The Science Delusion

[Palmz]

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-...nd-Belief.aspx

In that particular chart, 33% of these particular scientists believe in God. That's the man-made God of religion. 18% are spiritual in some way, but don't believe in a man-made God. 41% don't believe in either. 7% didn't answer or "don't know."

I guess you could argue even based on that, that the "majority of scientists aren't complete atheists", but then again, how many really believe and how many just don't have the balls to say it out loud that they don't.

Can't leave out Intelligent Design. But anyways...enough with the derailing for me.

[Elim Garak]

I can resolve this "Scientists believe in god" argument pretty easy.

If a scientist believes in god/creationism/id/whatever-out-there-overseeing-us - He.Is.Not.A.Scientist. It's just a guy with a phD.
Therefore 100% Scientists do not believe in god/whatever. They are not automatically atheists. But they are surely non-believers. Because believing is not a scientific thing to do. And no scientist does it.

[Kasierith]

Discussion on whether or not X group of people can believe in a god or not is religious discussion, and is therefore not permitted as per the general off-topic forum rules and guidelines. Please drift away from this subject and return to the primary topic of the thread.

[Deleted]

The primary topic is about a book called the Science Delusion, which suggests, as the name states, that science is a delusion. What's outside science? Well, belief is. And what is belief? Well, the combination of all the religions and other belief systems. This whole thread is about God and religion. Even the book the Science Delusion, a namesake of which the thread title is, is a slam on Richard Dawkins' book the God Delusion.

I have no problem with returning to the original subject matter. I just didn't realize I had veered away from it.

[Deleted]

I can resolve this "Scientists believe in god" argument pretty easy.

If a scientist believes in god/creationism/id/whatever-out-there-overseeing-us - He.Is.Not.A.Scientist. It's just a guy with a phD.
Therefore 100% Scientists do not believe in god/whatever. They are not automatically atheists. But they are surely non-believers. Because believing is not a scientific thing to do. And no scientist does it.

One of the worst examples of logic I've come across in this thread.

Just because a person believes in something doesn't discount them being either a scientist or a rationale person. The question of there being a higher power is not one we are yet equipped to answer in a categorical sense. How did they Universe come into being? What, if any, purpose is there behind it? Might there be a "plan", or is it just an expression of fundamental values that define existence? If there isn't a higher order, then how might we categorize our role in the Universe?

Don't presume to segregate off a portion of the scientific community because of your clearly biased, and uninformed, opinion. Many of the most respected scientists, nobel prize holders, had some vague belief in a higher power. This does not discredit them among their peers. A belief in a god does not mean one cannot operate in a logical form. Duplicity is part of the human condition, now and forever.

It's people like you that give atheists a bad name. You're what is wrong with the non theist community, and is deeply saddens me as a member of it.

In reference to Kasierth's post: It's not very easy to discuss something outside science without discussing alternatives orders of arrangement. We, by nature, classify things into various orders of power as part of our rationalizing an environment. If we're to discuss the suspension of current scientific 'belief' the only option left is the supernatural. Also the discourse on a higher power does not relate to religion in a strict sense. Religion is the organised expression of a faith, whereas discussing gods is central to the alternatives to sciences. Call them ghosts, spirits or "forces", the dogma would suggest some sort of consciousness behind their physical manifestations.

[Zdrasti]

I can resolve this "Scientists believe in god" argument pretty easy.

If a scientist believes in god/creationism/id/whatever-out-there-overseeing-us - He.Is.Not.A.Scientist. It's just a guy with a phD.
Therefore 100% Scientists do not believe in god/whatever. They are not automatically atheists. But they are surely non-believers. Because believing is not a scientific thing to do. And no scientist does it.

Counterexample: Einstein.

However, in true spirit of the scientific method you should be pleased. You put forth a hypothesis and we were able to empirically verify that your claim was false. With your new found knowledge hopefully you will create more robust hypotheses in the future.

[Elim Garak]

Counterexample: Einstein.

