Only 17% of scientists are atheists - this begs a question regarding methodological naturalism

[TechieGuy]

You’d be amazed at how many people don’t ‘sweat the details’ -

“Some guy on the internet thinks my worldview is philosophically inconsistent? Oh well…”

 

[jack63]

The way I think about science and religion can best be described by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ from his book “The Phenomenon of Man”…from page 285 in my book

Religion and science are the two conjugated faces or phases of one and the same complete act of knowledge - the only which can embrace the past and future of evolution so as to contemplate, measure and fulfil them.

Not all scientist think this way, so there continue to be posts and threads. Oh well… Some scientists are motivated by the wrong things. They want control of their environment, and they are motivated by fear.

As Teilhard was saying, the instinct driving scientists and religion can be the same though.

 

[HopkinsReb]

A nudge here, a nudge there. Why would He plant a bunch of fake fossils to deceive us?

 

[edwest211]

I never mentioned fossils in this thread. I hope someone would explain where God acted.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Dunno. I wasn’t there.

 

[jack63]

Science can’t say that and is incomplete.

Of course science is incomplete. So what!? If you show me a scientist claiming that their theory is complete, I would conclude that they are either not a scientist or very bad at their job of being a scientist.

It feels like you are creating a straw man here. Inherent in science is that you acknowledge that every theory is not complete.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

“Some guy on the internet thinks my worldview is philosophically inconsistent? Oh well…”

This sounds so much like my husband and about 75 percent of the other engineers and scientists I know. “Yeah, philosophy…that and two dollars will get you a McDonald’s Coffee. Now, back to this conductivity issue or physics proof…”

 

[HopkinsReb]

TechieGuy:

“Some guy on the internet thinks my worldview is philosophically inconsistent? Oh well…”

This sounds so much like my husband and about 75 percent of the other engineers and scientists I know. “Yeah, philosophy…that and two dollars will get you a McDonald’s Coffee. Now, back to this conductivity issue or physics proof…”

Not my approach at all! I have two engineering degrees and I read philosophy all the time!

After all, science and math are just branches of philosophy

 

[Tis_Bearself]

That’s you. I guarantee that a philosophy book never entered my and my husband’s engineering home

I had a buddy in college who was all into “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”. I tried to read it because it sounded like a cool book, but I didn’t get very far in. I thought the main character was just plain weird and should have just quit thinking about Quality and gone out for doughnuts, problem solved.

Seriously, engineers have all kinds of interests. One will be into philosophy, one will be into Society for Creative Anachronism, one like me will be into seeing weird underground bands for a few decades. Never a dull moment that’s for sure.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I had a buddy in college who was all into “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”. I tried to read it because it sounded like a cool book, but I didn’t get very far in. I thought the main character was just plain weird and should have just quit thinking about Quality and gone out for doughnuts, problem solved.

boooooring

Seriously, engineers have all kinds of interests. One will be into philosophy, one will be into Society for Creative Anachronism, one like me will be into seeing weird underground bands for a few decades. Never a dull moment that’s for sure.

Yep. Contrary to popular belief, you and I and all the rest of the engineers are people. We have varying interests. We just happen to have varying interests while being better at math than all of our friends.

 

[edwest211]

I am talking about God and how He acted in Creation.

 

[jack63]

I know.

It is not a scientist’s job or role to explain to anybody how God acted in creation.

 

[edwest211]

In that case, I can’t see how theistic evolutionists add the theistic part.

 

[jack63]

Perhaps somebody on a personal level could be religious, and on a professional level the could be devoted to studying the ever changing theory of evolution.

However, no scientist could seriously claim to professionally be a theistic evolutionist.

In my opinion science has only really scratched the surface. For example, they don’t know how life began. They haven’t proven a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and gravity. Given this, it is not meaningful for a scientist to try to describe a theory of how God acted in creation.

 

[laylow]

How do these scientists hold to methodological naturalism, whilst simultaneously allowing for the involvement of a supernatural creator? The cognitive dissonance must be especially acute if they believe in guided evolution.

I see what you are saying, and agree somewhat. However, a supernatural creator would not have to fit into any specific categorization of said creator, for example, the creator would not have to be an omnipresent, omnipotent, ominibenevolent being that is many times claimed. It could be simply deistic, a high power for which put things into motion.