Ask a Theistic Scientist
Offline
Most of the statistics I've seen show that the overwhelming majority of scientists are either atheist or agnostic, something to the tune of 93 to 97%. Just depends on what stat source you're reading from. That said, a scientist who also happens to be a devout Christian would seem to be something of an enigma, kind of like a gay Republican.
I've mentioned this man a few times here and on other forums as he's an old school chum of mine from long ago that I've sporadically kept in touch with over the years.
Dr. Ben Schumacher is a physics professor at Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio. Here,on his Wiki page are his credentials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Schumacher
To get insight on his religious pursuasions, you can read his blogs, religious and secular here http://zerothorderapprox.blogspot.com/. Ben comes from a family of four males all of them scientists except one who is a theologian (isn't theology god science?).
In the next few weeks, when and if I can catch him at home, I'll see if he's conducive to an interview to discuss his faith and his discipline and how he balances the two. I'm thinking of compiling a list of no more than 25 questions to publish on a series of forum posts and blogs. If you have any questions you would like to ask Dr. Scumacher concerning faith and science post one question and I'll try to get it in.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
- Login to post comments
Hehe. Ya, it's hard to take someone seriously when they claim the earth is 6000 years old, regardless of credentials. I'm pretty sure those nutjobs are in a minority in the scientific community, at least I sincerely hope so.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Well put, old friend. That's the question I am examining in my project.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
To start trying to make science and modern ethics compatible with the Bible, you have to throw away the Old Testament..
Then rip out Revelations in the NT.
If you are cool with that, then OK.
The rest is more a matter of different personal moral viewpoints.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
When ever I think about that, I just think it's another way of giving up.
Could Dr Schumacher be more specific as to what he sees as evidence for the 'rationality' of the physical Universe? That seems to be the key point in his response.
I would be genuinely very interested to see his elaboration of this.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I agree, but from the point of view of dispensationalism, the OT and Revelations have a purpose. The bottom line in all of this, I think, is that religion operates on another area of the mind than the logical/rational. If that part of the mind is satisfied, the rational mind will logically justify anything.
"It's not supposed to make sense, Meathead, it's faith. Faith is something you believe that nobody in his right mind would."
Archie Bunker
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
I agree, but from the point of view of dispensationalism, the OT and Revelations have a purpose. The bottom line in all of this, I think, is that religion operates on another area of the mind than the logical/rational. If that part of the mind is satisfied, the rational mind will logically justify anything.
"It's not supposed to make sense, Meathead, it's faith. Faith is something you believe that nobody in his right mind would."
Archie Bunker
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
Well then, see if you can get Dr. Michael Persinger on the hook for us. He teaches at Laurentian University in Sudbury Ontario.
He is of interest because his work in on the neuroscience of religion.
In fact, he has a bit of gear in his lab which (so he claims) can produce religious thought patterns. He calls it the “God Helmet”.
Also Marty, I have no idea what kind of place Sudbury would be but if you can get him on the line for and it is reasonable to take a vacation in that area, perhaps I could arrange to actually sit in his machine for a test.
=
Which is why I believe that it is more fruitful to identify a key point and 'drill down', to avoid being lead through all these other rationalizations. I would really like to understand just what Dr Schumacher perceives as 'evidentiary' about the 'rationality' of the physical universe, such that it can only be explained by a 'rational' creator. Apart from the manifest "infinite regress" that this implies, as it stands, that is a naked assertion, which I and many others including Stephen Hawking, do not share.
This is why I really value this opportunity to ask someone, who is also familiar with the scientific approach, to resolve this issue in non-theological terms.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Answers: I had heard of Persenger's helmet, but I had no idea he was that close to me. I will look into that for sure, thanks. Bob, I will get your question to Dr. Schumacher when I see him in a couple of weeks to shoot the interview.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
Answers: I had heard of Persenger's helmet, but I had no idea he was that close to me. I will look into that for sure, thanks. Bob, I will get your question to Dr. Schumacher when I see him in a couple of weeks to shoot the interview.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
This isn't tea and crumpets.
The argument from contingency?
The TAG argument?
Modal Logic?
Do you think you can 'argue' that God must be real, and therefore he is real?
No, we're not 'even'.
I pointed out numerous fallacies and equivocations in your statements, and your general failure to say anything remotely intriguing.
You seem to overestimate the content of your comments.
That's well understood in psychology. The fact that the human mind can hold two or more completely incompatible ideas, with equal fervor.
I'm sure there is more than one mathematician that believes in astrology and 'good luck charms'.
That's simply and ad hominem, and a genetic fallacy, and the most intellectually bankrupt tactic of 'strawman'.
The burden of proof is not the skeptic's.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
the rhetoric presented in favour of atheism simply points out that christianity - a belief in a particular supernatural creator existing before and outside this space time - is devoid of cogent proofs.
It seems to me the only way to provide oneself with evidence of this god is through some old fashioned Aristotelian teleology, a dash of epistemology and a personal conviction in the absolute historicity of the New Testament.
Scientifically, the christianity hypothesis remains inadequately supported and is certainly no better supported that any other religion sporting a penchant for first cause and brandishing a holy book its adherents insist was inspired by god.
The fact Ben is a christian scientist is an appeal to his own authority. Until he provides scientific evidence for his doctrine, Ben's profession has no bearing on this discussion.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I like that, very good point.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
So, why would one choose to believe in something that doesn't make sense?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
It is a logical non-sequiter to assert that anything can be 'the grounds for its own existence'. Unless you can justify that statement, you cannot construct a definition of a being incorporating that assumption. The obligation is on the person proposing such a definition to justify it, ie demonstrate how, logically, some particular proposed 'necessary' being is actually logically consistent.
There is, arguably, a necessary thing, which is whatever is necessary for our universe to have come into existence, but that 'necessity' does not, of itself. imply any other attributes of that 'cause', such as consciousness or 'goodness', or any of the omni attributes which would justify identifying it with some pre-conceived God.
It amounts to a version of the totally discredited Ontological Argument, which also attempted to define God into existence, by defining him as 'necessary'. Platinga's modal version of the OA depends on the assumption that God is 'possibly necessary' in the terms of Modal Logic, but that cannot be known without complete knowledge of the nature of God and reality, therefore cannot constitute a proof in any sense. Even Platinga conceded it was problematic.
Since Stephen Hawking demonstrates that modern understanding of the nature of reality does not require a God-like entity to explain the existence of our Universe, God remains a claim to be argued on some other basis. It does not mean that some kind of super-being was not involved at some stage, but existence of the Universe does not constitute evidence for such a being. In any case, such a being cannot logically be the ultimate 'cause' or reason for existence, if existence 'started' in some sense, since that would require that being to create itself from a state in which it did not exist.
And if existence had no boundaries in a time-like dimension, then the need for an ultimate cause does not arise. Since all that is needed for our universe is a quantum twitch in a pre-existing 'quantum foam', or similar all-pervading energy/particle sea, something as close to 'nothing' as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle, the idea of a God is NOT an explanation, only a extra complication requiring explanation itself.
Which takes us back to the need for some other justification, which Dr Schumacher seems to think is some version of the Argument from Design, ie the 'evident rationality' of the physical universe, which I have asked him to expand upon and justify.
As I have stated earlier, I am genuinely interested to see his response.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I filmed the interview yesterday, I'll be editing and posting soundbites on youtube soon. I would love to interview Dr. Michael Persinger and try out the god helmet, I'll work on that. Dr. Persinger happens to hail from my old home town of Jacksonville, Florida.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."