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

[Andy]

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.

Look at this, you're a classic case of such doublethink. If it's "supranatural" (or whatever other silly made up buzz word you're using this week) it's god, but then if it's natural it's still god. You make a mockery of what it means to have evidence, which is what the scientific method requires in order to play the game of probability, by throwing your theistic blanket over absolutely everything.

[Andy]

They are only guilty of doublethink if there is a dichotomy between science and faith.

There is a dichotomy. Science is based on evidence - the ability to test and repeat in order to come to a tentative conclusion. Faith is the antithesis of this. Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have evidence. If you start with a faith based position before doing science, then you ain't doing science.

[jjohnjil]

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.

I don't think I've agreed with Hope before but there's always a first time for everything.

I can't see why a theist cannot study his science and still believe the goddidit nonsense.  If they think God can do one-off miracles (unexplainable events) they can ignore those 'events' in their studies. Of course, if they were studying abiogenesis or biopoesis it would be difficult but there are plenty of sciences that it wouldn't need to be a problem.

[Andy]

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.

I don't think I've agreed with Hope before but there's always a first time for everything.

I can't see why a theist cannot study his science and still believe the goddidit nonsense.  If they think God can do one-off miracles (unexplainable events) they can ignore those 'events' in their studies. Of course, if they were studying abiogenesis or biopoesis it would be difficult but there are plenty of sciences that it wouldn't need to be a problem.

It's not that they can't believe the goddidit stuff, it's that they must leave it at the door and not factor it in when doing science. And they don't factor it in... when it suits them.  They often start off with naturalism to assess probability and then make a switch to a supernatural outlook in order to pander to and special plead for their specific theological miracles. All the while they're simultaneously believing that goddidit is the answer to nature. There's not many better examples of doublethink.

[Shaker]

Couldn't have put it better myself, Andy.

[jeremyp]

It's not that they can't believe the goddidit stuff, it's that they must leave it at the door and not factor it in when doing science.

Exactly. 

[Shaker]

It must be difficult to be a religion-science accomodationist these days. For centuries science has been so ... almost embarrassingly good at explaining and understanding the world that even with all the caveats and provisos of which the science-savvy should be aware (that all knowledge is to a greater or lesser degree tentative and provisional; that all ideas are subject to revision, and so forth), to invoke science, to say that such-and-such has scientific evidence in its favour (or doesn't) is generally regarded as the hallmark of truth. Even TV adverts for brands of up-market shampoo have a "Here comes the sciencey bit" in them, because even people who don't know their macromolecules from a hole in the ground regard it as the seal of reliability.

There are very good reasons for that. The way that science is done tries to root out deliberate fraud and tries to eliminate to the greatest possible degree personal prejudice and subjective bias, both of those things having been demonstrated to almost everyone's satisfaction as egregiously poor indicators of how things really are.

That science is permanently and perpetually working with limited knowledge (by definition; if we knew everything there is to know, there'd be no science), carried out by fallible people who get tired and make mistakes and very rarely deliberately falsify things doesn't alter this one jot. The checking and rechecking process deals with them. When you have a tool this powerful and this effective, one that keeps on proving itself literally every day, you don't set it aside.

The scientifically literate understand the limitations of science, but it's precisely because they're scientifically literate that they also know its strengths and understand what makes the application of the scientific method matchless in understanding reality. It's a poor, pathetic view of the world that can't provide its own methodology and has to limp along behind science looking for gaps and, to paraphrase Dara O'Briain, filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale most appeals.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It must be difficult to be a religion-science accomodationist these days. For centuries science has been so ... almost embarrassingly good at explaining and understanding the world that even with all the caveats and provisos of which the science-savvy should be aware (that all knowledge is to a greater or lesser degree tentative and provisional; that all ideas are subject to revision, and so forth), to invoke science, to say that such-and-such has scientific evidence in its favour (or doesn't) is generally regarded as the hallmark of truth. Even TV adverts for brands of up-market shampoo have a "Here comes the sciencey bit" in them, because even people who don't know their macromolecules from a hole in the ground regard it as the seal of reliability.

There are very good reasons for that. The way that science is done tries to root out deliberate fraud and tries to eliminate to the greatest possible degree personal prejudice and subjective bias, both of those things having been demonstrated to almost everyone's satisfaction as egregiously poor indicators of how things really are.

That science is permanently and perpetually working with limited knowledge (by definition; if we knew everything there is to know, there'd be no science), carried out by fallible people who get tired and make mistakes and very rarely deliberately falsify things doesn't alter this one jot. The checking and rechecking process deals with them. When you have a tool this powerful and this effective, one that keeps on proving itself literally every day, you don't set it aside.

The scientifically literate understand the limitations of science, but it's precisely because they're scientifically literate that they also know its strengths and understand what makes the application of the scientific method matchless in understanding reality. It's a poor, pathetic view of the world that can't provide its own methodology and has to limp along behind science looking for gaps and, to paraphrase Dara O'Briain, filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale most appeals.

