The downward trend continues

[ProfessorDavey]

Can't you find a better, less oft-used, argument than that, Gordon?  I suspect that they have long gone in the regular cleansing of the system, to save space, but Angloman produced a sizeable list a couple of years ago.

However, I'll give you a couple of likely names:  Rev Dr John Weaver (geologist).  Then there is Rev Dr John Polkinghorne (theoretical physics); Professor Alistair McGrath (molecular biophysics); Dr Denis Alexander (neuroscience)

I might be wrong but I thought your original point was about evidence - in other word that if a scientist believes in god it must be because they think there is evidence. But I don't think that is true. Just because a scientist is religious doesn't mean they think there is evidence that god exists - they may be believe in god as just that, a matter of believe, in the absence of evidence. Or alternatively their religious belief may simply be a matter of culture and upbringing.

[Gordon]

Can't you find a better, less oft-used, argument than that, Gordon?  I suspect that they have long gone in the regular cleansing of the system, to save space, but Angloman produced a sizeable list a couple of years ago.

However, I'll give you a couple of likely names:  Rev Dr John Weaver (geologist).  Then there is Rev Dr John Polkinghorne (theoretical physics); Professor Alistair McGrath (molecular biophysics); Dr Denis Alexander (neuroscience)

So, bearing in mind they are all scientists what specific evidence for the non-natural have they presented in relation to their specialist areas of scientific expertise?
 

Scrutiny by what; natural scientific means or means that go beyond that relatively simplistic level?

These guys are scientists: right? You've mentioned them because they are scientists: right? So I'm assuming that what they've presented, since you've cited them, would be science-based evidence: right?

However, if what they claim is personal non-scientific opinion that is unrelated to their specialist knowledge then their scientific credentials are irrelevant. This point was made by the late Richard Feynman, a reputable scientist himself (to put it mildly), when he noted 'I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.'.

So, returning to evidence, since you remember that Angloman posted stuff (not that I'm convinced he spoke with any great authority on the nature of evidence for the non-natural) then presumably you'll have some recollection of the content - else why cite Angloman?

So - what is this evidence you keep referring to, but where you seem unable to provide any details?

[jeremyp]

Can't you find a better, less oft-used, argument than that, Gordon?

It wasn't an argument, it was a request.

I suspect that they have long gone in the regular cleansing of the system, to save space, but Angloman produced a sizeable list a couple of years ago.

How convenient for you that all this evidence has disappeared.

However, I'll give you a couple of likely names:  Rev Dr John Weaver (geologist).  Then there is Rev Dr John Polkinghorne (theoretical physics); Professor Alistair McGrath (molecular biophysics); Dr Denis Alexander (neuroscience)

That's half the answer. Now all you need is to give us the actual evidence of God that they espouse.

Scrutiny by what; natural scientific means or means that go beyond that relatively simplistic level?

Oh please tell us about about these non natural non scientific means that are not simplistic.

Oh, wait, let me guess: you did post about them but the post was culled many years ago. Why not try "the dog ate them" it's about as believable.

[Hope]

So, bearing in mind they are all scientists what specific evidence for the non-natural have they presented in relation to their specialist areas of scientific expertise?

For one thing, they have pointed out that science doesn't have all the answers - an understanding that many non-religious scientists also hold (not to mention those who say that it will never do so).
 

These guys are scientists: right? You've mentioned them because they are scientists: right? So I'm assuming that what they've presented, since you've cited them, would be science-based evidence: right?

See above.

However, if what they claim is personal non-scientific opinion that is unrelated to their specialist knowledge then their scientific credentials are irrelevant. This point was made by the late Richard Feynman, a reputable scientist himself (to put it mildly), when he noted 'I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.'.

Don't forget that Feynman's comment necessarily includes that very people you want to idolise.  I'd suggest that anyone who acknowledges that relying purely on scientific answers is equally 'as dumb as the next guy'

So, returning to evidence, since you remember that Angloman posted stuff (not that I'm convinced he spoke with any great authority on the nature of evidence for the non-natural) then presumably you'll have some recollection of the content - else why cite Angloman?

I cited Angloman because on more than one occasion he made posts that neither you or any of your other fellow travellers were able to answer.

So - what is this evidence you keep referring to, but where you seem unable to provide any details?

Its not that I haven't been able to provide any details - I and others have done so several times during the past 8 months or so; rather, in much the same way as I've pointed out to ippy, it is the likes of you and he who have chosen to dismiss the evidence without providing anything conclusive. Merely casting doubt is not a watertight from of argument. Its the problem with relying on logic to underpin one's whole existence.  There are many aspects of human life that don't follow it.

[Brownie]

There's quite a bit on the 'net about those whom Hope has mentioned.  I will post one linkm about John Polkinghome, but the others have details if you are interested :

Polkinghorne link

Moderator: long url fixed.

