God & Physics: Theism in Scientific Community

[airkapp]

"God" and physics

I hear that most physicists are either atheist/agnostics? What is general feeling of theists within the scientific community? Is theism considered incompatible with good science? Is atheism "intellectually honest", or would it be more of a higher intrinsic intellecutally honest value to be agnostic. To follow a life paradigm from an agnostic viewpoint? Or is this an unfair juxtaposition? Do many of you consider theism to be a hinderance to a unbiased view on cosmology and astrophysics?

Last question. With the advent of Hawking's "no boundary proposal" along with what seemingly is a contradictory "timeless space" model offered is the cosmological argument for the big bang existence of God no longer a viable option? Would it be completely illogical to assume space time to be co-existant and that a "space' or even "deity" could be outside of space/time?

okay real last question: Is faith in God a viable way of gaining knowledge? Or is simply enough to say all knowledge of God we gain is through the creation? ie. All we can know about God is through Scientific analysis of his creation.

p.s. I'm studying to be an EE, so most of this is done from independant study and convo. Hence, I have much more questions and am interested in thoughts rather then giving my own answers.

 

[cragwolf]

The religious scientists I've known have strictly divorced their religion from science. It's two separate worlds, and never the twain shall meet. They are also never literal adopters of their religion, or fundamentalists in other words, because that would make them look quite ridiculous.

I'm assuming by atheism you mean belief in non-existence of a god, and agnosticism as lack of belief in a god. In that sense, you could say that agnosticism is more "intellectually honest" than atheism, but perhaps it is more honest to admit one's gut feelings (which might be derived from intellectual considerations) on a matter than to not have an opinion at all.

Hawking's "no boundary proposal" still leaves wiggle room for a god or god(s). And anyway, as long as such things are nothing more than sophisticated speculations without a shred of evidence, there will be plenty of room for a god to weave his/her/its twisted brand of universal infamy and selective cruelty.

Is faith in a god a viable way of gaining knowledge? Of course not! To base a knowledge system completely on faith is a recipe for complete disaster. Doubt is the road to knowledge, not faith. But even with doubt, we humans are extremely limited in what we can achieve in the pursuit of knowledge, so one thing I suppose we can learn from some religious practioners is humility.

 

[arildno]

As for the humility thing mentioned by cragwolf, I've never seen that trait displayed by fundamentalists; I've only seen it in those religious individuals who are loath to make dogmas out of their beliefs.

I've met plenty of humble non-religious persons, though; chiefly among agnostics.

 

[Mentat]

The religious scientists I've known have strictly divorced their religion from science. It's two separate worlds, and never the twain shall meet. They are also never literal adopters of their religion, or fundamentalists in other words, because that would make them look quite ridiculous.

And they care about how they look, do they?

I'm assuming by atheism you mean belief in non-existence of a god, and agnosticism as lack of belief in a god. In that sense, you could say that agnosticism is more "intellectually honest" than atheism, but perhaps it is more honest to admit one's gut feelings (which might be derived from intellectual considerations) on a matter than to not have an opinion at all.

I like this point.

Perhaps airkapp is referring to intellectual openness, rather than "honesty", but I still think you make a very good point, cragwolf.

Hawking's "no boundary proposal" still leaves wiggle room for a god or god(s). And anyway, as long as such things are nothing more than sophisticated speculations without a shred of evidence, there will be plenty of room for a god to weave his/her/its twisted brand of universal infamy and selective cruelty.

Airkapp was talking about a being that existed independent of space and time (which is what you get from the weird concept that god created all things, and that that includes space and time). The truth is, if you were talking about the Biblical or Christian God, then this would be a moot point as that God is described as having "form" and position (he is thus "space-dependent"). As to creating "time"...well, how long do you think that would take? How long could He have existed before that? The Bible's God doesn't require the ridiculous results of these lines of reasoning, but I suppose other gods might.

Is faith in a god a viable way of gaining knowledge? Of course not! To base a knowledge system completely on faith is a recipe for complete disaster.

Testify, brutha! Glory hallelujah!

Doubt is the road to knowledge, not faith.

You sure of that? How sure?

 

[cragwolf]

And they care about how they look, do they?

Of course! They are normal human beings in this respect. The respect of their peers is very important. But also they see the fundamental stupidity of strictly literal readings of religious texts, given what we've (think we've) learned about the world through science (which is what they practice, after all).

You sure of that? How sure?

