''Yes, Scientists believe in God''.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well no one holds 'absolute truth'. We have to judge objective reality subjectively.
And yes, the claim "God exists" needs to be backed by evidence for there to be any truth in it. And if its a statement of mere words, and not actually a claim. It can be regarded as a metaphor or something so its not to be taken as literal truth. Unless evidence comes in as I say.
And then with God of course you'd have to get over the fact that the creator of the universe would have to be more improbable than the universe itself, if he was there right from the start, or he popped into existence instantly right from the start.
Evf

[LukeMC]

And yes, the claim "God exists" needs to be backed by evidence for there to be any truth in it.

Not necessarily. If I said that the earth was near spherical and provided no evidence, I'd still be correct. So even without evidence, God might exist. But I see what you're saying, and yes it so improbable, unlikely, counter-intuitive, all the rest. I think what you meant was "unless the claim is backed by evidence, we have no reason to believe it is true"?

[CoxRox]

Do you ever wonder if our reasoning could lead us to false conclusions? I've dabbled a bit in philosophy but it tends to go over my head, but one thing that struck me was Zeno's paradox. We can imagine a scenario where we will never arrive at our destination if we apply Zeno's logic. Could it be that you guys are applying your logic (e.g god is more improbable/complex than the universe hence more unlikely) to the idea of 'god' and it looks right, but it may not be?

[Purple Rabbit]

Do you ever wonder if our reasoning could lead us to false conclusions? I've dabbled a bit in philosophy but it tends to go over my head, but one thing that struck me was Zeno's paradox. We can imagine a scenario where we will never arrive at our destination if we apply Zeno's logic. Could it be that you guys are applying your logic (e.g god is more improbable/complex than the universe hence more unlikely) to the idea of 'god' and it looks right, but it may not be?

Of course we should be questioning our reasoning itself and in fact that's what is going on in philosophy and philosophy of science right now. But science does not have to investigate every supernatural claim. Firstly any supernatural entity would defy explanation itself, it would solve nothing but the urge to fill gaps in human understanding with placebo's. Secondly, competing supernatural claims show no urge and have no method to resolve truth claims among themelves. Why should a rational investigation bother with this reconciliation issue if religion itself shows no intention to get that job done. Religion provides no tranparent method to choose the right god(s) from many gods. Hence the choice would be arbitrary. In fact, in most cases any god (not only the ones invented so far), be it a benevolent or malevolent one, would provide plugs to the gaps in human understanding.

We have come a long way since Zeno. Zeno 's paradox shows that without observation of nature, human thought is clueless. Where science has concluded to give special credit to observation in nature, religion has chosen not to follow and remains rigid in unverifiable dogma, interpreted by mere men. The religious type is lagging behind with Zeno, holding on to dogma's created in the mind , the rational empiricist acknowledges observational facts and places them at the center of a tentative truth.

[CoxRox]

You are very good.......

[Dotard]

NS. That was good Rabbit.

Just needs a "Put that in your pipe and smoke it." as a tag line.

[Edwardo Piet]

And yes, the claim "God exists" needs to be backed by evidence for there to be any truth in it.

Not necessarily. If I said that the earth was near spherical and provided no evidence, I'd still be correct. So even without evidence, God might exist. But I see what you're saying, and yes it so improbable, unlikely, counter-intuitive, all the rest. I think what you meant was "unless the claim is backed by evidence, we have no reason to believe it is true"?

lol, yes of course. I just mean that you should believe something on evidence not faith. If you claim "God exists" it "should" or "needs" to be backed by evidence (although in case you mention it, not necessarily).
If God exists despite we have no evidence of him then yes it doesn't need to be backed up...
I just mean I think to believe in "God" there should be evidence of him. I don't think its good to believe without evidence. To believe on faith. As I'm sure you know I think this (I mean think you know at least? I'm not talking absolute "KNOW" here once again lol)!
As I said earlier I am talking about scientific truth, not absolute truth.
I am talking about temporary agnosticism in practice (TAP) as Dawkins says to be the only reasonable position on God. I just mean that God shouldn't be considered to exist until there's evidence that he does and/or that his existence is probable.
And by the way, on the Dawkins TAP spectrum of probability: I'm about a 6.9 meaning I am a de facto atheist. I'm about as agnostic about "God" as I am about the FSM (basically undisprovable supernatural entities.)
When I said for the claim "God exists" to be true it needs to be backed up by evidence. I mean to be considered true. it would be silly to think he exists without any evidence of his existence whatsoever.
So I think this this is perhaps a matter of semantics? I think the language I used is perhaps similar to forgetting to say "I think" when stating an opinion and its mistakenly treated as a claim. Instead I forgot to say I mean considered to be truth. Not "truth" as in absolute truth.
I forgot to say considered, I guess because I'm very used to thinking in a TAP way.
Evf

[infidel666]

Darwinian, I don't get the impression these 'believing' scientists are being intellectually lazy. To quote from the article:

'Professor Sir John Polkinghorne of Cambridge University, one of the world's most renowned particle physicists, a Fellow of the Royal Society, who became an Anglican minister when he retired from academia. 'Faith isn't a question of shutting your eyes, gritting your teeth and believing six impossible things before break-fast because some unquestionable authority has told you to. It's a search for truth,' he said.
'Science is great, but it's not the whole story. It deals with repeatable experience, but we all know that in our personal lives, experiences aren't repeatable. And you simply couldn't demonstrate how someone is your friend, or what music is.'
Moreover, he insists that there is no lack of evidence of God. 'I believe God reveals his nature in many ways. They're not demonstrations that knock you down, but they are very striking things about the world that are best understood as the work of God.
'The wonderful order of the world, which we scientists investigate, is a sign that there is a divine mind behind that order.'


Apologies for the longish quote, but this particle physicist doesn't seem to think he is 'anthropomorphizing' the universe, or misinterpreting the patterns and apparent designs. I've said it before, just maybe we see design, because there really is design.

I think this particle physicist sounds kind of stupid. Science certainly is beginning to map and quantify the neurology of friendship, music, etc. If this guy said he believed in Santa Claus, it would speak ill of him, not well of the belief in Santa Claus. Given an infinite number of scientists and an eternity of years, it is inevetible that at least one on scientist would turn out to be a nutjob.

[Purple Rabbit]

Darwinian, I don't get the impression these 'believing' scientists are being intellectually lazy. To quote from the article:

'Professor Sir John Polkinghorne of Cambridge University, one of the world's most renowned particle physicists, a Fellow of the Royal Society, who became an Anglican minister when he retired from academia. 'Faith isn't a question of shutting your eyes, gritting your teeth and believing six impossible things before break-fast because some unquestionable authority has told you to. It's a search for truth,' he said.
'Science is great, but it's not the whole story. It deals with repeatable experience, but we all know that in our personal lives, experiences aren't repeatable. And you simply couldn't demonstrate how someone is your friend, or what music is.'
Moreover, he insists that there is no lack of evidence of God. 'I believe God reveals his nature in many ways. They're not demonstrations that knock you down, but they are very striking things about the world that are best understood as the work of God.
'The wonderful order of the world, which we scientists investigate, is a sign that there is a divine mind behind that order.'


Apologies for the longish quote, but this particle physicist doesn't seem to think he is 'anthropomorphizing' the universe, or misinterpreting the patterns and apparent designs. I've said it before, just maybe we see design, because there really is design.

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? It clearly is a non-scientific statement and Polikinghorne is clear about that, he says "I believe...". In other words, they are his personal beliefs and they have no apparent scientifiic bearing. To attribute more value to the personal beliefs of a former scientist than to the personal beliefs of say your neighbour is mixing matter and person. Science just isn't that what a scientist says.

I think Polkinghorne in his personal beliefs indeed is indulging in anthropomorphic thinking when he is taliking of a wonderful order of the world, friendship and music. His words strongly suggest that all these things are purposely installed there for man meanwhile chosing to not consider any alternative: for instance that friendship is a result from human behaviour not a deirable object installed independently from human behaviour.

[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.