[Sebastian Toe]

I cited Angloman because on more than one occasion he made posts that neither you or any of your other fellow travellers were able to answer.

I seem to recall that many of those answers were in fact produced. Unfortunately they have been culled. Can you prove that they weren't answered?

[jeremyp]

There's quite a bit on the 'net about those whom Hope has mentioned.  I will post one linkm about John Polkinghome, but the others have details if you are interested :

Polkinghorne link

The Wikipedia article says this

[Polkinghome] "does not assert that God's existence can be demonstrated in a logically coercive way (any more than God's non-existence can)

So Polkinghome doesn't have the evidence that Hope claims he has. Oh well.

In fact, reading the stuff about why he believes in God, it seems mostly to boil down to "if there is no God, the Universe makes no sense", which is totally fallacious.

[jeremyp]

I seem to recall that many of those answers were in fact produced. Unfortunately they have been culled. Can you prove that they weren't answered?

You recall correctly. I remember quite clearly how all of Angloman's answers were shot down with completely watertight arguments.

That's two independent witnesses, so it must be true.

[Gordon]

For one thing, they have pointed out that science doesn't have all the answers - an understanding that many non-religious scientists also hold (not to mention those who say that it will never do so).

Nobody has claimed that science has 'all the answers' - this is a obvious (and favourite) straw man of yours.

Don't forget that Feynman's comment necessarily includes that very people you want to idolise.  I'd suggest that anyone who acknowledges that relying purely on scientific answers is equally 'as dumb as the next guy'

I'm not idolising anyone (2nd straw man in this post of yours), plus a restatement of your first straw man.

I cited Angloman because on more than one occasion he made posts that neither you or any of your other fellow travellers were able to answer.

So you cite someone on the basis of their contributions to this Forum where these contributions are no longer extant: which seems an utterly pointless exercise on your part, and an utterly unconvincing one.

Its not that I haven't been able to provide any details - I and others have done so several times during the past 8 months or so; rather, in much the same way as I've pointed out to ippy, it is the likes of you and he who have chosen to dismiss the evidence without providing anything conclusive.

No - the problem here is that you haven't provided any details and have long since painted yourself into a corner by claiming that you have: we haven't dismissed your evidence since you haven't presented any, and since there hasn't been a cull within the last 8 months you should be able to find these posts fairly easily.

Merely casting doubt is not a watertight from of argument. Its the problem with relying on logic to underpin one's whole existence.  There are many aspects of human life that don't follow it.

Leaving aside the fallacious aspects of the above what you are doing here is citing as authorities those whose skill-sets as scientists aren't relevant since they aren't making scientific claims, and then you cite Angloman on the basis of your recollection (mine varies from yours by the way) but in the total absence of his posting history.

So on the matter of evidence for the non-natural your fallacious argument from authority cites those who aren't recognised authorities on the nature of said evidence (whatever this may be) and also includes someone, Angloman, whose views are no longer known (unless he reads this thread and drops in to correct this situation).

Your approach smacks of desperation!

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody has claimed that science has 'all the answers' - this is a obvious (and favourite) straw man of yours.



 

Will science have the  answers? If not why not? If it will why will it?

[Gordon]

Will science have the  answers? If not why not? If it will why will it?

Science will only ever have answers to questions that are amenable to the methods appropriate to scientific investigation.

Even then these answers are provisional, and science isn't static since it obviously progresses building on recent knowledge and related methods: for instance the scientific knowledge and methods that Lord Kelvin used to estimate the age of the Earth and Sun (20 - 40 millions years) in the late 19th century seemed sound to him yet he was wrong nonetheless since science hadn't yet understood nuclear fusion, and wouldn't until decades later - and so it goes.

The problem Hope has involves not only asking questions of science that, as things stand, are out of scope for science but also in asking 'why' questions on the assumption that 'why' is always a valid question in the first place.

[Brownie]

That can only be a good thing, surely?  I ask, "Why?" all the time, not on here but in my head and then spend ages looking things up.  I don't always get anywhere but the journey is interesting.

We cannot prove the existence of God in any scientific, rational way.  There are those who believe they have proof(s) and will expound but cannot satisfy someone who does not believe in the first place.  However faith does not depend on signs and wonders

Now I'm wondering if I should go back to the OP, I've forgotten what it was about and may have strayed off the point here  (not unknown).

[Gordon]

That can only be a good thing, surely?  I ask, "Why?" all the time, not on here but in my head and then spend ages looking things up.  I don't always get anywhere but the journey is interesting.

It depends on the question. Where 'why' can be restated as a 'how' then the question may well be valid: for instance to ask 'why are there rainbows' where what is sought is an explanation of 'how' the phenomena of a rainbow occurs, which is a reasonable question for which there is an answer.

