The Scientific Theist
Offline This is dedicated to the new breed of religious types I've started to see around, the "Scientific Theist". This is the type of theist who has taken the fact of evolution into play, they don't take a literal stance on the Genesis "Adam and Eve" account and perhaps they actually have a formal education, past what ever grade school they attended.
You are the religious type I have least respect for, others I can feel pity on as they are the system of childhood indoctrination and have simply had their parents ideals forced upon them, but you have a brain developed enough to know the answer, yet you don't accept it?
You take the stance of a scientifical mind and say you have thought out the idea of god and accepted it as truth by proper process, but there's nothing scientific about you. All I see is a horrid mutation of dissected scientific ideals; you only take the parts that suit your claims and reject the rest.
There's no need to add a creator to the mix when one's not needed and is without evidence, the simplest explanation is often correct and the idea of a god is far from simple. Should we think of you as different, as more "enlightened" then other Theists, or are you just another form of sheep bound by fear and indoctrination?
If you're truly open to all possibilities and accept science and reason, then you should clearly be able to admit that the personal gods (Yahweh, Vishnu, Thor etc...) are in all possibilities non-existent (to the level taught by what ever binding books or doctrine they have anyway...)
I have no problem with people believing in a non-affecting, un-personal god but anyone who can see their neighbour's god as incorrect should be able to tell that their parent's god is false as well... How do you rationalise a personal god..? I know that when I tried to think out my faith when I was Christian it simply led me to understand there is nothing supernatural in this world.
How do you maintain the idea of a god with a scientifical insight? I just don't get it...
- Login to post comments
OHHH but my Cpt. Were they real Christians?? Were they really peoople at all? Maybe they didn't exist either. Maybe I am not really here but an alien antagonist for a different universe. Can you prove me wrong?
Sorry, I coudn't help. It's been a long day
They lived in a day when if you did believe in alien antagonist from a different universe you were put to death. So you must be right! It makes so much sense!
Read deGrasse Tyson's The Perimeter of Ignorance, where, quoting Newton he writes:
Here we see plainly how Newton's religious beliefs stymied his intellect, preventing him from accomplishing a task almost certainly within his intellectual grasp. So the explanation had to wait for one less strait-jacketed by religion.
It is disingenuous to suggest that Newton's religious beliefs reflect well upon that religion's influence on science.
As ever, Jesse
There is no lao tzu
I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm saying you have none. The historical evidence you're using can only be used to point out Christians, as all who lived in that time frame where forced into saying they're of that faith, but if your historical evidence can't point out someone who was a closet atheist then it is shown to be incorrect, as I could use that evidence to name every person from that age a Christian when they clearly where not all so.
The only way your evidence could be correct is if every person who existed in their time periods where actually all real Christians.
For evidence to be correct it must point to the truth in all directions, it can't be used if it shows one thing that was correct, true yet says another thing that was correct to be false... It shows you have nothing more then a flawed, incorrect piece of wording.
I could use your historical evidence to name anyone a Christian from that time period whether they where or not... It is heavily flawed.
As to their occupation, it is still just a simple assumption without proper evidence backing it. You can only make a personal assumption and nothing more going solely by their position. Evidence is real and requires no guessing. It shows.
Using your logic I can assume they were Jewish or Hindu. You can't disprove they were Jewish or Hindu since everyone was Christain back then.
Being a Pope or Bishop would make you Christian in my book.
edit: As in my previous post, you can say they believed in aliens from other univereses since you can't specifically disprove that since everyone was Christian.
What makes you think they were atheists? Proof? Besides 'everyone was Christian back then'? I could use the same claim to show they were Jewish, or Hindu
IIRC, Laplace used calculus. Wait a minute, didn't Newton help develop calculus?
Yes, that's my point exactly, there is no way to use what they said as evidence because they where all forced into saying the same thing.
Going by your personal assumption, which is hardly a science.
psst. Jewish and Hindus are still theists. You don't seem familar with the no true scotsman fallacy.
