God & Cosmology: Perceptions & Opinions

[planethunter]

A pretty loaded title for the thread (I know).

I would like to know what are everyone's perceptions/opinions regarding the beginning of the universe (of time) as it relates to the notion of a god or God?

 

[nicksauce]

This article of Sean Carroll's accurately reflects my thoughts:

http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/nd-paper.pdf

 

[twofish-quant]

I would like to know what are everyone's perceptions/opinions regarding the beginning of the universe (of time) as it relates to the notion of a god or God?

I think it's irrelevant. If you are looking for God, look outside when its raining and watch the leaves fall to the ground. You either see God there, or you don't. If you don't see God in front of you, then I don't see what difference looking at the Big Bang makes. If you *do* see God when you look outside the window as the rain falls, then again, I don't see what difference looking at the early universe makes

Now I happen to see God standing in front of me, but that's just me.

 

[twofish-quant]

It's not clear to me that almost all cosmologists *are* atheists.

 

[Chronos]

Science functions just fine without injecting belief systems, which creates the impression that scientists are atheists. I believe that is much less common that most people think. There are scientists who flatly reject theology, and theologians who flatly reject science, but, most are somewhere in the middle, IMO.

 

[marcus]

in new nonsingular cosmology, time goes back before bang

...opinions regarding the beginning of the universe (of time) ...

You may be making the unjustified assumption that time began at the start of expansion ("big bang" moment). This idea has declined in favor (according to Roger Penrose the turning point came in 2005.)

The idea is being challenged by new cosmology models that do not suffer from a "singularity" or breakdown at the start of expansion.

Check out this book being prepared for release this year:
http://www.springer.com/astronomy/general+relativity/book/978-3-540-71422-4

Beyond the Big Bang: Competing scenarios for an eternal universe

It is written by recognized experts: major protagonists of the new cosmo models. The editor putting the it all together is R.Vaas.

Advance copies have gone out and the book has been reviewed by some prominent people, you can click on reviews and see some of their comments.

This change has already been registered in the professional, technical literature. The book that Vaas is editing is non-technical, written for general readership.

I would suggest you keep your eyes open for new developments and do not assume that time, or the universe, began at the bang moment.

 

[Chronos]

What signatures from prior universes can be detected in our present universe? Until such evidence is obtained, the eternal universe model appears speculative.

 

[Chalnoth]

It's not clear to me that almost all cosmologists *are* atheists.

A majority are. Not all, clearly, but definitely a very strong majority. My guestimate would be in the range of 80%-95% (big error bars because obviously my personal experience isn't a terribly good judge...but I haven't personally met a single cosmologist who isn't an atheist, though I have met an astronomer who isn't).

My basic position is that the concept of a god falls into just a couple of categories, depending upon the definition a person uses for the word:

1. Specific definitions: the more specific the definition of a god becomes, the more unreasonable it becomes. Either because it's just more complex, and thus less likely without evidence, or because it starts to contradict itself (e.g. the problem of evil), or because it starts to contradict simple observation of reality. These gods cannot exist, in essence.

2. Vague definitions: in order to avoid being ruled out by simple observation, many attempt to clothe their god in vagueness. But in doing so, they essentially define their god out of existence: what they end up describing may as well be a dumb, unthinking, unfeeling law of nature (such as the 1/r^2 falloff of gravity or some such). To call such a thing "god" seems, to me, a bit ludicrous (though many pantheists would disagree, I suppose). But more to the point, the definitions become so vague that there is no way to determine what these people actually mean by the word in the first place, and so they may as well be saying that snargle slumphs exist (and then not bothering to go to the trouble of stating what a "snargle slumph" actually is).

I have never seen anybody come up with a definition of a god that avoids these two. And even if they did, then there's the next problem: lack of evidence. So yeah, there's just no reason to believe in any god or gods.

 

[Chronos]

Ruling out the need for god does not rule out the existence of god.

 

[Chalnoth]

Ruling out the need for god does not rule out the existence of god.

But without any evidence whatsoever, it makes the statement "a god exists" an unreasonable one to hold. This is one big reason why so many theologians and philosophers have attempted to prove, from first principles, the existence of a deity (a non-starter if ever there was one: you can't prove anything about the nature of reality).

 

[madness]

"But without any evidence whatsoever, it makes the statement "a god exists" an unreasonable one to hold. This is one big reason why so many theologians and philosophers have attempted to prove, from first principles, the existence of a deity (a non-starter if ever there was one: you can't prove anything about the nature of reality)."