However, in relation to Hope et al, the 'why' element loads the question to imply 'purpose', which is a very different matter and can be a form of the fallacy of begging the question, since the 'why' assumes the desired conclusion of the answer being the purposeful supernatural agent as preferred by the questioner.

There is a difference between asking 'why are we here' as distinct from 'how did homo sapiens evolve': the latter can be provisionally answered whereas the former looks like begging the question since it is phrased to imply that there is a 'purpose' answer to be had, which is circular.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Science will only ever have answers to questions that are amenable to the methods appropriate to scientific investigation.

Even then these answers are provisional, and science isn't static since it obviously progresses building on recent knowledge and related methods: for instance the scientific knowledge and methods that Lord Kelvin used to estimate the age of the Earth and Sun (20 - 40 millions years) in the late 19th century seemed sound to him yet he was wrong nonetheless since science hadn't yet understood nuclear fusion, and wouldn't until decades later - and so it goes.

The problem Hope has involves not only asking questions of science that, as things stand, are out of scope for science but also in asking 'why' questions on the assumption that 'why' is always a valid question in the first place.

When would the question why be valid?
When would the question why be invalid?
Michigan Kaku, a physicist with no particular antitheist axe to grind apparently welcomes the question why in all circumstances.
Laurence Krauss questions the question why on why there is anything anyway and he is a physicist who is a self professed and confessed atheist who frequently supports Dawkins antitheist stance.

And yet the question why is the raison detre of his career

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Can't you find a better, less oft-used, argument than that, Gordon?  I suspect that they have long gone in the regular cleansing of the system, to save space, but Angloman produced a sizeable list a couple of years ago.

However, I'll give you a couple of likely names:  Rev Dr John Weaver (geologist).  Then there is Rev Dr John Polkinghorne (theoretical physics); Professor Alistair McGrath (molecular biophysics); Dr Denis Alexander (neuroscience)

You've made this mistake several times before. You list scientists who are also religious, and hope that we somehow assume that their scientific discipline has something to with their belief. Why pick scientists for this purpose rather than, say, dustmen or dentists?

You would have had a point if you'd been able to say, "X scientist has applied some science and come up with the answer "God"" but you can't do that because none of them do that. What they actually have is personal faith, but the only evidence that provides is the evidence that they have faith. Nothing more.   

Scrutiny by what; natural scientific means or means that go beyond that relatively simplistic level?

Scrutiny by any method that's epistemologically distinguishable from just guessing about stuff.

[ProfessorDavey]

It depends on the question. Where 'why' can be restated as a 'how' then the question may well be valid: for instance to ask 'why are there rainbows' where what is sought is an explanation of 'how' the phenomena of a rainbow occurs, which is a reasonable question for which there is an answer.

However, in relation to Hope et al, the 'why' element loads the question to imply 'purpose', which is a very different matter and can be a form of the fallacy of begging the question, since the 'why' assumes the desired conclusion of the answer being the purposeful supernatural agent as preferred by the questioner.

There is a difference between asking 'why are we here' as distinct from 'how did homo sapiens evolve': the latter can be provisionally answered whereas the former looks like begging the question since it is phrased to imply that there is a 'purpose' answer to be had, which is circular.   

I think that the problem with 'why are we here' type questions is that they are effectively anthropomorphic, assigning an importance to the human condition that isn't reasonable when one considers the totally of the universe, both in time and space.

So humans have evolved to have a level of higher consciousness and reflective ability sufficient for them to wonder 'why are we here', but that is a function of the evolutionary drive that has created an evolutionary advantage for humans, based largely on their intelligence. But that doesn't actually mean that 'why are we here' is a relevant question outside of the narrow anthropomorphism of the human condition.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

When would the question why be valid?

When someone manages to demonstrate the existence of something to care about and determine the "why?"

When would the question why be invalid?

Now.

Michigan Kaku, a physicist with no particular antitheist axe to grind apparently welcomes the question why in all circumstances.

So?

Laurence Krauss questions the question why on why there is anything anyway and he is a physicist who is a self professed and confessed atheist who frequently supports Dawkins antitheist stance.

What are you trying to say here?

And yet the question why is the raison detre of his career

No it isn't. His raison d'etre (assuming he has one at all) is intellectual curiosity about how the universe works.

[Gordon]

When would the question why be valid?

When it isn't obviously fallacious, which involves the circumstances of it being asked and the nature of the question.

When would the question why be invalid?

When it is obviously fallacious, which again involves the circumstances of it being asked and the nature of the question.

Michigan Kaku, a physicist with no particular antitheist axe to grind apparently welcomes the question why in all circumstances.
Laurence Krauss questions the question why on why there is anything anyway and he is a physicist who is a self professed and confessed atheist who frequently supports Dawkins antitheist stance.

