The Scientific Theist
Offline This is dedicated to the new breed of religious types I've started to see around, the "Scientific Theist". This is the type of theist who has taken the fact of evolution into play, they don't take a literal stance on the Genesis "Adam and Eve" account and perhaps they actually have a formal education, past what ever grade school they attended.
You are the religious type I have least respect for, others I can feel pity on as they are the system of childhood indoctrination and have simply had their parents ideals forced upon them, but you have a brain developed enough to know the answer, yet you don't accept it?
You take the stance of a scientifical mind and say you have thought out the idea of god and accepted it as truth by proper process, but there's nothing scientific about you. All I see is a horrid mutation of dissected scientific ideals; you only take the parts that suit your claims and reject the rest.
There's no need to add a creator to the mix when one's not needed and is without evidence, the simplest explanation is often correct and the idea of a god is far from simple. Should we think of you as different, as more "enlightened" then other Theists, or are you just another form of sheep bound by fear and indoctrination?
If you're truly open to all possibilities and accept science and reason, then you should clearly be able to admit that the personal gods (Yahweh, Vishnu, Thor etc...) are in all possibilities non-existent (to the level taught by what ever binding books or doctrine they have anyway...)
I have no problem with people believing in a non-affecting, un-personal god but anyone who can see their neighbour's god as incorrect should be able to tell that their parent's god is false as well... How do you rationalise a personal god..? I know that when I tried to think out my faith when I was Christian it simply led me to understand there is nothing supernatural in this world.
How do you maintain the idea of a god with a scientifical insight? I just don't get it...
- Login to post comments
Fortunately, I don't need your respect to live a full and rewarding life.
The rest of your argument is simply an "appeal to emotion". You'll find it in the list of fallacies already pointed out to you.
I believe in god because evolution has produced a brain that allows that belief. I need to ask these questions because evolution has produced a brain that allows these questions. As long as that need exists in somebody's brain, someone will ask these questions.
My Artwork
Oh my bad wavefreak, that was directed at the theists who actually have a scientific look on there life, not a person of blind faith.
Someones respect is a grand thing, perhaps it's this rebellious look on life that allows you to dismiss reason so quickly...
If you truly do have a brain, which would be another surprise today, then your using it wrongly I assure you. You're making claims when they're not needed or backed! You're either dim, or simply shrouded in a comforter because you can't handle the nothingness in death.
Of course, asking questions is the greatest way to learn, making up answers when you can't find them isn't.
This is the most common type of Christian in Australia. I don't know about America. Don't most mainstream Christian Churches accept evolution?
I don't have a problem with them. I find your attitude rather intolerant. They don't bother anyone. They don't impede scientific progress. If they find life more fulfilling with religion in it, why shouldn't they have it? It's only natural to choose the religion of your upbringing and culture. That's not denigrating the beliefs of others. As my (Catholic) sister says, 'my father's kingdom has many houses' (I think Jesus said that). There can be more than one path to God.
As an atheist, I find no offense with this viewpoint. Live and let live.
I find it strange to think anyone can believe in evolution AND a personal God. Is God only keeping his eye on one particular evolutionary line? What would a person going to heaven see up there? Ape like ancestors, sea creatures and single cell organisms?
If God only decided to take an interest in us when we reached this level of our evolution, what happens in a few million years (if we last that long) when we could be considered another species altogether? Will they get into heaven too?
Oh my, I'm Australian too (Brisbane) how fun ^-^
Yes I'm rather intolerant, for reasons opposite to what you have in mind;
*They do impede scientific research and development. Don't they want to teach creationism in schools?? (They already do in Australia).
*They preach hatred and intolerance towards others, namely homosexuals and of course any who aren't within their own.
*Religion is not only dumbing down society, it's dangerous. I think a handful of people just got killed over a comic, no?
The fact is, religion doesn't deserve any tolerance or respect past the tolerance and respect we give to other falsehoods. None. Just because a delusion is old and widespread it deserves more respect, why?