You:No theist contributes to science
Me: Newton, Pascal, and the others wavefreak listed others were Christian
You: They weren't TRUE Christians.
I can say Newton was an alien life form from Planet X17. He merely SAID he was human because he would have been put to death otherwise.
You can't prove they were atheists. The rational assumption was to accept they were Christian.
I'm not even Chrisitian, but I feel religous ignorance is a plaque.
There is some argument for precedence between Newton and Leibniz, but it seems likely they each developed their theories independently. Leibniz's notation was markedly superior, IMHO, which explains why it was adopted. Newton's noted personality defects played some role in that as well. There's a broad concensus that he was personally a very unpleasant person.
There is no lao tzu
Personally, I think the Scientific Theists (scithes?) are the best of the bunch, and include some of history's greatest minds.
The scithes we see on this forum are generally the ones seeking the truth of the matter, rather than just slinging bible passages and claims like "evolution not proven". They are trying to understand why, even in the most theistic societies, there are atheists.
In the same way, I have the greatest respect for those theists who, though they might not share the beliefs, at least try to understand why in even the most scientific communities, there are theists.
Scithes tend to want to find the truth. They might interpret the facts differently, and they may have a tendency to fall back to the God of the Gaps, but that's better than not looking at all.
Regular theists might say "Angels carry dropped things to earth". That was the idea, before Newton. Angels bore the water in the riverbeds, down from the mountain to the sea. Angels shook the heads of the flowers and trees to make the wind. Or Angels made the wind, either way. Angels crafted the clouds. They were busy little buggers, doing the minor janitorial work that God was too busy for.
But Newton was a Scithe. He cut through all that and said "angels or not, I want to understand as much as I can about how things fall.". So he did.
Old Earthists might say creation occurred a few thousand years ago and any evidence to the contrary is the work of the devil.
Day-ageists might say it happened a few "ages" ago.
Scithes look at the evidence and say "The evidence says that creation happened 8 to 16 Billion years ago, probably about 13.5, and there is no rational way to disprove that short of unprovable omphalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalism). It's our duty to examine His work and how the universe and life appears to have come about, whether it is the truth or not, because either the 13.5BC date is true and we're studying God's work directly, or God put this evidence into the universe for a reason, in which case it is a message from God, and ignoring it a sin. Shut up, old-earthists: the Devil could never create something even a fraction as complex and yet frighteningly simple and awe-inspiring as this."
I can respect that standpoint. I don't share it, but I think it's a heck of a lot better than the others.
T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }
Didn't see your edit;
I never said I assumed they where atheist, I said because it was impossible to differentiate between the atheists and Christians you can't claim one man is Christian on historical value alone because historical showings say they where all Christian, which is incorrect meaning it is flawed in use for evidence, assumptions don't cont.
For the last time, you asked how they can keep a scienctific mindset if they believed in a personal God. I as well as wavefreak gave examples of people that contributed to science who were theists.
The users of the board hate it when theists use the no true scotsman fallacy, and I'm starting to understand why.
Most scientific minded people if they believe in a "god" its normally from a deist or pantheistic prespective, and I cant imagine in any way that this makes them theistic in the narrowed sense. In a broader sense they are more or less agnostic by default whether they admit it or not. So I have no fear of "scientific theists" developing a faction of fundamentalist, because at the worst they would storm into chrches with imaginary bombs strapped to their chests. (strike that, reverse it)
Imaginary churches with real bombs or what have you.
(i wont get off topic but i have to interject that i am more afraid of agnostics than i am of religious fundamentalists for different reasons. maybe ill start a thread.)
If what you mean is science mixing with christianity, christians and a-christian athiests both agree that the two dont mix. (for slightly different reasons) You only have to look at the premature mortality rates of christian scientists who refuse medical attention and substitute it with prayer, and then die from having diarreah. Yet on the other side of the equation, you need only look at the number of converts to a-christian atheism because of science mixing it up with christianity.
