The N H S Chaplaincy again

[ProfessorDavey]

People are becoming less rounded that's for sure.

Not it isn't 'for sure' - that is merely an unevidenced assertion of yours. So please clarify; in what way are people becoming 'less rounded' Vlad?

There's also the propensity nowadays to think that what you do and how you do it is the way that the world is.

I don't think I agree. There is certainly a move towards greater individual freedoms, but that isn't the same as thinking what you do is the way the world is. I think people are more sophisticated than that - if you accept that you have individual freedom, then it isn't rocket science to accept that others do too, and therefore they may adopt a different approach to you. Actually the 'one size fits all' approach you are suggesting (i.e. my way is the only way) is much more akin to more authoritarian approaches of the past, and guess what that includes religious authoritarianism, which is alive and well today. Who is it who was demanding that because they didn't believe in gay marriage that no-one should be allowed to have it; who wants to ban abortion, whether or not your personal conscience thinks it OK; who wanted to ban embryonic stem cell research etc etc. Not the more libertarian personal freedom lot, but the more authoritarian religious elements.

If we go back though religious scientists were by far in the majority.

True - but that is simply because the vast majority of people (scientist or otherwise) were religious. I have no idea whether in the 19thC the proportion of scientists who were religious was less than in the non scientific population. Quite possibly, but I don't think we have the evidence.

Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists

Really?!?

I know hundreds of professional scientists from all around the world and work with them all the time. I have never encountered a scientist who is motivated to conduct their scientific research because of anti theism. Never, not one.

How many scientists do you regularly interact with Vlad?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Brownie,

Here's a famous one,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

His faith in no way stopped him from helping to map the human genome in fact it may have inspired him to search for the hand of God.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not it isn't 'for sure' - that is merely an unevidenced assertion of yours. So please clarify; in what way are people becoming 'less rounded' Vlad?

I don't think I agree. There is certainly a move towards greater individual freedoms, but that isn't the same as thinking what you do is the way the world is. I think people are more sophisticated than that - if you accept that you have individual freedom, then it isn't rocket science to accept that others do too, and therefore they may adopt a different approach to you. Actually the 'one size fits all' approach you are suggesting (i.e. my way is the only way) is much more akin to more authoritarian approaches of the past, and guess what that includes religious authoritarianism, which is alive and well today. Who is it who was demanding that because they didn't believe in gay marriage that no-one should be allowed to have it; who wants to ban abortion, whether or not your personal conscience thinks it OK; who wanted to ban embryonic stem cell research etc etc. Not the more libertarian personal freedom lot, but the more authoritarian religious elements.
True - but that is simply because the vast majority of people (scientist or otherwise) were religious. I have no idea whether in the 19thC the proportion of scientists who were religious was less than in the non scientific population. Quite possibly, but I don't think we have the evidence.
Really?!?

I know hundreds of professional scientists from all around the world and work with them all the time. I have never encountered a scientist who is motivated to conduct their scientific research because of anti theism. Never, not one.

How many scientists do you regularly interact with Vlad?

About half a dozen.

[Leonard James]

Dear Brownie,

Here's a famous one,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

His faith in no way stopped him from helping to map the human genome in fact it may have inspired him to search for the hand of God.

Gonnagle.

Did he find it? Not that it matters, "God" could always grow another one.

[ProfessorDavey]

About half a dozen.

And how many of them are motivated to do their scientific work by their anti theism.

Just in my own academic school I can increase that number by a factor of 10, just for members of academic staff I line manage - never encountered one motivated by antitheism, although quite a few are atheists, plus there are a good number who are religious of a variety of faiths, as might be expected when your faculty is highly international.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And how many of them are motivated to do their scientific work by their anti theism.

Just in my own academic school I can increase that number by a factor of 10, just for members of academic staff I line manage - never encountered one motivated by antitheism, although quite a few are atheists, plus there are a good number who are religious of a variety of faiths, as might be expected when your faculty is highly international.

I guess you have me on numbers but I speak more in terms of influence.
Thanks to Dawkins, the public awareness of science proceeds very much with antitheist influence. Dawkins advocates certain influential physicists and Carroll is an influential string theorist.

If you can reassure us that in reality antitheism is not a feature I think I will breathe a sigh of relief and proceed to use that as ammunition against antitheists.

[Shaker]

I guess you have me on numbers but I speak more in terms of influence.
Thanks to Dawkins, the public awareness of science proceeds very much with antitheist influence. Dawkins advocates certain influential physicists and Carroll is an influential string theorist.

If you can reassure us that in reality antitheism is not a feature I think I will breathe a sigh of relief and proceed to use that as ammunition against antitheists.

