• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Deism, an intellectually serious position in previous centuries, now must reject scientific explanations

T.G.G. Moogly said:
Calling it "debate" is being kind but I understand where you are coming from. I think "contest" is a better word. It's a popularity contest ultimately and isn't scientific at all. To talk about complexity with a diehard religious person is a waste of time because that involves being scientifically curious and anyone who is scientifically curious is not going to be theistic or deistic, at least not today.
Click to expand...
I'd like to disagree with the assertion that a person of faith lacks scientific curiosity, or, that scientific knowledge results in an end of faith. This is merely false on its surface. There is no shortage of theistic people in science, or who trust science and the scientific method and process.

How many times over how many millennia has the Catholic Church accepted a scientific discovery and said "God did it"? They did so with Darwin and evolutionary theory. It's The God of The Gaps all the way back for a lot of people.

I personally fought against a bill that would have mandated the teaching of Creationism/ID in Pennsylvania science classes as an "alternative theory" to evolution. This is the thing and event that I often refer to, the one that IIDB Admin RBH and the people in the Evo/Cre debate forum helped me with, this bill, in PA.

RBH gave me that pdf scan of the original Wedge Document, the precursor to Project 2025.

I used the Wedge Document to defeat the measure. As I read from it, ID proponent "Dr" Michael Behe slammed his laptop shut and stormed out of the Harrisburg hearing. Behe abandoned his hapless teenaged co-speaker.

On my side was the ineffable ACLU-PA lawyer, Larry Frankel, (yes his memory is a blessing) and a man of faith. The man of faith was a Mormon: I believe he preferred to say he was a member of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, or, LDS. His name was Dr Randy Bennett, and he was a biology professor from the science department of Juniata College.

I can't find RBH any more, but Dr Bennett still chairs the Biology department at Juniata College and would surely love to debunk any notion that science literacy leads to "atheism" or that understanding science results in an end of faith. This claim is demonstrably false and always has been. We are fools for saying it. That's why this post is a TMI blog. The story is from 2006. You've all been wrong since then. This is me telling you again.

Guys, don't do that.
 
Most medical doctors in the US are Christians, so Janice is correct, although there are a lot of medical doctors who are idiots imo, having had to deal with them over my long career as a nurse. I was telling my husband this morning that I always remember the few nice ones. My favorite was Dr. Tom. He told us to call him Tom. He was so nice and caring, but I have no idea what he believed regarding he supernatural. He actually walked two blocks with me to visit a poor home health patient. She acted as if Jesus had come to see her. Character is important to me, not someone's kooky beliefs, as long as they don't use them to judge others or push them into government.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
southernhybrid said:
Most medical doctors in the US are Christians, so Janice is correct,
Click to expand...
Are they scientifically curious? I don't think being a medical doctor is proof that someone is scientifically curious. How would we test a person's level of scientific curiosity?
Click to expand...
Some are and some aren't, but they sure do take a lot of science courses to get their degrees. Some Christians are able to separate their religious beliefs from their more rational beliefs. It's a human thing, or haven't you noticed. :)
 
When I go to bed once in a while I listen to a radio show Cost To Coast AM, a mostly UFO, conspiracy theory and pseudo science show.

It abounds with guests ad people who call in expressing a belief in a nebulous creator or cosmic spirit of the universe. Animism, the universe alive. The universe is love.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
southernhybrid said:
Some are and some aren't, but they sure do take a lot of science courses to get their degrees.
Click to expand...
The fact that they have to master scientific information specific to their profession doesn't mean they are scientists or are scientifically curious.
Click to expand...
No need too argue. All I'm saying is that some people, physicians or otherwise, can separate their religious views from their other views. Taking science course exposes them to things they may not have considered before, but it doesn't always make them lose their irrational beliefs. One can be rational in some areas and irrational in other areas. I never claimed that physicians were necessarily curious about anything or that they were scientists. Some of them keep up with new scientific findings related to medicine and some don't. I'm not disagreeing with you.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
southernhybrid said:
Most medical doctors in the US are Christians, so Janice is correct,
Click to expand...
Are they scientifically curious? I don't think being a medical doctor is proof that someone is scientifically curious. How would we test a person's level of scientific curiosity?
Click to expand...
What is the definition of scientifically curious?
If we cannot test a person's level of "scientific curiosity" then you are creating a straw man.
 
Tigers! said:
What is the definition of scientifically curious?
If we cannot test a person's level of "scientific curiosity" then you are creating a straw man.
Click to expand...
True. How would we test a person's level of scientific curiosity? We test for/observe levels of curiosity in kids, not so much in adults.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
Tigers! said:
What is the definition of scientifically curious?
If we cannot test a person's level of "scientific curiosity" then you are creating a straw man.
Click to expand...
True. How would we test a person's level of scientific curiosity? We test for/observe levels of curiosity in kids, not so much in adults.
Click to expand...
When people claim that Christians lack "scientific curiosity" I always wonder what exactly do they mean? You used the term in post 43. Yet it is such a throw away line. Pejorative but without any meaning.
 
Tigers! said:
T.G.G. Moogly said:
Tigers! said:
What is the definition of scientifically curious?
If we cannot test a person's level of "scientific curiosity" then you are creating a straw man.
Click to expand...
True. How would we test a person's level of scientific curiosity? We test for/observe levels of curiosity in kids, not so much in adults.
Click to expand...
When people claim that Christians lack "scientific curiosity" I always wonder what exactly do they mean? You used the term in post 43. Yet it is such a throw away line. Pejorative but without any meaning.
Click to expand...
Maybe I should say scientific interest or interest in scientific discovery. I used to subscribe to the magazine "Science News." Maybe it's difficult to gauge an individual's scientific interest but it wouldn't be very difficult to see how many of us subscribe to such journals or publications or for that matter how many scientific books leave libraries. I would imagine a very tiny percentage of evangelicals subscribe to something like "Science News." It's just not their thing seems to me but I'd like to see data. If the population is mostly christian how many of those folks subscribe to such journals? What percentage of the entire population does that?

It shouldn't be overly difficult to devise a way of gauging people's scientific interest. A dozen questions would probably suffice.

What's the nearest star?
What is CERN?
How does the sun shine?
What is the scientific method?
etc.

And add questions from other scientific disciplines.

I recently read about a disastrous woo woo gathering in India where 120 people were crushed to death. They came to see this self proclaimed godman and died trying to collect dirt from under his tires as he drove away. Sounds rather primitive and barbaric. probably not much scientific interest there. Doesn't give one much hope that humanity has a healthy interest in scientific discovery, at least not Hindu fundies.
 
I used to be a member of our local paleontology society, until I got to infirm to participate in the digs. There were also monthly lectures by paleontologists on topics of interest, latest research, etc. I remember one such lecture where the paleontologist was describing a dig he had just returned from in, I believe, south eastern Europe, where remains of H erectus and H sapiens were found in the same layer. The question was, had there been interbreeding? Anyway, after the lecture there were questions, and one question was from a man who obviously knew the paleontologist because he addressed him by first name. His question was, are you going to be at choir practice this week? The answer was "Yes, and tell me, how's the new pastor doing?"

So there were two Christians who showed some glimmering of scientific curiosity. Perhaps they were Methodists.

And incidentally, a question like "What's the scientific method," opens a real can of worms, since scientists and philosophers of science argue about it constantly. I recently read The Great Paradox of Science, by retired physicist Mano Singham, which outlines the major theories and arguments on that topic. There's not a simple answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom