Theistic Scientists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2013, 12:33 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2013 12:42 AM by KindaNewAthiest.)
Theistic Scientists
Hello all, KindaNewAthiest here again. Ive got another question for everyone. One of my friend's professors of biology, says you can be a scientist and still believe in god. I feel as if this is contridictory. One requires massive amounts of evidence, the other requires none. So I ask, can thiests really be effective scientists and as effective as athiestic scientists?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 12:55 AM
RE: Theistic Scientists
So the main question is - "Can theists really be effective scientists and as effective as atheistic scientists?"

This is, I believe, a heavy misconception coming from (mainly) the Atheistic community.

Bias - It's the one thing that can heavily influence the observers understanding of the conclusion.
Bias is not exclusive to Theists. It is exclusive to human beings. That being said, we want to minimize bias in the field of Science for the purpose of coming to an unbiased and truthful observation.

So the answer to your question, I believe, is that both Atheists and Theists can equally be effective Scientists, so long as they don't bring their bias to the observation.

Theist Bias Example: Start with the conclusion that God must exist - appropriate the evidence to fit this claim.

Atheist Bias Example: Start with the conclusion the anything supernatural does not exist - appropriate the evidence to fit this claim.
(It can also be: Follow the evidence, but always reject supernatural conclusions.)

The Atheistic example is more of a naturalist Atheist example.
Many other Atheists will simply say that the evidence has not (yet) given credence to anything supernatural.

Anyways, I hope you see my point Smile

It all depends on what the person brings to the Scientific Observation.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 01:36 AM
RE: Theistic Scientists
You can, it just probably means that the scientists hasn't applied the same level of rationality, reason, and skepticism to their belief structure as they do their own work. Francis Crick and Ken Miller are two great examples of this phenomena in action. Crick is a very CS Lewis style christian that headed the Human Genome Project, while Miller is a devout Catholic that testified against intelligent design at the Dover Board of Education trial. There is no denying their scientific credentials and their work stands up to peer review.


Then you try reading the books they write about their faith, and it's not on the same par. Especially Crick, in his book he tells a story about his affirmations that essentially boils down to finding a frozen waterfall while hiking and feeling the holy spirit. That's it. that's all the proof he has for his belief, a frozen waterfall and a feeling. Wouldn't pass peer review by a long shot, his personal beliefs are not on par with his scientific work. And so Christopher Hitchens' old saw comes into play here "Whatever can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

Hope that helps.

[Image: 34379461.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
05-02-2013, 08:58 AM
RE: Theistic Scientists
Umm, yes, yes they can. There are some extremely brilliant men in the science community that are Christians.

Famed dino expert Robert Bakker, the creator of Biologos Francis Collins, and the man, the myth, the legend... the man who can give Dawkins a run for his money... Alister McGrath.

Check their education and their credentials. These aren't Ken Ham "scientists". These are scientists that belong with the creme de la creme of the science community.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 09:11 AM
RE: Theistic Scientists
(05-02-2013 08:58 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  ... the man who can give Dawkins a run for his money... Alister McGrath.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! No

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-02-2013, 09:12 AM
RE: Theistic Scientists
Very, very few of the top-tier scientists in the world are religious.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 09:14 AM
RE: Theistic Scientists
(05-02-2013 09:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 08:58 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  ... the man who can give Dawkins a run for his money... Alister McGrath.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! No
Ummm, yes.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 09:49 AM
RE: Theistic Scientists
(05-02-2013 12:55 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  So the main question is - "Can theists really be effective scientists and as effective as atheistic scientists?"

This is, I believe, a heavy misconception coming from (mainly) the Atheistic community.

Bias - It's the one thing that can heavily influence the observers understanding of the conclusion.
Bias is not exclusive to Theists. It is exclusive to human beings. That being said, we want to minimize bias in the field of Science for the purpose of coming to an unbiased and truthful observation.

So the answer to your question, I believe, is that both Atheists and Theists can equally be effective Scientists, so long as they don't bring their bias to the observation.

Theist Bias Example: Start with the conclusion that God must exist - appropriate the evidence to fit this claim.

Atheist Bias Example: Start with the conclusion the anything supernatural does not exist - appropriate the evidence to fit this claim.
(It can also be: Follow the evidence, but always reject supernatural conclusions.)

The Atheistic example is more of a naturalist Atheist example.
Many other Atheists will simply say that the evidence has not (yet) given credence to anything supernatural.

Anyways, I hope you see my point Smile

It all depends on what the person brings to the Scientific Observation.

I see what you mean. I think i should have worded the question differently. I understand that both athiestic and theistic scientists can be equally effective in the science field. Im not questioning how smart they are. The problem with me lies that they seem to value something so strongly that has no evidence. Yet in thier field they need evidence. And at some point a contridiction will arise. They will most likely side with thier beliefs. This creates a problem. One that athiests would not have
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: Theistic Scientists
(05-02-2013 09:49 AM)KindaNewAthiest Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 12:55 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  So the main question is - "Can theists really be effective scientists and as effective as atheistic scientists?"

This is, I believe, a heavy misconception coming from (mainly) the Atheistic community.

Bias - It's the one thing that can heavily influence the observers understanding of the conclusion.
Bias is not exclusive to Theists. It is exclusive to human beings. That being said, we want to minimize bias in the field of Science for the purpose of coming to an unbiased and truthful observation.

So the answer to your question, I believe, is that both Atheists and Theists can equally be effective Scientists, so long as they don't bring their bias to the observation.

Theist Bias Example: Start with the conclusion that God must exist - appropriate the evidence to fit this claim.

Atheist Bias Example: Start with the conclusion the anything supernatural does not exist - appropriate the evidence to fit this claim.
(It can also be: Follow the evidence, but always reject supernatural conclusions.)

The Atheistic example is more of a naturalist Atheist example.
Many other Atheists will simply say that the evidence has not (yet) given credence to anything supernatural.

Anyways, I hope you see my point Smile

It all depends on what the person brings to the Scientific Observation.

I see what you mean. I think i should have worded the question differently. I understand that both athiestic and theistic scientists can be equally effective in the science field. Im not questioning how smart they are. The problem with me lies that they seem to value something so strongly that has no evidence. Yet in thier field they need evidence. And at some point a contridiction will arise. They will most likely side with thier beliefs. This creates a problem. One that athiests would not have
Theistic Evolutionists and Evolutionary Creationists don't mix theology and science... which is good... they shouldn't be mixed. So, their belief in God and evidence in science is a non-issue.

As more evidence presents itself, their understanding of God and how He works changes... not the other way around.

See... Creationists believe they know about God... and everything around them changes based on what they "know" about God. TEs and ECs don't believe like that. They believe in the evidence that is presented to them, and that evidence reveals more and more about how God works. Their understanding of God is progressive not static. Which is the way it should be. Christians should never place restrictions on God aka "putting God in a box".

In other words, their theology changes when evidence is presented instead of the evidence being manipulated while the theology stays the same.

This is the difference between Creationists and TEs/ECs.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: