Posted on 01/16/2006 8:20:59 AM PST by dead
I AM a scientist and I have no beliefs. At least, I don't think I have.
But isn't that the point? If I knew I had no beliefs then that would itself be a belief. And that's the difference between science and belief, a point missed by advocates of intelligent design, who want their beliefs taught alongside science. A believer knows things, but a scientist tries to discover things. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against beliefs or religion. I have enormous respect for religion, and am fortunate to count Christians, Muslims, Wiccans and indigenous Australians among my friends.
And my respect for their beliefs is tinged with envy. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be supplied with a User Manual for life, an omniscient mentor who you can ask for advice, and a knowledge that if you screw up this life then there's always another one?
I am awed by their beliefs, which have inspired some great human achievements. Oh yes, and some of the bloodiest moments in our history, too - but we scientists and rationalists haven't done too well on that score either, have we?
Which brings me to morality. Every religion claims its own system of ethics and morality. Well, funnily enough, my morality is much the same as yours, whether you're Christian, Muslim, Wiccan or whatever. We all think it's bad to lie, steal, kill or rape. Most of us think tolerance is pretty good, too.
So who gave me my morals? Since they're shared by most of the world, regardless of religion, I expect it's coded in my genes. But maybe I'm wrong; maybe it originated in the Creation.
US creationists ask why a belief in mainstream science should get special treatment in schools, while a belief in creationist science is relegated to religious instruction. They miss the point. A believer in science is not a scientist. A true scientist has working hypotheses, any of which can be discarded if evidence for a better hypothesis comes along.
That's what science is - a pragmatic method for exploring our world. If creationism was able to predict discoveries and generate technology, science would embrace it in a flash. But it doesn't. It obviously works in a religious sense for its adherents, but it doesn't do much for the rest of us. It's simply a set of beliefs, not a technique for finding out about the world.
And that leads to a curious asymmetry. I can never come up with a scientific argument to invalidate the beliefs of my religious friends; they have rock-hard, first-hand experience of their faith. But my self-doubting "working hypothesis" of science is always open to attack. As a scientist I must always be open-minded and take seriously any competing idea that might have mileage.
And as an astrophysicist, I really ought to be paying attention. I'd look pretty silly telling St Peter I'd dedicated my life to finding out the secrets of the universe, and had overlooked this awesome Being who had created it.
I don't believe it's going to happen. But I could be wrong. Sorry.
Professor Ray Norris is an astrophysicist with the CSIRO Australia Telescope.
Short of a video tape documenting the birth of the planet, I doubt we will solve this issue. So both sides should be taught.
LOL. "Some of my best friends are [fill in the blank]."
I never make mistakes. I thought I did, once, but I was mistaken........
In an ideal world, yes. But about 99.99% of the scientists I've encountered operate on Faith: I believe the Theory of Evolution has been proven to the extent that only a moron doesn't accept it. I believe that the universe is obviously billions of years old. I believe that radiocarbon dating is well-understood and reliable.
It's all Faith.
The difference: Those who believe in Creation, also believe that science can make spaceships that work. But scientists, who believe the Man is descended from an ape, just laugh at the beliefs of others, and sling insults at them.
Someone's Faith blinds them to a wider world.
I wish some creationist would explain how kangaroos got from Mt. Ararat to Australia.
It's all Faith.
Actually it is not faith--it is science. Anytime you want to discuss radiocarbon dating let me know. I do quite a lot of it.
He obviously believes that science, not the supra-rational, gives a true account of the whole.
How's that for being fair and balanced?
Or for that matter the precept of "love, "hate," appreciation of beauty" -- ANY emotion.
How does science explain the non-physical in the context of "matter"?
It can't and won't ever.
THAT is THE empirical proof of "Creationism."
You do net seem to understand what fittest means in an evolutionary sense.
Well, he does have one belief with two complementary components. About that belief he will brook no challenge: It is this: Darwinist materialism is the one true science; ID is theology.
He may be open-minded and "without belief" on many subjects. Evolution is not one of them.
God CAN move mountains. And obviously has.
I disagree with this pretty completely. It's true that rather than studying every scientific topic myself, I do have faith in the peer-review process. I guess that leaves me open to a vast conspiracy of hundreds of scientists working together to hide a world-shaking truth from me. But because of that one bit of faith, you can't say that I am then taking proven scientific theories on faith. As long as the peer-review process remains valid, the results that pass it can be accepted, so that's the only bit of faith I need.
So I guess if you don't believe in the peer review process, you might look at scientific knowledge and think that people have faith in each bit of knowledge independently, but really it's just faith in the process.
False.
If an offspring raised by two adults has a survival advantage over one raised by only one adult, then there is evolutionary pressure for things like "love" and "commitment" that will cause the father to stick around after his woman is pregnant.
Now, go to the local housing project and tell me how those one-parent kids are doing.
The strong rarely, if ever, rule.
How else to explain over a hundred years of idiot socialism?
You seem unable to deal with the question of why blindly self-selecting evolution considers altruism to be an attribute of the "fittest".
Ah yes, there is Dawkins "Selfish Gene"! The extended phenotope that reaches outside of our bodies to manipulate others!
Pure science, of course.
An oxymoron. A scientist needs at least two beliefs:
1. There is absolute reality (for, without absolute reality, experimentation is meaningless. For example, without absolutes, the fact that humans need oxygen to live may be true in one person's reality, but not another.)
2. The reality with which science deals must be discoverable to the scientist (for without this, it does not matter how absolute the truth is, science will fail, as we cannot discern it through science in the first place).
Note that neither of these preclude God in either way. One fact remains: everyone, no matter how vehemently they deny it, operates on axioms. Axioms, in Geometry for example, are taken to be true and cannot be proven. These are then, in turn, used to deduce theorems. The difference between the Christian and the Atheist, then, is the set of axioms.
Atheist:
1. There is no reality beyond our senses.
Christian:
1. There is a God.
2. The Bible is his inspired word to us.
The true debate, then, is whose axioms are correct.
(Alternately, this could be boiled to one, depending on how you look at things: The Bible is infallible)
Hint: The Christian's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.