There are no respectable scientific minds within the ranks of religion? So I guess such people as the winners of the Templeton Prize aren't respectable scientific minds? And, just to clear things up, not all religious persons impede scientific research, not all religious persons endorse creationism, not all religious persons preach hate and intolerance. In other words, not all religious persons are fundamentalists. I hate fundamentalism as much as you, but that does not lead me to assume what you do. You are making blanket assertions. I also find it funny that you criticize religion for being intolerant by calling yourself intolerant. That's a great argument.
I personally am much more concerned about the media and corporate capitalism dumbing down society.
"The will to revolutionary change emerges as an urge, as an 'I cannot do otherwise,' or it is worthless." --Slavoj Zizek
Also, I know that wavefreak has already directed you back to the logical fallacy page. While you are there, I would suggest reading up on the "ad hominem."
"The will to revolutionary change emerges as an urge, as an 'I cannot do otherwise,' or it is worthless." --Slavoj Zizek
I respect no one who cowards in the face of truth.
I expect people to follow the teachings of what they believe? While most Christians don't hate gays (I should hope) they're supporting a system that does. Just as bad in my view...
Ad Hominem vis-a-vis sarcasm
LOL. I've know rebelliousness. You, child, are not rebellious. (oops, sorry. I let a little ridicule slip in there)
Ad Hominem
Would a Nobel Laureate be consdiered respectable? Should I go look up a few and find some theists among them?
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem, Appeal to Ridicule
Ad Hominem, Appeal to Consequences,
This is tedious. Spewing invective is an example of which rational process? Technically, I don't think you are actually offering any type of argument, so you are not really guilty of any of the fallacies which I have pointed out. Which is really telling. You are good at ejaculating from your mouth. Are you as good at presenting a cogent argument?
My Artwork
I think you're over-estimating the conclusions of science and reason. Although I agree that reason leads to atheism, it's far from obvious.
Then again, it sounds like we have different people in mind.
The ones you described seems to have accepted science as to how the world is but still subscribe to bigotted fundamentalist 'morality', In which case I see where you're coming from.
Most Christians I know that accept science also use reason towards their morality which tends to be mostly humanistic, with the odd quirk and here there influenced by religion, but then most of us have such quirks.
I suggest reading what you quote. I was insinuating you, not myself.
I also suggest reading the other posts in this topic. Already addressed. "I respect no one who cowards in the face of truth".
With all the Ad Hominems thrown around I didn't expect you to be hypocritical... If you wanted an impersonal debate they have a section for it here called "kill them with kindness" I believe...
My point is very clear; the idea of a personal god clashes with the teachings of science, I say any religious person can not be titled a true scientific as they believe in something with absolutely no empirical evidence! This entire debate was founded on my titling of any religious person as a coward or moron, yet you expected something differ then a non-personal debate?
You've already debunked the idea of 7 days, how can you find that unbelievable yet still cling to the equally unbelievable notion of a personal god? You biasedly rejected one belief because of it's utter stupidity, yet you kept the idea that leaves you with immortality and a 'warm fuzzy' feeling deep inside. Let me guess: you just "know inside that he's there" right? What's scientific about that?
I tought Atheists were supposed to be freethinking logical people. I posed the word of Scientheist for the made up word thread.
Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method used to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. Scientific truth is not an absolute or anything for any Christian to fear. Christian Humanism embraces both a God centered world-view and classical learning and thought. What science bases “truth” on can change and does. I don’t understand how atheists replace God with science.But originally you made a general statement, to the effect that there are no respectable scientists who hold to some religious belief. You then shifted to assert that you do not respect them. So is this just a problem with your respect, or respect generally, because many such scientists are actually respected by their communities (and I hardly think it is fair to say they cower in the face of truth)?
There is also a difference between a personal debate and an ad hominem. Most debates, I think, are personal; however, using an ad hominem is a logical fallacy, which means that it is a way to avoid the issue. (Don't forget that you yourself, in another post, said you wanted help with your debating. People are only pointing out something you can do to debate better. Attack the argument, not the person.)
I think a lot of the issues brought up can be addressed by making a distinction between science and scientism, the latter of which can be just as dogmatic as any religious belief. (And, just to be clear, I am not accusing anyone [yet] of adopting scientism.)