From a theistic point of view, I think the evidence is that the universe exists and that it appears coherent and orderly. I'm not sure what you mean by "you can't prove anything about the nature of reality", most people see science as attempting to do this. I'm not sure exactly what Carrol meant by materialism, but it isn't conventional to use it in contradistinction with theism, and I don't agree that science implies materialism either.

 

[Chalnoth]

From a theistic point of view, I think the evidence is that the universe exists and that it appears coherent and orderly.

Intelligent observers can't exist except if these things were true, so it is impossible to make any conclusions one way or the other about what these simple statements mean.

To put it another way, it shouldn't be any surprise that you weren't born in the vacuum of space, because if you were, you'd be dead. So you can't conclude anything one way or the other about the fact that you were born in a habitable environment.

I'm not sure what you mean by "you can't prove anything about the nature of reality", most people see science as attempting to do this.

I meant prove as in mathematics. Science is a means of finding an approximation to the truth. That approximation gets better and better as we learn more and more. But it is only ever an approximation, and we don't always know precisely where the approximation breaks down.

What theologians and philosophers have attempted to repeatedly do is find an actual proof, not just present evidence (because there is none). They've fallen flat every time, mind you. But they've tried.

I'm not sure exactly what Carrol meant by materialism, but it isn't conventional to use it in contradistinction with theism, and I don't agree that science implies materialism either.

He states what he means quite explicitly:

Materialism asserts that a complete description of nature consists of an understanding of the structures of which it is comprised together with the patterns which those structures follow, while theism insists on the need for a conscious God who somehow rises above those patterns.

Science requires a philosophy known as "methodological naturalism", which basically is a statement that science can only discover natural causes. In other words, science can only discern things which adhere to materialism. The fact that science has been incredibly successful, however, lends credence to the statement that there isn't anything else out there that doesn't adhere to some natural rules (that is, the supernatural).

 

[Doug Huffman]

I would like to know what are everyone's ... opinions regarding the beginning of the universe (of time) as it relates to the notion of a god or God?

The uncaused cause works for me.

 

[celebrei]

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet

 

[Chalnoth]

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet

That doesn't mean that those who make specific claims about the non-material are making reasonable claims.

 

[JoeDawg]

If the big bang created the universe, it also created the gods.
Otherwise, there are no gods in this universe.

 

[celebrei]

That doesn't mean that those who make specific claims about the non-material are making reasonable claims.

They could very well do so, who are we to say? is matter all that matters? I think that's why people have faith, don't you have faith?

 

[Doug Huffman]

There are two statements of faith. One may have faith in the natural, scientific and falsifiable. One may have faith in the supernatural and unfalsifiable faith in god. That they may be exclusive depends on holding two thoughts in one mind. What is the sound of one hand clapping?

 

[madness]

"Intelligent observers can't exist except if these things were true, so it is impossible to make any conclusions one way or the other about what these simple statements mean.

To put it another way, it shouldn't be any surprise that you weren't born in the vacuum of space, because if you were, you'd be dead. So you can't conclude anything one way or the other about the fact that you were born in a habitable environment."

It always seems to me that to accept this argument you are implicitly assuming that there are a multitude of other universes which don't follow natural laws.

"Materialism asserts that a complete description of nature consists of an understanding of the structures of which it is comprised together with the patterns which those structures follow, while theism insists on the need for a conscious God who somehow rises above those patterns."

This stance is fully compatible with idealism, dualism, monism, pansychism etc. What I was saying was that it doesn't sound like any standard definition of materialism.

"If the big bang created the universe, it also created the gods.
Otherwise, there are no gods in this universe."

That really doesn't make much sense. If God was transcendent, he would exist outside of space and time and presumably "caused" the universe.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

A majority are. Not all, clearly, but definitely a very strong majority. My guestimate would be in the range of 80%-95% (big error bars because obviously my personal experience isn't a terribly good judge...but I haven't personally met a single cosmologist who isn't an atheist, though I have met an astronomer who isn't).

My basic position is that the concept of a god falls into just a couple of categories, depending upon the definition a person uses for the word:

1. Specific definitions: the more specific the definition of a god becomes, the more unreasonable it becomes. Either because it's just more complex, and thus less likely without evidence, or because it starts to contradict itself (e.g. the problem of evil), or because it starts to contradict simple observation of reality. These gods cannot exist, in essence.