So you rant and rave about the alleged influence you think that these mythical antitheists have, but consider that their lack of influence is ammunition against them.

Sounds like a pretty major problem you've got there, Vlad.

[ProfessorDavey]

I guess you have me on numbers but I speak more in terms of influence.
Thanks to Dawkins, the public awareness of science proceeds very much with antitheist influence. Dawkins advocates certain influential physicists and Carroll is an influential string theorist.

So you have no evidence to back up your claim then Vlad.

And I think you are way off the mark. I know you are obsessed by Dawkins, but he isn't really known these days as a scientist at all. And actually I doubt that when he was engaged in his ground breaking evolutionary research that he was 'motivated by anti theism'.

And you pick Carroll out the air - why? Might it be because he is known to be an atheist, rather than because he is a particularly prominent scientist, which he isn't.

Unsurprisingly given my line of work I do understand the motivations of research scientists, including some rather well known ones, because I know them and have talked to them. I'd categorise motivation in three areas, two principled and one pragmatic.

The principled motivations are:
1. A desire to increase knowledge, to find out new things, to follow our natural tendencies to be inquisitive.
2. To improve society, for example by striving to develop new treatments for disease or new ways to generate energy or to create new and better technologies.

In my area people tend to be motivated by a combination of these, as my area involves 'blue skies' investigative science and also more applied science. In some other areas, e.g. my colleagues involved in astronomy or particle physics the motivation is more the first one.

And the pragmatic - effectively I have an aptitude for science and I can make a decent career out of it and it helps to pay the bills and ensures I have a secure future.

I'd categorise my motivations as a mixture of all three. What I am not motivated by is anti-theism, indeed I don't see myself as an anti-theist, but if you wish to categorise me as such I think my motivations in that area come from an interest in ethics and philosophy, not my profession as a scientist.

[ippy]

Hi ippy, I've reread the whole thread, and especially your posts, and have found absolutely nothing about why the tax-payer shouldn't pay for one part of the overall purpose of the NHS.  Yes, you have said that you believe that tax-payers oughtn't to be paying for the spiritual element of the NHS's purpose, but at no point have you explained why this element shouldn't be paid for whilst the physical and mental elements should be.  In what way are the latter 2 different from the former?

I assumed you know that I'm a Secular Humanist, religions should be invisible to the government, any government and all of the rest that, I would have thought you were fully conversant with all of the details about Secularism, therefore no government money to or for religious purposes of any kind.

Seeing that principle would have to include all beliefs such as Secularism and Humanism, a level playing field, what's wrong with that, the present humanist chaplain is taking government money I don't like it they should be sticking to the level playing field principle, I think and I hope they are thinking, what's good for the goose etc and at the same time working toward the level P principle.   

ippy 

[ippy]

People are becoming less rounded that's for sure.
There's also the propensity nowadays to think that what you do and how you do it is the way that the world is.

If we go back though religious scientists were by far in the majority.

In terms of proselytising, evangelical faiths in science, Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists....sad to say though, science is as atheist, secular humanist or religious as any other tool.....Brobat, B and Q budget Hammer Drill etc, is...i.e.
not very.

Well in the past the scientists would have been inclined towards religiosity since the churches had a far tighter grip on all levels of education than they have now and it would have course followed that there were more scientists that happened to be religious believers too, nothing strange about that Vlad.

By the way Vlad, how come your handle is Jonique Anoo, not one of your best handles, IMO.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well in the past the scientists would have been inclined towards religiosity since the churches had a far tighter grip on all levels of education than they have now and it would have course followed that there were more scientists that happened to be religious believers too, nothing strange about that Vlad.

By the way Vlad, how come your handle is Jonique Anoo, not one of your best handles, IMO.

ippy

I'm not convinced you have any clue about religion Ippy being a second or third generation unbeliever.

I was as you were but recognised my unbelief eventually for the God dodging it was.

Science is not the same as atheism in the same way that Brobat toilet  cleaner is not the same.
Both science and Brobat are tools.

[ippy]

Dear Brownie,

Here's a famous one,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

His faith in no way stopped him from helping to map the human genome in fact it may have inspired him to search for the hand of God.

Gonnagle.

It may, but more than likely without much luck.

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

Science is not the same as atheism in the same way that Brobat toilet  cleaner is not the same.
Both science and Brobat are tools.

In which case why do you consider that scientists are primarily motivated by anti theism (whatever that might be).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which case why do you consider that scientists are primarily motivated by anti theism (whatever that might be).