Well, we can play that game of extreme skepticism and conclude that we can't be sure of anything. And then get into an infinite regress when we ask how sure we are of that. And so on. I'm sorry, but that bores me. I'm interested in science not because it leads to Truth, 100%, but because it leads to a very rich source of knowledge, and applying this knowledge we can get reproducable effects out of the world that often seem astonishing. Like, for example, a cure for a previously deadly disease; a way to get to Europe from Australia in under a day; a way to communicate almost instantly with someone in Bratislava, Slovakia; a way to accurately predict when Venus will next transit the face of the Sun; a machine that carries out calculations many orders of magnitude faster than any human could ever do; extraordinarily complicated mathematical structures dwarfing in complexity any previous human idea. Compared to these sorts of things, what has a belief in God produced or given us? Very little. The only thing I can think of is comfort for people who crave certainty and/or are always sure of themselves.

Which brings me back to the point about humility. Because that's where doubt springs from. I am but a single human out of billions who have existed, on a single planet around a single star out of countless many, living in a vast universe with many things in it, and I am going to make some general theory about the universe and the things in it, and deem it to be true with 100% certainty? Pull the other one! Original knowledge is extremely difficult to generate and is unlikely to come from someone as average as me (and nearly all of you). That's what exasperates me about idiotic crackpots who come here or on newsgroups proposing their universal theory of everything which proves Einstein wrong. What supreme arrogance! Where do they get the gall to do that? Scientists are only human, and partake in their share of arrogant behaviour, but their humility is Christ-like (that's Christ the legend, not necessarily Christ the man) compared to the average crackpot.

 

[cragwolf]

As an experiment I put the word "doubt" into the Amazon search engine and it returned 1,002 books. The word "faith" in the same search engine returned 20,812 books. A 20-to-1 ratio in favour of faith over doubt. I wonder what sort of a world we would have if that ratio was reversed? My gut feeling is a saner and healthier one.

 

[airkapp]

Well, I know religious debate is not allowed but if anyone's interested I spend quite a bit of time over www.christianforums.com in the general apologetics section. They can use a bit of rationale and logic to fill their minds, and it seems that there's a bit of that over here. I still can't believe there's an "evolution/creation" debate. Not to go off tangent, but I try to be "Christ-like" and I consider myself to be an extremely liberal Christian although I typically side with atheist/agnostic and debate fundamentalists quite a bit. Hope to catch some on the fly over there.

 

[Mentat]

Of course! They are normal human beings in this respect. The respect of their peers is very important. But also they see the fundamental stupidity of strictly literal readings of religious texts, given what we've (think we've) learned about the world through science (which is what they practice, after all).

Understood.

Well, we can play that game of extreme skepticism and conclude that we can't be sure of anything.

That was not my intention. I was wondering if you put absolute faith in the concept that it is wrong to put absolute faith in concepts.

I'm interested in science not because it leads to Truth, 100%, but because it leads to a very rich source of knowledge, and applying this knowledge we can get reproducable effects out of the world that often seem astonishing.

If one takes the Bible (for example) as a true history, then the worship of God was a rich source of knowledge for the Jews, and the application of their knowledge led to miracles on their behalf.

Like, for example, a cure for a previously deadly disease; a way to get to Europe from Australia in under a day; a way to communicate almost instantly with someone in Bratislava, Slovakia; a way to accurately predict when Venus will next transit the face of the Sun; a machine that carries out calculations many orders of magnitude faster than any human could ever do; extraordinarily complicated mathematical structures dwarfing in complexity any previous human idea. Compared to these sorts of things, what has a belief in God produced or given us? Very little. The only thing I can think of is comfort for people who crave certainty and/or are always sure of themselves.

Well, I never said that belief in God gave us anything. Belief in science doesn't give us anything either. It's putting that belief to practice that has produced results (as has the worshipping of God, according to certain histories).

The God of the Bible is said to have cured diseases, transported people from one place to another, along with many other "fantastic feats". Whether or not these are true is as irrelevant as whether our descendants believe in cellphones.

Note: I'm not saying that the God of the Bible, or any other god, should be taken as literally real, or that the Bible is a source of absolute truth. However, I am saying that no one seems to have even considered it as a possibility. That people only look at the belief of the faithful, rather than what it is they believe in, seems like bad form.

 

[jackle]

I think learning is more based on faith(trust) than doubt. It generally isn't possible to educate somone who refuses to trust anything you say. Once a relationship of trust is built, further evidence can be presented to re-enforce the original information. This is why most scientists desire credability in their profession.

 

[erraticimpulse]

Is faith in a god a viable way of gaining knowledge? Of course not!