My point is this:
One of two things happens when science and christianity mix;
(1) Christian scientists die young
(2) Scientific christian(tists) turn into diest/pantheistic agnostics, and athiests
So its a win-win situation for athiests and all of mankind! LOL
Memetic evolution is a painstaking process, be patient, the"in-between" mutations cannot survive long because of idealistic impotence and evidenciary infertility.
P.S. Didnt we surrender Akums Razor to the Theists? LOL Just Kidding.....
High Pope
Neils Bohr went to Trinity College.
edit: I should mention he didn't get his Phd there, but he went there none the less.
Of course they are theist? My point is quite simple yet you can't seem to grasp it: Whether man 'A' was a Christian, Hindu or Atheist, he was made into saying he was Christian as it was enforced in the mentioned times, therefor even if the man was a Jew, history would say he claimed to be Christian, because he was forced into doing so in his time period.
Your telling me you want to use this same incorrect historical records to prove a man Christian, even though it is flawed and can not tell if a man truly was Christian, only that he claimed to be. And no, just because a person is forced into saying they are Christian, despite there beliefs would not make them Christian, they where simply forced into lying to save their lives.
Actually if you had read the entire debate you are participating in, you would know I never claimed that theist have never contributed to science, in fact I've said the opposite of this I think twice now. What my claim was no Theist who believes in a personal god can claim to have a scientific thought-process. Try reading what I've typed please, I made it relatively clear...
I'm asking for non-flawed evidence for YOUR claim, I am not telling the stories, simply asking for evidence in yours.
No your rational assumption would accept that, true insight would see that all evidence that tries to show this as a fact to be corrupted. Making any mans true faith unknowable past assumption in a period where all where forced to say they where Christian.
I am saying that you are going by assumption alone and have no real evidence backing your claim.
And I asked for real evidence showing they where theist by choice. You all failed to deliver.
@ High Pope- I liked how you think on that, I feel the same in that science and religion don't mix but I fear a new level of ignorance is forming with a Theist who still believes in a personal god yet not in the literal sense describe in works such as the bible (although they still abide by a certain faith and don't label them selves agnostic...)
This seems to be the main stream of Christian in Australia, I'm surprised you don't have a clearer sence of what I'm refering to. Perhaps the religious ignorence is stronger in America... =P
O RLY?
Were Newton or Pascal morons?No were they scienctifically minded? Yes.
A personal God didn't clash with them as they literally wrote the lessons taught in many science classes.
Another question, if you really believed that why don't you admit that the people wavefreak mentioned were Christain?
The burden of proof lies on you. You must prove they were atheists otherwise it can be assumed they were Christian. Stop being irrational.
You have no poof they were atheists. A rational person would accept they were Christian until proven otherwise.
edit:quote tags
Perhaps you should read what you quoted? I said either morons (too ignorant to make a clear decision by them selves) or cowards (that don't accept that a personal god is a scientific impossibility), referring to the people of our time, as that is this topics intention, informing of (as I said) a NEW breed of theists, I was never referring to people of old in that post. Keep on reading and you'll see where I put in that people of today don't have the same fear and ignorance as an excuse that was present in the days of people like Newton. READ ALL OF IT.
I never claimed either way, I simply said that there is no real evidence supporting the claim that they where Christian. I don't believe I put my personal belief heavily out there...
Actually I'm afraid your the one being quite irrational here, if there's no evidence supporting either way, it would be labeled unknown at the current time, not that they where Christian. Only religion is willing to guess on the hard questions...
YOU are the one claiming they are Christian going by assumption alone, YOUR the one with the accusation making it your job to prove your theory.
No a rational person of science wouldn't claim to know an answer on assumption alone. Science needs evidence, not assumption...
A rational person would label it unknown. Why guess??
You want a new example? Fine Dr. Bernard Haisch. He's an astrophysicist and authour of 'The God Theory'
Dr. Frank Tippler, a professor of physics and Christian.
I never needed a real example the point he made was understood, I was simply showing him that I won't debate on false grounds, I'm glad you can final admit that there is no evidence supporting those men to be Christian...
