An interesting thread started by Tim A, where he asks:
.... why are these scientists unconvinced about physicalism?
Or, is it that their ideologies override their ability to interpret data or evidence empirically?
...with Jimi's (aka:CX) excellent points in enlarged bold text.
Scientists, god and physicalism
Posted by Tim A on 11/4/2001, 6:28 am
If some 40% of scientists in the United States believe in a god that can answer their prayers, that there is an immortal soul, and that it will dwell in heaven or in hell, what does that say about the view of physicalism, i.e. that the only objects or processes that exist are physical; that only patterns of mass/energy and space and their functions and properties are real (and by extension, measurable)? I mean, why are these scientists unconvinced about physicalism? Or, is it that their ideologies override their ability to interpret data or evidence empirically?
Old Hat....
Posted by bernie on 11/4/2001, 11:12 am
, in reply to "Scientists, god and physicalism"
I have not seen my Nature yet, in which it is said (you said) this (very) ancient "study" is again being trotted out around the track (these things have sort of a life of their own and come back resurrected it seems like the Phoenix from its ashes on some kind of Cosmic Plan...). That Nature should be again "wasting" time on this is a bit surprising, but I too have known the pressure of an empty (printer's) form facing me and nothing to plug in ("Dammit, bernie - get out of here and go make me some news!" - thus my first boss, George Rhine, on whose mental largesse I have lived ever after...). Surprised that is, because you see Science (it's arch rival!) covered all this same thing in spades back in 1997! In fact, they received an unprecedented reply by scientists and readers of the journal, of which they published only a representative handful - among which, I am sure you will be wildly excited to know, was the following: "Science and God: A Warming Trend? Perhaps, like Mark Twain’s death, the “...thaw in the ice between science and faith” is a bit prematurely reported in Gregg Easterbrook’s 15 Aug. 1997 “News & Comment” item. In any event, Easterbrook, as most writers of this genre, spectacularly fails to identify the “what” of this enduring “faith” midst the rising waters of Gemutlichkeit. Like most of the faithful, anything - anything at all - and anyone - anyone at all - may be and is, invoked to support his thesis. Thus we learn that “God talk” has come into vogue among some scientists, including no less a luminary than physicist Stephen Hawking who writes elsewhere that big-bang cosmology may reveal “the mind of God”. Closet agnostics need not wholly despair, however, for a page-and-a-half later we find Hawking quoted as advancing the notion big-bang “...suggests the universe was generated entirely through autonomous forces.” If at first you cannot define your thesis (i.e., faith), then quote from both sides of the issue ... and always showcase your pronouncement in the utterances of authority. This farrago of oldtime, “feel good”, tent-revival spirtualism with the onward march of Science seems greatly out of place in the pages of a reborn, perhaps too-trendy Science. Dawkins’ sidebar - the only dry spot midst the rising Noachian meltwaters of this putative Interglacial, provides but scant refuge here, I fear. Does the editorial board of this journal have entirely too much time on its hands these days, or entirely too few science submissions?" B. W. Powell
Re: Old Hat....
Posted by Tim A on 11/4/2001, 8:20 pm
, in reply to "Old Hat...."
I think, Bernie, or the article leads me to think, that the believers nestled amongst the bunson burners are not thinking about Einstein's god, or Hawking's god -- but are thinking about the one they keep down at the Lutheren church. Or at the Catholic one. Or at the Synagogue. And I am curious -- not that I expect anyone here to know the answer -- did they weigh the evidence in support of physicalism and say "eh. it's not compelling enough. So far this is still just a metaphysical view". Or, did they ignore compelling evidence? (Or, were only a few of them physicists who actually were familiar with the pricnciple of physicalism?) If the latter, we are in big trouble.
A further dodge often invoked is ....
Posted by bernie on 11/4/2001, 8:49 pm
, in reply to "Re: Old Hat...."
...that when a scientist thinks of God he is not thinking as a scientist, blah, blah, blah. (In this case - not "old hat" but "different hats" - ad infinitum). It is all B.S. - and the threadbare God Hypothesis has never led anywhere productive in Science. (Or elsewhere).
