An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[Michael]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It may not be meaningful to you, but that isn't true of every 'scientist'. Dissent is typical, even in scientific fields. That's why M-Theory has it's advocates, as well as Lambda-got-falsified-by-Planck theory.

 

[Michael]

Put 50 biblical historians/scholars in a room and you will get a wide variety of opinions/interpretations as well although it wouldn't quite be as bad as the theologians, who basically make up stuff to make the God of the bible work and the stuff they make up is all over the map.

You'd also eventually get a 'consensus' of some kind, along with minority opinions.

 

[JWGU]

.

It may not be meaningful to you, but that isn't true of every 'scientist'. Dissent is typical, even in scientific fields. That's why M-Theory has it's advocates, as well as Lambda-got-falsified-by-Planck theory.

When I say there is no "meaningful" scientific dissent, I mean that levels of scientific dissent are statistically insignificant. You may choose to have a different version of meaningful, and that's fine, but please be aware that the phrase actually does mean something mathematically. Now, to be sure, there have been theories without meaningful scientific dissent that were flat out wrong in the past, but they required extraordinary evidence in order to break through the status quo and become the new scientific consensus. Such extraordinary evidence in opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming has not been presented at the time of this writing.

 

[Michael]

Actually, Michael, you would probably get fairly close to 100% consensus on global warming (or evolution) in a room full of scientists. You don't need 100% consensus, however, because the field of statistics has provided us with likelihood tests that allow us to decide what level of disagreement we are willing to put up with before we call something a fact. Usually the bar is set at 90% at the lowest, 95% is more standard, and for some extreme applications even higher percentages of consensus are required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png

FYI, apparently the concept of "largely caused" only now enjoys about 84 percent support, and the term 'largely caused' is rather vague. Does that mean 51%, 58%, 80%? How have they determined that number and rule out natural influences on that part of the "warming" process exactly?

 

[Michael]

When I say there is no "meaningful" scientific dissent, I mean that levels of scientific dissent are statistically insignificant. You may choose to have a different version of meaningful, and that's fine, but please be aware that the phrase actually does mean something mathematically. Now, to be sure, there have been theories without meaningful scientific dissent that were flat out wrong in the past, but they required extraordinary evidence in order to break through the status quo and become the new scientific consensus. Such extraordinary evidence in opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming has not been presented at the time of this writing.

Considering the fact that natural warming and cooling trends typically occur over hundred and thousand year time spans, it's hardly surprising that "new evidence" hasn't emerged. It would *not* do so *naturally* until whatever the *cause* of warming/cooling has changed. That may not occur for hundreds or thousands of years.

The point was not to pick on global warming, the point was to show that there is honest scientific dissent on almost every scientific topic.

 

[JWGU]

Ignoring the numerous problems inherent in comparing studies across different samples and the fact that the percentage measured in the study is not the same as the percentage likelihood that we can reject the null hypothesis, I invite you to observe that the levels of "nonsupport" for largely human caused global warming have remained static at 6% or less. Such levels of support can be said to be statistically insignificant.

As far as "new evidence": if global warming were actually to stop or even reverse, that in itself would constitute evidence. Unfortunately there is absolutely no reason to believe that that will be the case. And yes, I'm aware that you weren't deliberately picking on global warming, but if you want go-to examples of scientific dissent it is not really a good one. I encourage you to look into nutrition "science" if you really want some good examples.

 

[Michael]

It's still just a 'majority' viewpoint, along with various other dissenting views as well. Why would you expect religions to achieve anything other than a 'consensus', along with various dissenting (minority) views?

 

[bhsmte]

You'd also eventually get a 'consensus' of some kind, along with minority opinions.

You will get a consensus of some kind (it may be 60%, 70% or whatever) but there is also a unique element here with biblical historians/scholars. The vast majority of them are "christians" with some being evangelical christians who get paychecks from theology institutions who may in fact believe the bible itself is 100% accurate. Some are more liberal christians and a small percentage may be atheist and or agnostic.

So, you get a lot of "pre-conceived notion" bias that plays into each's interpretation and with the topic itself not having as much objective evidence as science, it is important to carefully review the work of each and determine how they come to their conclusions (are their conclusions based on logic, or are they making assumptions to make the story fit).

Lastly, objective critique of the bible itself, has been around for a while but was so frowned upon by the mainstream, that that same critique was tossed out. It has only been until fairly recently, that the objective critique from a higher number of historians/scholars has gained momentum and not unlike a topic like evolution, has started to be accepted by some of the more conservative folks, because they can no longer refute the logic of the criticism.

