Question for Atheists...

[Polymath257]

But you can't see as see a defintion. You see as understand a defintion. You are doing the fallacy of reification.

What definition am I not understanding?

 

[Polymath257]

A non-believer told me recently they didn't see how someone could be a scientist and believe in God or a higher power or a life after this. I wondered if that was accurate, or maybe if belief/nonbelief varied by what kind of scientist one was. Like, would an astrologist or a neurologist be more or less likely to believe in God or a higher power. Frances Collins, Owen Gingrich, Ben Alexander are a few who came to mind. I poked around a bit looking for information but a lot of what I found was outdated, in the early aughts. Anyone have any info they can provide?

The man who was going to be my PhD advisor in physics was a theist (he died). Be made a comment before the died that he was excited to ask God all sorts of questions. He was an astrophysicist. He also knew that the universe is billions of years old and not just thousands. He understood that species change over time (evolution at humans are a very recent addition to the species on Earth.

It is certainly possible to believe in a deity and be a scientist. It takes a certain willingness to read the Bible (or other religious text) as allegory and not as literal history, but that is certainly possible.

 

[Audie]

There is at least one scientist on RF who holds a belief in God. He's an entomologist.

And NOT a yec

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What a word means is a convention. It is ultimately an agreement between people.

So the meaning of a word is not a scientific question. I don't find that to be a problem because conventions are not questions of truth.

Well, what do *you* mean when you use the word 'physical'? What do you mean when you use the word 'exists'? What is an example of something that actually exists and is not physical?

Again, what a word means is a convention. There is nothing connecting the word 'cat', either as a sequence of letters, or as a sound produced, to the animal *except* that some people have agreed to use that sequence of letters and those sounds to represent that type of animal.

Conventions are not scientific questions. Since definitions are types of conventions, definitions are not scientific questions.

Once the definitions have been agreed to, we can then ask is the universe as a whole, or parts thereof, have the properties.

So, if you don't like my definitions, give yours and explain why they are more appropriate. That is an appropriate use of philosophy.

Yes, a word is a shared meaning, but that doesn't mean the referent is a fact. But what also applies to truth and fact as having a meaning.
So the problem is not the meaning of a word, but how that works in regards to the rest of the world and even that includes that the word the world as it has a meaning.

Existence:
I don't mean anything in the end for the word exist since it is bad philosophy. You don't need the word to explain what the world works. Now I know the convention for it, but I don't use it myself.

Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You accepted philosophy there is where we are.

Physical.
A human behavior regarding the body and some relationship to it as done with the use of the body as external in the end and not just the brain.

Properties:
Not all words have objective or if you like physical properties as their referents.

Appropriate:
That is utterly first person subjective for us both.

So here it is for orderly, cause and effect, same/similar/different.
You want results as in effect same for different humans. That works if it is the same, but that is only the case of objective as independent of all brains and observable through the 5 senses. That is where physical comes in. Same is similar cases of cause and effect.
The moment we includes humans in the universe as parts of the universe with their own behaviour (cause and effect) derived from their brains and that is where you go wrong every time.

Here is your trick. If we subjectively agree that we only accpet the objective and physical as relevant, then...

So here is the end problem of physical, objective properties. That sceince matters, is subjective, but not the only human behavior that matters.
Now that you subjectively don't find other forms of useful or appropriate correct to you, is okay as you. But it doesn't mean, that you dedice that universe is physical, just because the convention is useful to you.

Science is in another sense more broadly about describing how the world works for humans and not just what the world is as objective and physical.

Regards.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What definition am I not understanding?

You claim as the correct understanding, which you can't see, that we should always include the 5 senses when we test and detect even if indirectly through instruements. But you start with a subjective understanding and then declare that only the objective is relevant for understanding the world. That is your trick.

I claim that I do both. Subjective and objective. Where as you take your subjective understand as granted and then dismiss all other variants as irrelevnet to you and the correct understanding of the world.

 

[ChristineM]

And NOT a yec

Oh no, he's not a yec. Like @Polymath257s prospective advisor he realises the bible is not fact, the earth is old, evolution is a thing there was no world flood, etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Polymath257

That one is the game we are playing. You can't just observe as observe the meaning of that one, yet you know and understand the meaning.
That is subjective knowledge as you can even explain how it works. You have subjective knowledge and you use it everyday.