But Bernie
Posted by Tim A on 11/5/2001, 4:05 am
, in reply to "A further dodge often invoked is ...."
the thing is, these are not scientists who are trying to prove the existence of god. These are scientists who do their molecular biology, their set theory, and so on, all the while behaving, in the most mundane ways, as though there is a god. They're not advocating anything, presumably.
The power of belief...
Posted by >CX on 11/5/2001, 8:40 am
, in reply to "But Bernie"
The thing about belief in a personal god is that we, in most western european cultures and their derivatives, have it ingrained in us. It is an extremely difficult inheritance to cast off. Intelligent people can and do believe in all manner of peculiar ideas. The foremost proponent of Intelligent Design creationism is a biochemist, for example. Most of the people in my family are well read, educated and intelligent yet all have a firm and vociferous belief in the Xian god. The reason may be twofold, though of course I can only hypothesize. Firstly the vast majority of Xian believers, and perhaps this is true of other religious adherents, know very little of what their own canon, doctrine and dogma actually says. Such believers typically have very little in the way of information to judge the coherence, consistency and logic of their belief system. It is something they simply inherited from their progenitors and hold on to without much introspection. Secondly people, including scientists, are generally limited in their knowledge outside their particular field of expertise. If you ask a nobel prize winning physicist what the "synoptic problem" is or to describe the flaws in Pascal's wager, he is unlikely to be able to oblige you with an answer. I think nonbelief comes from both a broad range of knowledge (from different disciplines including physical science, theology, comparative religion etc.) and an introspective nature. So the bottom line is most believers a)don't know what they don't know and b)don't spend a lot of time questioning it. Lastly I think for most people steeped in a theistic culture of belief are unable or unwilling to accept on an emotional level, the idea that there is no god and that the universe is not following anyone's plan. What is telling to me is not that 40% of scientist's believe in god, but rather that 60% do not. Compare that to the roughly 7% of the public at large who call themselves atheists (or agnostics) and the picture presented is quite different. Namely that people who study how the world really works by and large don't believe.
Agreed
Posted by Tim A on 11/5/2001, 6:04 pm
, in reply to "The power of belief..."
but... You wrote below: Firstly the vast majority of Xian believers, and perhaps this is true of other religious adherents, know very little of what their own canon, doctrine and dogma actually says. Such believers typically have very little in the way of information to judge the coherence, consistency and logic of their belief system. It is something they simply inherited from their progenitors and hold on to without much introspection. Would this be any less true if we substituted "Xian believer" with scientist, and "other religious adherents" for other scientists? I mean do you suppose that most scientists are familiar with the history, the philosophical and metaphysical underpinnings that anchor their disciplines? I doubt it.
That's not really the issue.
Posted by CX on 11/6/2001, 8:59 am
, in reply to "Agreed"
you said do you suppose that most scientists are familiar with the history, the philosophical and metaphysical underpinnings that anchor their disciplines? Perhaps not, but one doesn't need that necessarily to do good science. What one does need however is a sufficient depth of knowledge and understanding of the principles and bases for whatever discipline one is working in. So a proper analogy to my comments would be to ask wether most scientists understand mathematics and the basis of the scientific method. I've talked to a lot of Xian believers. Most know only a few snippets of scripture and whatever sermon they heard last week (sometimes not even that). Possibly they can name some of the 10 commandments (rarely all 10). And most of what they now regarding the theology of their faith comes from bite sized easily digestible packets they received from their clergy. If I ask 99 out of 100 Xians for an example of the "synoptic problem" which I consider to have significant impact on how we view the synoptic gospels (GMk, GMt & GLk) they will say, "...the what problem?"
I disagree
Posted by Tim A on 11/6/2001, 10:51 am
, in reply to "That's not really the issue."
I said: said do you suppose that most scientists are familiar with the history, the philosophical and metaphysical underpinnings that anchor their disciplines? And you said: The risk is that by accepting the metaphysical view for a priori fact severely limits what approach (or whether one approaches) takes to science. Consider Heisenberg: What we see is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our line of questioning.
Why I think you are wrong...
