Axie baby, Your arguments or retorts are often stodgy and anal almost as though your reading from your little red logic primer. This is a good opportunity to show you why so you may learn from it: it's obvious that what elC meant is "there need not be a precise definition of "GOD" to [believe in God]" not merely "enjoy" in the strict sense. Put your logic primer away from logic 101 class. We've all had the class thank you. Give the other disputant his just due and argue his assertions in the context in which they're obviously meant anything else makes you look petty.
I get your point. Nothing "intelligent" happened, i.e. the forces of physics account for it all. And in this example we know all about shingles, wind, etc. and can determine that it was not "supernatural" in origin. But let's pick a better example. You're walking down the street and a shingle hits you on the head. You look up and there is a roofer on the roof and he's laughing. Did the roofer throw the tile at you as a joke or did the wind just blow it off the roof? You can't really know from the data that you have... This example is a good one for something else I want to illustrate...
>Put your logic primer away from logic >101 class. We've all had the class thank you Ohhh...Longshot, I'm not convinced from the evidence that this is a true statement at all. JB PS. Just for the record, I never did. shhhhhh
Umm.. I must admit that I can't quite work out how that's a "better" or even a "related" example. Maybe your next one will shed some light.
Hi Axe, A scientist's beliefs shape the direction of his work and may color the interpretation of his results. His beliefs can lead him to a great discovery, or they can lead him to make conclusions that turn out to be untrue. As far as the science itself goes, the scientist's beliefs are irrelevant. At the end of the day you have a model or theory, evidence for, evidence against, and many times a lot of controversy even between scientists. Furthermore there is no default position with regard to a scientist's beliefs. That depends more on his personality. With regard to science and God, I am simply pointing out that science can't answer the question of his existence. Now I have a question for you. That stat about 97% of the National Academy being atheist surprised me (I would have guessed, more like 50/50). I would like read more about that poll, could you please direct me to it. Thanks! Pete
>With regard to science and God, I am simply >pointing out that science can't answer the >question of his existence. Are you saying: A: "can't" as in "hasn't yet". Or B: "can't" as in "forever incapable" Thanks JB
Actually... its 93% percent... my memory was a little off. The last time they were polled was in 1998 and it was published in the journal "Nature". http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000068.html http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm As for beliefs...I agree the scientists beliefs are irrelevant with regards to the experiments/models/evidence, etc, but im more interested in how they formed their beliefs. It would seem irrational to me that someone who follows the scientific method would form a belief concerning something they are researching BEFORE they have any evidence for, or have proved it. Saying I BELIVE so and so, as a scientist, without strong evidence for it seems extremely hypocritical to me. What is the point of doing all this research and gathering evidence then? If not to further our knowledge of our world/universe and correctly/rationally have something to BELIEVE in. If we are free to just believe in whatever we want with zero evidence and research, then why even bother? (I'm not saying you dont have a right to self delusion, just that rational people dont form beliefs out of thin air) peace axeman
"Forever incapable". You can't do a physical experiment on the metaphysical. Thanks Axe for the article. The numbers were 72% atheist, 21% agnostic (guess we forgot about those guys), and 7% believers, with half of the 500 or so members of the academy responding.
If by metaphysical you mean immaterial or incorporeal, then this begs the question. What's the difference between that and something which doesn't exist at all? Carl Sagans dragon in the garage depicts this beautifully. http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm Peter, read this snippet from Sagans book "The demon haunted world". Then please further explain what you mean. peace axeman
Axe: >97.3% of our National Academy of Scientists >are non-believers. Axe correction: >Actually... its 93% percent... my memory >was a little off. Pete: >The numbers were 72% atheist, 21% agnostic >(guess we forgot about those guys) I'm sure you recognize - or perhaps not from the contents of the parens that an agnostic is also an unbeliever and as such was not "forgotten about" in Axe's original statement. The literal definition of a/gnostic is "not/knowing" which of course is a far cry from a believer. JB