"The will to revolutionary change emerges as an urge, as an 'I cannot do otherwise,' or it is worthless." --Slavoj Zizek
Oh like lol, is English your first language?
I'm glad someone finally explained it to me. THANKS~
Actually, it is. Science has already defeated the literal Christianity, it's such a shame the word 'metaphor' and 'non-literal' exist huh?
Of course, it's only accepting the possibility of error and not having dogmatic views on things that makes science so great. Science can admit it doesn't know everything, it doesn't say what it says is full-stop correct and it won't make up answers to what it doesn't know. Beautiful huh?
It's funny that you criticize someone else's grammar. Please refer back to your previous posts. (Yes...I let an ad hominem slip in...I am aware of that...but at least I wasn't making reference to the main issue.)
"The will to revolutionary change emerges as an urge, as an 'I cannot do otherwise,' or it is worthless." --Slavoj Zizek
I think the main problem here is that you have placed theist into a box and have them all labeled the same.
Most rational scientists, even those who do not believe in God, admit to a lack of completeness in our understanding of the universe. They will admit that neither God nor the Bible can be proved or disproved by science, just as many of their favorite theories ultimately cannot be proved or disproved. Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not proof of an agenda.
Not the same, that's why I said new breed, but yes I do general class most theist in some general view but not the same and certainly not identical.
Yes! but in no way does that imply a god as creator! It simply means there is no answer as of yet that can be accurately given.
You can't disprove a negative but in no way does that imply you can not take it out of realistic possibility. Do you believe in Santa Clause? If not why, do you have proof he doesn't exist?
The only difference between a scientific fact (like evolution) and a real 100% fact is lack of arrogance, not accuracy.
I truly don't see why science is dedicated to pulling punches, it was religion that stepped on sciences turf, not the other way around. But I think you said it best, it's here to find the truth, which it is clearly doing.
Were I not convinced you are absolutely serious thus would be comical. You toss about personal invective like candy and when I call you out you retreat to some indignant moral high ground?
Richard Dawkins would be ashamed of you.
My Artwork
What the fuck are you talking about? That wasn't a personal outrage at you nor was I taking any moral high-ground, I was calling you a hypocrite and attacking your debating skills, you accused me of doing something you yourself where then guilty of!
Avoid questions much? Perhaps you should understand a post before responding next time.
I think it is great to be a part of the "New" branch of Theist.
Here are a few of the new Scientheist -
John Philoponus (c.490–c.570His criticism of Aristotelian physics was important to Medieval science. He also theorized about the nature of light and the stars.
Bede, the Venerable(c.672–735 Catholic monk who wrote a work On the Nature of Things, and several books on the mathematical / astronomical subject of computus, the most influential entitled On the Reckoning of Time. He made original discoveries concerning the nature of the tides and his works on computus became required elements of the training of clergy, and thus greatly influenced early medieval knowledge of the natural world.
Pope Silvester II (c.950–1003) A scientist and book collector, he influenced the teaching of math and astronomy in church-run schools, and raised the cathedral school at Rheims to the height of prosperity. Hermannus Contractus (1013–1054) He wrote on geometry, mathematics, and the astrolabe.
Robert Grosseteste (c.1175–1253) Bishop of Lincoln, he was the central character of the English intellectual movement in the first half of the 13th century and is considered the founder of scientific thought in Oxford. He had a great interest in the natural world and wrote texts on the mathematical sciences of optics, astronomy and geometry. He affirmed that experiments should be used in order to verify a theory, testing its consequences.
Pope John XXI(1215–1277 He wrote the widely used medical text Thesaurus pauperum before becoming Pope.
Albertus Magnus (c.1193–1280) Patron saint of scientists in Catholicism who may have been the first to isolate arsenic. He wrote that: "Natural science does not consist in ratifying what others have said, but in seeking the causes of phenomena."
Did I hear a noise?
My Artwork
@Mjolnin
Oh lol, your mentioning people who would have been stoned to death for being atheists... You really think they had a choice in what they believed?
People had a good enough reason to be forced or pressured into believing in those times, people today do not have the same excuse of ignorance (or at lest a lesser one).
Whether they actually believed or not is irrelevant, as they where not given a choice.
Yes, that was the sound of you failing.
The list I gave you were men who died in good standing with their church.
Some were beatified which is a step toward sainthood and some were Popes. I am not aware of any of them being stoned or atheist.Yes, I'm aware that you mentioned all religious men, my point still stands, perhaps re-reading my previous post would be in order. Either way, it is irrelevant because in the time period those men lived, being an atheist was not a choice, ruling them out as candidates for your claim of "great religious, scientific minds"...
No one knows what is truly going on in the mind of someone else. The fact that they were scientists who also contributed to Christian theology, or religious thinking, makes it very relavent. It proves that theist have contributed to furthering the knowledge of the world.
Not knowing what someone is really thinking does not give us an opportunity to throw out what they have accomplished. We would have to toss all History and any scientific data we have not retested ourselves
You mean how like the African-Americans "contributed" to tobacco industry..? We're talking about the same thing if they where atheistic in tendency, something you can't tell due to the circumstantial evidence! If they grew up in our society what makes you think they would still be religious? IN THAT TIME PERIOD EVERYONE WAS CHRISTIAN IN THE AREAS THAT CHRISTIANITY WAS DOMINANT, BY FORCE. You can't claim someone as theist when they literally had a knife to their throats.
You prove nothing good sir nor do you show tangible evidence for your claim.
I'm not claiming that what they accomplished was meaningless, I am saying that you can't count them as being on Team Theist! In that time atheists where given two options; 1) claim to be Christian and live or 2) tell the truth and be stoned to death. What choice would you pick?
Whether they where actually Christian or not has no matter in your claim, as given it IS impossible to tell either way you can't claim them on your side because of an opinion everyone was forced to have!
Do you see conspiracy in everything?
I can't decide whether to ignore you or to continue poking the bear. It's rather fun watching you froth at the mouth. But I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
Fortunately for atheists, there are much better spokespersons for their ideas. Otherwise they would be taken seriously by no one.
My Artwork
This is how a debate works my friend, you either have evidence in favour of your claim or it is dismissed. It's reasons like that to why I don't accept the idea a historical Jesus. Many people believe him to be real but no one wants to handle up the evidence!
If you want to claim something, please back it. Your word is not good enough for me I'm afraid...
kk... You want to add something here or do you just enjoy spamming up topics when you can't think of a proper reply..?
Here's a debate tip: commit fewer ad hominems, utilize less sarcastic wit, and replace this garbage with solid logical argumentation.
I don't find scientific theists to be very offensive
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
I don't see how you can compare the work of early scientist to the work of slaves. I guess you have proof that early scientist were chained and forced to do experiments by a demonic church that didn't believe in science.
There are theist people in sience. Google Catholic scientist or read a history book. You maybe enlightened
Again, what evidence do you have supporting your ideas? That they claimed themselves to be religious..? While in all honesty they most likely where (I do admit this of course) I am saying that the evidence you are using to support your claim is invalid.
How can you say the evidence for your claim is that they where portrayed as Christian when that was the only light they could be portrayed in whether they where Christian or not?
As I have said countless times now, whether you are correct or not does not matter, you can't use that claim because the evidence you have is not supportive of what you are stating.
Please read what was posted.
I'm not claiming conspiricy, I am claiming the evidence you are using to support your idea is invalid.
Who are you talking about, DS? Name some names.
There is no lao tzu
Around the forums?? I'm afraid I don't know many people here, if you meant in real life then there's really no need to, I was basically defining between the theists who take a literal account of their religions, and the theists who understand things like evolution to be real and not accepting everything with a literal meaning (concerning their religion) like the Adam and Eve account of man's creation.
I hope this has helped =o
Isn't Delicously_saucy commiting the "no true scotsman' fallacy?
They may have been Christian, but they weren't TRUE Christians?
Anyway, I'm studying physics and am still a theist.
I'm not claiming anything, I had admitted in a few posts earlier that in all likeliness they where true Christians, but the only way to make this claim is based on assumption, something not credible in a debate. If he wants to use that as a real point, then he must show evidence in favour for it, he did not.