Posted by bernie on 11/6/2001, 1:35 pm
, in reply to "I disagree"
I believe categorically, that scientists do in fact have a much, much greater grasp of the "history, meaning and philosophical implications" of their views and methods, etc. etc. than relgionists do of theirs. If for no other reason than that science is an ever-expanding, integrated world-view that has no real challenges beyond the dilletante levels of post-modernists and metaphysicians. Science works. Moreover, it works everywhere the same way. Moreover, it works for all the same reasons and by the same principles everywhere, and though the disciplines and specialties multiply at a frightening rate, it is still posisble for a scientist educated in one field to pick up and read of work in another field and understand its broad implications and where it fits in the scheme of things because there is a common basis of understanding here. This is not true of religious people. They have never been united. Basic to most religions (and religious philosophies) is a turning away from the other's guys road to salvation. Not only don't they (the most of them, that is, because the ranks of religion are swollen by the uneducated as the ranks of science are not) do not understand their own racket (or scam) at all - and they know even less of the other guy's! (A recent teaser I posed here suckered any number of wide-eyed respondents: they all beleive that the proprietary names (Allah, Jehovah, Wodan, Zeus, etc.) refer to the same and only one entity. That this is not so is Lesson No. 1, if one ever would waste time studying religion. Its adherents do not: they just "do" religion (like Debbie did Dallas or whatever that movie was) after their various lights and fashions: be that genuflecting mindlessly, head bobbing at the wailing walls of the world, or flying planes pell-mell into them. bernie
And why I disagree with you
Posted by Tim A on 11/7/2001, 6:11 am
, in reply to "Why I think you are wrong..."
Two points. The first addresses the latter part of your missive. I address it first because it's more easily disposed of. Ready? Whether or not people of differing religious views can recognize similarities or discover a common language between themselves is utterly and thoroughly -- did I mention completely? -- beside the point. Moving right along... You write: Science works. Moreover, it works everywhere the same way. Moreover, it works for all the same reasons and by the same principles everywhere... I’ve been thinking about what you’ve written, above, and it raises an interesting question. What exactly does it mean to say science works? Does that mean it is merely a process – or that it is a process which produces results? For example Let’s agree that science, say physics, is done in a fashion somewhat like this: 1) A physical theory is formulated with the use of mathematical computations. 2) a specific measurable prediction is made on the basis of that more general theory. 3) Experiments are performed that confirm the specified prediction, thereby demonstrating, empirically, the validity of the original theory. Now suppose we followed these steps and ended up with, say the theory of relativity or, to be more daring, let’s say, string-theory. Might we say then, that science worked? Or works, if you prefer? I think we can agree that in this case it worked (accepting the possibility that the theory coud be overturned). But what if we hewed to the three steps above, and produced multiple, incompatible theories to explain a phenomenon? Could we say then that science worked? An example would be where quantum field theory asserts that vacuums have structure and inherent energy. Yet Schwinger’s Source theory empirically demonstrates that vacuums are without structure. The lynch-pin here is the Casimir effect. But both theories obtain mathematical results that are identical to those predicted by Casimir in 1948. So what are we to ‘know’ about vacuums? We cannot, until we invest ourselves of a metaphysical view, ‘know’ whether they possess an objective physical reality. And to the extent that we rely on a metaphysical interpretation of a theory, we run the risk of conflating the metaphysical view with knowledge. My argument is that unless one is aware of the metaphysical antecedents that drive any branch of science or theory, one a) runs the risk mentioned above, and b)are constrained by the limitations of those tenets. I believe that cognitive science which is driven by scientific materialism, as metaphysical view, is made somewhat impotent by the underlying principles of SM, which, for example, deny the existence of subjective mind states, and/or which rule out the usefulness of first person experiences of consciousness.
142.177.93.32
205.188.198.162
Emeritus, retired
Box XXX
YYYY NE 163rd St
No. Miami Bch, FL 33160
(as appeared in "Letters", Science, Sept. 12, 1997)
142.177.109.144
152.163.195.187
142.177.98.99
155.44.50.173
142.177.108.212
155.44.50.173
142.177.108.184
Perhaps not, but one doesn't need that necessarily to do good science.
64.12.107.49
142.177.94.72