The word Einstein is hardly a counter-example to anything.

[Endus]

Counterexample: Einstein.

Counter-counterexample; what Einstein really believed, rather than what certain types have been desperately trying to falsely claim he believed.

Even within his own lifetime, this stuff started. Which is why we have quotes like the following, which lay your claims pretty firmly to bed;

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

And;

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.

Einstein was not a theist. The closest he came was being awed by the majesty of the natural universe. As he made excruciatingly clear in his writings, to anyone who was trying to figure out what he actually believed, rather than simply looking for an out-of-context quote they could pin on their "side" of the scoreboard.

[Xothic]

Why does this thread even still exist? We all knew it wasn't going to go anywhere good. MMO-champ could really benefit from adding a rule banning subjective discussion of conspiracy theories, would have General Off-Topic a solid chunk less crazy retarded.

OT: Delusional man says something delusional, people believe him. More at 9.

[AnteroXX]

I can resolve this "Scientists believe in god" argument pretty easy.

If a scientist believes in god/creationism/id/whatever-out-there-overseeing-us - He.Is.Not.A.Scientist. It's just a guy with a phD.
Therefore 100% Scientists do not believe in god/whatever. They are not automatically atheists. But they are surely non-believers. Because believing is not a scientific thing to do. And no scientist does it.

you sound like you're 12

Infracted: Please don't resort to arguments which essentially call other posters kids.

[Elim Garak]

you sound like you're 12

You don't sound at all. Perhaps you do not exist.

[Zangeiti]

Science is one of our best answer for anything. But I still believe in god.

[crzyman007]

Awesome talk in a scientific manner.


Religions calls it (God), Science calls it the (unified field of consciousness), philosophers call it the (primordial energy) but to me, the only difference is how you interpret them, but I personally see no difference.

[Garnier Fructis]

Sage goes in all fields.

On a serious note, please don't insult scientists by insinuating that most scientists actually believe in a unified field of consciousness.

[Mormolyce]

It would be awesome if there was some kind of an inherent block that existed in nature, which would prohibit religious people from studying science, later gaining doctorates and becoming any kind of important people in the field.

Luckily there is such a thing, it's called lack of critical thinking skills.

Assuming you were talking about dogmatic religious zealots there, not your average scientist who happens to have a personal faith.

News flash. The majority of scientists believe in some form of a God. 90% of the world believes in a God. 96% above the age of 30 believe in a God. 94% for female. The drops comes from early teenagers and young adults (20-22).

Think about this: the largest religion on earth is Christianity, and it's 33% of the population. So absolute bare minimum, 66% of the world is wrong. And that's not even splitting it up into Catholic/thousands of Protestant denominations/etc etc. And Shia/Sunni.

Any way you cut it, the majority of the human race believes in something that is false.

---------- Post added 2013-06-21 at 05:33 AM ----------

Counterexample: Einstein.

The guy you're replying to is vastly over-simplifying, but I would like to point out that Einstein was not a Creationist. Most Christians (and Jews, which Einstein was) aren't in fact.

In fact he claimed to believe in Spinoza's God, who is absolutely nothing like the God of the Bible.

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio..._the_afterlife

[Deleted]

How come discussing religion is forbidden on these forums, but spreading bullshit about science isn't?

[lawow74]

Personally, I find spirituality in things like this:

[Mormolyce]

How come discussing religion is forbidden on these forums, but spreading bullshit about science isn't?

It is? We discuss it all the time...

Probably just there to stop people making endless threads just to stir shit up.

[crzyman007]

Personally, I find spirituality in things like this: -symphony of science video-

Exactly! With time more and more people are coming to realize it. Science is becoming the contemporary language of mysticism. I think science is really the way to demystify it because when you start using culture or tradition or religion you segregate people but when people understand the science behind it they have more intention and power to do it and to accept it.

[Deleted]

It is? We discuss it all the time...

Probably just there to stop people making endless threads just to stir shit up.

Yeah but it's getting locked every time.