Study finds moral equality between religious and nonreligious

[stevevw]

I know you've seen it. The issue is that you ignore what Moriarty is saying because it is contrary to what you claim scientists are saying.

No I dont ignore it. What I disagree with is that he throws the baby out with the bath water. Yes there are some who come up with crazy ideas and this can cause some go overboard. But there are also some of these hypothesis that need careful consideration. He seems to think as soon as we mention something that you can't get a definite proof on and be 100% sure then it should be thrown out. Yet even mainstream science will talk about far fetched theories as possibilities with only some indirect evidence. As I said before its more than just Lanza who is saying this and this is how some scientists are addressing what they are seeing with these unusual hypothesis.

In fact all lanza is doing is taking mainstream sciences multi universes theory and expanding on that. The multi universe theory says that there are many other dimensions where there are other physic laws at work. So because there are these other dimensions he is saying that have possible other living entities in them that maybe the mind or some aspect of us may transcend these dimensions. If mainstream science can have their own ideas about other dimensions where people may exist then why cant we expand on that.

 

[stevevw]

I'd just like to comment on this. I don't understand why some people think that to lack belief in god, or to even make the statement that there is no god, requires faith. It does not. It is not a faith-based position. It is the default position. To believe there is a god, however, does require faith because there is no evidence aside from religious texts and personal "feelings" that one exists. The burden of "proof" is on those that make the positive statement - not on those who lack belief. Atheism requires no faith, theism, conversely, does.

Some people say that to take a definite stand and say there is no God requires some faith as you dont have definite evidence that there cannot be a God. Its not the same depth of faith a believer in God has but there is a similarity. Some will disagree that there is absolutely no evidence of God. They will site indirect evidence with things such as the finely tuned universe and how something can come from nothing. This doesn't not automatically prove that there is a God but it will argue that there maybe a supernatural force or entity that has started existence or has orchestrated things.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No I dont ignore it. What I disagree with is that he throws the baby out with the bath water. Yes there are some who come up with crazy ideas and this can cause some go overboard. But there are also some of these hypothesis that need careful consideration. He seems to think as soon as we mention something that you can't get a definite proof on and be 100% sure then it should be thrown out. Yet even mainstream science will talk about far fetched theories as possibilities with only some indirect evidence. As I said before its more than just Lanza who is saying this and this is how some scientists are addressing what they are seeing with these unusual hypothesis.

But they aren't saying what you claim they are saying. That's what is at issue, steve. You want to present the scientific community in a particular way, much to the annoyance of scientists who are justly concerned that the public perception of their discipline is being warped by charlatans.

In fact all lanza is doing is taking mainstream sciences multi universes theory and expanding on that. The multi universe theory says that there are many other dimensions where there are other physic laws at work. So because there are these other dimensions he is saying that have possible other living entities in them that maybe the mind or some aspect of us may transcend these dimensions. If mainstream science can have their own ideas about other dimensions where people may exist then why cant we expand on that.

That's fine. Speculate away. But don't pretend that what he is stating is representative of the views of the scientific community at large.

 

[stevevw]

He can't have it both ways. On the one hand, he claims that there is this 'alternate reality' out there that is beyond the scope of our science to fathom or to measure. When it suits, he belittles the inadequacy of the scientific method.

But then, he claims that it is our scientists who are discovering that this 'other world' might exist!

It's the most dishonest position I've seen an apologist take. It smacks of desperation and wish-thinking.

"Here's a bright, shiny new thing. It must prove God!"

Theres no desperation. I dont belittle the science method and you are putting thoughts and words in my mouth and mind again. I support the science methods for what they do and they have their place. But there seems to be something beyond this that even the science arrives at that cannot be calculated. Science has been trying to calculate all the dimensions they are seeing and they cant come up with anything as yet to work out what they are seeing with relativity and quantum theories. String theory seems to be the closet yet to describing everything.

But this moves things into multi dimensional worlds which can have many possibilities. So even mainstream science are verging on the edge of other dimensions that can have other realities. So why does someone who then talks about a possible dimension of after life which could merely be one of those dimensions be out of the question and unreal. In fact part of the string theory is that space can be bent and we could possibly move through worm holes into other dimensions. When our universe cools and starts to die they talk about moving onto another universe dimension so we can continue to survive.

So if they can use these hypothesis for possible explanations to answer the questions to explain what they need to address why not the other dimensions mentioned by some scientists about life beyond our reality. Its all born out of what scientists are seeing at the moment with uniting all the theories of relativity and quantum physics. This is what is fueling all the talk about far fetched dimensions, realities beyond our and other universes.