2. Vague definitions: in order to avoid being ruled out by simple observation, many attempt to clothe their god in vagueness. But in doing so, they essentially define their god out of existence: what they end up describing may as well be a dumb, unthinking, unfeeling law of nature (such as the 1/r^2 falloff of gravity or some such). To call such a thing "god" seems, to me, a bit ludicrous (though many pantheists would disagree, I suppose). But more to the point, the definitions become so vague that there is no way to determine what these people actually mean by the word in the first place, and so they may as well be saying that snargle slumphs exist (and then not bothering to go to the trouble of stating what a "snargle slumph" actually is).

I have never seen anybody come up with a definition of a god that avoids these two. And even if they did, then there's the next problem: lack of evidence. So yeah, there's just no reason to believe in any god or gods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ellis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees,_Baron_Rees_of_Ludlow

^^Cosmologists off the top of my head that go to church. There are few prominent cosmologists who are atheist in the Sean Carrol sense.

I like Dyson's thoughts on this:

I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension

It appears to me that the tendency of mind to infiltrate and control matter is a law of nature. Individual minds die and individual planets may be destroyed. But, as Thomas Wright said, "The catastrophe of a world, such as ours, or even the total dissolution of a system of worlds, may possibly be no more to the great Author of Nature, than the most common accident of life with us."

The infiltration of mind into the universe will not be permanently halted by any catastrophe or by any barrier that I can imagine. If our species does not choose to lead the way, others will do so, or may have already done so. If our species is extinguished, others will be wiser or luckier. Mind is patient. Mind has waited for 3 billion years on this planet before composing its first string quartet. It may have to wait for another 3 billion years before it spreads all over the galaxy. I do not expect that it will have to wait so long. But if necessary, it will wait. The universe is like a fertile soil spread out all around us, ready for the seeds of mind to sprout and grow. Ultimately, late or soon, mind will come into its heritage.

What will mind choose to do when it informs and controls the universe? That is a question which we cannot hope to answer. When mind has expanded its physical reach and its biological organization by many powers of ten beyond the human scale, we can no more expect to understand its thoughts and dreams than a Monarch butterfly can understand ours. Mind can answer our question only as God answered Job out of the whirlwind, "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"

In contemplating the future of mind in the universe, we have exhausted the resources of our puny human science. This is the point at which science ends and theology begins.

To comprehend higher intelligence, you would have to be that higher intelligence.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

I think it's irrelevant. If you are looking for God, look outside when its raining and watch the leaves fall to the ground. You either see God there, or you don't. If you don't see God in front of you, then I don't see what difference looking at the Big Bang makes. If you *do* see God when you look outside the window as the rain falls, then again, I don't see what difference looking at the early universe makes

Now I happen to see God standing in front of me, but that's just me.

Exactly, you can study the universe and think you are just studying God's handiwork in whatever you find. That's how Bacon and other greats thought being true to God was. Studying his handiwork accurately. Directly from the source.

 

[A. H. ES NA S]

Maybe god is the universe,god is energy,space,and evrything you see and you cannot see.god was not created,he only exists.so god is out of the ''time''.immagine that time doesn't exist for you:so you don't need to move because you are evryware?or you have to move but the universe will stop its process?so you will always exist,but you don't really exist,because you are trapped in time,or better,in ''space'' with no ''time''.so what makes you work when the whole univese is stopped?that means you are not a part of that univese,you obey diffent rules even if you think you have no rules to respect.
So you have two choises:1-god is the universe itself
2-god is not a part of this universe
3(even if first i sed 2 choises)-god doesn't exist,you are a prouct of a natural casuality(chaos theory indicates that infinite possibilities indicate infinite products of those possibilietes)and if don't consider time there will be infinite products equal to you.

 

[Evo]

Deleted off topic posts.

 

[twofish-quant]

A majority are. Not all, clearly, but definitely a very strong majority.

My experience is quite different. My guess is that about 60% of cosmologists are atheists. One thing that might make a difference is that I went to graduate school in Texas, and I think you have fewer atheists working as cosmologists at southern universities, because you have a different culture.

Also it's been my experience is that 80% of the people that I know in astronomy vote Democrat.

I have never seen anybody come up with a definition of a god that avoids these two.

But them you end up with "rules for truth." Yes, if you are talking about mathematics, then having a vague undefined concept is a bad thing. But we aren't talking about mathematics.

And even if they did, then there's the next problem: lack of evidence. So yeah, there's just no reason to believe in any god or gods.

Again, you run into the problem of "what constituents evidence." I'm willing to agree with the point that God is not a *scientific concept* and that there is no *scientific evidence* for the existence of God (and I think curiously most Protestant and Catholic theologians would have no problem with that statement).