Faith ground in fiction is certainly bunk. But faith based on truth is most definitely not a lost cause. It's only by our knowledge of the properties inherent in the universe that we are able to conjecture with any true basis. This is the guiding principle in mathematics and axiomatics: to base proofs on self-evident truths and not on flimsy conjecture.

Despite the lack of objectivity in most scientists, God is not inconsistent with science. The theory of evolution is an example of a reformation to disprove the existence of God by means of science. However, the very basis of it places it more in the realm of fallacy than fact. The mathematical probability of evolution is so incredibly small that it becomes impossible by scientific standards. If you ever punch something in the calculator and end up with something like 1 E-9872 you know that zero is a good approximation.

Those who have taken up the task of disproving the Bible have actually proven it by contradiction, as is the case in archaeology and the historical record of events in the Bible. The fact that every historical event and scientific postulation in the Bible are accurate, and that thousands of years before modern science, should be plenty of ground for faith.

As applaudable as science is, it rarely makes a pure affirmation on anything. Most of it resides in theory as this allows room for any mistakes, which is something that everyone should support. It's very smart and allows for room on corrections. But the Bible has made definite and clear statements concerning the natural world. And still it remains uncontradicted or disproven.

My two cents

 

[AntonVrba]

The closer you look at the Universe on the one side and particles on the other side and start analysing and finding parallels in those two extrems you will find the unanswered questions in physics are solvable.

I am well on my way just doing that and found out that in the beginning there was a very clever Universal Engineer - if we are just a side effect or a design or a mistake of His engineering that question I will leave for others to answer.

Also analyse the words "I believe" - means nothing more than "I do not know but would like to have it that way for the easy way out"

and "I have faith in you" = "I believe in you" = "I follow blindly without asking questions"

to sum up "When blind man who is helped by a stranger to cross a busy street, he belives that his helper does not want to commit suicide"

sorry folks - I might have taken this too far - I appologise to those who might be offended.

As a scientist I would like to say "I know" or "observable facts and figures prove"

 

[Icebreaker]

As an experiment I put the word "doubt" into the Amazon search engine and it returned 1,002 books. The word "faith" in the same search engine returned 20,812 books. A 20-to-1 ratio in favour of faith over doubt. I wonder what sort of a world we would have if that ratio was reversed? My gut feeling is a saner and healthier one.

:rofl: Agreed.

Religion has no place in science. Leave it to the philosophers.

 

[arildno]

The mathematical probability of evolution is so incredibly small that it becomes impossible by scientific standards. If you ever punch something in the calculator and end up with something like 1 E-9872 you know that zero is a good approximation.

The principle of natural selection, for example, means that evolution is not a random process in the probabilistic sense of the word.

 

[Lucretius]

I'm sure you all know about talk.origins? The problem with those who deny evolution due to "mathematical impossibility" is that they aren't obeying the evolutionary model. They are doing the Creationist Model, which is nothing but a straw man that allows only for one mutation per species per generation.

What REALLY happens is that every creature in the species suffers from such mutations and that the beneficial ones are kept while the rest are tossed. Natural selection!

 

[erraticimpulse]

Try the view of biology

The principle of natural selection, for example, means that evolution is not a random process in the probabilistic sense of the word.

And yet it remains unobservable? Scientists have looked at scores of generations of fruit flies for years and have yet to find a foundational change in their genetic composition.

As far as biology is concerned, it is impossible for an organism to function without all the necessary systems. But from an evolutionary standpoint there is a gradual change in the genetic and physiological composition of an organism. You can't put half a heart or half a pancreas into a body and expect it to operate correctly. It's either there or it isn't going to work.

You guys are all familiar with Mendel's experiement with pea pods from high school, right? Through the use of Punnett squares we were able to see what could result from two organisms from their dominant and recessive genes. I assert that "natural selection" depends solely on the genes an organism has inherited.

 

[jackle]

I don't understand what evolution has got to do with the existence of God. Science is repeatedly proved wrong and replaced with better theories but as soon as one religion is proved wrong over some people's interpretation of something, apparrently this means that God doesn't exist at all! If I were to reciprocate this behavior, I would claim that because our understanding of the big bang has changed over the years, it never happened. This is dumb.

 

[jackle]

It is also very frustrating to hear non-scientists keep making the same poor claims about science over and over.

 

[Janitor]

... Those who have taken up the task of disproving the Bible have actually proven it by contradiction, as is the case in archaeology and the historical record of events in the Bible. The fact that every historical event and scientific postulation in the Bible are accurate, and that thousands of years before modern science, should be plenty of ground for faith...

