''Yes, Scientists believe in God''.

[Purple Rabbit]

Purple Rabbit, you said: ''Have you asked yourself why this quote from this man has more impact on you than the same remark that can be heard from others?'' Of course his 'beliefs' are going to be of great interest to me, more so than say my neighbour , as this guy is a particle physicist and I'm assuming that particle physicists aren't usually dumb, but rather clever people. I understand where you guys come from and how your reasoning works (using science etc) so for a 'scientist' to 'believe' in the supernatural is very interesting to me, due to my own beliefs.

Particle physicists tend to be rather clever in well...particle physics. And indeed the majority of the scientists does not believe in god. So a god-fearing particle physicist is rare indeed. Then is it not strange to value the opinion of just that god-fearing particle physicist more than that of other particle physicists? Especially when that particular particle physicist states clearly that he is taliking about belief and not making a professional assessment? He hasn't given any particle related evidence, he hasn't used any advanced mathematics, he hasn't provided any science based argument. His personal beliefs on god haven't been formulated falsifiable, haven't undergone peer review and are not the view of the scientific community. So, his personal beliefs are in every way unscientific and as good as anyone's. In other words, even particle physicists are human and there is no reason to credit their opinion on believe on something more than the content of their arguments.

[CoxRox]

Purple Rabbit, you said: ''Have you asked yourself why this quote from this man has more impact on you than the same remark that can be heard from others?'' Of course his 'beliefs' are going to be of great interest to me, more so than say my neighbour , as this guy is a particle physicist and I'm assuming that particle physicists aren't usually dumb, but rather clever people. I understand where you guys come from and how your reasoning works (using science etc) so for a 'scientist' to 'believe' in the supernatural is very interesting to me, due to my own beliefs.

Particle physicists tend to be rather clever in well...particle physics. And indeed the majority of the scientists does not believe in god. So a god-fearing particle physicist is rare indeed. Then is it not strange to value the opinion of just that god-fearing particle physicist more than that of other particle physicists? Especially when that particular particle physicist states clearly that he is taliking about belief and not making a professional assessment? He hasn't given any particle related evidence, he hasn't used any advanced mathematics, he hasn't provided any science based argument. His personal beliefs on god haven't been formulated falsifiable, haven't undergone peer review and are not the view of the scientific community. So, his personal beliefs are in every way unscientific and as good as anyone's. In other words, even particle physicists are human and there is no reason to credit their opinion on believe on something more than the content of their arguments.

Being in a minority (re science or any other matter) doesn't mean you are wrong. I don't know too much about this Polkinghorne fellow. I've found this link which may supply some scientific correlations:

http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/qanda.html

I'm taking note of what he is saying. That doesn't mean I agree with what he is saying. When an 'esteemed' particle physicist such as he supposedly is, says something, people usually take note.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'd say the quality of the arguments, the evidence and the statistics, are much more important than whether a group is in the minority or majority, if you're talking about what's scientifically correct!
What I mean is - for example: If intelligent designers were in the huge majority or there were only like 50 of them in the world - either way, huge majority, or huge minority - its still evidently bad science. Because its unscientific. God of the gaps and irreducible complexity is unscientific. The IDers are postulating a supernatural creator - they are the ones that needs to give evidence. Not merely saying: "Oh! you haven't got evidence for how that came to be yet/I don't think you have yet!". The evidence comes later. And what if the evidence could never be found because its so hard to explain? or it took a very very long time? Why on earth would postulating God be a solution? That's ridiculous and jumping to conclusions. Not scientific!
That's in the matter of science. And existence claims are scientific claims. If I told you, CR, the FSM exists - it would be absurd to believe it without any evidence - or to believe its 50/50 because it can't be proved or disproved. Because the burden of proof is on the believer, on the one making the claim! And you can't prove a negative!
And if I said the FSM created the universe - it would have to be a lot more complex and improbable than the universe itself! To exist right from the start before the universe and be capable of designing it! As with God
If the universe needs an explanation why doesn't God need an explanation?

[infidel666]

Does anyone know whether Polkinghome was religious during his physics career, or whether he had a "conversion experience" that led to his leaving physics for the priesthood in 1979?

[leo-rcc]

Being in a minority (re science or any other matter) doesn't mean you are wrong.

Indeed it doesn't, but that was not what PR was saying was it?

I'm taking note of what he is saying. That doesn't mean I agree with what he is saying. When an 'esteemed' particle physicist such as he supposedly is, says something, people usually take note.