 

[Yerda]

The word "impossible" doesn't mean anything in that case.

Again, in that case, the word "impossible" doesn't mean anything.

What does it mean then to say that X is "impossible"?

Ok, you have a point there. I think I'm maybe stating the case too strongly. Anyway, a couple of examples of the kind of things that are impossible:

It's logically impossible for a triangle to have four sides.

It's epistemically impossible for a massive body to accelerate to the speed of light.

etc.

There doesn't seem to be anything in the rules of logic or physics or whatever that rule out supernatural stuff, though.

No. The sciences are a methodology for the measurement of what is presented to us. There is nothing about science that requires that what is presented to us is some sort of objective reality.

Ok. So how I understand it is:

If we talk about what kind of objects are presented to us, the causal relationships between the objects presented to us, or how the presentation changes over time we'll still be making metaphysical assumptions. Even if we don't make the further metaphysical assumption that all of it is objectively real or not.

If I were going to try to argue your position, I would have considered epitemology a better tack. At least epistemology is a little more pragmatic and therefore ties better to science.

I've got plenty time for epistemology.

 

[Yerda]

Such twaddle

Always a pleasure.

 

[F1fan]

Oh no, he's not a yec. Like @Polymath257s prospective advisor he realises the bible is not fact, the earth is old, evolution is a thing there was no world flood, etc.

One of my uncle's is a YEC, and a phd chemist. He got his degree some time in the early 70's, and went into pharma. I learned he was a YEC in the 80's and had never even heard of it. Some time later my mom said he was having problems advancing in his feild due to his religious beliefs about evolution. He eventually ended up in management instead of chemistry. But his career was never what it could have been.

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257

That one is the game we are playing.

OK. Yes, a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. A finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. A description of a thing is not the thing.

So?

You can't just observe as observe the meaning of that one, yet you know and understand the meaning.

I have no idea how to parse this sentence.

That is subjective knowledge as you can even explain how it works. You have subjective knowledge and you use it everyday.

Funny that this 'subjective knowledge' is shared by everyone. Doesn't that make it objective?

Again, this is 'knowledge' about conventions. So it is not a scientific question. I have no problem with that.

And, while the picture is not a pipe, it is still a picture *of* a pipe. And we can ask how good of a depiction of a pipe it is.

Just like we can ask how good a description is of the moon. In other words, how well does the description depict the reality?

 

[anna.]

Well some folks are dualists. They believe there is a separate non-physical reality. I'd imagine there are scientists who can keep these to ideas separate from each other in their mind.

Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).
Leading scientists still reject God - Nature

Keeping in mind this is from 1998.

Thanks. The links I'd found ranged from 2005 to 2009 which is still a long time ago.

 

[ppp]

If we talk about what kind of objects are presented to us, the causal relationships between the objects presented to us, or how the presentation changes over time we'll still be making metaphysical assumptions. Even if we don't make the further metaphysical assumption that all of it is objectively real or not.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that is the case. I have already granted that there is no solution to hard solipsism.

There is a mug on my desk. With the understanding that I am talking about phenomena, and not numina, give me one metaphysical proposition that I have to assume in order to say that.

I've got plenty time for epistemology.

[cheesy grin]

 

[anna.]

The man who was going to be my PhD advisor in physics was a theist (he died). Be made a comment before the died that he was excited to ask God all sorts of questions. He was an astrophysicist. He also knew that the universe is billions of years old and not just thousands. He understood that species change over time (evolution at humans are a very recent addition to the species on Earth.

It is certainly possible to believe in a deity and be a scientist. It takes a certain willingness to read the Bible (or other religious text) as allegory and not as literal history, but that is certainly possible.

It must be a necessity, in order to be both scientist and believer, to not be a biblical literalist. I knew someone years ago, a Lutheran minister and yet still fully invested in the modern scientific theories in biology, geology, astronomy, etc.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, you have a point there. I think I'm maybe stating the case too strongly. Anyway, a couple of examples of the kind of things that are impossible:

It's logically impossible for a triangle to have four sides.