 

[JWGU]

I never maintained that religion could not be held to the same academic standards as science re: peer review. In fact, in the past, theologians had a very similar scholastic structure to modern scientists. This was particularly true in the Islamic world.

 

[Michael]

Ignoring the numerous problems inherent in comparing studies across different samples and the fact that the percentage measured in the study is not the same as the percentage likelihood that we can reject the null hypothesis, I invite you to observe that the levels of "nonsupport" for largely human caused global warming have remained static at 6% or less. Such levels of support can be said to be statistically insignificant.

If that 6% figure is statistically insignificant then so are the number of self declared actual "atheists" and Jews within the human population.

Major World Religions populations pie chart statistics list

They currently represent 2.32 percent and .23% of the population respectively.

 

[Michael]

You will get a consensus of some kind (it may be 60%, 70% or whatever).....

Sure, depending on the specific claim/topic. If you look at that graph however the *vast* majority of humans believe in God, and only 2.32 percent of humans label themselves an 'atheist'. It's unclear how many of those 'non religious' individuals reject organized religion or the whole concept of God, but either way, atheism is still a *small* minority viewpoint.

If you look at the numbers, humans that assume Jesus was the "Messiah" of Judaism represents more than 50 percent of the planet (Christians and Muslims assume this is the case), whereas Judaism today represents less than one percent of the planet. You can certainly get consensus in religion as well as dissenting viewpoints. Whether it's as "high' as some scientific consensus isn't really all that relevant or important.

The vast majority of them are "christians" with some being evangelical christians who get paychecks from theology institutions who may in fact believe the bible itself is 100% accurate. Some are more liberal christians and a small percentage may be atheist and or agnostic.

You don't think that there are financial and peer pressures in "science' too?

 

[JWGU]

If that 6% figure is statistically insignificant then so are the number of self declared actual "atheists" and Jews within the human population.

They currently represent 2.32 percent and .23% of the population respective.

Yes, they are. That is why advertisements do not focus on Hanukkah during Christmas season. What is your point, exactly? I never claimed the scientific consensus to mean anything other than the scientific consensus. Personally, I think that the distribution of religion worldwide has more to do with history than it does with rigorous peer review, but thisiis only my opinion, while consensus is a fact.

 

[Michael]

As far as "new evidence": if global warming were actually to stop or even reverse, that in itself would constitute evidence. Unfortunately there is absolutely no reason to believe that that will be the case. And yes, I'm aware that you weren't deliberately picking on global warming, but if you want go-to examples of scientific dissent it is not really a good one. I encourage you to look into nutrition "science" if you really want some good examples.

FYI, I absolutely agree with you that the global warming issue wasn't the best of examples, but I've been picking a lot on astronomy, and I was simply trying to 'diversify' a bit. Sorry if you took it personally.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure, depending on the specific claim/topic. If you look at that graph however the *vast* majority of humans believe in God, and only 2.32 percent of humans label themselves an 'atheist'. It's unclear how many of those 'non religious' individuals reject organized religion or the whole concept of God, but either way, atheism is still a *small* minority viewpoint.

If you look at the numbers, humans that assume Jesus was the "Messiah" of Judaism represents more than 50 percent of the planet (Christians and Muslims assume this is the case), whereas Judaism today represents less than one percent of the planet. You can certainly get consensus in religion as well as dissenting viewpoints. Whether it's as "high' as some scientific consensus isn't really all that relevant or important.


You don't think that there are financial and peer pressures in "science' too?

Considering human history, the power of the God claim, the intimidation readily used if you don't believe in God, how most have been indoctrinated into religion at a young age, how objective criticism of the same has been frowned upon for so long, it is no surprise, that the vast majority of people believe in a God. I would be shocked if it was otherwise, especially in the United States.

Does this give validity to the belief? From an objective standpoint, I would say no. From a cultural or psychological standpoint, people choose to believe in what they want for a variety of reasons.

 

[Michael]

Yes, they are. That is why advertisements do not focus on Hanukkah during Christmas season. What is your point, exactly? I never claimed the scientific consensus to mean anything other than the scientific consensus. Personally, I think that the distribution of religion worldwide has more to do with history than it does with rigorous peer review, but thisiis only my opinion, while consensus is a fact.