Watching antitheists trying to appropriate science or worse equate science with atheism is indeed a sad spectacle.

Poor Shaker has written reams but still cannot make any connection.

You are deluded boys quite deluded.

Yes it has a comical element like the chap on here who tried to say that everyone becomes a philosophical naturalist when doing science.

Oh the mysticism, oh the romance, oh the sentimentality.

Science is a method indeed the only people I see who are wrecking science by coming up with theological conclusions, by proposing the scrapping of falsifiability and category are the antitheists for whom science has become a melange of their own smartness, their job security or lack of it particularly among those whose branch of science has not yielded experimental research and Dawkins through his reductionism almost stifled those concerns about the environment as described by Lovelock and others.

You guys have a really bad case of intellectual imperialism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The scientifically literate understand the limitations of science, but it's precisely because they're scientifically literate that they also know its strengths and understand what makes the application of the scientific method matchless in understanding reality. It's a poor, pathetic view of the world that can't provide its own methodology and has to limp along behind science looking for gaps and, to paraphrase Dara O'Briain, filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale most appeals.

Sentimental and wrong bollocks.

[Shaker]

There's nothing like an insightful and in-depth analysis, and that was nothing like one Vladdypops.

Not that we expected one, mind

[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?

Nudge for JeremyP.

[jeremyp]

Watching antitheists trying to appropriate science or worse equate science with atheism is indeed a sad spectacle.

Poor Shaker has written reams but still cannot make any connection.

You are deluded boys quite deluded.

Yes it has a comical element like the chap on here who tried to say that everyone becomes a philosophical naturalist when doing science.

Oh the mysticism, oh the romance, oh the sentimentality.

Science is a method indeed the only people I see who are wrecking science by coming up with theological conclusions, by proposing the scrapping of falsifiability and category are the antitheists for whom science has become a melange of their own smartness, their job security or lack of it particularly among those whose branch of science has not yielded experimental research and Dawkins through his reductionism almost stifled those concerns about the environment as described by Lovelock and others.

You guys have a really bad case of intellectual imperialism.

Wow.  You don't half talk bollocks sometimes all the time.

[jeremyp]

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

Already answered at length.

[Sassy]

The Jews believe the KJV to be the closest in definition to their own Torah in the OT.
I find it odd when they themselves translated the books that you think it is flawed.

Sass, the KJV was NOT translated by Jews.  It was translated by, no doubt perfectly worthy, Church of England clergy and scholars in the early 17th century under strict instructions from the monarch to reflect the ecclesiology and episcopal structure of the Church of England of the time.  OK, in this, it was probably trying to counter some of the Roman Catholic ideas that can be found in Catholic translations, but James also wanted it to reflect the role of the monarchy as he saw it.

As for the "Jews believe the KJV to be the closest in definition to their own Torah in the OT", its the first time I've heard that suggestion.  Do you have any evidence for it?  By the way, what do you mean by 'definition' in this comment?

The OT is not flawed in definition as God himself through Jeremiah taught.

Sorry Sass, but when one comes to discussing the relative merits of English or any other language's translations of the Bible, the passage you quote from Jeremiah is absolutely irrelevant.  The reality of what is said in the passage may well be great news, but it has no relevance to the issue we're discussing.

The LORD, is the person I believe taught me and told me to use the KJV, for definition purposes.

What do you mean by 'for definition purposes'?

It matters not what instructions man gives. God teaches his own people himself. Just as he has always done. Spirit and Truth.

And how do Jesus and others like Paul suggest is a good way to discover what that truth is?  Is reading the Scriptures included in that advice?  If so, then the translation has to be the most accurate that we can get. To believe that a translation reflecting the linguistic norms of 400 years ago is 'the best available' is to dismiss  400 years'-worth of theological scholarship and its related linguistic studies.
 

The bible is like milk for those not yet taught by God. You see when you have the Spirit then truth is within you.

Yet I notice that all your posts make use of Biblical imagery and phraseology.  Clearly it has a very important place in your belief system.

If the NT disappeared tomorrow Gods people would still go on with the truth from the OT....
The Lords words are preserved...

Are you telling us that you are a Jew, Sass?  If that is the case, why are you even thinking of touching the KJV.     Oughtn't you to be working from the Hebrew texts of the Torah, Tanakh and the other Hebrew scriptures?

The Bible.

The books of Holy scripture . The Septuagint is a greek version Hebrew books prepared at Alexandria by Hebrew scholars in the 3rd-2nd century BC. It is this version which the KJV is closest to and they both are closest to the original Hebrew having been prepared by Hebrew Jewish scholars.

The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the OT known as the LXX. It is ascribed to 70 or 72 Scholars working under the patronage of Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria.

I think it is clear your knowledge of the history of the bible is not really clear.

The fact is that God teaches men today as he did in the time of Jeremiah and those others born of the Spirit. By the power of the Holy Spirit.