 

[stevevw]

But they aren't saying what you claim they are saying. That's what is at issue, steve. You want to present the scientific community in a particular way, much to the annoyance of scientists who are justly concerned that the public perception of their discipline is being warped by charlatans.

Well then blame the very scientist themselves because they are the ones saying it.

That's fine. Speculate away. But don't pretend that what he is stating is representative of the views of the scientific community at large.

What he is saying is just an extentions of what many mainstream scientists are saying with multi universe and string theories anyway. They all have other world, dimensions, realities. Whether you call it the after life or some other life its all the same to me which is another realm beyond ours that we can see or be in while we live here.

 

[Euler]

Wish thinking.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well then blame the very scientist themselves because they are the ones saying it.

But they're not, steve. Stop putting words into other people's mouths. You want to know what scientists think of this nonsense? Follow a few on Twitter and find out.

What he is saying is just an extentions of what many mainstream scientists are saying with multi universe and string theories anyway. They all have other world, dimensions, realities. Whether you call it the after life or some other life its all the same to me which is another realm beyond ours that we can see or be in while we live here.

Those "extensions" are not part of the science, however. They represent fanciful speculations that bear only a tenuous connection to genuine scientific work.

 

[Euler]

But they're not, steve. Stop putting words into other people's mouths. You want to know what scientists think of this nonsense? Follow a few on Twitter and find out.



Those "extensions" are not part of the science, however. They represent fanciful speculations that bear only a tenuous connection to genuine scientific work.

Correct. And in fact most of the "scientists" he refers to aren't scientists - they're authors, journalists and apologists to a large degree. But even if they were scientists, being in the position of imagining various fantasies isn't science.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Correct. And in fact most of the "scientists" he refers to aren't scientists - they're authors, journalists and apologists to a large degree. But even if they were scientists, being in the position of imagining various fantasies isn't science.

If I recall correctly, previous surveys of various scientific organisations have found high rates of atheism among members. Yet apparently these non-believing scientists are the ones spouting religious New Age nonsense en masse. Yeah right.

 

[Blessedj01]

The law is written on our hearts - both Christian and otherwise.

 

[stevevw]

Correct. And in fact most of the "scientists" he refers to aren't scientists - they're authors, journalists and apologists to a large degree. But even if they were scientists, being in the position of imagining various fantasies isn't science.

No they are scientist and some are award winning scientists. They aren't just imagining these things. They are using reasoning to describe with quantum physics how this may happen. They are at least trying make a case for it and not pulling this out of thin air like you make out. So what is the difference between other worlds, realms and dimensions with string theory and multi universes and say another dimensions of an after life or where a persons conscience may exist besides this reality.

How do you know that the same dimensions that mainstream science refers to with multi universe, worm holes or black holes isn't the same dimensions with what these scientists are saying. Afterall its all hypothesis and none of it has any direct evidence. They are all using the indirect evidence in similar ways which can lead them to the conclusions they have in both cases. It seems if anyone has a closed mind its you. I thought you were so strong on saying that you dont take any definite stand on the possibility that this may have some possibility of happening.

 

[Euler]

They aren't just imagining these things. They are using reasoning to describe with quantum physics how this may happen.

See, there's the duplicity in your argument again. And I think that you're so desperate to find something, anything, to cling to in order to bolster your beliefs, that you can't even see the duplicity.

You say that scientists "are using reasoning to describe with quantum physics" to arrive at this possibility of 'other worlds' and 'after lives'. But, this is after you have also claimed that these fantasies are beyond the ability of science to understand!

It's an each-way bet, but I'm afraid you can't have it both ways! You either argue that science is inadequate to fathom the nature of this 'alternate reality', or you argue that science is gathering evidence to support its existence.

It is dishonest to argue both!

But, I'm beginning to realize that intellectual honesty might not be high on your priority list.

 

[Euler]

Oh, and this cute barb:

I thought you were so strong on saying that you dont take any definite stand on the possibility that this may have some possibility of happening

I agree that ANYTHING is possible. It's "possible" that there are purple cheese-making monsters on the dark side of the moon. Show me some EVIDENCE of them and I'll start taking them seriously! Ditto for your fantasies.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No they are scientist and some are award winning scientists. They aren't just imagining these things.

Follow some of these scientists on Twitter and see what they have to say about it.

 

[stevevw]

Follow some of these scientists on Twitter and see what they have to say about it.

So like Charles Townes, the UC Berkeley professor who is a past noble prize winner and currently awarded 2005 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities.