It sounds like you tune into the same sorts of radio programs that I do, though without the same degree of skepticism.

I think it was at PF that one member "proved" that it was the Q'ran, not the Bible, that meshes perfectly with what science has only recently discovered. This person quoted something from the Q'ran about the heavens being stitched to the Earth. That's the Big Bang theory, written for the consumption of desert-dwelling nomads. Can't you see that?

 

[arildno]

As far as biology is concerned, it is impossible for an organism to function without all the necessary systems. But from an evolutionary standpoint there is a gradual change in the genetic and physiological composition of an organism. You can't put half a heart or half a pancreas into a body and expect it to operate correctly. It's either there or it isn't going to work.

Nonsense.
Aggregates of a unicellular organism exist with a wide range of functional differentiation among the member cells.
In the most "primitive" of such aggregates, every member cell does the functions necessary for its own survival, with a minimal amount of interaction between the member cells.
Further up on the hierarchy, specialization has occurred in various ways; an individual member cell may have shut down some of its essential functions, and depends upon other members in the aggregate to perform these.


Your example with "half a heart" is merely a testament to your naivite and ignorance.

 

[PhilosophyofPhysics]

I'm all for the just science, just religion, and the mixers. Though, I get far more upset with atheists attacking religion. It's like a disease on the internet. You'd think 80% of the world were hateful atheists.

i'm most happy with the mixers though.

 

[wikkidwife]

Despite the lack of objectivity in most scientists, God is not inconsistent with science. The theory of evolution is an example of a reformation to disprove the existence of God by means of science. However, the very basis of it places it more in the realm of fallacy than fact. The mathematical probability of evolution is so incredibly small that it becomes impossible by scientific standards. If you ever punch something in the calculator and end up with something like 1 E-9872 you know that zero is a good approximation.

Those who have taken up the task of disproving the Bible have actually proven it by contradiction, as is the case in archaeology and the historical record of events in the Bible. The fact that every historical event and scientific postulation in the Bible are accurate, and that thousands of years before modern science, should be plenty of ground for faith.

I totally agree with this. Has anybody read any of the books by Lee Strobel? "The Case for a Creator" poses a great argument for how theism and sciences, such as physics, cosmology, astronomy and biochemistry, mesh with each other. The book also addresses such issues as Darwinism, evolution, the big bang theory, the Cambrian explosion, etc...I recommend it for anybody interested what God and science have to do with each other. Before writing his books, the autor was an atheist. After writing them he concluded that with all of the scientific evidence pointing to theism, it actually takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist. (Needless to say, he is now Christian).

 

[jackle]

I think evolution is a very beautiful and powerful ability and is one of the main things that separates life from ordindary objects. The big bang is an expression of unthinkable power and force. It is the very things that many atheists take as evidence against God that are the most awesome displays of divinity, going far beyond anything the writers of The Bible could ever have thought up.

I don't get it.

 

[Janitor]

... Has anybody read any of the books by Lee Strobel? ... he concluded that with all of the scientific evidence pointing to theism, it actually takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist. (Needless to say, he is now Christian).

I have not read Strobel's books. Earlier in March he was interviewed by the local Christian radio talk show host. The host asked Strobel, "If somebody could present you with some really good evidence for atheism, would you go back to being an atheist?"

Strobel's answer [not an exact quote since I am going by memory]: "If somebody presented me with evidence that my wife does not exist, I would find it interesting, but I would not stop believing that my wife exists. Likewise, if somebody presented me with evidence for atheism, I would find it interesting, but I would not stop being a Christian. I was born again twenty years ago, and ever since I have had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, so there is nothing that will make me cease believing in him. I know that he is real."

It might be good to remember, as you read Strobel's books, that the author is no longer capable of being influenced by objective evidence from the natural world outside of his own self.

 

[arildno]

This Strobel guy sounds like a liar; he probably never was an atheist in the first place; rather, he was a Christian from the very beginning and wanted to find simplistic "justifications" for his faith through a scanty read of pop-science magazines.

 

[wikkidwife]

This Strobel guy sounds like a liar; he probably never was an atheist in the first place; rather, he was a Christian from the very beginning and wanted to find simplistic "justifications" for his faith through a scanty read of pop-science magazines.

Actually, when his wife became a Christian he was trying to find a way to prove to her that she was wrong. So, he interviewed scientists of many backgrounds. He thought that science would be able to disprove Christianity and prove to his wife once and for all that she was wrong. He posed every argument I've ever heard from an atheist and then some. In the end, he changed as well. I found his book interesting, but if you think it's a bunch of crap, that's cool. Don't want to be forcing anything on you.