This is what I wrote:
In terms of proselytising, evangelical faiths in science, Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists....sad to say though, science is as atheist, secular humanist or religious as any other tool.....Brobat, B and Q budget Hammer Drill etc, is...i.e.
not very.

Let's be fair that is what I mean. Note in terms of proselytising, eveangelical faiths in science (THE CONTEXT) I MAINTAIN THAT OF THOSE ANTITHEISM HAS THE BIGGEST INFLUENCE.

Are you trying to say that most scientist who blog on religion aren't in fact antitheists?

[ProfessorDavey]

This is what I wrote:
In terms of proselytising, evangelical faiths in science, Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists....sad to say though, science is as atheist, secular humanist or religious as any other tool.....Brobat, B and Q budget Hammer Drill etc, is...i.e.
not very.

Let's be fair that is what I mean. Note in terms of proselytising, eveangelical faiths in science (THE CONTEXT) I MAINTAIN THAT OF THOSE ANTITHEISM HAS THE BIGGEST INFLUENCE.

Are you trying to say that most scientist who blog on religion aren't in fact antitheists?

Given that you seem to be the only person who even uses the term anti theist, I'm not even sure what you mean by the term.

But if you mean that they against religion rather than simply disagree with religion, then no I wouldn't agree with you. I think most scientists who post about topics that link to religion are posting because they are pro-science and rational evidence and therefore consider certain religious views (e.g. creationism) to be wrong. There is a difference between pointing out that someone else's opinion is wrong, in your view and in light of evidence and being against religion.

But that isn't what you said - you didn't say that scientist were anti-theists, nope you claimed that the motivation for scientists was their anti-theism, in other words the reason why they do science is because they are opposed to religion. I think that is flat out wrong (as I have indicated above) and also deeply arrogant of you to assume that everyone's reasons for doing things revolves around religion even if they aren't religious.

I'm not religious, but guess what never once in my scientific career have I thought 'do you know what I'm going to do this experiment to prove those pesky religionists wrong' - never, not once.

I have been frustrated when science and religion collide in the political arena, for example when religious lobbyists tried to prevent the government from amending the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act to allow human embryonic stem cell research to be conducted in the UK. But my reasons weren't to try to put two fingers up at religion but because I considered that this type of research held great promise, both in terms of enhancing our fundamental understanding of human biology but also ultimately to allow new treatments to be developed. I was also frustrating at cherry picking of studies by lobbyists, and actually my frustrations were with both 'sides' of the argument.

So I may have disagreed with the views of (some) religions but I most certainly wasn't being an anti theist (whatever that might mean).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given that you seem to be the only person who even uses the term anti theist, I'm not even sure what you mean by the term.

But if you mean that they against religion rather than simply disagree with religion, then no I wouldn't agree with you. I think most scientists who post about topics that link to religion are posting because they are pro-science and rational evidence and therefore consider certain religious views (e.g. creationism) to be wrong. There is a difference between pointing out that someone else's opinion is wrong, in your view and in light of evidence and being against religion.

But that isn't what you said - you didn't say that scientist were anti-theists, nope you claimed that the motivation for scientists was their anti-theism, in other words the reason why they do science is because they are opposed to religion. I think that is flat out wrong (as I have indicated above) and also deeply arrogant of you to assume that everyone's reasons for doing things revolves around religion even if they aren't religious.

I'm not religious, but guess what never once in my scientific career have I thought 'do you know what I'm going to do this experiment to prove those pesky religionists wrong' - never, not once.

I have been frustrated when science and religion collide in the political arena, for example when religious lobbyists tried to prevent the government from amending the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act to allow human embryonic stem cell research to be conducted in the UK. But my reasons weren't to try to put two fingers up at religion but because I considered that this type of research held great promise, both in terms of enhancing our fundamental understanding of human biology but also ultimately to allow new treatments to be developed. I was also frustrating at cherry picking of studies by lobbyists, and actually my frustrations were with both 'sides' of the argument.

So I may have disagreed with the views of (some) religions but I most certainly wasn't being an anti theist (whatever that might mean).

Let's put this in the context all this started in.

 Len James says there is a problem with religious scientists bringing their religion into science.

I counter that by saying that antitheism is likely to have a far bigger influence in that respect.

Firstly it equates itself with science . The danger therefore comes from the likes of Dawkins and the universal Darwinians and the Carrollites whose aim is to solve the ''problem'' of a finely tuned universe. Many physicists question why this should be thought of as a problem other than it being some kind of problem for an antitheist perspective.

That Carroll then goes on to say we should retire falsification (in favour of elegance presumably).

Added together then antitheism is potentially far more dangerous to science since it seeks to change it's very nature to suit it's own agenda...and not just to influence research.

