[Split Thread] Science vs. faith - Page 2

skyrider44 · 3rd January 2013, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

You seem to be conflating the personal beliefs of scientists with their scientific research. A christian scientist working in the field of biomedical chemical engineering is going to practice his science the same way as a Muslim scientist or an atheist scientist.

In your second sentence, you make an unsupportable sweeping generalization. The extent to which scientists are influenced by their religious convictions in the practice of science is not monolithic, as the books I listed demonstrate.

Foster Zygote · 3rd January 2013, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

In your second sentence, you make an unsupportable sweeping generalization. The extent to which scientists are influenced by their religious convictions in the practice of science is not monolithic, as the books I listed demonstrate.

A scientists religious beliefs may influence their interpretation of the meaning of their work, a Muslim astronomer may look at the Bolshoi Simulation and be amazed at his god's creation, but when it comes to the implementation of actual methodology of science, he's going to do it exactly the same way as a Buddhist or atheist astronomer. If an hypothesis requires faith, belief without evidence, then it isn't scientific. Hypotheses are tested because of a lack of faith in them.

Jack by the hedge · 3rd January 2013, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

In your second sentence, you make an unsupportable sweeping generalization. The extent to which scientists are influenced by their religious convictions in the practice of science is not monolithic, as the books I listed demonstrate.

Scientists are not robots, and their ideas and inspirations may come from whatever culture they're immersed in. They might find inspiration in their religion, from something they heard at their grandmother's knee, from the last movie they watched, from something they saw on the way to work...

If you mean something qualitatively different from that, can you explain please?

Foster Zygote · 3rd January 2013, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

The two items are not congruent. Gravity does, indeed, work "again and again"; modern medicine does not. A diagnosis of pancreatic or ovarian cancer is a veritable death sentence. Moreover, treatment for mental illness remains in the dark ages (ask my close friend who lived with a bi-polar wife for 17 horrific years).

Given the state of molecular medicine, it is very likely that pancreatic and ovarian cancer will be treatable, if not curable, later in this century. The same goes for bi-polar disorder. There are many diseases and medical conditions that were commonly fatal in the past, that are now easily cured or managed today. Science is not static. It is an ongoing process that continues to advance. The fact that it does not offer "all the answers" does not invalidate its effectiveness.

skyrider44 · 3rd January 2013, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

How, precisely, did his religious faith impact on his scientific work? Would his results have been different had he been a Hindu, a Sikh or an atheist?

With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant. The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable; and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise.

bruto · 3rd January 2013, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant. The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable; and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise.

1: If you, who made the allegation, cannot quantify the extent of influence, the you cannot say questioning the extent of influence is irrelevant.

2: It is unclear, at this point, what your premise actually is, but if you for the moment consider the possibility that all your respondents are not idiots, then another possibility for what you consider a misunderstanding might be that your intentions are not clear. It would probably do everyone including yourself some good if you would try again to express whatever it is you intend.

kerikiwi · 3rd January 2013, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Some people find refuge in semantic manipulation.

Indeed. Like conflating the meanings of 'faith'

RandFan · 3rd January 2013, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith...

So, when a pedophile priest rapes a child are they also influenced by their religious faith?

You are engaging in the fallacy of correlation implies causation (post hoc ergo proctor hoc).

That a priest is a pedophile does not mean that religion influenced their behavior.
That a friar made an important scientific discovery does not mean that religion influenced his behavior.

The Norseman · 3rd January 2013, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

His genetic discoveries remain relevant because he brought to bear both scientific and religious faith.

Evidence of this?

Originally Posted by skyrider44

In your second sentence, you make an unsupportable sweeping generalization. The extent to which scientists are influenced by their religious convictions in the practice of science is not monolithic, as the books I listed demonstrate.

Read again what he wrote. Your second sentence is a strawman.

Originally Posted by skyrider44

With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant. The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable; and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise.

