Just got back from lunch, are the strawmen still lazing about?

Quote:"according to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of god, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose.”

What is fascinating is that these are supposed to be the people who are in "the know", the most brilliant scientific minds on the planet. Why do you think those numbers are not 100% for all?

(September 18, 2014 at 2:36 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

Quote:"according to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of god, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose.”

What is fascinating is that these are supposed to be the people who are in "the know", the most brilliant scientific minds on the planet. Why do you think those numbers are not 100% for all?

Because they're fucking humans. I don't know where you got this theistic concept of "these people are somehow the ones that are supposed to have the knowledge".

(September 18, 2014 at 2:25 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(September 18, 2014 at 1:59 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: What experiments are you referring to?

How about any of the James Randy experiments. They were tested under strict conditions that are justifiably scientific resulting in negative results.

And... Again what we don't know could include some missing variables with regard to the outcomes of these experiments. I totally speculate that the "observer effect" may have something to do with it. But, only time and continued research/evidence could possibly shed light in that direction.

(September 18, 2014 at 1:45 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

Quote:I'll coincide that you have examples. And I'll point out what changed their mind was evidence.

And my point is that continued research into these sciences will most likely result in evidence that will flip our understanding of reality in much the same way as those examples did.

"most likely". You can quantify this, yes? With reason and evidence, something with a little more meat than base speculation?

Quote:Because they're fucking humans. I don't know where you got this theistic concept of "these people are somehow the ones that are supposed to have the knowledge".

Well, inclusion in the NAS seems to imply their expertise and level of respect to be given to their opinion.

Neil Degrasse Tyson has responded to a question similar to mine that the reason is because they are still continuously running up against revelations of experiments that cannot be explained with our current understandings of the laws of science.

There, he argues, is where "goddidit" ends up becoming the fall back answer, even for the most respected of minds.

(September 18, 2014 at 2:36 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

Quote:"according to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of god, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose.”

What is fascinating is that these are supposed to be the people who are in "the know", the most brilliant scientific minds on the planet. Why do you think those numbers are not 100% for all?

Compartmentalization of their theistic beliefs.

It is not surprising that there are some scientists that believe in a god.

(September 18, 2014 at 2:40 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: And... Again what we don't know could include some missing variables with regard to the outcomes of these experiments. I totally speculate that the "observer effect" may have something to do with it. But, only time and continued research/evidence could possibly shed light in that direction.

So your whole stance is "you don't know so I'll believe in things that have no evidence for." Is that rational?

Yes the observer effect, because Randy NEVER did double blind studies (sarcasm inserted).

(September 18, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(September 18, 2014 at 1:45 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: And my point is that continued research into these sciences will most likely result in evidence that will flip our understanding of reality in much the same way as those examples did.

"most likely". You can quantify this, yes? With reason and evidence, something with a little more meat than base speculation?

Well, revelations of quantum physics, astrophysics and epigenetics (even with limited research) have shown our reality to be much different than previously assumed. You think it is likely that with further research we will go back to previous assumptions? You think it'll be like, 'nah, that was nothing', let's just forget about that stuff?

I think science will continue, just as it always has, to change our opinions of reality based on the findings/evidence.

(September 18, 2014 at 2:45 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

Quote:Because they're fucking humans. I don't know where you got this theistic concept of "these people are somehow the ones that are supposed to have the knowledge".

Well, inclusion in the NAS seems to imply their expertise and level of respect to be given to their opinion.

Neil Degrasse Tyson has responded to a question similar to mine that the reason is because they are still continuously running up against revelations of experiments that cannot be explained with our current understandings of the laws of science.

There, he argues, is where "goddidit" ends up becoming the fall back answer, even for the most respected of minds.

Being a member of the NAS does not mean you've examined the philosophical or theological ideas of a personal God. It means that you've demonstrated great proficiency and made contribtuions in a certain area of science. It doesn't imply their expertise on any topic other than..you know..the topic that their expertise involves. Are most of them atheist/non-religious? Yes. Does that mean they suddenly attain some level of expertise on religious matters because they're a superb particle physicist? No. Most of them have simply concluded that the idea of a personal God isn't compatible with their investigations into reality, and some others haven't reached that same conclusion. As Simon said above, it probably results from a little compartmentalization because they're humans just like the rest of us and aren't infallible.

I have no idea what you're trying to say about NDT, but if I'm thinking about the same lecture, his point was how strange it is that the NAS isn't 100% atheist, he wasn't giving credence or validity to the "god did it" excuse.

And for fuck's sake stop calling experimental data "revelations".