Where I very, very strongly disagree is the idea that "science is truth, and truth is science" which is why i think that Richard Dawkins is totally nutty. It's really weird because much as I dislike the bad impact that young Earth Creationists have on science education, I actually agree with them on some of the philosophical points that they make.

 

[Evo]

This discussion is getting too specific in reference to religious beliefs, which is against our guidelines. Please be careful not to post about any specific religions or their beliefs.

Religious Discussion Guidelines:
Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems. However, it is essential to use good judgment whenever discussing religious matters to ensure that the discussion does not degenerate into a messy dispute. If in doubt, err on the side of caution.

 

[twofish-quant]

But without any evidence whatsoever, it makes the statement "a god exists" an unreasonable one to hold.

By the rules of physics yes. By the rules of theology no. There are religions which are based on the fundamental belief that there are truths in the universe which cannot be proved and must be accepted on faith, and faith alone, and that only by accepting certain statements without any evidence or rationale, can one be saved.

I don't have a problem with that.

This is one big reason why so many theologians and philosophers have attempted to prove, from first principles, the existence of a deity (a non-starter if ever there was one: you can't prove anything about the nature of reality).

What happened in Medieval Europe was that once people rediscovered Aristotle, they tried to use rational logic to mathematically prove the existence of God. This was the Scholastic movement. After about three hundred years of trying, they came to the conclusion that it couldn't be done, which opened the doors for theological ideas based on the idea that salvation comes from faith and belief of things for which there is no rational evidence for. This isn't science. Okay. Point taken.

One thing that is interesting is that when I talk to young Earth creationists or intelligent designers, about why creationism is bad science, I don't get a very hostile reaction because it becomes obvious that I am a "person of faith" and that I believe that an intelligent person can believe things in the absence of evidence and in some situations one should be admired for believing things without any reasons for them.

 

[Dolphiney]

This discussion is getting too specific in reference to religious beliefs, which is against our guidelines. Please be careful not to post about any specific religions or their beliefs.

The thread title states this is about God and Cosmo topic clearly.

Where to seek God ? There is no God, only Us, human beings only, Searching us seems more appropriate . :lol:

 

[twofish-quant]

This discussion is getting too specific in reference to religious beliefs, which is against our guidelines. Please be careful not to post about any specific religions or their beliefs.

That's not what the guidelines say. The guidelines say that it is improper to talk about the truth or falsilty of specific religious beliefs, but I don't think we can have a reasonable discussion without discussing exactly what certain religions believe about the nature of truth and compare and contrast that with how scientific truth is defined.

One thing that I do find interesting is that certain groups of people tend to be cosmologists and astrophysicists. There tend to be an unusually large number of Chinese in physics and I think I understand how that happened (i.e. I can name the philosophers.)

I've also noticed that there seem to be a very large number of people with Jewish backgrounds in the field, but I don't know enough about Judaism to understand why that is.

 

[Evo]

and in some situations one should be admired for believing things without any reasons for them.

Interesting, why would a belief in something without any reason ever be something to be admired? I don't see it as a reason to look down on that person, but I don't see that it calls for admiration either. Can you give me some examples?

Perhaps you didn't actually mean "without any reason". Surely they had some reason, which made sense to them personally, even if it wasn't true or based in logic. Do you mean that their ability to cling to their belief, however wrong it might appear to be, is to be admired? I would think that the ability to question your beliefs would be a more adimirable trait.

 

[twofish-quant]

One reason I like reading theology is that when I think about theology (particularly Catholic and Islamic theology), the same part of my brain that does physics gets an exercise. Theology generally asks you to accept certain statements as "dogma" and then try to figure out the logical consequences of those statements.

One thing that has been very difficult for me is that I've been exposed to so many different religions in my life, that I'm not sure what to believe, and one reason I like physics is that there is this small bit of "truth" in which religion doesn't matter.

 

[Evo]

That's not what the guidelines say. The guidelines say that it is improper to talk about the truth or falsilty of specific religious beliefs, but I don't think we can have a reasonable discussion without discussing exactly what certain religions believe about the nature of truth and compare and contrast that with how scientific truth is defined.

One thing that I do find interesting is that certain groups of people tend to be cosmologists and astrophysicists. There tend to be an unusually large number of Chinese in physics and I think I understand how that happened (i.e. I can name the philosophers.)

I've also noticed that there seem to be a very large number of people with Jewish backgrounds in the field, but I don't know enough about Judaism to understand why that is.

If you want to speculate why a Christian chooses a certian career as opposed to a Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, etc... this is not the forum for it.

 

[twofish-quant]

Interesting, why would a belief in something without any reason ever be something to be admired?

Why ask why?

Personally, I *think* that there is an evolutionary advantage in being able to believe things without evidence. One thing that I've noticed is that people with strong irrational beliefs tend to fight longer and harder than people who are rational. You can see this in Afghanistan, the US is thinking about pulling out, but the Taliban are still fighting and will fight for the next thousand years because they believe that God is on their side.

I know a lot of fundamentalist Christians, and personally I admire the strengths of their beliefs because if civilization were to collapse, I know that they would deal with it better than me. If the Earth gets struck by an asteroid, there are people that I know that would just see it as a test from God of their faith, and they'd deal with surviving the end of the world better than I would.

 

[Evo]

Why ask why?

Personally, I *think* that there is an evolutionary advantage in being able to believe things without evidence. One thing that I've noticed is that people with strong irrational beliefs tend to fight longer and harder than people who are rational. You can see this in Afghanistan, the US is thinking about pulling out, but the Taliban are still fighting and will fight for the next thousand years because they believe that God is on their side.

I know a lot of fundamentalist Christians, and personally I admire the strengths of their beliefs because if civilization were to collapse, I know that they would deal with it better than me. If the Earth gets struck by an asteroid, there are people that I know that would just see it as a test from God of their faith, and they'd deal with surviving the end of the world better than I would.

And an atheist believes that no one is watching out for them and their survival is in their own hands and would perhaps be incented to fight the hardest of all.

 

[twofish-quant]

And an atheist believes that no one is watching out for them and their survival is in their own hands and would perhaps be incented to fight the hardest of all.

Maybe, but we are at the point where we can make falsifiable scientific statements. I think you can do some statistical to prove or disprove the proposition that "faith" does or does not provide some sort of evolutionary advantage. I think this could be something that is something you can look at with mathematical game theory. When does having an "irrational belief" help you win.

In any event one thing that I do notice about most cosmologists and astrophysicists is that they tend not to broadcast their religious beliefs professionally because they really want to talk about the Gunn-Peterson effect and not theology.

One thing that I find amusing about the paper "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists" is that the author doesn't provide any scientific evidence that almost all cosmologists indeed are atheists. He just takes it on faith. As someone that believes in the important of evidence when making science statements, that's not acceptable. :-) :-) :-)

 

[Evo]

Maybe, but we are at the point where we can make falsifiable scientific statements. I think you can do some statistical to prove or disprove the proposition that "faith" does or does not provide some sort of evolutionary advantage. I think this could be something that is something you can look at with mathematical game theory. When does having an "irrational belief" help you win.

I do agree with you that a person acting upon an irrational belief may be more violent than a rational person. But it would also be safe to say that their irrational belief would aslo lead them to care less about their own safety. But I agree, irrational acts by one group can wipe out another group.

In any event one thing that I do notice about most cosmologists and astrophysicists is that they tend not to broadcast their religious beliefs professionally because they really want to talk about the Gunn-Peterson effect and not theology.

I think most professionals prefer not to bring their personal beliefs into their professsional careers.

One thing that I find amusing about the paper "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists" is that the author doesn't provide any scientific evidence that almost all cosmologists indeed are atheists. He just takes it on faith. As someone that believes in the important of evidence when making science statements, that's not acceptable. :-) :-) :-)

I really dislike anyone trying to bring personal beliefs into a profession. I strongly dislike it from all sides.

 

[twofish-quant]

Here is the only thing that I could find

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

It's interesting data, but I think that the researchers may be misinterpreting their data, and arguing that somehow "smarter" or "better" scientists tend to reject a belief in God.

There are a few things that I have noticed:

1) things are very heavily regional. Scientists that grew up and work in the Bible belt tend to be more religious that scientists that grew up in New England, so there may be a red state/blue state effect.

2) I've also noticed that scientists that deeply believe in God tend to be much quieter about their beliefs. It's considered a personal matter and irrelevant to their professional work, and I very seriously doubt that any of the people that I've interacted professionally really know or care that I'm a Buddhist, and I really don't want them to know since it is irrelevant. By contrast, I've noticed that scientists that are atheists tend to be more vocal that they are atheists.

 

[twofish-quant]

I really dislike anyone trying to bring personal beliefs into a profession. I strongly dislike it from all sides.