Unsupportable assertion on your part. Also, in order for this sentence to make sense to others, you should first define what you mean by 'Mendel's work', 'influenced' and 'religious faith.'

tsig · 3rd January 2013, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

The two items are not congruent. Gravity does, indeed, work "again and again"; modern medicine does not. A diagnosis of pancreatic or ovarian cancer is a veritable death sentence. Moreover, treatment for mental illness remains in the dark ages (ask my close friend who lived with a bi-polar wife for 17 horrific years).

Really? Why then do scientists posit hypotheses if they have no faith their theories will be validated?

Non-believers tend to suppose that humankind--encased in a mortal shell with only five senses--is omniscient, and that science and technology make them all-knowing. Nope.

Aren't prophets human?

Really?

Foster Zygote · 3rd January 2013, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant.

Irrelevant? It is directly related to your assertion. You claim that Mendel's religious beliefs influenced his science. If I ask you how they influenced his science, you can't claim that the question is irrelevant.

Quote:

The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable;...

You just can't say how, or to what degree.

Quote:

and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise.

So you can't measure it, but you're sure it supports your position.

Please tell us what aspects of Mendel's employment of the scientific method were determined by his religious faith. Why would an atheist's research have had different for the lack of these religious influences?

catsmate1 · 3rd January 2013, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Given the state of molecular medicine, it is very likely that pancreatic and ovarian cancer will be treatable, if not curable, later in this century. The same goes for bi-polar disorder. There are many diseases and medical conditions that were commonly fatal in the past, that are now easily cured or managed today. Science is not static. It is an ongoing process that continues to advance. The fact that it does not offer "all the answers" does not invalidate its effectiveness.

At least science based medicine is trying to find the answers unlike faith healing and religion which often obstruct such attempts.

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

How, precisely, did his religious faith impact on his scientific work? Would his results have been different had he been a Hindu, a Sikh or an atheist?

Originally Posted by skyrider44

With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant. The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable; and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise.

You have made the assertion, it is up to you to support it with evidence or accept that it is unsupportable and worthless.

poblob14 · 3rd January 2013, 01:19 PM

When I was studying genetics at Loyola University, our professor was a very old Jesuit priest. (He went emeritus the next year, in fact.)

When the topic of Br. Mendel came up, the good Father stared off into the middle distance, got a wistful look on his face, and said, "Don't ever join a religious order just to get an education. It's not worth it."

Moral: Not all scientists, even those with the outward trappings of religion, allow that religion to inform their work.

skyrider44 · 3rd January 2013, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Scientists are not robots, and their ideas and inspirations may come from whatever culture they're immersed in. They might find inspiration in their religion, from something they heard at their grandmother's knee, from the last movie they watched, from something they saw on the way to work...

If you mean something qualitatively different from that, can you explain please?

I agree; they might, indeed, "find inspiration from their religion"--and some do.

skyrider44 · 3rd January 2013, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by poblob14

When I was studying genetics at Loyola University, our professor was a very old Jesuit priest. (He went emeritus the next year, in fact.)

When the topic of Br. Mendel came up, the good Father stared off into the middle distance, got a wistful look on his face, and said, "Don't ever join a religious order just to get an education. It's not worth it."

Moral: Not all scientists, even those with the outward trappings of religion, allow that religion to inform their work.

Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.)

MikeG · 3rd January 2013, 01:56 PM

At the time Gregor Mendel was working, just about the only way to do science in Germany (as it was then, now in the Czech Republic) was to join the church. His primary interest, BTW, was bees, not plants, and the beehouse he constructed is in a remarkably good state of preservation. The base of the greenhouse where he did his world famous experiments is also still visible.

His career in science was virtually terminated by promotion to high office in the monastery, with dispute resolution, apparently, leaving him little time for his experiments and observations.

Mike

RandFan · 3rd January 2013, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.)