The point he was trying to make with his list of oldies? That it wasn't a "new" type of Theists I was referring to but an existing, old one. He was trying to catch me in a technicality, which I then defeated on all levels, not only was I correct in my idea of a "new" branch, but his example was a poor one and on a hollow foundation. His very question was flawed, not the point he was making.
Because he was trying to just get me on a technicality by saying I wasn't talking about anything new, your mention of a modern theist-scientest is in support of my claim. Thank you.
I think Newton was a Rosicrucian, what an Idiot.
I guess even blind squirrels find acorns every now and then.
He also spent most of his life trying to confirm the dates of jesus' birth and death and in using the scientific method eliminate all arguments about the divinity of jesus. Newtons indoctrination into the church at that time in history absolutely poisoned Newtons mind and blinded him from seeing evidence objectively. He was obsessed, and because of his brilliance, he pursued this religious quest for evidence until he died as rationally as he supposed he could. The problem being that we all know what happens with scientific experiments wherein you are pursuing a specific result; You will enevitably come to that result and you will cause the evidence to confirm that result. This is why we can only thank Newton for one of his Theories; Gravity. Yes Newton was a Genius, but you need to stop throwing his name around like he was "Perfect".
Think how much more this Genius of history would have accomplished were it not for him being tethered to the church. Would he have wasted so much of his life trying to prove god's existence? Absolutely not.....
High Pope
(I dont know that much about Pascal LOL)
This is the beginning of a logical argument:
Give us a succinct definition of what you mean by Scientific Theist without any of the ad hominem. JUST a definition without any sarcasm, aspersions, or insults.
This is an insult:
If you were half as good as you think you are you'd be twice as good as you really are.
Chose you weapon.
My Artwork
You're just covering your ears and singing 'LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!'. You not debating. You're using the 'Heads I win, tails you lose' mentallity.
If they said they were Christians it isn't proof enough. If they didn't say they were atheists than that proves they weren't Christian. Either way, you're like a conspiracy theorist. You say the fact they said they were Christians is proof enough they weren't Christians. That's irrational.
No, my mention of modern-theists sciencetist is AGAINST your claim.
Please re-elaborate on your claim.
I forgot to add that Newton was definitely not an atheist.
High Pope
Newton wasn't all about gravity. Calculus, and optics were others.
reread my last post, im not sure why youre arguing with me.
(newton disovered calculus? I didnt know he was a dentist!)
High Pope
I'm not. I'm just saying he did work in optics.
The answer is very clearly put in the first post, if you can't handle a bit of sarcasm then please post elsewhere.
No I was showing you had no idea on where the debate was at shown clearly by your post that supported me by showing a new Scientific-Theist of today, when the entire debate up to that point was based on him insinuating that I was incorrect about the idea of a "new" breed of theist.
You're saying you take the claim that by showing me a new theist-scientist debunks my claim that it's a new breed of theist how? Your projection of ear covering wont work here...
I find this rather funny given I claim the ground that there simply isn't an answer to take based on the current evidence yet you're the one claiming they're Christian without any evidence? If your after a conspiracy theory I suggest reading your own posts...
The claim we where debating had nothing to do with the original post, the debate had turned to this; I said it was a new form of theism, he said it has existed for a long time and pointed out old "apparent" Christian scientists. You saying the name of a new theist-scientist shows you had no clue as to what was really going on, by only stating a new theist-scientist and not producing an old one, you did help my claim that I was referring to a new breed of theist.
On a side note: I'm afraid I have to leave for a few hours, I'll be back to reply shortly~
To continue in the previous vein, Newton, as you suggest, was a co-discoverer of Calculus, which makes his failure to discover a natural reason for the dynamic stability of the planets all the more curious. That is, until we consider the influence of his religious faith. When we do consider that influence, however, it is clear that his religious faith occasioned his failure.
