= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Plasmon comments on Some famous scientists who believed in a god - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (76)
He was agnostic most part of his life. But you are right that at one point in his life he openly declared himself an atheist. I remembered wrong. Heisenberg at the other hand was openly a theist. If you can only think of Francis Collins, maybe you shouldn´t base all your beliefs on just one person?
Wikipedia on Schrödinger:
I did say the only relatively well-known one, not the only one. Would you prefer if I used as an example Frank Tipler or Immanuel Velikovsky, both of whom make up exceedingly implausible hypotheses to fit their religious worldview, and are widely considered pseudoscientist because of that? Or Marcus Ross, who misrepresented his views on the age of the earth in order to get a paleontology phd?
No, today's good theistic scientists, to the extent that they still exist, are precisely those who have stopped to take religion seriously as a scientific hypothesis.
Being interested in religion does not a theist make. Nor does merely acknowledging the possibility of an unspecified creator entity, the simulation hypothesis is not theism.
That is extremely obvious and something of the first thing I said in this article is that you mustn´t make a religious belief into a premise for science. Of course you can´t mix up scientific work with religion.
I strongly disagree. If religion were true, that would be exactely what you should do.
Why?
That statement is widely accepted today, but it is only widely accepted because virtually all attempts to do so have failed.
What happened is the following: people did try to base science on religion, they did make interesting predictions based on religious hypotheses. By elementary Bayesian reasoning, if an observation would be evidence for a religion, not observing it is evidence (though possibly weak evidence) against that religion. That is hard to accept for religious people, thus they took the only remaining option : they started pretending that religion and science are somehow independent things.
Imagine - just imagine! - that Decartes did find a soul receiver in the pineal gland. Imagine that Newton did manage to find great alchemical secrets in the bible. Imagine! If that would have happened, do you think anyone would claim that "of course you can´t mix up scientific work with religion" ?
That kind of religion is quite alien to me so I can´t say. I think we would have speratae systems today if such discoveries had been made. A couple of centuries ago people explained different phenomena with different systems. Some phenomena used Aristotle´s teachings, some used mechanichs (as taught by Archimedes) and some used magic as a model.
I view religion as dealing with what is currently, at least partly, beyond the realms of experimental science. For example, concepts like love, goodness and evil are concepts that religions offer to explain. Science don´t have many theories concerning these concepts that are widely spread and accepted. We could use religious beliefs as premises, but since we can´t prove these premises yet, we can´t use them.
On the contrary, the neuroscience of ethics is a big thing nowadays.
And "widely spread and accepted" is not the criterion; it should rather be "consistent with observations, repeatable, and useful to make testable predictions."
Well I meant accepted by scientists :) I am familiar with the scientific method. Which is not odd since natural science is my all-time favorite subject. As a side note, as far as I know, neuroscience has not produced any answer to why there is evil yet.
"Evil" doesn't seem like a workable category in a reductionistic framework.
Very true! Because it isn´t. Let me underline this so I don´t diminish the efforts of reductionists who have worked hard on these kinds of problems.
Let us split up the concept "evil" into something more concrete. Serial killing. Murder. To enjoy killing. To enjoy torture. Pyromancy. Assault. These are some typically "evil" phenomena that the neuroscience of ethics has to work with. It is no small task. And still this "evil" is easier to understand than "goodness" and altruism. Why risk you life for a stranger? Why sacriface your life for the one you love, even though that person is sterile and you have no common responsibilities?
And this is just asking why, not what to do with the information. We can say that our chosen "utility function" is what drives us but just what is that? How should we live and why? How can we avoid serial killing, how can we wipe out homicidal behaviour, is it even possible? We have to explain words like "choice" and "free will" and maybe "randomness" if we approach this scientifically.
Some scientists do indeed work on these questions, for which I am very thankful. But for many people their results and slow progress just isn´t enough. And for some it isn´t even necessary, since their religions offers guidelines and answers that are relatively easy to understand.
Many theists don´t se any conflict between science and theism, their evidence for a god could be the love they hold for others or some holy scripture, confirmed by people long since dead. People have claimed to witness miracles. If someone didn´t experience that particular miracle themselves though, there is no evidence except the weak evidence of the witness. It all comes down to what your basic premises are. We update our beliefs of course, we have to in order to survive, but someone convinced he has witnessed a miracle won´t easily change his mind. (Escpecially if it can´t be explained rationally in his lifetime. Indeed.)
You can believe that the scientific method can provide answers to everything. But then THAT is your basic premise. Until every unknown mystery has been resolved, and every question of reality has been answered, that theory is unproven.
And finally... There was no neuroscience 200 years ago. How could they coop then? Is it only through nodern science we can find answers? Does that then imply that for thousands of years, people had to invent lies just to get by? You see, you can´t start with rocks and nature and develop neuroscience in one lifetime.
I think you mean "pyromania", or just "arson". Pyromancy is divination by looking into flames or hot coals; compare chiromancy, an old word for palm-reading.
I guess you meant pyromania, unless mutant powers are evil in some religion I haven't heard of.
"Easy to understand" is irrelevant. Once again, it should be "consistent with observations, repeatable, and useful to make testable predictions."
That's not what people commonly mean when they talk about their religion. But it's a common argument to evade the actual issue.
Your priors can and should change in response to new evidence. So far, the assumption that the scientific method can deal with anything is undefeated.
YES, exactly that. It's a shameful idea to consider when you're human, but at least we are equipped to know better now.