Are scientists the true theists?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by birch, Feb 2, 2017.

  1. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,513
    Science is concerned with the actual nuts and bolts of how the universe works. They are always investigative.

    Religionists say "God is unchanging." Well, that is what science depends on as in what makes anything tick consistently.

    When you see, for instance, sports stars thank the almighty and give credit to their faith, it is about lifeforce. That has validity in its own context. The difference and problem lies in when there is a misunderstanding and crossed wires. The spirit understands the potential of creativity, growth and change even among the non-tangible where science is concerned with foundations which for all practical purposes has more weight. It's when religionists even unknowingly cross the line into touting inspiration or speculation which is their faith as facts. Its real to them but they should understand that is their own experience. Science, on the other hand, can sometimes devalue or dismiss anything yet unproven or unable to be harnessed at a tangible level.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,196
    A baby is indifferent.

    Doesn't understand the language.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,513
    The other aspect they profoundly have in common. which I disagree with, is that all is as it should be. Religionists say God is perfect, therefore the universe is. Whatever problems exist is just in God's plan. Scientists just say it is what it is. Really no difference. They are both in awe of it often to a fanatic or unrealistic level. Religionists blame the devil but still god is using the devil as a pawn whereas scientists say there is no such thing as evil; its just perspective etc. I mean you cant bottle it, right? Way to play cognitive disonnance with shit they would like to ignore or rationalize.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,196
    Science is constantly learning.
     
  8. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    . . . . . IMHO, Sometimes NOT!
     
  9. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,196
    Liar.

    You're in front of a computer that generates a random number so why haven't you given up yet, quitter?
     
  10. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,932
    Which religion?

    Which god?
     
  11. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,571
    I really do not understand your point. The title asks, are scientists the 'true' theist, but then you do not bring forth a single point to support your contention. Maybe you do not know the definition of theist?
     
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Scientists have the potential to become like the theists of physical reality; However, truth is not the only motivation in science. For example, in the current political climate, over climate change, fewer and fewer scientists are allowed to disagree due to politics and the impact of politics on funding. A real theists will approach a problem from all angles to disprove or prove a premise; come to the truth, regardless of the political climate.

    Just because the atheists make it harder on theists, does not means the faithful change 180 degrees. Peer pressure and political pressure will not matter if truth is placed before personal needs. If President Trump changes funding priorities and gave half the money for research based on earth induced changes for climate, there would be a migration to get those resources, since the taboo would be lifted; fair weather faith. It is not always about truth, since science does not have its own money but is dependent on others for resources; government, business and private donations.

    The religious person, who finds themselves in the minority, being persecuted, sometimes even to death, does not sell their soul as easy. There is nothing objectively wrong with science, investigating earth based explanations of climate change. Since even negative results help to direct the truth. But once the persecution appeared, many scientists changed their outward faith out of fear.

    Students live in the idealism of science, but they have yet to enter the real world, where bureaucrats, company politics and shareholders often decide. The scientists has to adapt, since this is their livelihood and their source of their social status. One may not be able to be true to truth, and still move up the company ladder.

    This is why Catholic priests take a vow of poverty. There is one less way for outside forces to buy and sell your soul.
     
  13. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,932
    I did hear / read / acquired inform about the Pope having almost no personal processions

    Think the perks of the job make up for that
     
  14. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,539
    That description would apply to metaphysics too. (At least to 'metaphysics' in the academic 'analytic' sense.)

    Scientists certainly seem to assume that the so-called "laws of physics" are unchanging. (There's an element of faith in that.) Everything, everywhere and everywhen, supposedly operates on precisely the same principles. The same assumptions are made for logic and mathematics which form the framework of physical theory and are always imagined as universal.

    Interestingly, the medievals, influenced by late Platonism, associated the principles of logic with God's reason and the principles of mathematics and physics with ideas in God's mind. They were unchanging because God was. Isaac Newton seems to have still been thinking that way as late as the early 1700's. So the theistic and the physicalistic versions are historically related.

    It's about fortune too. The athletes are acknowledging the good fortune that enabled all of their training to pay off.

    Maybe. I'm not sure if I understand your distinction between thinking in terms of 'life-force' and thinking in terms of science.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2017
  15. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,539
    That's precisely where I see a big difference between 'scientific' and 'religious' thinking.

    People want to believe that their lives, the lives of those they care about and events generally, have meaning. People prefer to think as if they are characters in a novel and that there's a larger cosmic plot into which their lives fit. Religious thinking associates events in this world with divine purpose.

    Except that with science there isn't any plot, purpose or meaning. There's just... equations. Or to the extent that cosmology tries to invent a cosmic narrative, it isn't the kind of plot that human beings can relate to emotionally. (The expansion of the universe from an initial point... who (besides the cosmologists) cares?) That's why so many people say that the world of science seems cold and nihilistic, a clock-work machine in which human beings are trapped. A great deal of nineteenth and twentieth-century art and literature addresses that theme.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2017
  16. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,269
    Love is interchanable with 'how,' and authority as well.
     
  17. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,571
    Not in english it isn't.
     
  18. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,932
    Not sure scientist assume anything (I'm assuming that because I do not have evidence - but I'm not a scientist)

    Scientist search for evidence of the what / why / how of the Universe

    Now I am guessing all that searching has lead to the conclusion that the laws of physics are indeed unchanging

    No faith needed
    No I don't think so

    My take on it they are truly acknowledgeing their god / faith is better than the opponent's god / faith

    The old school yard my dad is better than your dad

    birch said

    The other aspect they profoundly have in common. which I disagree with, is that all is as it should be. Religionists say God is perfect, therefore the universe is. Whatever problems exist is just in God's plan.


    The difference I see is

    religion thinks

    science knows

    Religion makes pronouncements and predictions, you go to heaven / hell, god loves you, with no evidence

    Science knows (not everything) but what it does know it can prove and demonstrate and can make predictions
     
  19. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,269
    How so?
     
  20. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,571
    You said love is interchangable with how, but it isn't.

    Example:
    How tall are you?
    Love tall are you?

    See they are not interchangable.
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,940
    I'd have thought the Pope would be in processions daily. He does have to say mass once a day, after all, not to mention innumerable ceremonial duties.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Ophiolite likes this.
  22. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,932
    Ooops possessions

    Sorry

    Can I blame it on lack of coffee, watching TV, chatting with girlfriend on WhatsApp and being bad at multitasking?
     
  23. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,269
    "Love is how."
     

Share This Page