This *is* something that I have noticed, which is that astronomers do not like to talk about religion with other astronomers. One reason I do not like talking about my religious beliefs is because the fact that I became an astrophysicist has very strong religious roots, and if I start pushing my strong religious ideas on someone else, they'll start pushing their beliefs on me, and we all get into a screaming match which no one really wants. By keeping things tied to the evidence and not talking about God, we avoid a lot of conflict.

The other problem is that the scientific evidence changes. If I were to say "HAHA, the Big Bang is evidence for God! So there!" then what do I do in two years when it turns out that the big bang never happened, and that I've vastly misinterpreted the evidence. One reason that I dislike young Earth creationists, is that they *need* for the Earth to have formed a certain way or else their belief system falls apart.

One reason I think that basing my belief in God on faith and faith alone makes me a better scientist is that I can look at the evidence more objectively. If the big bang happened, God exists. If the big bang didn't happen, God exists. Whatever I see, God exists. If the universe formed 6000 years, 10 billion years, 100 billion years ago. God exists. Because my world doesn't fall apart whatever I see, I don't have any psychological pressure to force the evidence to be in a certain way.

(I think the Vatican figured this out a few hundred years ago.)

I really dislike anyone trying to bring personal beliefs into a profession. I strongly dislike it from all sides.

This is why I have serious, serious problems with Richard Dawkins.

 

[Evo]

As I said I truly dislike anyone bringing their personal beliefs up at work as having anything to do with their work, it's inappropriate. I also dislike anyone claiming that their belief, or lack of, is in any way superior to others. It is at that moment that they lose all credibility with me.

At the same time, I do not see any reason to believe in dieties. As long as Richard Dawkins isn't telling his co-workers not to believe in dieties on company time, he is welcome to state his thoughts the same as you or anyone else. He is no different than any preacher of religion. Your dislike of Dawkins makes no sense. Do you hate all of the religious figures that preach their religion as much as Dawkins, or is your problem with Dawkins the fact that he has no belief? Should we start denouncing all of the religious people that speak publicly?

 

[twofish-quant]

At the same time, I do not see any reason to believe in dieties. As long as Richard Dawkins isn't telling his co-workers not to believe in dieties on company time, he is welcome to state his thoughts the same as you or anyone else.

The problem is that Dawkins *is* telling people not to believe in deities on company time. Whenever I talk about science, I try to make a very, very clear distinction between my professional beliefs and my personal beliefs. I talk about my thoughts on the big bang, and I talk about my belief in God, and I keep them separate so that you can listen to me talk about cosmology and ignore and reject my religious beliefs.

I also try to keep this distinction in schools. If someone wants me to talk to elementary school students about physics, I talk about physics. I don't talk about religion, since that has no place in public schools.

That's fine since it creates a truce, and Dawkins has just blown away that truce.

He is no different than any preacher of religion.

Yes he is. Most preachers of religions don't try to use science to justify their religion and those that do are misusing science.

Do you hate all of the religious figures that preach their religion as much as Dawkins, or is your problem with Dawkins the fact that he has no belief?

I don't "hate" people. I said that I have serious, serious problems with Dawkins. If Dawkins were speaking as a preacher or a philosopher, I wouldn't have any problems with what he says. The problem that I have is that Dawkins appears to be speaking as a ***scientist*** and claims to be using ***science*** to justify his religious beliefs. I have serious problems with that. I think it is wrong when creationists do it, and I also think it is wrong when atheists do it.

As someone with a Ph.D. in astrophysics, I think it is improper for people to use their role as a *scientist* to advance their religious views (and that includes me). If Dawkins wants to talk about his atheism is a way that makes it clear that these are his personal views, that's fine. But he isn't. He is saying that people that believe in God are delusional, and I am offended by that.

Should we start denouncing all of the religious people that speak publicly?

You can do whatever you want.

As far as I'm concerned. I have serious, serious problems when people start using science to justify statements that are not subject to scientific evidence. I have huge, huge problems with people that support "creation science" or "intelligent design" because I think it is "junk science." I also have serious problems with Dawkins recent books because I think he is also doing "junk science" which is a shame because the Blind Watchmaker is quite a good book.

The reason reason I'm annoyed at Dawkins is that before he wrote the God Delusion, I could take his book the "Blind Watchmaker" and use it as a text that illustrates why creationism and intelligent design are junk science. The trouble is that after he has written the "God Delusion" I really can't, because that book has a lot of what I think of as junk science.

