Would you believe that “Scientists who believe in God are challenging the expert atheist establishment”? It’s a peculiar headline. Who are the “expert atheist establishment”? What are they “expert” in, because I know it’s not God — no one, not atheists and not theists — have any expertise in God, since there is nothing in that hypothetical entity that can be tested or measured. So what are they challenging?
I was temporarily discombobulated by that weird claim, but I guess I better go on and read the article.
For much of modern history, religion and science have been cast as natural enemies. But today there is a growing (albeit minority) view among scientists that God may well be behind their new discoveries.
Pardon me, but that is a serious mangling of history. Most of the time I hear apologists declaring that all of the scientists before Darwin were religious, so clearly most scientists did not see a conflict between science and religion. The conflict, if any, is that there is a gigantic explanatory gap, where we lack any evidence for a deity, so we don’t invoke a god in our explanations. Sure, you can go to church, synagogue, or mosque if your heart so desires, but we still expect a material explanation for the phenomena we observe.
I’d like to know who these “scientists” are who claim God is behind their discoveries, and what their evidence is for such intervention.
As they continue to untangle the complexities of the universe and molecular biology, they see a system that only a higher power could construct. Simple mechanical explanations simply fail to meet the explanatory test.
OK, but what about complicated mechanical explanations? I look at the scientific literature and see many sophisticated, detailed explanations; I don’t see papers that say, “I give up, serine-threonine protein kinases can’t possibly explain cell growth, therefore God.” Nobody looked at the irregularities in Uranus’s orbit and suggested that God must be wiggling it, they looked deeper and found Neptune, not God.
I am not impressed by arguments that rely on the inadequacy of a current observation to immediately postulate a fantastical super-powered invisible being. The scientists I know who are theists don’t accept that kind of argument, either.
So who is the author of this silly article talking to?
“The new discoveries in science push us in this direction,” notes Dr Stephen C. Meyer, who recently wowed the broadcaster Piers Morgan (and millions of his viewers) on his eponymous Youtube show.
Oh god. That’s all I can say. Meyer is a phony who doesn’t understand science. You’re going to have to do better.
So, after a stock recitation of historical figures who held religious beliefs, he gives us a list of the “scientists” who are challenging the non-existent atheist establishment.
Even the world’s most important innovator, Elon Musk, has recently become more public in his positivity towards Christianity, which he has described as “a religion of curiosity” and “greater enlightenment”.
Others like Pat Gelsinger, the former head of Intel, Gary Tan, the chief executive of Y Incubator, and Peter Thiel have openly embraced Christianity.
The religious re-discovery among scientists reflects a wider shift among leading intellectuals such as Douglas Murray, historian Tom Holland, and psychologist Jordan Peterson.
None of them are scientists! These aren’t people trying to untangle the complexities of molecular biology at all! When your list of people failing to understand molecular biology and inventing gods to fill their ignorance starts with Elon Musk and ends with Jordan Peterson, and your justifications are all based on the claims of Stephen Meyer, I think I’m warranted in dismissing you as a lying idiot.
Swearing in to testify should always end: . . . so help me dog
the muskrat. . . and ‘Others like Pat Gelsinger, the former head of Intel, Gary Tan, the chief executive of Y Incubator, and Peter Thiel have openly embraced Christianity.’
» I guess they now feel the need to thank jebus for helping them to become abusive, fraudulent billionaires
“Nobody looked at the irregularities in Uranus’s orbit and suggested that God must be wiggling it, they looked deeper and found Neptune, not God.”
NEPTUNE IS A GOD! GOTCHA!
(You can tell I’m kidding, right?)
“God did it” is never a useful answer.
I had to laugh at the author citing Elon Musk as a Christian ally. Elon talks about how other people should embrace Christian values for the good of society, but he won’t accept Jesus himself. I’m pretty sure he thinks that, while “elites” like him are too smart to believe in God, religion is useful for controlling the ignorant masses and so should be publicly encouraged. I wouldn’t claim him as a friend to Christians.
Bah, that article hand-waves and name-drops vaguely all over the place. Yes, many prominent scientists were and are religious, and their religion influenced their work in subtle ways (IIRC some of S. J. Gould’s essays talk about this — mostly generic ideas like the universe is comprehensible because it was created by a rational God). And yes, ancient civilizations did lots of astronomy and math and whatnot that was mixed up in some way with their religion. Everyone who knows a bit about the history knows this. He’s setting up the Conflict Thesis (which historians rejected like several decades ago) as a straw man so he can make out that there’s this big religious revival in the sciences; checkmate atheists.
“Nobody looked at the irregularities in Uranus’s orbit and suggested that God must be wiggling it”.
Oh, I’m sure many did. But none of them went on to discover Neptune! “God did it” is the ultimate thought-ending cliché.
Musk’s “Christianity” is hardly real in any way. He sure as hell doesn’t show up at a church every Sunday, nor ever expressed that he has some chapel in each of his mansions whereever they are.
No, he espouses support for religion solely as a political stunt. Having allied with the Republican Party in order to get his tax cuts, he keeps up the illusion to not piss off the base. He wasn’t spending half a billion in Texas because “Jesus”, but because “Tax Cuts”. Money is the only god he’s ever worshipped.