King James Bible
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

John 16;13
King James Bible
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come..

Jesus said; ''My words are SPIRIT and they are LIFE''

Whatever you say, your argument is already lost.
Gods words came to man through the Spirit and today mankind know the truth by the power of the Holy Spirit. You have what is called a useless argument for the truth of the bible is clear in the teachings of Christ and the Prophets.

[Sassy]

If the NT disappeared tomorrow Gods people would still go on with the truth from the OT....
The Lords words are preserved...

Are you telling us that you are a Jew, Sass?  If that is the case, why are you even thinking of touching the KJV.     Oughtn't you to be working from the Hebrew texts of the Torah, Tanakh and the other Hebrew scriptures?

Once you have finished reading the last post. Would you like to explain what you have written.

What is it that you do not understand about this...

12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

My writings are not personal or about me it is simply about the truth of Gods words.
When the time comes it isn't a personality contest it is about the truth.Gods truth.

[Alien]

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.

Sorry, I had missed this post.

So are you saying that Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. hold views about Genesis which are at odds with what science says about the creation of the universe, the Earth, the start of mankind and so on? If so, what views are they. Please supply evidence for this.

If they do not have views on those things which lead to a conflict between their "religious beliefs" and science, then how would their "religious beliefs" "ruin the science"?

[Alien]

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.

So how does this view have a "tendency to ruin the science"? That is what JeremyP claimed.

[Alien]

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.

So you "suspect"? Which of their beliefs specifically?

[Alien]

Polkinghorne and Collins do manage to keep their beliefs (some pretty weird and wacky ones in Collins's case)

Please tell us of the ones which would "tend to ruin the science".

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.

So what is wrong with his scientific case here (as messed up by his religious beliefs)?

He has been less than shy about tying this view to his belief in God.

And? If the two are in harmony, tough. Bit of a bummer for you atheists, I suppose though.

Time for some more guff about compartmentalisation?

[Shaker]

And? If the two are in harmony, tough.

They're not, though. That's the point.

Bit of a bummer for you atheists, I suppose though.

The existence of such addled non-reasoning is, yes. Always

Time for some more guff about compartmentalisation?

If the cap fits ...

[Alien]

And? If the two are in harmony, tough.

They're not, though. That's the point.

So which of the views of Polkinghorne, Conway-Morris, Collins et al. are not in harmony? Come on, cough up.

[Gordon]

So you "suspect"? Which of their beliefs specifically?

Any and all of them that involve supernatural agency, since the scientific method is essentially naturalistic. 

[Alien]

So you "suspect"? Which of their beliefs specifically?

Any and all of them that involve supernatural agency, since the scientific method is essentially naturalistic.

Naughty. It is methodologically naturalistic, but not philosophically naturalistic. Was your ambiguity deliberate or just sloppiness?

In #311, JeremyP wrote, "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."

I have been asking JeremyP which of the religious beliefs of people like Polkinghorne, Collins and Conway-Morris, which if applied to doing science, would "tend to ruin the science". I can't get anyone to give any examples apart from some alleged conflict between their views on Genesis and science, but no-one will say what the views of Polkinghorne, Collins and Conway-Morris about Genesis are that are in conflict with science.

Do you agree with JeremyP here? If so, perhaps you would tell me what those conflicting views are.

[Shaker]

Naughty. It is methodologically naturalistic, but not philosophically naturalistic.

A sophistical distinction given that while doing science the true methodological naturalist must ignore/set aside any so-called "supernatural" input every bit as much as the philosophical naturalist.

[Gordon]

So you "suspect"? Which of their beliefs specifically?

Any and all of them that involve supernatural agency, since the scientific method is essentially naturalistic.

Naughty. It is methodologically naturalistic, but not philosophically naturalistic. Was your ambiguity deliberate or just sloppiness?

Not sloppy in the least - I used the term 'scientific method' quite deliberately. and science is as you say methodologically naturalistic. Therefore, any personal beliefs that any scientist holds about anything non-naturalistic are inappropriate when 'doing' science.   

In #311, JeremyP wrote, "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."

I have been asking JeremyP which of the religious beliefs of people like Polkinghorne, Collins and Conway-Morris, which if applied to doing science, would "tend to ruin the science". I can't get anyone to give any examples apart from some alleged conflict between their views on Genesis and science, but no-one will say what the views of Polkinghorne, Collins and Conway-Morris about Genesis are that are in conflict with science.

Do you agree with JeremyP here? If so, perhaps you would tell me what those conflicting views are.

I'm not familiar with the details of the theistic views of these guys, but that isn't my point: my point is quite simply that scientists aren't in a position to include supernatural elements in any hypothesis, experiment, data collection and analysis without there being an appropriate methodology, and as things stand there isn't.

They might choose to interpret their science in the light of their theism on a strictly personal basis - but that is a separate matter from the actual process of 'doing science' within the discipline of the scientific method.