) none-the-less. That is the opposite of science. That is mystical voodoo. The Cheshire cat in "Alice" comes to mind. Floating abstractions are meaningless and useless.

What the non-position taken by Feeble amounts to is whim worship. She admits that she has made an assumption and is happy not to either define or support it from the fallacious viewpoint that that is somehow "science." It's science because she claims to be a scientist just as would-be artists claim to be artists because what they do is art. All of this is not an assertion or truth claim, though. That would be too definite or relevant.

There is a major disconnect in this line of thinking. It confuses concepts with percepts, the real and the conceptual, the logical and the impossible. This way of speculating is A = non A personified.

[peanutaxis]

The position that is being taken is purely arbitrary. No evidence for the something (unspecified) that is believed is admitted, yet the individual chooses to believe in something (we and she know not what) none-the-less. That is the opposite of science. That is mystical voodoo. The Cheshire cat in "Alice" comes to mind. Floating abstractions are meaningless and useless.


But how can we do any science without first proving the problem of induction? Doesn't stop us!

[kennethamy]

The position that is being taken is purely arbitrary. No evidence for the something (unspecified) that is believed is admitted, yet the individual chooses to believe in something (we and she know not what) none-the-less. That is the opposite of science. That is mystical voodoo. The Cheshire cat in "Alice" comes to mind. Floating abstractions are meaningless and useless.

What the non-position taken by Feeble amounts to is whim worship. She admits that she has made an assumption and is happy not to either define or support it from the fallacious viewpoint that that is somehow "science." It's science because she claims to be a scientist just as would-be artists claim to be artists because what they do is art. All of this is not an assertion or truth claim, though. That would be too definite or relevant.

There is a major disconnect in this line of thinking. It confuses concepts with percepts, the real and the conceptual, the logical and the impossible. This way of speculating is A = non A personified.

My point was that you cannot postulate something, nor assume something (except "for the sake of argument") without believing that what you postulate or what you assume, is true. So there is no much difference between postulation or assumption, and assertion, except in the degree of belief that you have.

You can, of course, postulate something to explain what you need or want to explain, and then you can search for evidence for that postulation. But I don't think that was the kind of thing the OP had in mind.

I think it is wrong to say that scientists do not believe anything. If they know anything, then they must believe what they think they know, since you cannot know without believing (although you can believe without knowing). Maybe the OP means that scientist don't only believe, they also know. But I don't think that is true either. As I pointed out, many astronomers believe there is extra-terrestrial life somewhere in the universe, but I don't think any of them would say he/she knows there is such life.

[Garrett]

Steve Weiss
She admits that she has made an assumption and is happy not to either define or support it from the fallacious viewpoint that that is somehow "science."
She claims that it is "science" to hold her assumption without either defining or supporting it? Where does she do that?

There is a major disconnect in this line of thinking.
From my view, your hostility is clouding your judgement.

[aguy2]

If you assume (postulate) a deity, don't you then believe there is a deity, and are you not then asserting there is a deity? I imagine you are saying that although you assert the existence of a deity, you are not absolutely certain that one exists. Some astronomers say the same thing about extra-terrestrial life.

I rather suspect that Febble doesn't exactly appreciate getting stuffed into your internally generated "absolutist" presumtion, straw box.
aguy2(amen)

[Febble]

If you assume (postulate) a deity, don't you then believe there is a deity, and are you not then asserting there is a deity? I imagine you are saying that although you assert the existence of a deity, you are not absolutely certain that one exists. Some astronomers say the same thing about extra-terrestrial life.

No, assuming something is not the same as asserting it. We make assumptions all the time in science. The important thing is knowing what our assumptions are - and our conclusions are only ever as good as our assumptions. This is fundamental to all statistical operations. That's why we use the word "data" (meaning "given") rather than "facts".

I also do a lot of computational modelling. In a computation model we have to be very explicit about our assumptions, which take the form of parameters in the model. By adjusting the parameters, we can investigate what values produce a closer approximation to the phenonemen we are trying to model.

In the same way, I find that making assumptions about the answers to certain questions ("do I have free will? Do I have a purpose?) I have a model that functions well in terms of structuring my life. But I do not, and cannot, know whether my assumptions are correct. I can only tell whether the model is useful. And I find it is.

In the end all we ever have are models.

[kennethamy]

No, assuming something is not the same as asserting it. We make assumptions all the time in science. The important thing is knowing what our assumptions are - and our conclusions are only ever as good as our assumptions. This is fundamental to all statistical operations. That's why we use the word "data" (meaning "given") rather than "facts".

I also do a lot of computational modelling. In a computation model we have to be very explicit about our assumptions, which take the form of parameters in the model. By adjusting the parameters, we can investigate what values produce a closer approximation to the phenonemen we are trying to model.

In the same way, I find that making assumptions about the answers to certain questions ("do I have free will? Do I have a purpose?) I have a model that functions well in terms of structuring my life. But I do not, and cannot, know whether my assumptions are correct. I can only tell whether the model is useful. And I find it is.

In the end all we ever have are models.