[ProfessorDavey]

Let's put this in the context all this started in.

 Len James says there is a problem with religious scientists bringing their religion into science.

I counter that by saying that antitheism is likely to have a far bigger influence in that respect.

Firstly it equates itself with science . The danger therefore comes from the likes of Dawkins and the universal Darwinians and the Carrollites whose aim is to solve the ''problem'' of a finely tuned universe. Many physicists question why this should be thought of as a problem other than it being some kind of problem for an antitheist perspective.

That Carroll then goes on to say we should retire falsification (in favour of elegance presumably).

Added together then antitheism is potentially far more dangerous to science since it seeks to change it's very nature to suit it's own agenda...and not just to influence research.

You have still failed to provide a shred of evidence to support your claim that 'Swiveleyed anti theism ... is a big motivation behind scientists'.

Show me a scientist who claims to be motivated to engage in scientific research to try to get one over on religion.

If you turned it on its head then you might have more credence, in other words that science is the motivation for some to disagree with and criticise religion. But that is the opposite way around to what you are claiming.

You might just as easily claim that the motivations behind christians like yourself is anti-islamicism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have still failed to provide a shred of evidence to support your claim that 'Swiveleyed anti theism ... is a big motivation behind scientists'.

Show me a scientist who claims to be motivated to engage in scientific research to try to get one over on religion.

If you turned it on its head then you might have more credence, in other words that science is the motivation for some to disagree with and criticise religion. But that is the opposite way around to what you are claiming.

You might just as easily claim that the motivations behind christians like yourself is anti-islamicism.

Once again Davey let me republish what I said in it's entirety and not just the wee snippet fashion adopted by yourself.

In terms of proselytising, evangelical faiths in science, Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists....sad to say though, science is as atheist, secular humanist or religious as any other tool.....Brobat, B and Q budget Hammer Drill etc, is...i.e.
not very.

Note the accentuations.

[ProfessorDavey]

Once again Davey let me republish what I said in it's entirety and not just the wee snippet fashion adopted by yourself.

In terms of proselytising, evangelical faiths in science, Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists....sad to say though, science is as atheist, secular humanist or religious as any other tool.....Brobat, B and Q budget Hammer Drill etc, is...i.e.
not very.

Note the accentuations.

Makes no difference - the inference of what you have said is that anti theism is a big motivation for scientists, not that science is a motivation for people being anti theist.

I have never met a single scientist whose motivation for engaging in scientific research is anti theism, and I suspect nor have you. But critically you haven't provided evidence for a single scientist (whether or not you have met them) saying that the motivation behind their engaging in scientific research is anti theism or to get one over on religions, or anything similar.

I wonder why that might be - might it be because, as ever, you are spouting complete drivel.

Had you said that science was a motivation for (some) people being opposed to religion then I'd agree, but that's not what you claimed.

[ProfessorDavey]

Once again Davey let me republish what I said in it's entirety and not just the wee snippet fashion adopted by yourself.

In terms of proselytising, evangelical faiths in science, Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists....sad to say though, science is as atheist, secular humanist or religious as any other tool.....Brobat, B and Q budget Hammer Drill etc, is...i.e.
not very.

Note the accentuations.

Well actually the bits your accentuated make absolutely no sense whatsoever Vlad - in fact they are totally unintelligibly gobbledegook. The only part of the whole phrase that is intelligible is:

'Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists'

Wrong, but at least intelligible.

[ippy]

I'm not convinced you have any clue about religion Ippy being a second or third generation unbeliever.

I was as you were but recognised my unbelief eventually for the God dodging it was.

Science is not the same as atheism in the same way that Brobat toilet  cleaner is not the same.
Both science and Brobat are tools.

What went wrong Vlad and how do I doge something that's more likely than not, not there?

Terrible handle by the way Vlad, at least Vlad suits you.

ippy 

[Gordon]

Moderator:

This thread has been restored minus the major derail on homosexuality, which we will consider separately.

We hope this thread will now amble back towards to topic of NHS Chaplaincy.

[Brownie]

If I were you Gordon (& I am not anything like you, I'm sure), I wouldn't bother re-posting the derailments on homosexuality.  Not my decision of course (thankfully).  All the best x

[Gonnagle]

Dear Brownie,

You can't send Mods kisses

Anyway, bring back Hope, BRING BACK HOPE

Gonnagle.

[Brownie]

Hope will be back I'm sure.  That's if he wants to come back after all this fuss.  I hope he does return so I can ask him one or two things - on the other hand, I don't really want to drag it all up again.  So we'll wait and see.