Theists are quick to see the scientific accomplishments of their own, but obstinately blind to the fact that these discoveries occurred not because of that faith, but despite it. To the extent that theists have contributed to scientific discovery, their theism has played at most a neutral role, and often an indisputably negative one. As I've gone to some trouble to find a counterexample, and found none, I would be quite surprised to find that one exists.
Now, to return to the OP.
I strongly dispute any ordering of theism that places the closed mind of a fundamentalist above that of the accomodationalists who have managed to free themselves of their superstitions enough to contribute to science. If they have not completed the journey, that is hardly a reason to pillory their efforts merely for being incomplete, especially not in comparison to those who refuse to undertake the challenge.
At Beyond Belief '06, Neil deGrasse Tyson offered a stirring exhortation and challenge to neuroscience. Neil postulates that the same region of the brain which registers numinous religious experiences is similarly activated by scientific discovery. Among the elite of science in this country, members of the National Academy of Science, something less than ten percent are theists. These are people likely to be familiar with both. This kind of investigation is eminently feasible.
Note that a position of blind opposition to theists performing science would make this unthinkable, actually pushing off the table what could be a very promising finding if we are to discover ways to wean humanity off of its diet of superstition.
As to the other prominent scientists who are prominently religious, the two works I cited earlier, "Finding Darwin's God" and "The Language of God," are both inestimable vehicles for bridging the gap between religion and science. What I found most heartening about both works was the way in which they encouraged theists to put down their swords of opposition to science, in a way that those theists accept.
Seriously, much of this "evangelical atheism" strikes me as simply wrong-headed. We will never be entirely free of superstition until we can replace it with something that fills the same need. Get rid of young earth creationism, and we'll merely open a space for the acceptance of the next irrational craze. I see no point in recruiting adherents for some new-age quantum crystal metaphysic.
As ever, Jesse
There is no lao tzu
I knew you wouldn't be able to do it. Your'e as predictable as a fundie.
My Artwork
You mean repeat myself? No I did not do that. First post, not even the second sentence and you have the answer pointed out.
No sarcasm there I hope. This is what you wanted? My explanation for what I'm referring to as a "scientific theist"? Right there, clearly said with no sarcasm, in that part at least... JUST a definition without any sarcasm, aspersions, or insults.
My anwser was already stated, why should I repete myself because you don't wish to read all (or perhaps just the first) post in this debate?
Another couple of reasons I like Scientific Theists.
1) I can understand what they are saying more of the time. Cory T is a rare young-earthist in that he can put his point across intelligibly. That's what makes him awesome, even though I disagree deeply with everything he believes. But most of 'em might as well be speaking in tongues.
The STs, however, can communicate, and tend to apreciate the need to rational discussion, so I stand more chance of learning stuff from debating with them.
2) The biggest reason to like STs is that people change. If you are going from theist to atheist, you prettymuch MUST come through a stage when you will be a ST.
It's not so much a position of being a hypocritical fence-sitter, but a transitional stage, showing they are searching for the truth.
So: respect and nurture them, help them find the information they seek, and you might end up helping them get rid of their own personal God of the Gaps.
Either that, or they'll get a firmer hold of their God (as Cory T did, moving from "day=age" to "Young-Earth" creationism), and that process will in itself be instructive, even fascinating to watch, and to be a part of.
You cannot convert people unless you can understand them. You can't even debate with them, unless you can see what their main problem is.
T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }
I like what you say in this post, especially this:
Asking someone to restate their core definition is perfectly acceptable in civil discourse. This is a critical piece of any argument and forms the basis for any logically derived conclusions.
Now on to your definition.
Your original opening statement:
This is dedicated to the new breed of religious types I've started to see around, the "Scientific Theist". This is the type of theist who has taken the fact of evolution into play, they don't take a literal stance on the Genesis "Adam and Eve" account and perhaps they actually have a formal education, past what ever grade school they attended.
Your new definition:
... the "Scientific Theist". This is the type of theist who has taken the fact of evolution into play, they don't take a literal stance on the Genesis "Adam and Eve" account and perhaps they actually have a formal education ...