Correlation doesn't imply causation. That priests rape children isn't demonstrative that they rape children because of religion. That a Fransican friar discovered genetics isn't demonstrative that his discovery was because of religion.

Your logic is invalid.

RandFan · 3rd January 2013, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.)

Please feel free to PM me the links and I will post them. In any event, that's a non-sequitur. You've not demonstrated that spirituality was a causal influence any more than spirituality is a causal influence of priests raping children.

abaddon · 3rd January 2013, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.)

Bull. You passed that milestone hours ago, and in any event, others here will fix any links you care to provide, so no, you do not get off the hook of providing evidence.

bruto · 3rd January 2013, 02:47 PM

As I recall Mendel's story, he belonged to an order in which science was held in high esteem. So sure, it's quite possible and even likely that some of his science-loving brethren were helpful in setting him on his path, or that a knowledge of this trait helped him to choose an order where he could pursue his ideas, or both. It's grand and admirable that there are or have been people who believe that finding out the truth about the physical world can lead them to the kind of wisdom they value, and I wish more religious people shared that sentiment. But along with that goes the proviso that in the end it's the quality of the science that counts, and the motivation has no part in the content. It's either science or it isn't, right or wrong for scientific reasons alone, and this is true whatever the motivation, and whatever the hopes.

Foster Zygote · 3rd January 2013, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.)

No, you can't directly link to outside sources. This is simply to discourage spammers from flooding the forum with links to ads for boner pills and the like. You can post the URL to any relevant sources and we will be happy to convert them into operating links.

Foster Zygote · 4th January 2013, 07:16 AM

I'm still curious to know how Mendel's religious beliefs informed his practice of the scientific method, and how this might have been different had he been an atheist.

catsmate1 · 4th January 2013, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.)

We're still waiting for your evidence.

dafydd · 4th January 2013, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

I agree; they might, indeed, "find inspiration from their religion"--and some do.

And the rest draw inspiration from their non-religion.

Foster Zygote · 5th January 2013, 12:14 PM

It this point, I have to conclude that skyrider44 is unable to support his claims regarding the role of faith in formulating scientific hypotheses.

RandFan · 5th January 2013, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

It this point, I have to conclude that skyrider44 is unable to support his claims regarding the role of faith in formulating scientific hypotheses.

Agreed.

epix · 5th January 2013, 10:58 PM

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural.

Faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

The title of this thread suffers from compatibility issues, which makes the suggested comparison difficult.

epix · 6th January 2013, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

It this point, I have to conclude that skyrider44 is unable to support his claims regarding the role of faith in formulating scientific hypotheses.

The title of the thread creates a false implication that someone like skyrider44would follow. There is no Faith vs. Science, as much there is no Chicago Bears vs. Manchester United. But there is a particular interaction between science and religious faith as documented bellow.

Quote:

The question of origin is also of central interest to the Vatican — and has been since the beginning of the Church. For the medievals in particular, the celestial heavens were a metaphor for the theological heaven. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the study of the stars was regarded almost as a branch of theology — "this divine rather than human science," Copernicus called it. Johannes Kepler, the founder of modern astrophysics, famously declared: "For a long time I wanted to become a theologian. Now, behold how through my efforts God is being celebrated in astronomy." Half a century later, Isaac Newton himself attributed the force of gravity to God.

Coyne, too, sees the material world as a manifestation of divine will. "The human person participates in the mystery of God, and so does the universe," he says. But he has no time for creationists and other biblical literalists and is exasperated by those who want to put limits on scientific inquiry. "I have friends who pray that science will never discover or explain certain things. I don't understand that," he declares. "Nothing we learn about the universe threatens our faith. It only enriches it.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...ope_astro.html

In this particlar case, science interacted with religious faith to the effect of creating heretics like Father George Coyone. LOL.

zooterkin · 6th January 2013, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

His genetic discoveries remain relevant because he brought to bear both scientific and religious faith.