If we accepted things without proper evidence, wouldn't we would all be theists...?
poke. poke.
Messin with Sasquatch!
My Artwork
Those examples undermine your point, so you pulled the no true scotsman fallacy.
Isn't one of them being a pope evidence enough?
edit:TWO of them were popes and one was a bishop.
[quote=Deliciously_Saucy]Quote: No, you would be a scientist. My proof or conclusion would be a hypothesis or a theory, that is different from a belief because most people are much more certain of what they believe than of what they know. Accumulated evidence can provide support, validation and substantiation for a theory, but will never prove those theories to be true. My theory is constructs that incorporate and explains a body of evidence. Here the only body of evidence is the acts and the written word of the people we are discussing.
If you don’t believe what people have written about themselves than how can you believe in Evolution ,something without proper evidence - Evolution has not been “scientifically” proven.
With your way of thinking I couldn't even prove yesterday happened.
Let us not descend into downright falsehood here. Science does not prove anything; it is a method used for constructing models. These models are the only tools that are available to us for understanding nature; the universe. The theory of evolution is one such model, and it is an incredibly accurate one. Its predictions have been verified time and again, and it is fairly well understood. It is the only theory we have for explaining the diversity of life on earth. Key processes of evolution can and have been observed both in the laboratory and in nature, from the level of the gene (or transposon) to the organism to the population to the species.
Much of the evidence for macroevolution (the only real difference between macro and micro-evolution is that of time scale; there is no real mechanistic difference) is indirect. However, this does not in any way invalidate it. Forensic specialists have rarely, if ever, observed a crime while it took place, but this does not invalidate the results they come up with when studying a crime scene. Nuclear physicists and chemists do not directly observe electrons, they merely observe their effects (direct and indirect) on media that we can observe.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. - Theodosius Dobzhansky
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
It still comes down to assumption, because people where forced into being "closet-atheists", historic recordings would be a poor judge of truth. If everything was based on people claiming to be Christian despite their personal beliefs, how do you discriminate between those who believe in the Christian faith and those who don't if they claimed the same thing?
If you choose to bring whether they where heavily within the church or not as to what they actually believed it is still an assumption non the less, and assumptions with lack of actual evidence is not a means for debating...
If you want to use an evidence for proving someone to be Christian, then the same evidence must be usable to prove someone an Atheist, which this evidence does not. The only answer historical evidence can give is the person was Christian despite their occupation, making it invalid because Christianity was forcible by death.
Oh wow~
Evolution hasn't been proven? Uh no, it has... The method of evolution, Natural Selection hasn't been proven, perhaps your confusing the two? Try learning about what your attacking so harshly before you make statements like that...
My way of thinking as in asking for real evidence before accepting something as true is so iron-clad how?
I can show personal evidence of yesterday quite easily, I experienced it... While I could be mistaken, I think it's the most likely possibility of what has happened.
I never stated they weren't real Christians, I simply said you don't have the evidence to show this as being correct, which you don't.
Please show me wrong...
Hang on I'll check, I'll hop into my time machine. I'll be back later....err sooner?
To me, the fact they were popes and bishops is enough evidence. You however, choose to ignore this evidence and claim conspiracy, sound familar?
Now you are making a claim that is unfalsafiable.
I have no problem with evolution. I have a problem with the someones ability to throwout anything not written or done by themselves. We by nature have to have faith in others. I really can't even start to grasp the idea of no faith in anything.
I have not dugup any fossils, done carbon dating or put together a skeleton structure of a dinosaur. Yet I have faith that they are telling the truth when all I have is there word for it.
I will claim ignorance in the name of faith but I will not claim logic in the face of denial.
I was actually hoping you meant some real life scientists, for example, Miller of "Finding Darwin's God" or Collins of "The Language of God." The point is, I'm not sure there's anyone in the group you're describing. If you can't give examples, then what is there to discuss? We might as well be talking about Narnia or Middle Earth.
As ever, JesseThere is no lao tzu
May I also mention that Newton and Pascal were Christians?