Your original definition contained two phrases that this one does not. Changing a definition mid-stream is not allowed in logical discourse without both parties agreeing to such change. The first phrase dropped is "This is dedicated to the new breed of religious types I've started to see around" cannot be dropped because it categorizes this population as new. So it is a qualifier to the population you are describing. The second phrase "past what ever grade school they attended" is also a qualifier to what you mean by formal education and so cannot be dropped without changing the original meaning.
So, which definition are we working from, the first one, or your revised version?
My Artwork
Maybe Saucy is on holiday?
What about Newton? he is widely known to have actually had far greater personal interest in the study and production of theological and alchemical literature than he ever had in mathematics or physics. But his contribution to science has more than stood the test of time.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Although you haven't had a chance yet to respond to my pointing out that Newton is known widely to have demonstrated a greater love affair with theist literature overall. I would like to speak to this point and say I disagree, there is fear and ignorance in these days, quite comparable to those days, which is equally relevant to a persons choice in the matters of philosophy and belief. Have you seen this world lately, do you really think materialism is so perfect? I personally am not at all content to close the book on the basis of any reductive physicalism, I don't think scientifically all the time, in my view, that would be ignorant.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Ironically the person who first proposed the Big Bang was a priest.
I'd like to ignore the rant that somehow got paraded as a debate and the ranting that followed from it. Theres a statement made in the first post about people who think rationally but see faeries and that they are fools. I'd like to talk specifically about that. Lets say an evolutionary biologist one day started seeing faeries. The faeries touched and spoke with him, but never countered anything he'd learned, researched, or understood-except their existence. They offered no explanation. We'll call our guy Stan. Stan sees shrinks to see what might be causing these probably delusions. He checks out fine. No test can identify any problems he has.
Is it, indeed, foolish for Stan to accept his faery infestation while pursuing his work and life?
If the faeries prove constructive and a positive impact on him and his applying himself to life and work, is it foolish for society to allow him his perceived infestation?
If Stan must, in someone's opinion, cleanse himself, how so? If society must do likewise, how so?
EDIT: Lost the text I was refering to. Love the irony of that, given the subject
So I'll leave it here. Wonder which page I was reading that it belonged to though...
Mike Gravel for president!
Isn't it amazing.......no......actually quite typical. Since the theist cant prove the magical claims they make, they waste their time complaining about the way they are treated.
"Ad Homin"=I have no evidence for my deity.
Not to worry Wave, you are in good company with Jews, Muslims and Scientologists too.
"Hey, stop calling my god Superman".
Well, when a duck is a duck we call it a duck. If it smells like fiction we call it fiction. And your deity needs a bath because it wreaks of fiction.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Its odd that you get to tell people what they believe, define it for them, challenge what you created, condemn people for how you lumped them into what you challenged, and make out like you're afflicted and those other people are, well, for you 'other people' must be bad enough.
Mike Gravel for president!
Since when is atheism a license to abandon common decency? I know, I'll become an atheist and treat theists like crap. Do you have any idea how much it diminishes your credibility?
My Artwork
Oh, I'm sorry
"Your belief is not fiction. I'll be converting tommorow"
Is that better?
I guess you like people lying to you? Is that it?
You think I am being mean to you? No, that is your mistake.
Now try to stop complaining and focus. For the same reason you find all other deities to be fiction besides your own, I find yours to be fiction as well. That is not being mean, that is being honest.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You find it a fiction because you insist on having logically consistent descriptions of reality. By limiting the domain to that which fits into a linguistic form, you place yourself in in a position that artificially constrains what is real. Even complaining that god is a nonsensical term only makes sense from within the structure of logic. Logic is limited. It purposely limits the nature of truth. But that does not give you the right to call anything that does not fit within that structure fiction. You are claiming more than logic allows. That is dishonest. Prove that god is a fiction. Don't say it's up to me to prove s(he) isn't. YOU made the claim that god is fiction. In doing so, the burden of proof rest on you.
My Artwork