(well, tax cuts and deregulation)
The media has a lot to answer for in its anti-science pro-religion journalism. This kind of nonsense has become all to common in recent years.
Heh. Precisely the classic New Yorker cartoon by Sidney Harris.
Two scientists are standing at a chalkboard full of complex equations, with the phrase “Then a miracle occurs” scrawled right in the middle of step two. One scientist looks at the board and delivers the iconic punchline caption: “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”
(http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery/math/index.php)
i think scientists are able to do science despite religious beliefs.
also, the timeless question:
“Who’d win in a wrestling match, Lemmy or God?”
Robbo @ 12
Thor and Ukko would probably be decent wrestlers, but don’t give them alcohol before the fight or they might pass out.
No scientist needs to put “ruach” into the synthetic bacterial cells to make them live.
Garry Tan of Y Combinator (a startup incubator, which is maybe why they confused it) is a nasty piece of work whom I would not be eager to claim for my side, whatever that side was.
Jordan Peterson has gone back and forth on exactly how Christian he is, hardly the model for fearless witnessing for the Gospel in the face of adversity.
And if you take Elon Musk’s word on anything nowadays, never mind professions of his alleged faith in anything other than what a Big Brain Boy™ he is, you are a rube; in fact, you are a rube on the scale of the supermassive black hole at the centre of the galaxy in your ability to swallow hot gas.
What always angers me is all the countless times when firefighters risk their lives and save someone from a burning building or a flood and the only thing I hear from those imbeciles that were rescued was: ‘jebus saved me’
@16 Agreed. Rescue workers of any stripe deserve the kudos.
It sure sounds like ya pull God from Uranus.
Nuggan
duh
[OT]
Heh. https://hsi.org.au/sanctuary/nuggan/
(Yes, yes, I know… Pratchett)
@19. chigau (違う) : Nuggan?
@21, yes. refer to #20.
@12 Robbo
The same is true for most things. Religious people often don’t persecute their neighbor, despite clear mandates in presumably holy texts. Usually they don’t veer to avoid to hit whatever angel or demon distracted them either. If find very religious belifs are siscerely held – fortunately.
When people believed thunderstorms came from a bearded guy sitting on top of a mountain and throwing lightning bolts when he’s angry or that rainbows are some life goddess putting her jeweled necklace in the sky it lead nowhere. Worshiping and sacrificing to the bearded mountain-top dweller or the goddess did not result in anything reproducible. Gods are an explanatory dead end. Their features are arbitrary and their existence deliberately kept unfalsifiable.
Gods are fearful and timid people projecting themselves upon the universe to make it more digestible for them-They’re small so the universe must be just as small.
@15 Cat Mara
Peterson doen’t seem to believe any of it, but perversely that stories people tell are more valid than objective reality.
Mark 10, Luke 18, Matthew 19
Sell all you have and give to the poor, The commands of Jesus.
Luke 14:33
“likewise, whosever cannot forsake all he haseth cannot be my disciple.
So all these wealthy SOBs who want to cram Christianity down our throats don’t really belive in Christ or Christianity. I think atheists should demand these wealthy fools who demand we all become Christians follow these commands of Jesus. Walk the walk or shut up.
I think Thiel believes in some mutant form of Roman Catholicism, which makes him a dangerous heretic to a lot of the Christians that currently have influence in the US government.
The modern day oligarchies aren’t any different from the old ones.
“The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the rulers as equally useful.”
Musk and Peterson think xianity is useful as a means to control the common people and politically useful to get tax breaks and power.
I’ve never understood this idea that “science cannot investigate the supernatural.” Why on earth not? Science is a process of examination. It isn’t restricted to the object being examined.
Suppose magic really does exist. You wave your wand, say the magic word of “abracadabra,” and the water turns into wine.
There is so much to be examined here: What is it about the wand? Try it with this different stick. Different shape. Hold it by the other end. Does metal work? What about glass? Maybe you could try it without the wand and just wave your hand. Why that pattern? What level of precision is needed? If you do it big, can you turn a large volume of water into wine and vice versa with a smaller gesture turning a smaller volume? If you do the pattern backwards, does the wine turn back into water? Do you have to say the word out loud? Does thinking it do the same? Does the volume at which you say it affect the outcome? Do you have to be the one to say it or can someone else do it? Does it have to be in time with the gesture? Does accent matter? Say it as “aa-BRUH-cuh-daa-BRUH” instead of “AA-bruh-cuh-DAA-bruh.”
Everything has a physics to it. And that physics can be examined.
That doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy. Again, supposed magic exists but I don’t know how to do it. One of those fine details is the reason why and for whatever reason, I don’t have the ability to do it: My accent is off, my ability to finely wave the wand, whatever. Instead, we need someone who has the fine motor skills and vocal technique.
And they don’t want to do it.
That’s going to put a damper on things, indeed. But that doesn’t mean science is incapable of doing it.
rrhain,
Because science explicitly uses methodological naturalism.
It presumes ‘laws of nature’ are consistent, with reliable cause-and-effect.
A “supernatural” cause by definition operates outside the laws of nature and can act or not act arbitrarily, so it cannot be falsified. It could be capricious, it could rely on intent, whatever.
So, working backward, if it can be scientifically investigated, it perforce is not supernatural.