* Townes said that it was "extremely unlikely" that the laws of physics that led to life on Earth were accidental.
* Some scientists, he conceded, had suggested that if there were an almost infinite number of universes, each with different laws, one of them was bound by chance to hit upon the right combination to support life.
* "The fact that the universe had a beginning is a very striking thing," Townes said. "How do you explain that unique event" without God?
Physicist Wins Spirituality Prize - Los Angeles Times

So as science encounters mysteries, it is starting to recognize its limitations and become somewhat more open. There are still scientists who differ strongly with religion and vice versa. But I think people are being more open-minded about recognizing the limitations in our frame of understanding.
Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design"

Or Physicist Paul Davies,the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society.
“It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.”

Or maybe Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, former post-doctoral fellow at the California Institute of Technology
“Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are becoming rare, and even the few dissenters hint that the tide is against them. Geoffrey Burbidge, of the University of California at San Diego, complains that his fellow astronomers are rushing off to join ‘the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.’”

Or even –George Ellis, the South African astrophysicist who was a collaborator on the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems regarding the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe.
It’s interesting that many scientists want to call the multiverse “science,” but then want to say Intelligent Design theory is not science because it trades on unobserved entities and/or cannot be tested.

The list could go on. But what mainstream science wants to use to address things like the finely tuned universe with multi universes is all acceptable. Yet this cannot be proven and at the same time the mere mention of a creator and its rejected straight away and yet it is based on the same criteria. To have a truly open mind we have to consider that science can be limited. It has its place right up to the point of the creation of something from nothing or how complex and finely tuned life is. Beyond this we have to consider there maybe something else at work.

 

[stevevw]

Oh, and this cute barb:



I agree that ANYTHING is possible. It's "possible" that there are purple cheese-making monsters on the dark side of the moon. Show me some EVIDENCE of them and I'll start taking them seriously! Ditto for your fantasies.

Its an attitude thing and not necessarily something that has evidence to begin with. Its the fact that your frame of mind is willing to consider anything and not be ridiculing any suggestions in the first place. The fact that your treat this with so much ridicule and contempt shows you dont really have that frame of mind in the first place. Taking it to the extreme and placing the possibility of there being something to things like a finely tuned universe or what even the experts have suggested is a lot different to cheese making monsters on the moon. Its shows your lack of serious considerations. If award winning scientists who would have much more insight to these questions can seriously consider this and pose the questions without ridicule because they are in more of a position to know then how can you ever be taken seriously.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So like Charles Townes, the UC Berkeley professor who is a past noble prize winner and currently awarded 2005 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities.

* Townes said that it was "extremely unlikely" that the laws of physics that led to life on Earth were accidental.
* Some scientists, he conceded, had suggested that if there were an almost infinite number of universes, each with different laws, one of them was bound by chance to hit upon the right combination to support life.
* "The fact that the universe had a beginning is a very striking thing," Townes said. "How do you explain that unique event" without God?
Physicist Wins Spirituality Prize - Los Angeles Times

So as science encounters mysteries, it is starting to recognize its limitations and become somewhat more open. There are still scientists who differ strongly with religion and vice versa. But I think people are being more open-minded about recognizing the limitations in our frame of understanding.
Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design"

Or Physicist Paul Davies,the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society.
“It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.”

Or maybe Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, former post-doctoral fellow at the California Institute of Technology
“Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are becoming rare, and even the few dissenters hint that the tide is against them. Geoffrey Burbidge, of the University of California at San Diego, complains that his fellow astronomers are rushing off to join ‘the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.’”

Or even –George Ellis, the South African astrophysicist who was a collaborator on the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems regarding the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe.
It’s interesting that many scientists want to call the multiverse “science,” but then want to say Intelligent Design theory is not science because it trades on unobserved entities and/or cannot be tested.

The list could go on.

Yes, steve, the list could go on, because you're listing renowned scientists who also happen to be theists. The crucial point here is that their speculations do not reflect a consensus view within the scientific community. You want to present your speculations as having come from scientists generally, when that statement should be followed by a caveat given that many (probably most) scientists regard New Age woo with scorn.

But what mainstream science wants to use to address things like the finely tuned universe with multi universes is all acceptable. Yet this cannot be proven and at the same time the mere mention of a creator and its rejected straight away and yet it is based on the same criteria.

The doctrine of creation is based on the same criteria?

To have a truly open mind we have to consider that science can be limited.

Has anyone contended to the contrary?

It has its place right up to the point of the creation of something from nothing or how complex and finely tuned life is. Beyond this we have to consider there maybe something else at work.

This seems to be the double-standard Euler alluded to earlier.

 

[quatona]

So steve, one thing you must keep in mind:
Just because a scientists does or says something doesn´t make it science.
Scientists have their private opinions and their private lives. Scientists can beat their wives, scientists can believe in fairies. Scientists can climb a stage and claim whatever they like. Nothing of that is (necessarily) science, and hopefully it isn´t even meant to be presented as science.

