Deception of Big Bang Theory

But as, I think Superluminal said earlier, its about method not belief. If one adheres to scientific methodology it doesn't particularly matter what one believes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ben. You are mistaking morality for the theistic claim of a god entity. We are not discussing abstract morality. We are discussing a scientists who, without proof, claims an objective existence for a "god" entity.

As I said previously, theism is defined by faith. Faith is a complete lack of requirements for proof. This is anti-science at it's very core. Scientists are human beings with the whole range of likes, dislikes, moral repugnance toward things, loves, hates, etc. This does not make them theists. What makes a theist it the unsupported claim of objective existence of a god or gods.

Surely you gentlemen can appreciate this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"A theist is defined by his/her faith."

Doesn't a scientist have faith in conjecture?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course not. Conjecture has been proven over millenia as one of the cornerstones of intellectual discovery (in fact, the second step, after observation).

 

I think that if a atheist were to assume, based on evidence of biological organisation on Earth, that a level of biological organisation existed beyond BB - they would quickly be labelled a theist or similar.

 

Remember. Faith is the lack of any requirement for proof of a thing.

Of course, I have faith in certain things. The love of my wife for instance. I do not make her prove this to me. But, and this is the fundamental BUT, my wife's love for me is a subjective matter of my perception alone and is not subject to the same rules one applies to claims of objective phenomena.

If theists would only admit that what they have is a subjective, gut feeling that there is a god, and never try to influence public policy or anything else for that matter, we'd all be just fine.

The problem arises when "god" is taken seriously, as though it actually exists and has some objective bearing on the cosmos.

I can't help feeling that this is really pretty, well, stupid. Not that we all don't have stupid predilictions. I try to keep mine as private as possible...

 

Right. But assumptions are not what the product of science is based on. You may be forced to assume certain things along the way to discovery, but they must be justified at some point.

If a scientist presented a key finding in physics with blatant assumptions at the base of his thesis and no supporting evidence, he'd be shown the door.

 

But there is no reason not to take the idea of organic level of intelligence seriously - it may be a possibility that should be decided through application of scientific method - it is not always a matter of faith but of 'conviction'....'conviction' is the faith of scientists.

 

*one thing of interest to me is that we appear to be having the debate that creationists seem keen to avoid...

 

What do you mean "take seriously"? Scientists take something seriously when there are fundamental observations that make them do so. There has never been an observation that leads strongly to anything but a natural, physical law based origin for life, the universe, and everything. Pardon me Doug.

If there were such observations, you can bet that scientists somewhere would be lining up to get their Nobel suits pressed.

 

Creationists are not scientists. Having a Phd (which I suspect many creation "scientists" fake) does not make you a scientist. The way you apply yourself makes you a scientist. Just like having a handfull of paintbrushes does not make you an artist.

 

But could not a 'creator' be an inherent part of life, the universe, etc. and as such at no odds with anyones methodology.

For example, cross-sultural anthropology reveals a myriad of folk sciences some with explanations analogous to our own....observational science cloaked in symbolic language...no less a 'truthful' account.

 

Sure. Why not? That's the point you seem to keep missing. It could be true. So we ask: What evidence is there for such a position? What observations support this idea? Can you make any testable predictions based on this idea? And so on.

So far, the answer to all of these questions is NONE. Escept for the alst one really. The traditional gods are given attributes and powers by theists and claims that have been tested which prove that their versions of god do not exist.

Next?

 

For now I will agree to disagree with your position Superluminal: Theism (in that it implies faith) and the scientific method are mutually exclusive. Thanks for your patience - I realise the dialectic is at impasse over the issue of whether scientists do actually rely on faith/conviction.
However it would be great to continue this discussion in another thread I propose: 'Is the pursuit of science the pursuit of truth?' Human Sciences I think.

 

There are lots of things that are anti-science. Abandonment of reason for faith is certainly one. But this is philosophically no different from, say, refusing to preform tests on living humans. If one takes something on faith, they have willingly made a choice to accept a limitation on science.

Surely!

I will excuse myself from this debate now, largely because I do not know on which side I stand. Apologies

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!