It's epistemically impossible for a massive body to accelerate to the speed of light.

etc.

There doesn't seem to be anything in the rules of logic or physics or whatever that rule out supernatural stuff, though.

Hmm...what, precisely, do you mean by the term 'supernatural'? if you define it in contrast to 'natural', what precisely, do you mean by 'natural'?

You see, I have yet to see a coherent definition of 'supernatural' that isn't self-contradictory. part of the reason is an incoherence in the definition of 'natural'.

Ok. So how I understand it is:

If we talk about what kind of objects are presented to us, the causal relationships between the objects presented to us, or how the presentation changes over time we'll still be making metaphysical assumptions. Even if we don't make the further metaphysical assumption that all of it is objectively real or not.

I'm more inclined to say that we will be making assumptions. And, those assumptions need to be tested. Again, part of the difficulty is figuring out precisely what is mean by 'causality'. This is another concept I have yet to see coherently defined (except in the context of natural laws).

I've got plenty time for epistemology.

Some questions:

1. What does it mean to 'exist'?

2. How can it be determined whether an imagined thing actually exists? This should apply to subatomic particles, other galaxies, supernova, or deities.

3. What does it mean to be 'physical'? Is it different than being 'natural'? If so, how?

4. What does it mean to be 'supernatural'? In what way does the prefix 'super' modify the word?

5. How could we know if something is due to/caused by something supernatural (as opposed to something currently unknown and natural)?

6. Suppose two people disagree about something to do with the supernatural. How could they resolve their disagreement and know who was wrong?

 

[ChristineM]

One of my uncle's is a YEC, and a phd chemist. He got his degree some time in the early 70's, and went into pharma. I learned he was a YEC in the 80's and had never even heard of it. Some time later my mom said he was having problems advancing in his feild due to his religious beliefs about evolution. He eventually ended up in management instead of chemistry. But his career was never what it could have been.

Informative

 

[nPeace]

The process of thought is physical. To imagine is a thought process. Yes, imagination has no boundaries, but that does not make what all we imagine a truth.

I don't believe a word you say.
Proving how imagination occurs is not easy
Researchers have long suggested that human imagination exists thanks to a widespread neural network in the brain.
However, clearly demonstrating that such a “mental workspace” exists has been extremely difficult with available techniques that only managed to examine brain activity in isolation.

What exactly consciousness is and why it does what it does is another question. For now we may only speculate that consciousness is imagination acting as a link between our observable universe and the underlying quantum field: imagination extracting reality out of possibilities.

 

[Bird123]

Have you noticed that no one follows what you are claiming and advising? Only you get it? Have you not read any of the criticism of your posts, and why they are highly flawed? You don't even bother to respond with intellect and evidence.

If you are expecting my answers to be what you want to hear, that's not going to happen because Real Truth is not always the agreeable thing you insist that it should be.

I have given you nothing but intellect, challenging you to widen your view and see the knowledge that surrounds us all. I point to where you can discover the evidence for yourself, yet you insist I act like Religions and try to convince you to hold onto beliefs. Have you not figured out by now Beliefs or Believing has never been my Goal nor God's goal for that fact.

I point yet you are blind to where I am pointing. Your goal is not to seek Truth or Knowledge. Do you even know what your goal really is??

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

You're incapable of explaining that is coherent.

No it doesn't. God concepts are broad and lack evidence, so this is inaccurate. You don't understand this.

I am not talking about concepts. God is actually Someone not a concept. Widen that view.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

No. I just have an active BS filter and recognize assumed conclusions when I see them.
What you are asking is not a proper way to search for answers, but rather an attempt at convincing oneselves of a pre-determined answer.
Hence: painting the bullseye around the arrow.



Projection


All you are doing is confirming my point.

Yes, I am confirming there is knowledge beyond that box of Beliefs you have chosen for yourself. By not being open to all possibilities,you have walled yourself from the Real Truth. Why and what is it about that box of beliefs you are living in that you like so well that you choose to be blind to anything else?

That's what I see. It's very clear!!