So like Charles Townes, the UC Berkeley professor who is a past noble prize winner and currently awarded 2005 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities.

* Townes said that it was "extremely unlikely" that the laws of physics that led to life on Earth were accidental.

And - did he arrive at this opinion by scientific research? Can we see the researches, the data, the method, the peer reviewed articles? Did he even intend to say present that as a scientific result?
Or did he just give his private interpretation?
Did he win a scientific prize for this scientific "findings"? Apparently not - he won a spirituality-prize.

* Some scientists, he conceded, had suggested that if there were an almost infinite number of universes, each with different laws, one of them was bound by chance to hit upon the right combination to support life.

So?

* "The fact that the universe had a beginning is a very striking thing," Townes said. "How do you explain that unique event" without God?

The explanation doesn´t become any easier with a God - except you accept the assertion "Goddidit" for an explanation while refusing to hold alternative assertions to the same low standard. Physicist Wins Spirituality Prize - Los Angeles Times

So as science encounters mysteries, it is starting to recognize its limitations and become somewhat more open. There are still scientists who differ strongly with religion and vice versa. But I think people are being more open-minded about recognizing the limitations in our frame of understanding.
Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design"

Or Physicist Paul Davies,the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society.
“It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.”

The entire wording of this statement already gives away that this isn´t even meant to be a scientific finding.

Or maybe Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, former post-doctoral fellow at the California Institute of Technology
“Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are becoming rare, and even the few dissenters hint that the tide is against them. Geoffrey Burbidge, of the University of California at San Diego, complains that his fellow astronomers are rushing off to join ‘the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.’”

No science anywhere in this statement.

Or even –George Ellis, the South African astrophysicist who was a collaborator on the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems regarding the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe.
It’s interesting that many scientists want to call the multiverse “science,” but then want to say Intelligent Design theory is not science because it trades on unobserved entities and/or cannot be tested.

And this quote is to tell me exactly what about science being about to track down God?
Any finding of science past, present and future was, is and will point to a natural explanation - because that´s what the scientific method is designed to look for.
So you can forget the idea that science eventually will postulate a God or a beyond-entity. Not any more than you will ever score a goal in chess. Once science has an explanation, it´s by definition natural.

Granted, some things remain sceintifically unexplained. And this is where people (be they scientists, non-scientists, plumbers, doctors or housewives) always had, have and will have their private freedom to fill in the GodOfTheGaps.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, steve, the list could go on, because you're listing renowned scientists who also happen to be theists. The crucial point here is that their speculations do not reflect a consensus view within the scientific community. You want to present your speculations as having come from scientists generally, when that statement should be followed by a caveat given that many (probably most) scientists regard New Age woo with scorn.

I was also referring to the multi universe and other far fetched theories that mainstream science supports. These are promoted as an answer to address what they see which cant be answered with conventional maths and logic. So they move outside these parameters and come up with things like multi universes for example. These say that we have many other dimensions outside our own where there could be all sorts of other possibilities happening. As I keep repeating what is the difference between that and what some other scientists are promoting. Remember some of that woo is also based on the same things that the mainstream theories are based on. They both move into dimensions that could have existences beyond our reality and for all we know an afterlife or any other life that could possible be. What is the difference none can be verified and all are outside our reality in some other dimension. So in some ways they are all promoting woo even the mainstream scientists.

The doctrine of creation is based on the same criteria?

As some of these so called scientists you claim are theists ones. They won their awards for their science not their religion. They know what they are talking about. Just because they say that what they see points to something beyond the known physics and could possible be something that happened beyond chance doesn't mean you can just fob them off because they happen to be believers. They are making these observations based on the science not the religion. When they take all the evidence and what they see into account their conclusion is that there is a possibility that there is something possibly beyond the naturalistic world at work. Its some of the atheists scientists who are the ones with the closed minds who reject this out of hand because they refuse to even consider it with an open mind. Their conclusions are anything but there being a God or creator. They would rather come up with an even more far fetched idea than God than consider God. So long as its something they come up with so that its naturalistic and excludes God.

Has anyone contended to the contrary?

Yes because when a believing scientists talks about the possibilities he is already acknowledging the science behind it to get him to the place where it cannot answer some of the questions. Then he includes the possibility of something beyond that because he is open to that. An atheists scientists will consider everything except the supernatural. You can tell by the way they answer the questions. They will be will to consider certain unprovable hypothesis like the multi universe theory but never even mention a possibility of a creator or a super natural force. They wont even state that its a possibility. So their minds are open all all possibilities except that.

This seems to be the double-standard Euler alluded to earlier.

What double standard. That I can consider the science and the possibility of God and that you can only consider the science and anything but God.

 

[stevevw]

double post