What's so special about him believing in something that both you (as a Mormon) and I (as an atheist) agree is not true? How is that a significant feature in making his discoveries relevant?

epix · 6th January 2013, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Why then do scientists posit hypotheses if they have no faith their theories will be validated?

Your understanding of the meaning of "faith" must differ from the one which is understood by others and which is supported by the word's definition, otherwise you wouldn't come up with such a strange statement. In general, faith describes a degree of confidence, and it happens to be at the highest level in this case. In other words, faith means complete confidence. If you have complete confidence in your theory, then you skip proposing a hypothesis.

Hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Religious faith and the confidence level acquired by scientific methods are achieved quite differently, unless the scientist becomes suspicious about God's intervention, like I know that I'm not that smart to come up with such a great idea. That option doesn't concern the scientist/atheist. He just goes to the kitchen to inform his wife that he is getting smarter and smarter and smarter still... Honey, we go to Oslo soon!

tsig · 6th January 2013, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by epix

The title of the thread creates a false implication that someone like skyrider44would follow. There is no Faith vs. Science, as much there is no Chicago Bears vs. Manchester United. But there is a particular interaction between science and religious faith as documented bellow.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...ope_astro.html

In this particlar case, science interacted with religious faith to the effect of creating heretics like Father George Coyone. LOL.

Eh? I guess that bet's lost then.

epix · 7th January 2013, 07:21 AM

Let's save this thread from the trolls...

OP title: Faith vs. Science

The title matches two methods of investigation: faith and science.

Well, faith is not a method of investigation, but some atheists, like the author of the OP, believe the primitive myth that it is.

Foster Zygote · 7th January 2013, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by epix

Let's save this thread from the trolls...

OP title: Faith vs. Science

The title matches two methods of investigation: faith and science.

Well, faith is not a method of investigation, but some atheists, like the author of the OP, believe the primitive myth that it is.

The OP is a post that was split from the LDS thread. Its author is not an atheist.

dafydd · 7th January 2013, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by epix

Let's save this thread from the trolls...

OP title: Faith vs. Science

The title matches two methods of investigation: faith and science.

Well, faith is not a method of investigation, but some atheists, like the author of the OP, believe the primitive myth that it is.

You haven't been paying attention.

RandFan · 7th January 2013, 08:14 AM

The ancients had prayer. It didn't help them much more than sucking their thumbs. Only through the application of reason and logic did we advance.

dafydd · 7th January 2013, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Only through the application of reason and logic did we advance.

If only the religious would try that now and again!

RandFan · 7th January 2013, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

If only the religious would try that now and again!

Agreed. And let's note that the Islamic world was the seat of science until they decided to ditch science and go only with faith and prayer. What good did that do them? I can tell you what harm it did to us. And let's not forget the children who die because their parents rely on faith instead of modern medicine.

dafydd · 7th January 2013, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by epix

Why do you insult the great people of our time, like John F. Kennedy?

Many of the great people of our time were atheists.

epix · 7th January 2013, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Many of the great people of our time were atheists.

I didn't say that they were not.

Due to your innate inability to follow, off on my Ignore List you go.

abaddon · 7th January 2013, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Many of the great people of our time were atheists.

Originally Posted by epix

I didn't say that they were not.

Due to your innate inability to follow, off on my Ignore List you go.

Really? You will simply put your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalalalala"?

For real?

