You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How do you distinguish between the belief in God and the occult?
- Thread starter Brass
- Start date
Quote from Epic:
Why are you so convinced that everyone who believes in God has no desire to understand science? You do realize that there are literally many millions of scientists who believe in God, right?
you will find if you look at the data about scientist believing in god you will find many scientists like computer scientists believe in god but as you get to field closer to actual knowledge of biology and fields that deal in evidence of gods the number is very low.
I misspoke. You are correct. However, the scientific method need not begin with a hypothesis. As I understand it, it can begin with a question or a purpose and be followed by secondary research before formulating a suitable hypothesis based on the preliminary secondary research. Therefore, if I understand correctly, it need not have an inherent bias. It need merely be a reflection of the available gathered evidence from the preliminary investigation. However, I surmise that all people supporting creationism were creationists from the get-go. They had an end in mind. I would be very surprised to learn that some of these researchers actually became creationists along the way during their employ of the scientific method. Scientists have become more atheistic over time rather than less so:Quote from Epic:
Yes, always and necessarily...
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists#Among_scientists
Quote from Free Thinker:
you will find if you look at the data about scientist believing in god you will find many scientists like computer scientists believe in god but as you get to field closer to actual knowledge of biology and fields that deal in evidence of gods the number is very low.
LOL... so Gallup's survey says that some 87% of people in America firmly believe in God. About 10% are not convinced one way or the other. 3% firmly do not believe. So according to you, all legitimate scientists are found in that 3% group?
Quote from Brass:
I misspoke. You are correct. However, the scientific method need not begin with a hypothesis. As I understand it, it can begin with a question or a purpose and be followed by secondary research before formulating a suitable hypothesis based on the preliminary secondary research. Therefore, if I understand correctly, it need not have an inherent bias. It need merely be a reflection of the available gathered evidence from the preliminary investigation. However, I surmise that all people supporting creationism were creationists from the get-go. They had an end in mind. I would be very surprised to learn that some of these researchers actually became creationists along the way during their employ of the scientific method.
There are many stories of scientists developing a belief in a creator as they learned more.
To your other point. Assumptions are not necessarily biases, although they can be. They are just assumptions. Without them, the scientific method cannot be followed.
I'd love to hear of a single such story of someone who became a creationist after he had clearly not been one beforehand. Meanwhile, consider the aggregate move away from creationism and a belief in God among scientists over time:Quote from Epic:
There are many stories of scientists developing a belief in a creator as they learned more...
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists#Among_scientists
Quote from Brass:
I'd love to hear of a single such story of someone who became a creationist after he had clearly not been one beforehand. Meanwhile, consider the aggregate move away from creationism and a belief in God among scientists over time:
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists#Among_scientists
Well, you're stating it differently than I did. I suggested stronger belief with further knowledge. You seem to be asking for a conversion from strong dis-belief to strong belief.
I actually would make one suggestion to your other point. Are they moving away from the idea of a creation? Or are they moving away from the idea of a God who watches their every move and guides their personal life? IOW, polling is a peculiar thing. Ask the question a different way, get a different result. In your link, they were specifically asked if they believed in a personal God with direct communication with humankind. They were not asked if they believed in the possibility of some type of Creator.
It is pretty simple for me to agree that certain definitions of God are likely incorrect. But very difficult for me to agree that the existence of a Creator is either impossible or improbable.
Brass,
What I am suggesting is the following situation for a scientist who is born and raised in a community that is overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian.
His entire childhood is influenced and formed by a society that overwhelmingly believes in God. His particular household likely practices a certain faith, which results in a certain definition of God.
He delves into science and realizes that many concepts conflict with his "God". Rarely will a person question his inherited definition of God. The more likely outcome is that he questions the concept of God altogether.
"Since my God doesn't fit with science, the entire concept of a creator is impossible."
What I am suggesting is the following situation for a scientist who is born and raised in a community that is overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian.
His entire childhood is influenced and formed by a society that overwhelmingly believes in God. His particular household likely practices a certain faith, which results in a certain definition of God.
He delves into science and realizes that many concepts conflict with his "God". Rarely will a person question his inherited definition of God. The more likely outcome is that he questions the concept of God altogether.
"Since my God doesn't fit with science, the entire concept of a creator is impossible."
Quote from Epic:
Brass,
What I am suggesting is the following situation for a scientist who is born and raised in a community that is overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian.
His entire childhood is influenced and formed by a society that overwhelmingly believes in God. His particular household likely practices a certain faith, which results in a certain definition of God.
He delves into science and realizes that many concepts conflict with his "God". Rarely will a person question his inherited definition of God. The more likely outcome is that he questions the concept of God altogether.
"Since my God doesn't fit with science, the entire concept of a creator is impossible."
all current gods are revealed through the religious texts. belief in gods is inherited.
you can see the answer by looking at history. people used to believe in thousands of gods. the sun was a god, thunder was a god, fire was a god. people make up gods as answers to the unknown.
"Ignorance of Nature gave birth to gods. Knowledge of Nature is calculated to destroy them."
Quote from Free Thinker:
all current gods are revealed through the religious texts. belief in gods is inherited.
you can see the answer by looking at history. people used to believe in thousands of gods. the sun was a god, thunder was a god, fire was a god. people make up gods as answers to the unknown.
"Ignorance of Nature gave birth to gods. Knowledge of Nature is calculated to destroy them."
Not true. That is simply your opinion because you are intent on defining God in terms of the one you evidently have a grudge against.
There is nothing saying that every person believes in a personal god. It could very well be that God's purpose is to create a universe like a giant erector set. It could be that humans are no different than any other piece of the universe to God. If a child builds an ant farm, he gets to watch as the ants create their world. He doesn't get to communicate with the ants, nor they with him. But that doesn't mean that he didn't create or organize the beginnings of their world.
Could we just be ants in an ant farm that was just left to sustain itself? Has God moved on to creating other worlds or other universes?
Here's the kicker. Could we advance in scientific ability to such a point that we create life from amino acids, and then build a "world" that would allow that life to evolve? We would have the ability to alter or destroy that world at will. Are we then the gods of that world?