Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God | Francis Collins

[niceatheist]

To me that is all infinite is, something without a defined end point. You’ll have to tell me more about how something can have a finite size and not have a defined boundary and can still be labeled as infinite. To me, currently, something with a restricted boundary is by definition not infinite. We may not have discovered the boundary yet, but we do not believe it is an infinite boundary. Such as counting to 10 but we can only discover 1-8 so far. Seems we are just talking about the definition of terms of the abstract though and those conversations are just fun for practicing logic.

I didn’t say a closed manifold is infinite. Quite the opposite; a closed manifold is finite, and yet has no boundary. That’s why a lot of models of the universe, or at least the observable universe, view it as a closed manifold. The point being that, at least for most cosmologists, the universe is not infinite, but neither does it have an “edge”, and quite possibly neither does it have a starting point (if you extend the concept of a closed manifold to encompass time as well as space). That so far as I understand is what Hawking and other cosmologists invoking “imaginary time” (which is not imaginary in the sense of being made up but is imaginary in the sense of imaginary numbers); time itself curves back (like a circle) and the curve may become infinite but never actually has a beginning.

 

[IWantGod]

I certainly don’t want to pit science against other epistemological systems, but the history of alternative systems isn’t filled that many success stories.

You respond to metaphysics like somebody who has been led to believe that metaphysics is trying to answer scientific questions and has failed, which would only reveal the limits of your knowledge on the matter.

There are plenty of success stories. Science wouldn’t get off the ground if not for the principle of non-contradiction. It’s only because we can make rational distinctions between things and know things to be true in a general sense that we can do science. In fact science is the weaker epistemology because in science you require the principle of falsifiability because you are dealing with beings in a very particular sense, whereas in metaphysics that is not required at all because we are dealing with being in a very general sense. Science is not a replacement for metaphysics. If you are going to pit science against metaphysics then you are practicing scientism and it’s not justified. Your failure to understand the difference between the two methods is astounding to say the least.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

I certainly don’t want to pit science against other epistemological systems, but the history of alternative systems isn’t filled that many success stories.

You respond to metaphysics like somebody who has been led to believe that metaphysics is trying to answer scientific questions and has failed, which would only reveal the limits of your knowledge on the matter.

There are plenty of success stories. Science wouldn’t get off the ground if not for the principle of non-contradiction. It’s only because we can make rational distinctions between things and know things to be true in a general sense that we can do science. In fact science is the weaker epistemology because in science you require the principle of falsifiability because you are dealing with beings in a very particular sense, whereas in metaphysics that is not required at all because we are dealing with being in a very general sense. Science is not a replacement for metaphysics. If you are going to pit science against metaphysics then you are practicing scientism and it’s not justified. Your failure to understand the difference between the two methods is astounding to say the least.

What you consider science’s weakness I consider it’s strength. It actually allows for the testing of a proposition. I still don’t mean to throw it on a pedestal, but I’m going to be blunt, science has been the most successful methodology ever invented for the accrual of knowledge.

And other systems have only been successful where they too have invoked at least some kind of methodological rigor. Otherwise, metaphysics is nothing more than a group of naked claims. Science owes some of those other systems a great deal, but it has stood very well on its own feet.

But you seem to be trying to box me into a corner. If many scientists don’t believe in God, it almost seems to be your default position that those scientists are thus practicing “scientism”, as if the only possible choice is to pick God, or somehow you’re standing atop a mountain built out of fallacy.

 

[IWantGod]

What you consider science’s weakness I consider it’s strength.

I never said it was a weakness, i said it was the weaker epistemology given the fact that no theory can provide certain knowledge. But it is the stronger method when it comes to measuring and identifying physical processes in a particular sense… Metaphysics is the stronger epistemological method when it comes to identifying what is necessarily true or impossible.

 

[niceatheist]

A little late to the discussion here, but I agree with the video presenter’s comment that the extremists on both sides seem to dominate the debate. Many Catholic clergy have been and are scientists. Atheists are entitled to their opinions, also. Faith and Science, in my opinion, operate in separate spheres, but can both occupy a much larger shared space as well.

One of the greatest of all evolutionary biologists, Theodore Dobzhansky (the man who wrote the famous, or depending on your point of view, infamous essay “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”), was an Orthodox Christian. There is absolutely no incompatibility between Theism and science, and any of the new breed of atheists who tries to assert could justifiably, in my view, be accused of practicing scientism. But I don’t think you can accuse someone of practicing scientism just because they don’t believe in God.

I certainly have no illusions about my weak variant of atheism. It has no scientific backing whatsoever. I think it’s rational, but that’s about as far as I could imagine pushing it. I have no issue with any scientist who believes in God, don’t view them as some kind of epistemological “traitor” (which is the way I read some of the more modern atheists views of scientists who believe in God).

As you say, I see them as two spheres, not necessarily disconnected at every point, and some of those points of connections should, in their turn, make theists and atheists a bit uncomfortable. But being uncomfortable, to my mind, is good. It makes question your own beliefs and prejudices.

 

[IWantGod]

But you seem to be trying to box me into a corner. If many scientists don’t believe in God, it almost seems to be your default position that those scientists are thus practicing “scientism”, as if the only possible choice is to pick God, or somehow you’re standing atop a mountain built out of fallacy.

If the only reason you reject God is because of the scientific method, then you are most certainly operating in a fallacy. Its completely circular. Science is intrinsically limited to physical processes, thus to say there is probably no other kind of reality other than physical processes on the basis that science cannot identify them is an example of a fallacy…

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

But you seem to be trying to box me into a corner. If many scientists don’t believe in God, it almost seems to be your default position that those scientists are thus practicing “scientism”, as if the only possible choice is to pick God, or somehow you’re standing atop a mountain built out of fallacy.

If the only reason you reject God is because of the scientific method, then you are most certainly operating in a fallacy. Its completely circular. Science is intrinsically limited to physical processes, thus to say there is probably no other kind of reality other than physical processes on the basis that science cannot identify them is an example of a fallacy…

Well, that’s certainly not a position I would ever take, and honestly, that’s not even a view I’ve seen many (or possibly any) scientist actually take. I think perhaps science might inform one’s atheism, but properly speaking, since science cannot speak to the immaterial at all, it certainly can’t be used to prove the non-existence of the immaterial.

 

[IWantGod]

Well, that’s certainly not a position I would ever take, and honestly,

Then my argument isn’t aimed at you.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Well, that’s certainly not a position I would ever take, and honestly,

Then my argument isn’t aimed at you.

And honestly, I don’t think it’s aimed at very many scientists either. Even Dawkins, when he’s not being overly strident (which I view as his greatest flaw) will admit that science cannot test a premise like “Is there a God?”

I think more properly such a charge would apply would be some of the so-called “new Atheists” who either don’t understand the limits of science, or choose to ignore them. These kinds of atheists suffer the terrible intellectual disease of being unable to accept a degree of uncertainty.

 

[IWantGod]

but I’m going to be blunt, science has been the most successful methodology ever invented for the accrual of knowledge.

I think this statement can be taken to be more than what it is. It is certainly the most successful method when it comes to identifying physical causes, but that doesn’t say much about other methods because they do not ask the same qeustion. Science as a method is completely impotent when it comes to identifying why there is something rather than nothing at all, or asking what it means for a thing to have an act of reality, or what is required to actualized potential, or why there would be such a thing as the laws of physics. A lot of good work has gone into this field. It’s largely ignored because science has been put on a pedestal. But my goal here is not to diss science, but rather i get frustrated when people act like science is the only legitimate way to know something or have good reasons for thinking that something is true. That is a load of rubbish.

 

[IWantGod]

As you say, I see them as two spheres, not necessarily disconnected at every point, and some of those points of connections should, in their turn, make theists and atheists a bit uncomfortable. But being uncomfortable, to my mind, is good. It makes question your own beliefs and prejudices.

Science has made me qeustion my beliefs. For example, no matter what people think of the bible, i cannot reasonably deny evolution. And if i were to find out that my faith in the idea that the bible is inspired by the holy spirit was incompatible with discoveries made by science, i would be forced to abandon that idea. But i think intellectually responsible Christians have found a middle ground where there need not be any conflict and more importantly is not ad-hoc.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

As you say, I see them as two spheres, not necessarily disconnected at every point, and some of those points of connections should, in their turn, make theists and atheists a bit uncomfortable. But being uncomfortable, to my mind, is good. It makes question your own beliefs and prejudices.

Science has made me qeustion my beliefs. For example, no matter what people think of the bible, i cannot reasonably deny evolution. And if i were to find out that my faith in the idea that the bible is inspired by the holy spirit was incompatible with discoveries made by science, i would be forced to abandon that idea. But i think intellectually responsible Christians have found a middle ground where there need not be any conflict and more importantly is not ad-hoc.

Precisely! I think it’s summed up best, for all camps, as being “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…” I spent much of the 1990s frequenting evolution forums on the old Usenet system, in particular talk.origins, where you had no lack of Creationists whose chief problem, as I observed, was not that they were Christians, but rather that they had raised their particular interpretation of Scripture so high that one might almost call it bibliolatry (which, I suppose, is the flip side of scientism).

I always remember one Christian poster, who did accept evolution, the Big Bang, old earth geology, and other theories that tended to rile up Creationists, who, I suppose, mirroring St. Augustine, lecturing one Creationist on the flaw in believing that there was some sort of hierarchy of revelation; that the Creationist in question was asserting that Scripture was pre-eminent over the observable aspects of God’s creation. In this Christian poster’s mind, both the natural world and Scripture were simply aspects of the same creative impulse. In other words, if one found incompatibility between science and Scripture, more than likely the flaw was in how one interpreted Scripture.

 

[William_Scott]

IWantGod,

Why can you not reasonably deny evolution? I’m an attorney with a bachelors in physics, so I can’t claim to be a scientist–but I don’t find evolution to be anything more than a very poor and extremely imaginative hypothesis (technically an origins myth) of how nothing created everything.

Every conceivable “evidence” of evolution turns out to be nothing more than a poor reading of the geological data and/or natural adaptation of existing kinds. Real science directly contradicts any rock to person chronology of life.

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t want this to be a thread on evolution. So i am not going to get into anything technical. The bottom-line for me is that i don’t believe that the scientific community is lying to me or deceiving me. And based on what the catholic authority has said on the matter and what catholic and christian scientists have also said, i really have no reason to think that the scientific evidence is not consistent with what is required to justify evolution as a genuine legitimate scientific theory, because if there was a genuine problem i am sure that the catholic authority or catholic scientists would not speak favorably of it. Just on authority alone i have reason to believe it is in fact more than just a hypothesis because i trust the sources.

In my opinion, the idea that evolution is pseudoscience propaganda invented to bolster the atheist cause and take power away from the church, is a conspiracy theory, rooted in fear, and promoted by a fringe sect of the scientific community who are either not very good scientists (since they want to change the scientific method to suit their so called evidence) or they are looking for a payday. Perhaps they thought that if they could convince people of intelligent design they would be seen as the next Einsteins leading a revolution in science.

I’m sure they have sold plenty books though, encouraging the illusion of there being a conflict between Science and God, feeding on peoples fears and hopes. It’s been a payday for both sides of the table.

 

[William_Scott]

niceathiest:
“What you consider science’s weakness I consider it’s strength. It actually allows for the testing of a proposition. I still don’t mean to throw it on a pedestal, but I’m going to be blunt, science has been the most successful methodology ever invented for the accrual of knowledge.”

This is certainly the strength of real science (which continues to make incredible strides in knowledge and technologies that benefit humanity and our understanding of God’s creation). [Macro]evolution, however, is utterly lacking in this cardinal strength. The strength of the [macro]evolutionary hypothesis appears to be its ability to survive despite lack of support geologically, genetically, etc. even after more than 160 years of prodigious backing by the international scientific community.

 

[William_Scott]

IWantGod, I have spent a number of years in institutions of higher learning. It is no secret that the vast majority of those in the highest positions of the educational and scientific community are ardently opposed to anything that supports the Triune God, His Church and His Word. Their bias and the bias of their peers shapes their interpretation of the data, even when there is no intent to deceive or twist the data contra Christianity (just like your worldview and my worldview shape our interpretation of what we observe in the world).

No doubt, virtually everyone in the scientific community who believes in evolution does so sincerely and not as part of willful plot against Christianity. Simply put, data from the natural world provides a plethora of opportunities for wildly varying interpretations of origin by well-meaning individuals. The interpretations of origin are often dictated much more heavily by the presuppositions brought to the table than by any definitive forensic evidence in what is being examined. I speak with some degree of experience in this matter, although there are others with far more experience than myself that can back up the truth of what I’m saying here.

So my claim is that millions of evolutionists are sincerely wrong in their interpretation of the data without being guilty of intent to deceive. Similarly, I would say that millions of Baptist who believe only in believer’s baptism are sincerely wrong in their interpretation of the data of Scripture without being guilty of intent to deceive in a conspiracy against infant baptism.

If you can deny the interpretation of Scripture by millions of Baptists (including thousands with Masters and Doctorates in Divinity) without being called a conspiracy theorist, why can’t I agree with the straightforward reading of Scripture and the unanimous position of the Church Fathers* on the origins contra the scientific communities’ constantly changing hypotheses.

*[With the exception of Origen who did maintain a belief in an old earth]

I’m probably out for at least the next week or two because of schedule. Have a blessed Holy Saturday and Easter.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Let’s not forget that we really need our smart, well-trained scientists in this world. We would be in a heap of hurt without them.

Not that we can’t have earnest discussions about God and spirituality and how those in the world of science think about it. Some of our scientists, most likely are such good and strong scientists because of their atheism, not in spite of it.

 

[Ericj5592]

Hey, Pope Francis said even athiests go to heaven since Jesus died for all humanity.

 

[RandomAlias]

Some people say science and faith are in separate spheres, having no bearing on each other, but I politely disagree. I am a scientist, and science immensely strengthens my faith.

Some people say evolution is anti-faith. I say it is God’s second-greatest invention, right after life emerging spontaneously from nonliving matter. To bring complexity and order out of disorder is sheer genius. No one else could imagine, let alone create a universe with natural laws that not only allow life, but make it inevitable, and not only allow evolution, but make it a driving force in the creation process.

O Designer of nature, how great Thou art!

 

[IWantGod]

Some people say science and faith are in separate spheres, having no bearing on each other, but I politely disagree. I

When people say that, at least when i say it, it means that the methodology of science doesn’t apply to concepts like God, so it cannot be used to judge God’s existence or non-existence. The concept of God properly belongs to the sphere of philosophy and religion as a subject matter, along with questions such as why there is something rather than nothing…