3rd January 2013, 08:40 AM	#41
skyrider44 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 245	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote You seem to be conflating the personal beliefs of scientists with their scientific research. A christian scientist working in the field of biomedical chemical engineering is going to practice his science the same way as a Muslim scientist or an atheist scientist. In your second sentence, you make an unsupportable sweeping generalization. The extent to which scientists are influenced by their religious convictions in the practice of science is not monolithic, as the books I listed demonstrate.
skyrider44 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 245

3rd January 2013, 08:49 AM	#42
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,389	Originally Posted by skyrider44 In your second sentence, you make an unsupportable sweeping generalization. The extent to which scientists are influenced by their religious convictions in the practice of science is not monolithic, as the books I listed demonstrate. A scientists religious beliefs may influence their interpretation of the meaning of their work, a Muslim astronomer may look at the Bolshoi Simulation and be amazed at his god's creation, but when it comes to the implementation of actual methodology of science, he's going to do it exactly the same way as a Buddhist or atheist astronomer. If an hypothesis requires faith, belief without evidence, then it isn't scientific. Hypotheses are tested because of a lack of faith in them.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

3rd January 2013, 09:00 AM	#44
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,389	Originally Posted by skyrider44 The two items are not congruent. Gravity does, indeed, work "again and again"; modern medicine does not. A diagnosis of pancreatic or ovarian cancer is a veritable death sentence. Moreover, treatment for mental illness remains in the dark ages (ask my close friend who lived with a bi-polar wife for 17 horrific years). Given the state of molecular medicine, it is very likely that pancreatic and ovarian cancer will be treatable, if not curable, later in this century. The same goes for bi-polar disorder. There are many diseases and medical conditions that were commonly fatal in the past, that are now easily cured or managed today. Science is not static. It is an ongoing process that continues to advance. The fact that it does not offer "all the answers" does not invalidate its effectiveness.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

3rd January 2013, 09:13 AM	#45
skyrider44 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 245	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote How, precisely, did his religious faith impact on his scientific work? Would his results have been different had he been a Hindu, a Sikh or an atheist? With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant. The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable; and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise.
skyrider44 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 245

3rd January 2013, 11:30 AM	#46
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,181	Originally Posted by skyrider44 With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant. The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable; and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise. 1: If you, who made the allegation, cannot quantify the extent of influence, the you cannot say questioning the extent of influence is irrelevant. 2: It is unclear, at this point, what your premise actually is, but if you for the moment consider the possibility that all your respondents are not idiots, then another possibility for what you consider a misunderstanding might be that your intentions are not clear. It would probably do everyone including yourself some good if you would try again to express whatever it is you intend.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

3rd January 2013, 08:51 AM	#43
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,415	Originally Posted by skyrider44 In your second sentence, you make an unsupportable sweeping generalization. The extent to which scientists are influenced by their religious convictions in the practice of science is not monolithic, as the books I listed demonstrate. Scientists are not robots, and their ideas and inspirations may come from whatever culture they're immersed in. They might find inspiration in their religion, from something they heard at their grandmother's knee, from the last movie they watched, from something they saw on the way to work... If you mean something qualitatively different from that, can you explain please?

3rd January 2013, 11:35 AM	#47
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,844	Originally Posted by skyrider44 Some people find refuge in semantic manipulation. Indeed. Like conflating the meanings of 'faith'

3rd January 2013, 11:59 AM	#48
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,150	Originally Posted by skyrider44 The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith... So, when a pedophile priest rapes a child are they also influenced by their religious faith? You are engaging in the fallacy of correlation implies causation (post hoc ergo proctor hoc). That a priest is a pedophile does not mean that religion influenced their behavior. That a friar made an important scientific discovery does not mean that religion influenced his behavior.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd January 2013, 12:02 PM	#49
The Norseman I Void Warranties Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Treasure Valley Posts: 3,236	Originally Posted by skyrider44 His genetic discoveries remain relevant because he brought to bear both scientific and religious faith. Evidence of this? Originally Posted by skyrider44 In your second sentence, you make an unsupportable sweeping generalization. The extent to which scientists are influenced by their religious convictions in the practice of science is not monolithic, as the books I listed demonstrate. Read again what he wrote. Your second sentence is a strawman. Originally Posted by skyrider44 With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant. The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable; and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise. Unsupportable assertion on your part. Also, in order for this sentence to make sense to others, you should first define what you mean by 'Mendel's work', 'influenced' and 'religious faith.'
	__________________ "I have always thought that a wild animal never looks so well as when some obstacle of pronounced durability is between us." "Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics." -tsig