The only point I was trying to make is that there is in fact consensus in religion. Granted there is dissent, but there's also consensus on a variety of religious ideas and there are of course dissenting perspectives. In that sense science and religion are no different.

 

[Michael]

Considering human history, the power of the God claim, the intimidation readily used if you don't believe in God, how most have been indoctrinated into religion at a young age, how objective criticism of the same has been frowned upon for so long, it is no surprise, that the vast majority of people believe in a God. I would be shocked if it was otherwise, especially in the United States.

Does this give validity to the belief? From an objective standpoint, I would say no. From a cultural or psychological standpoint, people choose to believe in what they want for a variety of reasons.

Pretty much every one of your criticism can be applied to BB theory as well. We're all indoctrinated into the idea in our youth. Dissenters are ostracized, cut off from funding and equipment, and called "crackpots" if they question the dogma too. Just ask Arp.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure, depending on the specific claim/topic. If you look at that graph however the *vast* majority of humans believe in God, and only 2.32 percent of humans label themselves an 'atheist'. It's unclear how many of those 'non religious' individuals reject organized religion or the whole concept of God, but either way, atheism is still a *small* minority viewpoint.

If you look at the numbers, humans that assume Jesus was the "Messiah" of Judaism represents more than 50 percent of the planet (Christians and Muslims assume this is the case), whereas Judaism today represents less than one percent of the planet. You can certainly get consensus in religion as well as dissenting viewpoints. Whether it's as "high' as some scientific consensus isn't really all that relevant or important.


You don't think that there are financial and peer pressures in "science' too?

Forgot to add one point.

For such an important belief (for christians) it is also a belief that the majority of christians have never really explored in any objective manner. Most, just assume they are believing in the right thing, without their own independent exploration of the historicity of the bible etc. etc..

Recent polls have actually confirmed the same; christians scored the lowest on general religious knowledge compared to non-believers, who scored the highest.

Some folks may not want to explore in any objective manner, because they are so dug in, they use psychological defense mechanisms to protect the belief at all costs. Others (and I believe this is the area that has grown so much in europe and will eventually grow in the US) just go along with the majority, because of cultural and political pressures. When those pressures become more workable, you will (IMO) so a flood of people ready to admit; I always had significant doubts and didn't really believe the story, but just didn't want to expose myself as having those feelings, so I went along.

 

[Michael]

Forgot to add one point.

For such an important belief (for christians) it is also a belief that the majority of christians have never really explored in any objective manner. Most, just assume they are believing in the right thing, without their own independent exploration of the historicity of the bible etc. etc..

That same criticism applies to atheists and many scientific topics, particularly astronomy and questions about 'how we got here' in the first place.

Recent polls have actually confirmed the same; christians scored the lowest on general religious knowledge compared to non-believers, who scored the highest.

That wouldn't surprise me at all. I've often believed that evangelical atheists tend to know more about the Bible than an average "Christian" in terms of it's *total* contents.

Some folks may not want to explore in any objective manner, because they are so dug in, they use psychological defense mechanisms to protect the belief at all costs.

Just watch what happens in astronomy now that Guth's claim about homogeneity on the largest scales has been falsified by Planck data. Same human denial dance, different tune. Why do you think they label dissenters as "crackpots"? It's an emotional reaction and a self defense mechanism.

Others (and I believe this is the area that has grown so much in europe and will eventually grow in the US) just go along with the majority, because of cultural and political pressures. When those pressures become more workable, you will (IMO) so a flood of people ready to admit; I always had significant doubts and didn't really believe the story, but just didn't want to expose myself as having those feelings, so I went along.

That may in fact be true for many theists your age and younger. It's less true in my case at my age. While your explanation has some merit, it also applies to a lot of topics, including scientific topics.

 

[bhsmte]

Pretty much every one of your criticism can be applied to BB theory as well. We're all indoctrinated into the idea in our youth. Dissenters are ostracized, cut off from funding and equipment, and called "crackpots" if they question the dogma too. Just ask Arp.

I can't comment on your claim about BB theory because I don't know enough about it. You may be right, I really have no idea, but that doesn't change the reality of the long long history of religious belief, as I explained and how this impacts one's own beliefs.

 

[JWGU]

The Planck data are really interesting but I'm not sure that I see scientists doing the "dance" you describe. I haven't looked into it carefully, but in the past many challenging measurements had subtle errors and scientists spent a lot of time making sure the calculations were error-free. In this case, I'm not even sure I see evidence of that. Are you just hypothesizing that this is what will happen?