Yes, I mentioned that we sometimes assume "for the sake of argument". Then we say something like, "Let's assume that....". But in religion, I would assume that people actually believe what they assume is true. I suppose there are those who tell us that they don't care much whether God exists or not, as long as it "works" to believe in God. I have never understood the psychology of those people. It is like telling a child to be good, otherwise Santa won't bring him any nice presents, while, at the same time telling him that there is no Santa. I would call that cognitive dissonance. But that's me.

[aguy2]

Yes, I mentioned that we sometimes assume "for the sake of argument". Then we say something like, "Let's assume that....". But in religion, I would assume that people actually believe what they assume is true. I suppose there are those who tell us that they don't care much whether God exists or not, as long as it "works" to believe in God. I have never understood the psychology of those people. It is like telling a child to be good, otherwise Santa won't bring him any nice presents, while, at the same time telling him that there is no Santa. I would call that cognitive dissonance. But that's me.

Some of us might even go so far as to say that 'all mighty' might mean something more than more primative theists might say. Not many though. Well, to be honest, it might just be one or 2.
aguy2(amen)

[Febble]

Yes, I mentioned that we sometimes assume "for the sake of argument". Then we say something like, "Let's assume that....". But in religion, I would assume that people actually believe what they assume is true.

Well, that's probably a fair assumption! But this thread started because Steve asserted that religion and science were incompatible (or something) and I do not think this is the case. But as a scientist, I feel obliged to be rigorously honest when it comes to religion (and as a Christian I also feel obliged to be rigorously honest when it comes to considering my faith in the context of what I know as a scientist) which is why I am extremely careful with the words I use. I do not think that there is any basis to assert that God does (or doesn't) exist. I don't think it is a demonstrable/falsifiable proposition. Therefore I don't go around saying I "believe" it to be true, because that would lead people to think that I was asserting it to be true, and I am not, because I think that would be meaningless.

I suppose there are those who tell us that they don't care much whether God exists or not, as long as it "works" to believe in God. I have never understood the psychology of those people. It is like telling a child to be good, otherwise Santa won't bring him any nice presents, while, at the same time telling him that there is no Santa. I would call that cognitive dissonance. But that's me.

Well, I don't think it's like that, much. It's much more like telling people to assume that they have moral responsibility and free will, even though we don't know whether that is the case. It's an assumption that tends to lead to better behaviour and mental health than the opposite assumption. That can be verified. What cannot be verified is whether the assumption is true.

[kennethamy]

Some of us might even go so far as to say that 'all mighty' might mean something more than more primative theists might say. Not many though. Well, to be honest, it might just be one or 2.
aguy2(amen)

So? The point still is that belief in God can make you as happy and as comfortable as you like, but it seems to me that when you believe in God, you also believe that God exists. I guess I am primitive (spelled that way) enough to think that you cannot believe anything unless you believe it is true. Sorry, but that is the way I learned English.

[aguy2]

So? The point still is that belief in God can make you as happy and as comfortable as you like, but it seems to me that when you believe in God, you also believe that God exists. I guess I am primitive (spelled that way) enough to think that you cannot believe anything unless you believe it is true. Sorry, but that is the way I learned English.

I would think the potential learning disability would more likely be in the area of science, more than language.

As in, you won't anyone with a valid scientific POV ever, ever using or thinking in terms of 'proof', and terms like 'natural/unnatural' are never, ever used.
aguy2(amen)

[kennethamy]

I would think the potential learning disability would more likely be in the area of science, more than language.

As in, you won't anyone with a valid scientific POV ever, ever using or thinking in terms of 'proof', and terms like 'natural/unnatural' are never, ever used.
aguy2(amen)

That's nice, but how is that connected to what I posted? (I did not use the term "proof" nor the terms, "natural" or "unnatural" so naturally, I am baffled). But thanks for the information (if it is that).

[doubtingt]

No, assuming something is not the same as asserting it. We make assumptions all the time in science. The important thing is knowing what our assumptions are - and our conclusions are only ever as good as our assumptions.


Correct, but the whole point of science is to rigorously test the validity of those assumptions against the empirical data and discard or revise those that cannot meet this test. Your assumption of God's existence is not a question of subjective preference, it is an assumption that a particular proposition about a particular question of fact is likely to be sufficiently accurate to warrant at least tenative acceptance. Your assumption that God exists is not meaningfully nor psychologically different from my assumption that there is a beer in my fridge right now. By any sensible and psychologically meaningful definition of "belief", I believe that their is a beer in my fridge and you believe that God exists. The concept of belief does not require total certainty and does not specify what the epistemological basis of the belief is. Those are separate issues.

You can play semantic games all you want and pretend that making an assumption is not the same as making an assertion, but the bottom line is that both equally require evidential support and both are in violation of the basic principles of scientific reasoning, if done in the absence of sufficient evidence to suggest that the assumption or assertion is more plausible than all of its logically exclusive alternatives.
To want their to be a good and just creator entity is all well and good. But to actually accept this assumption (even tenatively) given the current state of evidential support is a fundatmental violation of the evidence-based reasoning upon which all of science is based.