And yet the question why is the raison detre of his career

Michio (not Michigan) Kaku may well welcome the 'why' question for all I know: have you a specific reference/context for this, but even if so does he always conclude that all such questions are valid?

That Krauss (and ignoring your ad hom about him) might be sceptical regarding some 'why' questions is relevant in what way exactly?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

When someone manages to demonstrate the existence of something to care about and determine the "why"?

I think the reality is people like Krauss feel the need to address perfectly good questions like why is there anything anyway to justify their physicists and antitheist pay checks earn a bit of extra cash and when it becomes obvious....again...that science may not have the complete answer......then, after all that declare that the question might not be valid and impute stupidity into those who say it might be in a classic courtiers reply.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that the problem with 'why are we here' type questions is that they are effectively anthropomorphic, assigning an importance to the human condition that isn't reasonable when one considers the totally of the universe, both in time and space.

So humans have evolved to have a level of higher consciousness and reflective ability sufficient for them to wonder 'why are we here', but that is a function of the evolutionary drive that has created an evolutionary advantage for humans, based largely on their intelligence. But that doesn't actually mean that 'why are we here' is a relevant question outside of the narrow anthropomorphism of the human condition.

But the Question is not "why are we here" a question which still IMHO give warrant for an opposing argument from evolution..........but why is there anything anyway?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think the reality is people like Krauss feel the need to address perfectly good questions like why is there anything anyway to justify their physicists and antitheist pay checks earn a bit of extra cash...

That may be your reality, but that's all it is. You're cheating here with the ambiguity in the term "why" here: what Krauss et al ask is "how?", or "by what process?". What they don't do though is ask "why?" in its purposive sense - "for what reason did sentient being X decide that things should be as they are?" etc.   

... and when it becomes obvious....again...that science may not have the complete answer....

There are none for whom it's more obvious than scientists. That's why they keep doing science - to find out more.

..then, after all that declare that the question might not be valid...

Again, the question isn't valid until and unless you can demonstrate something to care about and to decide on the "why?". "Why doesn't Mrs Jenkins lifter her dahlias in autumn?" is a perfectly valid question, but only when you can show that there is a Mrs Jenkins in the first place. "By what process does frost kill dahlias?" on the other hand is a valid question whether or not Mrs Jenkins exists. 

...and impute stupidity into those who say it might be in a classic courtiers reply.

Well, if the cap fits. I guess "naive" or "unthinking" is kinder when people first attempt a "why?" question with the answer "God", but after having the issue explained to them and repeating it nonetheless I guess "stupid" more accurately fits the bill. Hope for example is fond of the straw man, "science can't explain everything you know" line with no effort of any kind to propose a different method that can.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But the Question is not "why are we here" a question which still IMHO give warrant for an opposing argument from evolution..........but why is there anything anyway?

Depends which meaning of "why?" you're attempting.

If you mean, "by what processes does stuff exist?" then fair enough.

If though you're sneaking in a, "for what reason did a divine being pouffe all this into existence?" then you're begging the question on an epic scale.   

[Gonnagle]

Dear WHY!

The why of it all, "just is" is the exact same as "Godidit".

By all, I mean everything, the whole shooting match, us, plant life, the animal kingdom, the world, the universe and if the universe is expanding what is it expanding into.

Why electricity, why photosynthesis, why has man the gift to imagine, why does every living thing on this planet strive, why poetry, music, art that can make a human laugh, cry, fill him with hope and wonder.

Stephen Hawking at the end of his book "A Brief History of Time" chunters on about the "why" ( is this one of those fallacies ) he asks, "why does the Universe go to all the bother of existing", he chunters on about scientists being to busy with the "what" and the "how" and it is the business of philosophers to ask the question "why".

And of course he also states when we can answer the question "why" then we will know the mind of God" but for me that then raises the question, does God have a mind, it's that anthropomorphism Profdavey is chuntering on about, we give God human traits, God has a mind, he is a big guy with a long white beard.

Another "why" Michelangelo's painting "The Creation of Adam" ( there's a picture of it in the book ) Adam is naked but God is wearing a toga, "WHY".

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Depends which meaning of "why?" you're attempting.

If you mean, "by what processes does stuff exist?" then fair enough.

If though you're sneaking in a, "for what reason did a divine being pouffe all this into existence?" then you're begging the question on an epic scale.   

Dogmatic agnostic and reductionist twaddle.

And yet another example of an antitheist trying to put words in mouths.
I would see someone as you seem to believe you are having conversations you aren't having.

[Gordon]

I would see someone as you seem to believe you are having conversations you aren't having.

Do you have a translation for those of us whose first language is English?