When it comes to particle physics I would do the same. But if he is going to explain DNA sequencing I'd rather ask a biologist. And even then I am not just taking the word of just one scientist, but see what the peer reviewed literature says on the subject.

Having a degree in one field of science doesn't make you an authority on other fields of science. As for being esteemed, he is a good scientist and I would never degrade or berate his work. He has done quite a lot on the area of Quark particles.

Does anyone know whether Polkinghome was religious during his physics career, or whether he had a "conversion experience" that led to his leaving physics for the priesthood in 1979?

Dr. Polkinghome has always been religious. He has also been a Templeton prize winner. He is not a creationist like Ken Ham or Dr. Behe though, he accepts the theory of Evolution through natural selection but sees his god as a universe tuning entity according to his wiki site.

[CoxRox]

Someone like Polkinghorne who is obviously an intelligent man and a man of science, is also an anomaly in that for all his applications of logic, science etc, and all things considered He still believes in a supernatural god. Scientists like him are few and far between it would seem, so what makes them tick? Why do they still 'arrive' at this conclusion, when the majority of scientists don't? This is intriguing and obviously close to my heart. I think a few of you have read a bit too much into what I have said. I'm not saying he is the authority on all things scientific. I'm not valuing the opinions of this one man/scientist more than others, and even if I did as regards supernatural matters (for which I most likely will agree with him) so what? If you meet someone who agrees with something you deem important, then you will value that opinion more than someone who doesn't hold the same belief. If you met an ex priest who was an atheist and as acitve in debates etc as say Dawkins, you would likely be more impressed by their debates etc as you would someone who had never been religious or had a belief in the supernatural. As I've debated and considered many scientific matters here on this forum I can see why science does not seem to marry with belief in the supernatural and indeed the God of the Bible. It will be interesting to find out how Polkinghorne can 'unite' the two and still be true to both.

[Edwardo Piet]

Someone like Polkinghorne who is obviously an intelligent man and a man of science, is also an anomaly in that for all his applications of logic, science etc, and all things considered He still believes in a supernatural god. Scientists like him are few and far between it would seem, so what makes them tick? Why do they still 'arrive' at this conclusion, when the majority of scientists don't?

Compartmentalization of the brain I think. Scientists like him keep their religion separate from their physics that way. And if they don't I think that's scientifically incorrect. I mean physics doesn't point to a supernatural God lol! And if there's a gap you can't just fill it with God when there's no evidence of God!
And God would have to be more complexly fine-tuned and improbable than the universe itself to be there right from the start or come out of nothing and be capable of fine-tuning a universe!
However fine tuned the universe God would have to be more fine tuned.
So I think its compartmentalization. Partitioning of the mind, etc. If there was really hard evidence in physics of a supernatural God existing that was less improbable than the universe itself and wasn't just wishful thinking - then I don't see how that could ever be possible?
Of course it could be perhaps possible but it seems practically infinitely unlikely to me.
I, at least, don't see how physics could point to a supernatural being more improbable than the universe itself to exist right from the start or out of nowhere! (if he evolved and came after the universe he would of course be a supernbeing but not a 'supernatuarl GOD' because he wasn't the origin)
I'd be very interested to hear of evidence if there is any!
It just sounds like compartmentalization to me.
I'm not sure what else it could be? Either its compartmentalization or it really is physics. And he could think the physics pointed to God but it clearly didn't because he was compartmentalizing? I'm not sure I don't know him.
But basically either compartmentalization or it really is physics whether correct or not, I believe. There could be alternatives but I can't think of any right now
Evf

[CoxRox]

Someone like Polkinghorne who is obviously an intelligent man and a man of science, is also an anomaly in that for all his applications of logic, science etc, and all things considered He still believes in a supernatural god. Scientists like him are few and far between it would seem, so what makes them tick? Why do they still 'arrive' at this conclusion, when the majority of scientists don't?

Compartmentalization of the brain I think. Scientists like him keep their religion separate from their physics that way. And if they don't I think that's scientifically incorrect. I mean physics doesn't point to a supernatural God lol!
I don't think he compartmentalizes and indeed why should you have to? Why can't physics point to a God? The laws of physics etc are part of the 'evidences' that I myself understand to be the 'workings' of God. Here is an interview by him: it's quite interesting:
http://www.crosscurrents.org/polkinghorne.htm

And if there's a gap you can't just fill it with God when there's no evidence of God!
And God would have to be more complexly fine-tuned and improbable than the universe itself to be there right from the start or come out of nothing and be capable of fine-tuning a universe!
However fine tuned the universe God would have to be more fine tuned.