Janitor, you seem to know what you're talking about. I suppose it's true that Strobel "is no longer capable of being influenced by objective evidence from the natural world outside of his own self." But he was at one point, and isn't that objective evidence from the natural world what got him where he is now?

 

[Janitor]

... I suppose it's true that Strobel "is no longer capable of being influenced by objective evidence from the natural world outside of his own self." But he was at one point, and isn't that objective evidence from the natural world what got him where he is now?

Something that might be of interest to you is that at the end of that interview, Strobel asked people to pray for the success of his upcoming knee surgery. You will probably want to ask yourself Why doesn't Strobel act in accordance with the New Testament, and have members of his church anoint him with oil and pray for his complete and instantaneous healing? Such healing would be 100 percent perfect, whereas the healing done by surgeons is only partial, and takes a period of recuperation.

So there is a crack in Strobel's armor of faith, it seems to me. Maybe he is keeping one foot out there in the physical world of scalpels, sutures, and painkilling drugs, after all.

 

[wikkidwife]

Something that might be of interest to you is that at the end of that interview, Strobel asked people to pray for the success of his upcoming knee surgery. You will probably want to ask yourself Why doesn't Strobel act in accordance with the New Testament, and have members of his church anoint him with oil and pray for his complete and instantaneous healing? Such healing would be 100 percent perfect, whereas the healing done by surgeons is only partial, and takes a period of recuperation.

So there is a crack in Strobel's armor of faith, it seems to me. Maybe he is keeping one foot out there in the physical world of scalpels, sutures, and painkilling drugs, after all.

Good point. Absolutely true. But the thing is, he's on a spiritual journey. That's where he's at in his journey. I'm guessing that isn't the only crack in his faith. I'm sure I've got cracks in my faith as well, that's just where I'm at right now. I'm not sure that anybody out there has perfect faith. We're all just working on it. Isn't that what life is, really? (You do make very good points though).

 

[erraticimpulse]

Questions

I think evolution is a very beautiful and powerful ability and is one of the main things that separates life from ordindary objects. The big bang is an expression of unthinkable power and force. It is the very things that many atheists take as evidence against God that are the most awesome displays of divinity, going far beyond anything the writers of The Bible could ever have thought up.

I don't get it.

I can agree and disagree with this. Yeah, there's certainly a lot of irony from the atheist camp. It certainly takes a lot more faith to say that our existence is a probability than to say it was orchestrated.

The common factor of the Bible writers is God. Their stories are historical accounts of things that happened, rather than fictional stories with a moral. Nearly every event after the Flood has substancial archaological evidence to corroborate it. In one respect, you're right. There is a lot that goes beyond what the writers of the Bible could ascertain. The truth is the events they recorded were so supernatural that they had to write it down, because they know no one would believe it.

IMO I don't believe that there's any case for evolution. Some people seem to be content believing that 5 billion years and random chance is all that separates them from a chemistry set. I find it too hard to swallow, separate from my faith. The fact that my faith allows no room for evolution does not prevent me from remaining objective. If anything it causes me to ask more questions to reaffirm if what I believe is true.

Questions like: Supposing that evolution is an inherent ability in all living things, where is the evidence that it is currently happening or has happened?

Is the universe old enough for evolution to have reached it's current status?

Can evolution explain all phenomenon in the natural world, i.e. flying, sonar, etc?

 

[Janitor]

... he's on a spiritual journey. That's where he's at in his journey...

When you have the time, there are some autobiographical sketches of spiritual journies you may wish to read at this site:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/index.shtml

 

[pt176900]

by erraticimpulse: "But the Bible has made definite and clear statements concerning the natural world. And still it remains uncontradicted or disproven."

Ok, so you're saying that modern science doesn't contradict the notion that all of humanity could have developed from two people, ie Adam and Eve? Are you familiar with the effects of inbreeding? In fact, the only mechanism by which this could "possibly" (and this is a stretch) work is... evolution.

Furthermore, if one is to take the bible literally we can deduce the age of the universe to be approximately 5,000 years (as many folks have done over the past two millenia) which is in DIRECT contradiction to ALL the evidence.

so, your statement is fallacious.

 

[Kerrie]

Your example with "half a heart" is merely a testament to your naivite and ignorance.

Let's not use degrading remarks here because you don't agree.

This thread does violate our PF policy as of now, so I regret to say it needs to be locked.