3rd January 2013, 12:35 PM	#50
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,708	Originally Posted by skyrider44 The two items are not congruent. Gravity does, indeed, work "again and again"; modern medicine does not. A diagnosis of pancreatic or ovarian cancer is a veritable death sentence. Moreover, treatment for mental illness remains in the dark ages (ask my close friend who lived with a bi-polar wife for 17 horrific years). Really? Why then do scientists posit hypotheses if they have no faith their theories will be validated? Non-believers tend to suppose that humankind--encased in a mortal shell with only five senses--is omniscient, and that science and technology make them all-knowing. Nope. Aren't prophets human? Really?
	Last edited by tsig; 3rd January 2013 at 12:38 PM.

3rd January 2013, 12:47 PM	#51
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,389	Originally Posted by skyrider44 With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant. Irrelevant? It is directly related to your assertion. You claim that Mendel's religious beliefs influenced his science. If I ask you how they influenced his science, you can't claim that the question is irrelevant. Quote: The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable;... You just can't say how, or to what degree. Quote: and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise. So you can't measure it, but you're sure it supports your position. Please tell us what aspects of Mendel's employment of the scientific method were determined by his religious faith. Why would an atheist's research have had different for the lack of these religious influences?
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

3rd January 2013, 01:14 PM	#52
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,109	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote Given the state of molecular medicine, it is very likely that pancreatic and ovarian cancer will be treatable, if not curable, later in this century. The same goes for bi-polar disorder. There are many diseases and medical conditions that were commonly fatal in the past, that are now easily cured or managed today. Science is not static. It is an ongoing process that continues to advance. The fact that it does not offer "all the answers" does not invalidate its effectiveness. At least science based medicine is trying to find the answers unlike faith healing and religion which often obstruct such attempts. Originally Posted by Foster Zygote How, precisely, did his religious faith impact on his scientific work? Would his results have been different had he been a Hindu, a Sikh or an atheist? Originally Posted by skyrider44 With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant. The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable; and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise. You have made the assertion, it is up to you to support it with evidence or accept that it is unsupportable and worthless.
	__________________ Yes I gave in and configured an avatar.

3rd January 2013, 01:19 PM	#53
poblob14 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 223	When I was studying genetics at Loyola University, our professor was a very old Jesuit priest. (He went emeritus the next year, in fact.) When the topic of Br. Mendel came up, the good Father stared off into the middle distance, got a wistful look on his face, and said, "Don't ever join a religious order just to get an education. It's not worth it." Moral: Not all scientists, even those with the outward trappings of religion, allow that religion to inform their work.
poblob14 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 223

3rd January 2013, 01:41 PM	#54
skyrider44 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 245	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge Scientists are not robots, and their ideas and inspirations may come from whatever culture they're immersed in. They might find inspiration in their religion, from something they heard at their grandmother's knee, from the last movie they watched, from something they saw on the way to work... If you mean something qualitatively different from that, can you explain please? I agree; they might, indeed, "find inspiration from their religion"--and some do.
skyrider44 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 245

3rd January 2013, 01:51 PM	#55
skyrider44 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 245	Originally Posted by poblob14 When I was studying genetics at Loyola University, our professor was a very old Jesuit priest. (He went emeritus the next year, in fact.) When the topic of Br. Mendel came up, the good Father stared off into the middle distance, got a wistful look on his face, and said, "Don't ever join a religious order just to get an education. It's not worth it." Moral: Not all scientists, even those with the outward trappings of religion, allow that religion to inform their work. Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.)
skyrider44 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 245

3rd January 2013, 01:56 PM	#56
MikeG Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 1,535	At the time Gregor Mendel was working, just about the *only* way to do science in Germany (as it was then, now in the Czech Republic) was to join the church. His primary interest, BTW, was bees, not plants, and the beehouse he constructed is in a remarkably good state of preservation. The base of the greenhouse where he did his world famous experiments is also still visible. His career in science was virtually terminated by promotion to high office in the monastery, with dispute resolution, apparently, leaving him little time for his experiments and observations. Mike
	Last edited by MikeG; 3rd January 2013 at 01:58 PM.

