(September 13, 2015 at 6:00 am)Nestor Wrote: I don't really understand the criticism of Krauss here. If you're a scientist, you should treat religion in the same way that you treat other claims. He's basically saying that in doing just that he's been labeled a militant atheist, and that other scientists, instead of adhering to the principles they avow, have discouraged him by either remaining silent or vocalizing their disapproval of his efforts.

So, what's the problem?

We all likely have many false beliefs that have undesirable consequences. It is not the job of scientists to run away mocking people with false beliefs. God, that would be hell on Earth.

Without reading I'm going to go tentatively with LK. LK rox.

The obvious logical flaw is of course that this isn't atheism. Atheism is a reaction. For action, I'm all Gwynnite. The only way to beat an old religion is with a new, improved, incorporated religion. Oh... more obviously certifiably batshit. Gwynnite qualifies.

(September 12, 2015 at 3:00 pm)ScepticOrganism Wrote:

(September 12, 2015 at 2:08 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: That's not being an atheist though, that's being professional. 

You said atheism should be mandatory, not scientific skepticism which is a given for the field.

It should be mandatory when you're inside the lab. Your beliefs are simply not gonna be compatible with the scientific process and method. Everything else is secondary.

I know. Let's make scientists dip their hand in a small bowl of water and make a special sign at the lab's entrance. Before beginning work, all present should recite a science creed of some sort. Just to be sure everyone is following along, we'll make everyone kneel when reporting out results. The experiment's leader should also be made to wear a special hat and embroidered lab coat to make sure everyone understands his superior position in the organization.  

I agree that to do good science, someone has to be able to completely shut off their religious beliefs. I also agree that it takes a lot of cognitive dissidence in order to do this, as you're basically acknowledging that religion has nothing to do with reality and amounts to baseless extra assumptions.

But if someone can keep their religion completely out of their work, I don't have a problem.

(September 18, 2015 at 10:04 am)Cato Wrote:

(September 12, 2015 at 3:00 pm)ScepticOrganism Wrote: It should be mandatory when you're inside the lab. Your beliefs are simply not gonna be compatible with the scientific process and method. Everything else is secondary.

I know. Let's make scientists dip their hand in a small bowl of water and make a special sign at the lab's entrance. Before beginning work, all present should recite a science creed of some sort. Just to be sure everyone is following along, we'll make everyone kneel when reporting out results. The experiment's leader should also be made to wear a special hat and embroidered lab coat to make sure everyone understands his superior position in the organization.  

Thats actually a good idea

To the OP: .. or at the very least, very nuanced and interesting theists.

Out of interest, not meant as an insult, are there any credible creationist scientists?

I suppose if their area of study manages to totally avoid conflict with their belief, it could be possible. Or just massive cognitive dissidence, I suppose.

Or indeed, that what people profess to believe isn't what they really believe. Big problem there.

You're a dissident.

I remember reading the bog of a creationist who seemed to be an actual, creditable scientist. Can't remember his name right now - just a mention that yes, it is entirely possible that there is one.

He writes on a bog? I'm not so sure that's scientific!

Just kidding Thanks, I see. Do you remember his field of expertise?

(September 20, 2015 at 5:51 am)robvalue Wrote: He writes on a bog? I'm not so sure that's scientific!

Just kidding Thanks, I see. Do you remember his field of expertise?

The right one - biology. Probably why he wrote a blog.