One reason that I think this is pretty interesting is that before he wrote the God Delusion I thought that Dawkins and I were on the same side of the science/faith debate, but it turns out not to be true.

 

[twofish-quant]

One problem with being a scientist is that it's not like there is this time clock, where you can say "oh I'm a scientist now" and "oh, I'm not a scientist." You have to think about everything that you say that has anything to do with science.

Something that I do find is that a lot of atheists seem to argue that "science supports their beliefs" because you people have the impression that pretty much all scientists are atheists. There is also this idea that anyone that believes in God is "delusional" and therefore "stupid."

Personally, I'd rather not talk about my religious beliefs, and I'd especially not talk about my religious beliefs on a forum devoted to physics. The trouble is that I'm *forced* to talk about them if people are spreading the idea that "atheists are smarter" and that "only uneducated yokels believe in God."

I've been looking for some good studies on scientist views toward God, and there seems to be this lack of studies, and the only one I could find seemed to be saying "only dumb people believe in God."

I'm not annoyed at Dawkins for not believing in God. I'm annoyed at Dawkins for telling me that I'm delusional because I do. I'm annoyed at Dawkins for being publicly loud with his views, because if forces me to talk about my religion, and I really do not want to talk about it.

Also this makes it a *LOT* harder for me to deal with the creationists. I'd rather deal with the issue of creationism with the principle science in school, religion in church, but if Dawkins is advocating religious views under the name of science, this is not going to work, and I'm not sure what I should do, especially since (as I keep mentioning) I really, really, really would rather keep my relationship with God private.

 

[twofish-quant]

I find this situation really bizarre since I spent a huge amount of my younger years fighting creationism and intelligent design (which I think is awful, awful science), so I find it very strange to be on their side on an issue.

 

[sas3]

The term “god” means different things to different people. To me the term has little to no meaning due to the fact that there have been so many gods invented over time.
As for how god relates to the beginning of our universe, I do not think we know enough about the gods or about beginning of the universe to even form such opinions.
So I guess my answer is I will not have an opinion until I get more information. Gods phone number or email address might help (he/she/it/they probably won’t answer or reply anyways)

I suppose I could have just said I don’t know in the first place. (it would have saved a lot of typing)

 

[humanino]

At some level, scientists do need some amount of irrationality to have faith that their rationalism will work in actuality. For instance, there is more than one physicist out there who believe in a "theory of everything" : there is unity in the laws of Nature, there is simplicity, in support of a "Leibnizian" mathematical Nature. Fundamental physics is a field I am most familiar with, and I dare say we are quite rigorous. In comparison, cosmologists have only one single experiment realized out there (the Universe we happen to live in), and not only can they not have another experiment, but they can not tune the parameters of the experiments, and they do not even see the entire experiment : we have quite a restricted horizon in space and time to make models which have parameters bearing onto properties outside this horizon. From my point of view, either they do not realize they need some amount of faith to trust their models, or they do not intend to provide anything else but just a "nice fit" of observations.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

As I said I truly dislike anyone bringing their personal beliefs up at work as having anything to do with their work, it's inappropriate. I also dislike anyone claiming that their belief, or lack of, is in any way superior to others. It is at that moment that they lose all credibility with me.

At the same time, I do not see any reason to believe in dieties. As long as Richard Dawkins isn't telling his co-workers not to believe in dieties on company time, he is welcome to state his thoughts the same as you or anyone else. He is no different than any preacher of religion. Your dislike of Dawkins makes no sense. Do you hate all of the religious figures that preach their religion as much as Dawkins, or is your problem with Dawkins the fact that he has no belief? Should we start denouncing all of the religious people that speak publicly?

Dawkins refers to religous people as delusional, among other things. He calls raising a child in a religious household child abuse. He has written polemics of cherrypicked, spotlighted and anecdotal data to put religious people in the worst possible light. He is a bigot, running a smear campaign. Pure and simple. It has nothing to do with atheism or speaking publicly about it.

 

[atyy]

"only dumb people believe in God."

Yes, I know you wish to be charitable to theists, but I don't think there's anything wrong with being dumb by believing in God.

I find this situation really bizarre since I spent a huge amount of my younger years fighting creationism and intelligent design (which I think is awful, awful science), so I find it very strange to be on their side on an issue.

If you read "learning from past experiences" as "intelligent design", footnote 1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio/0402029 will be quite amusing.

 

[atyy]

I very seriously doubt that any of the people that I've interacted professionally really know or care that I'm a Buddhist

I really, really, really would rather keep my relationship with God private.