3rd January 2013, 01:59 PM	#57
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,150	Originally Posted by skyrider44 Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.) Correlation doesn't imply causation. That priests rape children isn't demonstrative that they rape children because of religion. That a Fransican friar discovered genetics isn't demonstrative that his discovery was because of religion. Your logic is invalid.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd January 2013, 02:01 PM	#58
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,150	Originally Posted by skyrider44 Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.) Please feel free to PM me the links and I will post them. In any event, that's a non-sequitur. You've not demonstrated that spirituality was a causal influence any more than spirituality is a causal influence of priests raping children.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd January 2013, 02:06 PM	#59
abaddon Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,555	Originally Posted by skyrider44 Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.) Bull. You passed that milestone hours ago, and in any event, others here will fix any links you care to provide, so no, you do not get off the hook of providing evidence.
abaddon Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,555	__________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

3rd January 2013, 02:47 PM	#60
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,181	As I recall Mendel's story, he belonged to an order in which science was held in high esteem. So sure, it's quite possible and even likely that some of his science-loving brethren were helpful in setting him on his path, or that a knowledge of this trait helped him to choose an order where he could pursue his ideas, or both. It's grand and admirable that there are or have been people who believe that finding out the truth about the physical world can lead them to the kind of wisdom they value, and I wish more religious people shared that sentiment. But along with that goes the proviso that in the end it's the quality of the science that counts, and the motivation has no part in the content. It's either science or it isn't, right or wrong for scientific reasons alone, and this is true whatever the motivation, and whatever the hopes.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

3rd January 2013, 07:27 PM	#61
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,389	Originally Posted by skyrider44 Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.) No, you can't directly link to outside sources. This is simply to discourage spammers from flooding the forum with links to ads for boner pills and the like. You can post the URL to any relevant sources and we will be happy to convert them into operating links.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

4th January 2013, 07:16 AM	#62
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,389	I'm still curious to know how Mendel's religious beliefs informed his practice of the scientific method, and how this might have been different had he been an atheist.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

4th January 2013, 10:50 AM	#63
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,109	Originally Posted by skyrider44 Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.) We're still waiting for your evidence.
	__________________ Yes I gave in and configured an avatar.

4th January 2013, 11:48 AM	#64
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,448	Originally Posted by skyrider44 I agree; they might, indeed, "find inspiration from their religion"--and some do. And the rest draw inspiration from their non-religion.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

5th January 2013, 12:14 PM	#65
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,389	It this point, I have to conclude that skyrider44 is unable to support his claims regarding the role of faith in formulating scientific hypotheses.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

5th January 2013, 01:18 PM	#66
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,150	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote It this point, I have to conclude that skyrider44 is unable to support his claims regarding the role of faith in formulating scientific hypotheses. Agreed.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th January 2013, 10:58 PM	#67
epix Suspended Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Borgia Apartment, Vatican City Posts: 2,957	Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural. Faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. The title of this thread suffers from compatibility issues, which makes the suggested comparison difficult.

