Just supposing...........

[Alien]

As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?

I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.

In what way?

Well Georges Lemaître, for instance, formulated the idea of the Big Bang based on Einstein's equations, not based on his religious principles.  Simon Conway-Morris's scientific papers do not invoke God in any way at all.  They are all based on sound naturalistic scientific principles.

I note your ambiguous terminology. They use methodological naturalistic principles.

However, let's go back to #311 which said

Vlad: In one of his shows Faith school danger? He quizzes a science teacher as to why he is not actively discouraging religious belief. That is his demand.

You: I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science.

So, again I ask, how would Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. applying their religious belief tend to ruin the science?

[jeremyp]

I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.

What makes you think this, jeremy?  I can't think of anyone, Christian or otherwise, who puts aside their belief system when doing work, whatver that work might be.

That is what science is about, Hope.  You will not do good science if you let your personal beliefs and hopes intrude on the work.  If you do, you'll start seeing things that aren't there and missing things that are. 

[jeremyp]

One doesn't have to refer to one's belief system within a dissertation or scientific paper to hold to that belief system. 

What do you think that "putting aside your beliefs" means? 

[jeremyp]

So, again I ask, how would Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. applying their religious belief tend to ruin the science?

Because they would jump to conclusions that are false.  You do it all the time.  You apply your religious beliefs to doing history and thus convince yourself that the Resurrection of Christ is historically sound when it isn't.   If scientists applied their religious beliefs to science, we would have a World view that is distorted by the need to harmonise it with Genesis.

[Shaker]

In what way? One of their "religious beliefs" is that God is faithful and consistent and therefore the way the universe works is likely to be consistent. I don't see that having a "tendency to ruin the science".

That isn't science for starters.

[Gordon]

So, again I ask, how would Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. applying their religious belief tend to ruin the science?

If, as part of their professional science role, they were do include a 'goddidit' hypothesis they would then be required to outline the methods, data and analysis they applied - exactly what that some of us here have requested.

I suspect that when it comes their professional science work they steer well clear of 'goddidit', esle they drift into psuedo-science, while outwith this they are theists: they are guilty of doublethink, I think.

[Shaker]

Polkinghorne and Collins do manage to keep their beliefs (some pretty weird and wacky ones in Collins's case) away from the science when they're doing science, but Conway Morris has a tendency to adulterate his science with his theism. He holds for example that human beings - not hares and moths, notice, but human beings - were/are in some sense inevitable in the universe, such that if the "tape" of life were rewound right back to the beginning and played again, humans or something nearly identical to humans would result. He has been less than shy about tying this view to his belief in God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, again I ask, how would Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. applying their religious belief tend to ruin the science?

Because they would jump to conclusions that are false.  You do it all the time.  You apply your religious beliefs to doing history and thus convince yourself that the Resurrection of Christ is historically sound when it isn't.   If scientists applied their religious beliefs to science, we would have a World view that is distortedly the need to harmonise it with Genesis.

I'm afraid there are historical documents providing all kinds of evidence for the event. What could be in question is the interpretation of it. That of course depends on factors other than historical.

The alternative ideas do not have the same historical documentation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, again I ask, how would Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. applying their religious belief tend to ruin the science?

If, as part of their professional science role, they were do include a 'goddidit' hypothesis they would then be required to outline the methods, data and analysis they applied - exactly what that some of us here have requested.

I suspect that when it comes their professional science work they steer well clear of 'goddidit', esle they drift into psuedo-science, while outwith this they are theists: they are guilty of doublethink, I think.

It's a bit of a pity Dawkins couldn't keep Goddidn't do it out of his science.

And of course Hawking made a spectacular ''disproof'' of God in the conclusion but never actually mentioned God in the hypothesis or method........About five years ago.

[Shaker]

It's a bit of a pity Dawkins couldn't keep Goddidn't do it out of his science.

Not a pity at all, not even a bit of one - that no god dunnit is bog-standard, straightforward science, for all the reasons which have been clearly explained many, many, many times before which I'm sure shouldn't need to be explained to you yet again.

Still, if we have to remind you, we'll do so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a bit of a pity Dawkins couldn't keep Goddidn't do it out of his science.

Not a pity at all, not even a bit of one - that no god dunnit is bog-standard, straightforward science, for all the reasons which have been clearly explained many, many, many times before which I'm sure shouldn't need to be explained to you yet again.

Still, if we have to remind you, we'll do so.

Shaker....another one who thinks Atheism=science. Just a word about the scientific method Shakes.
If you don't mention God any where else but your conclusion features God, you're not doing science properly.......Don't be so stupit in future.

[jeremyp]

I'm afraid there are historical documents providing all kinds of evidence for the event. What could be in question is the interpretation of it. That of course depends on factors other than historical.

No Vlad, there aren't, not if you are trying to do science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm afraid there are historical documents providing all kinds of evidence for the event. What could be in question is the interpretation of it. That of course depends on factors other than historical.

No Vlad, there aren't, not if you are trying to do science.

Eh?

[Hope]

One doesn't have to refer to one's belief system within a dissertation or scientific paper to hold to that belief system. 

What do you think that "putting aside your beliefs" means?

The Oxford Dictionary states that 'to put something aside' means to 'Forget or disregard something' (though it also means 'save money for future use').  I doubt whether they would 'forget' their beliefs, and since there is dichotomy between religion and faith, I see no reason for them to feel that they need to 'disregard' their beliefs.

