? for the scientists here, Whats your personal religious, spiritual beliefs?

I am an agnostic. I never made a conscious decision to become one nor does the label really do service to anyone's set of guiding principles.

The process of becoming a scholar (be it a scientist or not) is not meant to merely stuff more random information into your brain but rather to change the way in which you think. Many people absorb information without critically examining the content of the information. A scholar is trained to be skeptical - to look deeper into claims by researching and/or experimentally testing.

Since claims with religious undertones are typically nonfalsifiable, good scientists will not accept them at face value since there is no manner in which to validate them. However, a good scientist will not dismiss said claims out of hand unless they violate established physical laws and lines of evidentiary reasoning unlike what atheists tend to do.

As an agnostic scientist, I am not drawn to things spiritual or religious nor will I foresake such things without first examining the evidence.

ReUsAbLePhEoNiX said:

Scientists tend to have deeper understanding of the nature of Nature,

Click to expand...

But Nature doesn't tell you about the atheism vs theism debate. Science is agnostic. Wearing our professional hats, ALL we can be is agnostic.

Wearing our personal hats, then the vote between theism and atheism seems pretty evenly divided. Let's take a look at two of the best advocates for evolution today: Richard Dawkins and Kenneth Miller.

Dawkins is a devout atheist. He looks at Nature and evolution and sees a nature that can't possibly be due to creation and that even contradicts the existence of deity.

Miller is a devout theist. He looks at Nature and evolution and sees EXACTLY the type of universe God needed to create in order for it to have meaning for the creatures in it -- including us.

Now, if two such dedicated and competent scientists can look at Nature and get exactly opposite conclusions, the take home lesson is that Nature is no guide to the question of the existence of deity.

Also see the book Cosmos, Bios, Theos for many more contradictory examples.

lucaspa said:

Now, if two such dedicated and competent scientists can look at Nature and get exactly opposite conclusions, the take home lesson is that Nature is no guide to the question of the existence of deity.

Click to expand...

Interesting that you conclude that "Nature is no guide" rather than to question the way that "competent scientists can look at Nature".

JohnR7 said:

Interesting that you conclude that "Nature is no guide" rather than to question the way that "competent scientists can look at Nature".

Click to expand...

JohnR7, both Dawkins and Miller are competent scientists, attested to by their publication record. Both therefore have demonstrated an ability to look at Nature, test hypotheses, and come to conclusions after all the alternative hypotheses are falsified.

Now, each looks at the same data set -- Nature -- and comes to opposite conclusions about whether that data set does or does not show a deity. And their experience is duplicated thruout the scientific community.

Follow the "if ... then" logic here, John. IF the universe were clear cut in showing the existence of a deity, THEN ALL scientists would see it. Or at a minimum a vast consensus with the normal 0.001% diehards. We don't get that consensus. Therefore the universe is not clear about it.

Alan Sandage and Stephen Hawking are an additional pair of scientists with opposing views on the nature of creation. As cosmologists, Dr. Sandage, a theist, ascribes to a biblical view of creation while Dr. Hawking, an atheist who at times uses the term "God" as a metaphor, focuses on the Big Bang theory. Both have been prolific and pioneering researchers and have made considerable contributions to the field of cosmology. Yet, as in the case of Drs. Dawkins and Miller, they possess diameterically opposed worldviews on cosmic origins.

lucaspa said:

Follow the "if ... then" logic here, John. IF the universe were clear cut in showing the existence of a deity, THEN ALL scientists would see it.

Click to expand...

The Bible is clear that creation does clearly show the Creator. So your suggestion that "all scientists would see it" is a false statement. Because not all scientists do see it.

The Bible does list reasons WHY they do not see it. But there is no reason to go onto that right now.

Prof, you derailed the thread, you wicked person. The original post was asking about people's own spiritual beliefs. Now you've given John the chance to turn it into yet another generic theism-atheism "evolution is anti-God" thread.

To try and get back on track, I have no spiritual beliefs that I know of; I think I'm a spiritual vacuum. Since I really don't like science and I remember being a spiritual vacuum when I was a kid and really hated science, I'd say that science made no difference to my lack of spiritual belief.

JohnR7 said:

The Bible is clear that creation does clearly show the Creator. So your suggestion that "all scientists would see it" is a false statement. Because not all scientists do see it.

Click to expand...

The Bible says that creation clearly shows it.
Yet creation does not.

The Bible does list reasons WHY they do not see it. But there is no reason to go onto that right now.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, John, "They're spiritually blind because they don't have the Holy Spirit in them." We've heard this tune before, and we still won't dance to it.

Amorphous said:

Dr. Hawking, an atheist who at times uses the term "God" as a metaphor, focuses on the Big Bang theory.

Click to expand...

Which, interestingly enough, was formulated by a Catholic priest.

nyj said:

Which, interestingly enough, was formulated by a Catholic priest.

Click to expand...