Buddhists believe in God? Please don't feel you have to answer since you've been wanting to keep this private.

Well, Taoists don't believe in string theory - there's this mischievous translation of the Dao de jing from Xiao-Gang Wen "The physical theory that can be formulated cannot be the final ultimate theory. The classification that can be implemented cannot classify everything. The unformulatable ultimate theory does exist and governs the creation of the universe. The formulated theories describe the matter we see everyday" http://books.google.com/books?id=8i-qAS6niUkC&dq=xiao-gang+wen+quantum&source=gbs_navlinks_s

 

[twofish-quant]

One reason that I have a particular problem with Dawkins is that the Blind Watchmaker is such a good book, because it points out that you don't *need* God to explain this. When I was a lot younger and I found myself arguing with creationists, I used to cite that as a very good book to read.

The problem that creationists have with evolution is that a lot of them see it as an attack against their core beliefs. First they get rid of God in the science class, and they get rid of God in everywhere, and then in the end, Satan wins. What I used to tell creationists was that scientist were just in favor of science being taught in science classes, and that the arguments against creationism wasn't a general effort to get rid of God everywhere, and that scientists themselves have very diverse views about God.

Oh well. Dawkins blew up that idea. I remember the first time I looked at the God Delusion and I remember thinking to myself, good grief the creationists were *right*. The problem I see with the God Delusion is that people reading it may assume that the views in that book are widespread and standard among scientists when in fact this is *NOT* the situation.

One problem with this talking about this is that usually it happens in the form of a "debate". The trouble is that I wouldn't do well in a "debate." If someone were to argue with me about whether God exists or not, my side of the "argument" would be "God exists." That's it. There's nothing else to talk about. :-) :-) :-) If you try to get me to rationally justify my belief in God, my response would be "I can't." :-) :-) :-)

So this really isn't a discussion about the existence/non-existence of God since there is no discussion. It's really a discussion on the role of scientists in presenting science, and how science is taught to the general public. When someone gets up on a lectern and says ***SCIENCE SAYS ...*** they really are using invoking authority on the general public, and someone that is engaging in personal speculation really needs to make that clear. Also, I think that Dawkins really does believe that ****SCIENCE SAYS there God is a delusion**** so it becomes necessary for me to say "We'll I don't agree" when I'd really rather be talking about WMAP. I really hate talking about my relationship with God in public because it's like talking about my relationship with my relatives in public.

So what Dawkins is doing would be as if I were giving a talk on the cosmic microwave background and someone in the audience said Richard Dawkins said you had a fight with your brother last night, how do you respond. I'd be quite annoyed since he is forcing me to talk about things that I don't want to talk about.

I'm not sure what to do. One thing I am interesting in finding out is what do scientists *really* do believe about God. I strongly suspect that the number of scientists that are atheists is less than Corrill or Krauss or Dawkins thinks it is, and I'm interested in the *types* of beliefs.

One thing that Richard Dawkins did mention once was that when he came to the US, he was shocked at how many people believed in God, and he wrote his book the God Delusion because was just talking about things he thought were obvious.

 

[twofish-quant]

He is a bigot, running a smear campaign. Pure and simple. It has nothing to do with atheism or speaking publicly about it.

And I wouldn't mind so much if he started every speech with, these are my personal beliefs and there are a lot of scientists that disagree, and then started his rant...

 

[atyy]

The reason reason I'm annoyed at Dawkins is that before he wrote the God Delusion, I could take his book the "Blind Watchmaker" and use it as a text that illustrates why creationism and intelligent design are junk science. The trouble is that after he has written the "God Delusion" I really can't, because that book has a lot of what I think of as junk science.

I boycotted Dawkins quite some time ago. Anyway, I'm not sure the Blind Watchmaker, and The Selfish Gene are accepted science. They are certainly important hypotheses. But classically, the level of selection is the individual or higher (roughly, natural selection acts on phenotypes, not genotypes). Of course, from the physics viewpoint, one has different levels of effective theory, so the controversy in perhaps unwarranted. Stephen Jay Gould is one of those who have criticized Dawkins's criticism of the classical view.

 

[atyy]

BTW, one problem with this discussion is that God is not defined. If I define God = The Laws of Physics, then presumably God exists (unless the Laws of Physics are string theory!). But that's quite pointless from some religious points of view in which it is important that God may be conceived as a person. From that point of view, asking about the creation of the universe and God is like asking about whether it follows from the laws of physics that your mother loves you. First define "love"...