[Hope]

If, as part of their professional science role, they were do include a 'goddidit' hypothesis they would then be required to outline the methods, data and analysis they applied - exactly what that some of us here have requested.

I suspect that when it comes their professional science work they steer well clear of 'goddidit', esle they drift into psuedo-science, while outwith this they are theists: they are guilty of doublethink, I think.

They are only guilty of doublethink if there is a dichotomy between science and faith.  Having heard at least 2 of them speak, I understand that they don't believe that there is.  Instead, science is just one element of God's creation and, as such, deals with certain areas of that creation.

[jeremyp]

I'm afraid there are historical documents providing all kinds of evidence for the event. What could be in question is the interpretation of it. That of course depends on factors other than historical.

No Vlad, there aren't, not if you are trying to do science.

Eh?

Other factors.

[jeremyp]

The Oxford Dictionary states that 'to put something aside' means to 'Forget or disregard something' (though it also means 'save money for future use').  I doubt whether they would 'forget' their beliefs, and since there is dichotomy between religion and faith, I see no reason for them to feel that they need to 'disregard' their beliefs.

The disregard bit is the part that matters and you see "no reason for them to feel that they need to 'disregard' their beliefs" because you do not understand what science is or how it is done.  You absolutely have to disregard your prior beliefs to do successful science.

[Shaker]

They are only guilty of doublethink if there is a dichotomy between science and faith.  Having heard at least 2 of them speak, I understand that they don't believe that there is.

They may not but many do.

Instead, science is just one element of God's creation and, as such, deals with certain areas of that creation.

Is that a scientific stance? (The answer you're after is "no").

[Hope]

You absolutely have to disregard your prior beliefs to do successful science.

I'm sorry, but I know a number of Christians who are also scientists - some pretty high-powered - none of whom who feel the need to 'disregard (their) prior beliefs to do successful science'.  They believe that the two don't actually conflict with each other because they deal with different aspects of their real lives.

[Hope]

They may not but many do.

I won't disagree that some may, but because of the places I've lived - such as Oxford, London and Cardiff - and some of the work I've been involved with - such as medical and sustainable development - the majority of the many mathematicians, biologists, physicists, chemists, engineers, etc. I know, who are also Christians, see no conflict between the two positions.  On the other hand, the people I know who really push that conflict are the likes of you, who seem determined to believe that there has to be a conflict - perhaps in order to validate your owm personal positions.

Instead, science is just one element of God's creation and, as such, deals with certain areas of that creation.

Is that a scientific stance? (The answer you're after is "no").

Shaker, if one believes that God created the universe, as these folk I've referred to state that they do, science must - by definition - be 'one element' of that creative process.  As such, its neither a scientific or religious stance.

[Shaker]

I won't disagree that some may, but because of the places I've lived - such as Oxford, London and Cardiff - and some of the work I've been involved with - such as medical and sustainable development - the majority of the many mathematicians, biologists, physicists, chemists, engineers, etc. I know, who are also Christians, see no conflict between the two positions.

Nice anecdote, but of all mathematicians, biologists, physicists, chemists, engineers etc. how representative do you think they are?

In the other hand, the people I know who really push that conflict are the likes of you, who seem determined to believe that there has to be a conflict - perhaps in order to validate your owm personal positions.

My own personal position is perfectly well validated as it is; this is about recognising the irreconcilable difference(s) between science and religion, which some seek to gloss over, possibly because it points up the shakiness of the religious stance which does't even have a methodology to demonstrate its principles.

[jeremyp]

You absolutely have to disregard your prior beliefs to do successful science.

I'm sorry, but I know a number of Christians who are also scientists - some pretty high-powered - none of whom who feel the need to 'disregard (their) prior beliefs to do successful science'. 

And you have been telephoning them this evening to ask them that, have you?  No, I don't think you've ever asked any of them.  Because, if you did, they would tell you I am right. 

They believe that the two don't actually conflict with each other because they deal with different aspects of their real lives.

If you think that, why would you think it a problem to put aside your prior beliefs to do science?

[Gordon]

If, as part of their professional science role, they were do include a 'goddidit' hypothesis they would then be required to outline the methods, data and analysis they applied - exactly what that some of us here have requested.

I suspect that when it comes their professional science work they steer well clear of 'goddidit', esle they drift into psuedo-science, while outwith this they are theists: they are guilty of doublethink, I think.

They are only guilty of doublethink if there is a dichotomy between science and faith.  Having heard at least 2 of them speak, I understand that they don't believe that there is.  Instead, science is just one element of God's creation and, as such, deals with certain areas of that creation.

Then your two tame scientists are rationalising, else they would publish in a peer-reviewed science journal a methodology for investigating claims of divine intervention - and we both know that isn't so.

All it shows is that some otherwise clever people have a personal weak-spot when it comes to religious nonsense.

[Shaker]

All it shows is that some otherwise clever people have a personal weak-spot when it comes to religious nonsense.

Or to say the same thing in a slightly different way, some people are tremendously good at compartmentalising incompatible and irreconcilable elements.

[Gordon]

All it shows is that some otherwise clever people have a personal weak-spot when it comes to religious nonsense.

Or to say the same thing in a slightly different way, some people are tremendously good at compartmentalising incompatible and irreconcilable elements.

Yep - good old 'doublethink': an essential personal attribute if you are an otherwise clever Christian.