[/b]'Finetuning' suggests perameters or laws even, and if there is a First Cause, or Necessary Being, who alone has always existed, then 'fine tuning' will not apply to this being.

So I think its compartmentalization. Partitioning of the mind, etc. If there was really hard evidence in physics of a supernatural God existing that was less improbable than the universe itself and wasn't just wishful thinking - then I don't see how that could ever be possible?
Of course it could be perhaps possible but it seems practically infinitely unlikely to me.
I, at least, don't see how physics could point to a supernatural being more improbable than the universe itself to exist right from the start or out of nowhere! (if he evolved and came after the universe he would of course be a supernbeing but not a 'supernatuarl GOD' because he wasn't the origin)
I'd be very interested to hear of evidence if there is any!
It just sounds like compartmentalization to me.
I'm not sure what else it could be? Either its compartmentalization or it really is physics. And he could think the physics pointed to God but it clearly didn't because he was compartmentalizing? I'm not sure I don't know him.
But basically either compartmentalization or it really is physics whether correct or not, I believe. There could be alternatives but I can't think of any right now
Evf

We think of the notion of a 'god' or eternal being, as improbable etc because we are applying the reasonings we use for earthly, physical things. Why don't I find this a problem? Some scientists think there may be other dimensions. We can't comprehend what these are. Maybe there is another kind of life force that we can't understand from our 4 dimensional perspective.

[Tiberius]

Maybe there is another kind of life force that we can't understand from our 4 dimensional perspective.[/b]

We don't live in 4 dimensions. We live in 3 and move along a 4th in a single direction (time). If we lived in 4 dimensions we'd be able to travel backwards through time in the same way we can travel backwards through space.

[Purple Rabbit]

Someone like Polkinghorne who is obviously an intelligent man and a man of science, is also an anomaly in that for all his applications of logic, science etc, and all things considered He still believes in a supernatural god. Scientists like him are few and far between it would seem, so what makes them tick? Why do they still 'arrive' at this conclusion, when the majority of scientists don't? This is intriguing and obviously close to my heart. I think a few of you have read a bit too much into what I have said. I'm not saying he is the authority on all things scientific. I'm not valuing the opinions of this one man/scientist more than others, and even if I did as regards supernatural matters (for which I most likely will agree with him) so what? If you meet someone who agrees with something you deem important, then you will value that opinion more than someone who doesn't hold the same belief. If you met an ex priest who was an atheist and as acitve in debates etc as say Dawkins, you would likely be more impressed by their debates etc as you would someone who had never been religious or had a belief in the supernatural. As I've debated and considered many scientific matters here on this forum I can see why science does not seem to marry with belief in the supernatural and indeed the God of the Bible. It will be interesting to find out how Polkinghorne can 'unite' the two and still be true to both.

In my opinion the difference between Polkinghorne the particle physicist and Polinghorne the reverend is that the latter feels no obligation to substantiate his views. The former certainly had that obligation.

Polkinghorne the reverend in the interviews and lectures you can find on YouTube nowhere explains why a god should exist, that this god should be the christian god, that religion provides any answers to existential questions, why that belief has anything to do with knowledge and truth. Still this is what he claims. For instance in 'The God of Hope and the End of the World '. He insists that "the question of truth is central to reason and to science" and his quest is nothing less then to reconcile science and religion for this purpose. Sure, on many occasions he ponders on the problem of evil and he accepts the findings of science. His words are reassuring. There is no hell and in the end all will come together. But meanwhile he disposes of science as only capable in adressing the HOW question and without blinking his eyes he asserts that only religion, his religion is capable of adressing the WHY question, the question about purpose and meaning on existential questions. Has he forgotten about philosophy? Has he forgotten about history? There is an unaccounted bias in his theistic approach on the WHY question.

It seems to me that there is a question that goes before the WHY question and that is: what is the right question to ask? The WHY question as such shows a bias to a celestial meaning kind of an answer. Does a question that is geared for a source of meaning external to man show a philosphical approach even? You judge for yourself, but imo Polkinghorne the reverend, free from scientific scrutiny and philosophical dicipline fails to live up to standard hygiene of reasoning. A gap between the two Polkinghorne's that Simon Blackburn once called "supreme contempt for philosophical reasoning and historical thinking" (see).