6th January 2013, 12:50 AM	#68
epix Suspended Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Borgia Apartment, Vatican City Posts: 2,957	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote It this point, I have to conclude that skyrider44 is unable to support his claims regarding the role of faith in formulating scientific hypotheses. The title of the thread creates a false implication that someone like skyrider44would follow. There is no Faith vs. Science, as much there is no Chicago Bears vs. Manchester United. But there is a particular interaction between science and religious faith as documented bellow. Quote: The question of origin is also of central interest to the Vatican — and has been since the beginning of the Church. For the medievals in particular, the celestial heavens were a metaphor for the theological heaven. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the study of the stars was regarded almost as a branch of theology — "this divine rather than human science," Copernicus called it. Johannes Kepler, the founder of modern astrophysics, famously declared: "For a long time I wanted to become a theologian. Now, behold how through my efforts God is being celebrated in astronomy." Half a century later, Isaac Newton himself attributed the force of gravity to God. Coyne, too, sees the material world as a manifestation of divine will. "The human person participates in the mystery of God, and so does the universe," he says. But he has no time for creationists and other biblical literalists and is exasperated by those who want to put limits on scientific inquiry. "I have friends who pray that science will never discover or explain certain things. I don't understand that," he declares. "Nothing we learn about the universe threatens our faith. It only enriches it. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...ope_astro.html In this particlar case, science interacted with religious faith to the effect of creating heretics like Father George Coyone. LOL.
	Last edited by epix; 6th January 2013 at 12:52 AM.

6th January 2013, 01:17 AM	#69
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,567	Originally Posted by skyrider44 His genetic discoveries remain relevant because he brought to bear both scientific and religious faith. What's so special about him believing in something that both you (as a Mormon) and I (as an atheist) agree is not true? How is that a significant feature in making his discoveries relevant?
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

6th January 2013, 04:03 AM	#70
epix Suspended Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Borgia Apartment, Vatican City Posts: 2,957	Originally Posted by skyrider44 Why then do scientists posit hypotheses if they have no faith their theories will be validated? Your understanding of the meaning of "faith" must differ from the one which is understood by others and which is supported by the word's definition, otherwise you wouldn't come up with such a strange statement. In general, faith describes a degree of confidence, and it happens to be at the highest level in this case. In other words, faith means complete confidence. If you have complete confidence in your theory, then you skip proposing a hypothesis. Hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Religious faith and the confidence level acquired by scientific methods are achieved quite differently, unless the scientist becomes suspicious about God's intervention, like I know that I'm not that smart to come up with such a great idea. That option doesn't concern the scientist/atheist. He just goes to the kitchen to inform his wife that he is getting smarter and smarter and smarter still... Honey, we go to Oslo soon!

6th January 2013, 12:49 PM	#71
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,708	Originally Posted by epix The title of the thread creates a false implication that someone like skyrider44would follow. There is no Faith vs. Science, as much there is no Chicago Bears vs. Manchester United. But there is a particular interaction between science and religious faith as documented bellow. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...ope_astro.html In this particlar case, science interacted with religious faith to the effect of creating heretics like Father George Coyone. LOL. Eh? I guess that bet's lost then.

7th January 2013, 07:21 AM	#72
epix Suspended Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Borgia Apartment, Vatican City Posts: 2,957	Let's save this thread from the trolls... OP title: Faith vs. Science The title matches two methods of investigation: faith and science. Well, faith is not a method of investigation, but some atheists, like the author of the OP, believe the primitive myth that it is.
	Last edited by epix; 7th January 2013 at 07:24 AM.

7th January 2013, 07:32 AM	#73
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,389	Originally Posted by epix Let's save this thread from the trolls... OP title: Faith vs. Science The title matches two methods of investigation: faith and science. Well, faith is not a method of investigation, but some atheists, like the author of the OP, believe the primitive myth that it is. The OP is a post that was split from the LDS thread. Its author is not an atheist.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

7th January 2013, 08:03 AM	#74
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,448	Originally Posted by epix Let's save this thread from the trolls... OP title: Faith vs. Science The title matches two methods of investigation: faith and science. Well, faith is not a method of investigation, but some atheists, like the author of the OP, believe the primitive myth that it is. You haven't been paying attention.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

7th January 2013, 08:14 AM	#75
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,150	The ancients had prayer. It didn't help them much more than sucking their thumbs. Only through the application of reason and logic did we advance.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith