| Grizlas | Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
|  |
| | General |  |
| | Group: Administrator,
Klikan,
Regulars,
Outsiders
| | Location: Denmark | | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 06-04-2008 16:21 |
|
Lets do the religion thing again.
Apparently, there is a trend among scientists to become religious after they have discovered something big. Here is a snippet from an article about such a man:
"THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.
Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to Godâ€.
His book, The Language of God, to be published in September, will reopen the age-old debate about the relationship between science and faith. “One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war,†said Collins, 56.
"
I personally have yet to hear a rational argument for the existence of god, but this guy must be quite alot smarter than me. Maybe he's on to something? 
/discuss
|
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing? |
|
|
|
| Norlander | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
|  |
| | Field Marshal | |
| | Group: Administrator,
Klikan,
Regulars,
Outsiders
| | Location: Copenhagen | | Joined: 09.06.06 | | Posted on 06-04-2008 18:15 |
|
|
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith |
|
|
|
|
| Vuzman | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
|  |
| | Admiral | |
| | Group: Klikan,
Outsiders,
Administrator,
Regulars
| | Location: Copenhagen, DK | | Joined: 10.06.06 | | Posted on 07-04-2008 10:58 |
|
I have heard some moderately intelligent arguments from believing scientists, but this guy's arguments are exceedingly weak and completely based on emotion.
"ooh, complexity, that must be created by God."
"ooh, beauty, there must be a God."
What about all the wastefulness of evolution? All the failed branches of natural selection, and all the vestigial organs?
What about all the ugliness and cruelty in the world?
Comparing with Einstein and Newton is also exceedingly weak. Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, and his "belief" could be said to be a personification of Nature and its laws, rather than an actual entity. Newton was a nutcase who thought he could predict the future and that it was possible to turn basic chemical elements into other elements (more specifically gold...)
His book, The Language of God, to be published in September, will reopen the age-old debate about the relationship between science and faith.
Well, that was September 2006, and it didn't open anything, in fact it was overlooked by just about everyone as it went counter to both creationism and real science.
From a review by Sam Harris:
[Collins] attempts to demonstrate that there is “a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony†between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity. To say that he fails at his task does not quite get at the inadequacy of his efforts. He fails the way a surgeon would fail if he attempted to operate using only his toes. His failure is predictable, spectacular and vile. “The Language of God†reads like a hoax text, and the knowledge that it is not a hoax should be disturbing to anyone who cares about the future of intellectual and political discourse in the United States.
grizlas wrote:
I personally have yet to hear a rational argument for the existence of god
So have I.
|
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls |
Edited by Vuzman on 07-04-2008 11:00 |
|
| Jogvanth | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
|  |
| | General | |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Location: Hoyvík | | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 07-04-2008 11:07 |
|
If you start your quest for scientific proof of (anything), with the fastened belief, that God does not and can not exist, then you will never find any proof of God's existence or of his 'fingerprints' on anything.
If you start your quest for scientific proof of (anything) without prejudice towards or against the existence of God (or similar), then you might see the finer nuances in your discoveries as small tokens from a higher purpose or power-of-creation.Then, if said discovery is significant enough in moving your stasis of belief, then you might say that you have 'seen' God.
|
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing' |
|
|
|
|
| Torellion | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
|  |
| | Regular |  |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 07-04-2008 14:44 | |
|
Then, if said discovery is significant enough in moving your stasis of belief, then you might say that you have 'seen' God.
Which one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Grizlas | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
| |
| | General | |
| | Group: Administrator,
Klikan,
Regulars,
Outsiders
| | Location: Denmark | | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 07-04-2008 15:38 |
|
jogvanth wrote:
If you start your quest for scientific proof of (anything), with the fastened belief, that God does not and can not exist, then you will never find any proof of God's existence or of his 'fingerprints' on anything.
Hmm, OK but is this only applicable to God?
What if i start my quest for scientific proof of (anything? how about cats), with the fastened belief, that Dogs do not exist, then will I never find any proof of dog existence or of their "fingerprints" on anything?
Seems pretty irrational to me, that your mindset should somehow prevent you from discovering empirical data, seeing as the scientific method specifically tells you to be as objective as you can and to be rigorous with regards to the collection and processing of data. You might very well miss a connection or two because you have some preconceptions about some things, but how cn those preconceptions ever refute fact?
|
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing? |
Edited by Grizlas on 07-04-2008 15:48 |
|
|
| Jogvanth | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
| |
| | General | |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Location: Hoyvík | | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 07-04-2008 22:04 |
|
The point is, that if you are familiar with the writings in the book of Genesis, about how God created Earth and the Heavens, then why would you not see the miracle of creation in your scientific results? Cats vs. dogs are a stupid example that have no relevance what so ever to this, and you damn well know it. I'll state that you only use them as example to ridicule my claim, rather than to argue against it.
Im not talking about not finding empirical data if you do not believe in God, but how you can come to believe in God trough finding empirical data. I've never ever heard of or seen any scientific evidence that proves that God does exist, nor have I ever seen or heard of any scientific data that proves that God does not exist. But I will state, that if you look deeply at any living organism or mathematical formula or any such thing, then you might be so overcome with the incredible coherency of the thing you observe, that you can come to believe in God if you have an open mindset towards it. If you fervently deny the existence of any supernatural being or entity, then you will never see the same beauty on the same level, as those who do. Your mind will then be locked in place, and you will see it as empirical data, and not beauty of being.
|
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing' |
|
|
|
|
| Torellion | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
| |
| | Regular | |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 07-04-2008 23:29 | |
|
The point is, that if you are familiar with the writings in the book of Genesis, about how God created Earth and the Heavens, then why would you not see the miracle of creation in your scientific results?
Why the god of the jews and why Genesis? There are other creation stories, what makes you pick this one?
I've never ever heard of or seen any scientific evidence that proves that God does exist, nor have I ever seen or heard of any scientific data that proves that God does not exist.
Exactly. This means that we dismiss the claim until we find evidence for it. Just like we do with every other unproven claim. The proof of burden is on the theists.
But I will state, that if you look deeply at any living organism or mathematical formula or any such thing, then you might be so overcome with the incredible coherency of the thing you observe, that you can come to believe in God if you have an open mindset towards it.
Then how come a disproportionate amount of people that actually do look deeply at it do not believe in god? Are you claiming that you look deeper at these living organisms than biologists? At mathematical formulas more than mathematicians?
If you fervently deny the existence of any supernatural being or entity, then you will never see the same beauty on the same level, as those who do. Your mind will then be locked in place, and you will see it as empirical data, and not beauty of being.
I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
- Douglas Adams
It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
- Carl Sagan
|
|
Edited by Torellion on 07-04-2008 23:33 |
|
|
| OKJones | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
|  |
| | Commander | |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Location: Argir | | Joined: 12.06.06 | | Posted on 08-04-2008 08:38 |
|
This sounds like a broken record, haven't you been through this already a 1000 times. What good can you possibly get out of this? You disagree that's fine, we knew that already, this is getting rather boring and predictable.
|
Why would I want to end every post the same way? |
|
|
|
|
| Jogvanth | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
| |
| | General | |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Location: Hoyvík | | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 08-04-2008 09:04 |
|
This means that we dismiss the claim until we find evidence for it. Just like we do with every other unproven claim. The proof of burden is on the theists.
So, if you can't prove it, then it does not exist?
Then how come a disproportionate amount of people that actually do look deeply at it do not believe in god? Are you claiming that you look deeper at these living organisms than biologists? At mathematical formulas more than mathematicians?
I'm not saying that at all, and you know it. You are pushing the same antitheist arguments that Grizlas and Vuzman are. Read my post again, without the preconception your basing your reply on, and you might see my point. I'm seeing the beauty of the construct of the world as possible proof of a 'grand design'. I'm not arguing for creationism. It's stupid and naive. I'm simply saying my view on the matter. My theory of creation, is based on God, but not in 6 days but nearer 5 billion years (or whatever).
I'm not arguing against science or it's results. I'm saying it proves an attention to detail that's staggering.
What about all the wastefulness of evolution? All the failed branches of natural selection, and all the vestigial organs?
What about all the ugliness and cruelty in the world?
What about free will?
All of your arguments always boil down to the same thing.
Why the god of the jews and why Genesis? There are other creation stories, what makes you pick this one?
Because it is the most commonly known in our geological area, so most people know it already, and I don't have to explain it further.
This sounds like a broken record, haven't you been through this already a 1000 times. What good can you possibly get out of this? You disagree that's fine, we knew that already, this is getting rather boring and predictable.
Grizlas started this thread with an open question. I've stated my explanation to his question. The fact that both he and (apparently) everyone else here now targets me for ridicule only proves my point.
|
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing' |
|
|
|
|
| OKJones | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
| |
| | Commander | |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Location: Argir | | Joined: 12.06.06 | | Posted on 08-04-2008 09:17 |
|
Well I wasn't targeting you jogvanth I meant this whole discussion
|
Why would I want to end every post the same way? |
|
|
|
|
| Grizlas | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
| |
| | General | |
| | Group: Administrator,
Klikan,
Regulars,
Outsiders
| | Location: Denmark | | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 08-04-2008 10:13 |
|
hey, I'm not ridiculing you, thomsen. I mean my reply quite seriously. If no logical rules apply to your statements then any discussion is quite impossible. I thought Cats and Dogs was a fair replacement, but if you think that it was unfair, then please suggest something reasonable that can replace the word dog in my post, or concede that your musings about "having an open mind" only applies to God and nothing else.
|
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing? |
Edited by Grizlas on 08-04-2008 10:15 |
|
|
| Torellion | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
| |
| | Regular | |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 08-04-2008 11:13 | |
|
The fact that both he and (apparently) everyone else here now targets me for ridicule only proves my point.
Argumenting against a person's beliefs is not ridicule.
And, pardon my ignorance, what point is it that is proven, exactly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Celdar | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
|  |
| | Initiate |  |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Joined: 02.08.06 | | Posted on 08-04-2008 12:02 | |
|
I find the premise for this discussion and other similar discussions based on the wrong premise. Please consider these points.
1: I believe that largely all religions (doesn't really matter which one) are presented to us today primarily based on anecdotal evidence. For the purpose of this discussions I define anecdotal as personal witnessing, hear say, testimony, historical writings, reporting etc... Stuff that can not be easily subjected to scientific testing.
2: I think a question we must answer before discussing particular religions or the existence of God or the the great goldfish or whatever is the following - What weight does anecdotal evidence carry in our lives?
Now we can take the easy answer - All anecdotal evidence is scientific pish and not worth considering in any serious debate.
Personally I think this answer equeates to rational debating suicide as we all base a lot of our decisions opinions on "anecdotal evidence". We all give such evidence a lot of credence every single day, so why dismiss it when it is inconvenient?
In my opinion we can not summarily dismiss anecdotal evidence in general and still maintain rational consistency. Surely the answer must be "it depends".
My point is, why are we starting this discussion from a premise that requires things to be scientifically proven?
Atheists often say things such as "There is not a shred of evidence" etc... This is not true, there is a humongous amount of anecdotal evidence for many religions - the fact that some people choose to disregard it all does not make it redundant. In my opinion it just shows a lack of personal honesty and willfull sweeping under the carpet because the subject is not easy to deal with - and the conclusions even worse.
The conclusion of admitting anecdotal evidence into the discussion surely must be that the goalposts move much much wider as we have to actually deal a lot more substance (pish or not) rather than saying there is none to be regarded.
Now this does not move anyone any closer to a particular religion - it just means that they all have an equal shot at it (even though they disagree). In the end the process has not really changed much, people will still make their decision based on the evidence before them - but please lets at least look at the matter properly.
****
As an aside it is interesting that anecdotal reporting is sporadic reporting of what is very often reality. Todays anecdotal evidence is often tomorrows empirical evidence once a phd assistant has spent some time doing stats on it. On the other hand, it is also often bullshit...
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Torellion | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
| |
| | Regular | |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 08-04-2008 12:40 | |
|
To paraphrase a clever guy:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim to have a horse in your back yard, I will take your word for it. But if you claim to have a unicorn in your back yard, I will most definetly go check. I think gods belong to the latter category.
Sure, anecdotal evidence has given insight that later has been proven empirically. But in all of recorded history there have been claims of the supernatural. In those thousands of years we have no proof of anything supernatural. Not one. Not a shred. Not an inkling. None. Ever. Ever.
Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Grizlas | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
| |
| | General | |
| | Group: Administrator,
Klikan,
Regulars,
Outsiders
| | Location: Denmark | | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 08-04-2008 13:11 |
|
I think those are good points Celdar. We are always discussing from a scientific standpoint, because that is what the majority on this site rely on to provide them with knowledge. Myself for instance, I rely on science to tell me what is true and what is false; either through self-experiment or through books etc. It is a choice I have made, and I think it is a rational one. The question for me is, to what degree I rely on - or should rely on - rationality in my life.
Anectotal evidence is non-science and conclusions based thereupon are equally non-scientific and in my mind irrational. But so what? You're free to believe whatever you want in dk/fo and nobody forces you to base your knowledge on scientific facts.
|
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing? |
|
|
|
|
| Torellion | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
| |
| | Regular | |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 08-04-2008 13:49 | |
|
But so what? You're free to believe whatever you want in dk/fo and nobody forces you to base your knowledge on scientific facts.
Do we really need to even mention that?
Of course we are free to believe in anything we want, that is self-evident.
I am not arguing because I want to force anyone to do anything. I am arguing to test my own beliefs and to challenge yours. I respect people, not beliefs. So if I am arguing with you take that as a sign that I respect you and your capacity to change if presented with the correct facts. I expect the same from you.
And if you don't want to argue, don't post. That is just setting yourself up to be challenged. 
Or am I WAY off the mark?
|
|
Edited by Torellion on 08-04-2008 13:50 |
|
|
| Celdar | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
| |
| | Initiate | |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Joined: 02.08.06 | | Posted on 08-04-2008 14:22 | |
|
Grizlas
Hm... you seem to agree but seem to miss my point.
My point is that we all (everyone) (alles) use this soft evidence everyday and we base most our decisions on them - even the very significant ones.
I very much disagree that anything non-scientific is irrational - that's just nonsense to me - or maybe we have unclear definitions of scientific evidence.
To believe that that tomorrow is Wednesday or that Caesar lived is not irrational. It is not scientifically proven, simply because it is not testable, but it is pretty likely based on the evidence at hand.
Of course these things not irrational... I think the word is used far to loosely.
Also, I believe it is inconsistent to base ones argument on what is defined as rational based on , and then continue to pay credence to everything that is scientifically non-testable in life (which I assume you do, pardon me if I am wrong)
Is there not logical evidence to state that the definition of "it must be scientific to be rational" is just the wrong starting point?
Rational must be consistent... This surely must be a base requirement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Norlander | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
| |
| | Field Marshal | |
| | Group: Administrator,
Klikan,
Regulars,
Outsiders
| | Location: Copenhagen | | Joined: 09.06.06 | | Posted on 08-04-2008 15:48 |
|
I am having to agree with Celdar on this point. Anecdotal evidence is used in many sciences on a daily basis. History as a science is the best case for this usage. We don't know if Caesar lived, but we have a lot of anecdotal evidence to back up the claim that 2050 years ago there lived a Roman Dictator by the name of Gaius Julius Caesar. It is not irrational, but not empirically tested either.
Now with that said, I find myself also in agreement with Torellion. If you have a Unicorn in your back garden I want more then anecdotal evidence to believe your claim.
My stance is then that maybe there is a God behind all of this, I will never know since none of you are able to show me the Unicorn. This means that I doubt your claim, but I'm not 100% certain that I am correct (thus I'm an Agnostic not Atheis), and I don't mind if you believe you have "invisible proof" for the Unicorn.
The problem for me arises when people start basing their (and my) daily lives on the belief in this Unicorn. It carries as much weight on my decision making as Gaius Julius Caesar life does, and I openly resent people who try to force us to do something because that's how they believe this particular Unicorn wants us to behave.
|
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith |
|
|
|
|
| Grizlas | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
| |
| | General | |
| | Group: Administrator,
Klikan,
Regulars,
Outsiders
| | Location: Denmark | | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 08-04-2008 16:09 |
|
My point is that we all (everyone) (alles) use this soft evidence everyday and we base most our decisions on them - even the very significant ones.
I agree completely with this, and I think it is important that we do not forget it.
anything non-scientific is irrational
I didn't mean it like that, and I think my misunderstanding is related to your definition of anecdotal evidence. Of course, many scientific fields rely heavily on such evidence if you include historical documents. But they also do not make strong conclusion upon *only* such evidence (nor do they ignore anecdotal evidence to the contrary), and that is what I meant when I said that conclusions thereupon were irrational.
Maybe I have a warped idea of what rationality means, I dunno. Here's how I understand it; Rationality to me means being logically based and logic is a form of reasoning that relies on rules on inference. If a conclusion can be said to break said rules, then it is illogical and irrational. let me know if you disagree.
And again, being rational is not the same as being scientific. Science is, for all intents and purposes, a method that is merely based on reason. You can be rational in your decision to kill someone because they did something horrible, and it would have nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method. Equally, you could decide to murder someone in order to gain their hair color and it would be an unscientific and irrational act.
The rest of your post is greek to me. You think i'm irrational because i'm inconsistent and my inconsistency stems from acknowledging that there are things that cannot presently be scientifically tested?
The only inconsistency (and therefore irrationality) is that i'm trying to make a logical argument against logic itself, and I have a feeling that such arguements are irrational per definition.
|
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing? |
|
|
|
|