Actually the "Big Bang" goes back to the Hebrew Kabbalahist Nachmanides in the 1300's & some people claim that it goes back to the oral tradition handed down from Moses.

Nachmanides believed that creation started out the size of a mustard seed and began to expand from there.

JohnR7 said:

Originally Posted By: lucaspa

Follow the "if ... then" logic here, John. IF the universe were clear cut in showing the existence of a deity, THEN ALL scientists would see it.

The Bible is clear that creation does clearly show the Creator. So your suggestion that "all scientists would see it" is a false statement. Because not all scientists do see it.

Click to expand...

John, the "if ..." part of the statement mentioned ONLY the universe. We are testing whether your interpretation of the Biblical statement is true. It's not.

For those who already have extra-scientific personal experience of deity, then yes, the universe is consistent with a Creator and shows, TO THEM, the Creator.

If you do not have that personal experience, or rather your personal experience is the lack of personal expereince of God, then the universe shows the absence of God.

IOW, people see in the universe in this issue a reflection of their own personal experience. And that is just what Paul saw. He already had his own powerful personal experiences of God and Jesus. So he saw a reflection of them in the universe.

And, of COURSE he is going to ascribe other reasons to people who don't agree with him. Doesn't make those reasons true.

Cantuar said:

Prof, you derailed the thread, you wicked person. The original post was asking about people's own spiritual beliefs. Now you've given John the chance to turn it into yet another generic theism-atheism "evolution is anti-God" thread.

Click to expand...

In a sense, I did cooperate with that when I said that the diametrically opposed viewpoints of committed and competent scientists showed that the universe doesn't dictate spiritural beliefs. That was bound to rub Biblical literalists and creationists the wrong way because they continually claim that the existence of God can be "proved". They don't seem comfortable with their faith and are desperate to "prove" the existence of God. Phillip Johnson is one of the most open about that, saying that science is the only generally accepted form of knowledge in our society and, therefore, wants to revamp science to theistic science so that science will "prove" the existence of God. Johnson and those who share his ideas can't be comfortable with his faith.

JohnR7's post echoed that idea when he claimed that the Bible clearly says that Creation shows the existence of God. 1) This is again using the Bible (or their interpretation of the Bible) as authority over science (which is also what those advocationg theistic science want to do) but also 2) seeking external validation for what is essentially personal experience and personal faith. The question is: for those with genuine personal experience of deity, why is such external validation needed? Did St. Paul need science to tell him his vision of the risen Jesus was real? Did CS Lewis need science to tell him that his experiences of deity were real?

Miller is comfortable with his faith. He feels no need to "prove" the existence of God. People with real faith, such as TheBear and a few others here and others I have known in the flesh (as opposed to electronically) who have the personal experiences of deity are comfortable and serene and confident in their faith. That's not to say they never doubt, but they have all the evidence they need FOR THEM and therefore attempts to "prove" the existence of God are moot. They don't have to worship the Bible as a false idol because the Bible can be seen and God can't. They know God.

It is the people who don't know God that feel the need to "prove" God via science and reliance on the literal words of the Bible.

So we are back to people's own spiritual beliefs. The OP wanted to know what science did for those beliefs.

My answer, which agrees with yours, is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. A person's personal beliefs are formed outside of science and they see in science a reflection of those personal beliefs.

Thus, a theist sees in science support for the existence of God.

An atheist sees in science a denial of the existence of God.

You, who had no personal beliefs on the subject to start with, don't see anything in science one way or the other.

Now, since JohnR7 sees atheism in science then I wonder whether that is not the belief he came in with.

Edited 7/28/03 to remove personal references and make the discussion more obviously one of idea and not personality.

lucaspa said:

That was bound to rub JohnR7 the wrong way because he is so desperately lacking in faith that he has to "prove" the existence of God. His faith is so lacking that he can't be comfortable with his faith.

Click to expand...

This is just another personal attack on me and it will be reported.

JohnR7 said:

This is just another personal attack on me and it will be reported.

Click to expand...

Why not act in a more mature way and prove him wrong instead?

Or do a Robinson and ask for him to die...

Taffsadar said:

Why not act in a more mature way and prove him wrong instead?

Click to expand...

Quoted for truth

A strong faith is a faith that doesn't need to search for proof

ValenII said:

A strong faith is a faith that doesn't need to search for proof

Click to expand...

The North Korean people have STRONG faith that their leader is somewhat godlike. He is their provider and protector. They believe he is the greatest man in the world, and does MILLIONS of good things for the North Korean people. Just because these North Koreans have such strong faith in their leader, doesnt mean it doesnt require proof, or that they dont need to search for proof.

I'm more of a philosopher and anthropologist/ethnologist than a scientist. However, I can honestly say the scientist 'part' of me is Agnostic. I'm a rather spiritual/religious person, but I try not to let my personal opinions get in the way. Not that they never factor in. I do try to back them up or state that they are only my opinions though.

nyj said:

Which, interestingly enough, was formulated by a Catholic priest.

Click to expand...

as a joke