Deists and Scientists: why not together?

[kowalskil]

Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence​

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians).

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.

Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski

 

[Pizzaguy]

Is it possible?

Is it desirable?

What should we do promote it?

Possible? Not really.

Desirable? I think so, yes.

I was going to start a thread here in this very topic, when I get the time to put together a concise opening post. The two sides talk past one another - and I blame this on BOTH SIDES just about evenly.

A scientist cannot stand (or understand) a person who believes without proof, who employs faith as a way to guide their life or make decisions.

And a deist will deny scientific fact if it, in any way, contradicts or appears to contradict an article of faith.

Faith is a wonderful thing, but it can lead us astray - just think of the killing in the name of God and religion that has happened all during recorded history.

I wish the two sides could come together, but I don't see it happening.

I will be TRYING to promote an understanding in the thread I start. But again, it is a daunting task. I am sure I am not really up to it.

 

[Sparkey]

Two things to share in response, the first being more of a question than a comment. When I tried to find a definition of "Diest" what I found was a description of a belief that God created the universe and then pretty much abandoned it and no longer interacts with the world. The concept painted a picture of God as neglectful. This is a Christian site, as you know, and there are many here who will be able to witness contrary to that assertion, hopefully yourself as well.

The second idea that I'd like to try to express comes from a conversation on campus with the president of our local Skeptics Society. His main assertion was that believers were weak minded because they accepted (without doubt) the things that were told to them by others. I listened to his rant about our view of Mother Theresa (in his view she was no saint) as well as Ghandi. When I replied, saying that only a strong minded person could try to prove, rather than disprove, the allegations of others he predictably took an opposing view. I was thinking about the nobility of the Bereans mentioned in the bible. The point that I tried to make was that when people have their feet firmly planted they are not thrown off by considering contrary concepts and his premise that believers are weak minded is thus defeated.

Of course, there was no meeting of the minds there but he did ask me to join his little club. Can there be peaceful co-existence of both believers and unbelievers? Certainly. Will the emnity between Spirit and Flesh continue without end? I don't believe so. In the time that remains then, it will be good to remember how the LongSuffering of God toward us is considered our salvation, He bore long with us, how much should we bear long with each other for His sake?

 

[kowalskil]

The post which started the thread had a link to my webpage. I will show this link after submitting 20 posts on this website. It will allow you to see 60 interesting statements about peaceful coexistence between scientists and theologians. For the time being let me paste the beginning of the content of my webpage (only 8 comments instead of 60 are shown).

Do not mix spirutuality with science ​

Ludwik Kowalski, Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University
New Jersey, USA​

Introduction

In October 2010 something prompted me to write about conflicts between between those who believe in God and those who actively criticize believers. Yes, a long time ago I was an aggressive atheist, as described in my on-line autobiography (1). This certainly has something to do with my motivation. In any case, after realizing how poorly qualified I am for dealing with the ongoing ideological conflicts, I started probing the Internet. The following set of questions was posted on several websites.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Can science and religion coexist peacefully? This is a good question to start an interesting discussion.

Person 1: Did God create us on his image? Did we create God on our image?

Person 2: The answer is “yes†to each of these questions.

Person 3: That's an interesting thought, I'd like to know how both could be simultaneously true. There are thousands of verifiable instances of humans creating new religions, and none of the former option.

Person 2: The first question is theological (not scientific); the second question is sociological (scientific). Theological questions are not answered by using science and scientific questions are not answered by using theology. Likewise, theologians say that the universe was created in seven days, as revealed in holy books. But astronomers say that they have evidence that the universe has been changing for billions of years. Scientific methodology is not used to validate holy books and holy books are not used to validate scientific claims. Mixing science with religion is not useful.

Person 3: I think that science can be used to test the claims made in holy books. If the claims made in holy books were correct, we would expect scientific inquiry to support them. Yes, holy books contain pronouncements about the physical world. Such pronouncements should not be taken literally. They represent incorrect beliefs of our ancestors. Faith and science were not yet separate disciplines. The world was not created in seven days, six thousand years ago. Theologians know this; many of them do not take such stories literally.

Person 2: Holy books do not define God in terms of material attributes. The best a scientist can do is to confirm that God is not a material object. But that would not be a surprise to sophisticated theologians; they have already accepted this--God is a spiritual entity.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Qeuestions asked by Persons 1 and 2 were mine, other questions were from Internet strangers. My goal was to generate more Internet comments, and to learn from what other people think. I was overwhelmed by the number of replies, some of which are shown below. They made me think but they did not enable me to write the intended essay. Instead of abandoning the project I decided to share selected message, as received, and add my own comments. I hope that this will be useful to some people.

Replies and comments

What follows are comments made by strangers and my insertions (in red).

Comment 1
...The answer "YES" to the first question and "YES" to the second question is a mental incoherent developed by a person trying to play semantics. It is like asking "Does cat catch mouse? Does 'mouse' catch cat?" and that person answered "YES YES" because he think "mouse" is a dog named "mouse. ..."

No, the “cat and the mouse†is not a good analogy. The accusation of mental incoherence would be valid to a person who rejects the idea of peaceful coexistence of science and faith--a person who wants one area of inquiry to win over the other. Does it have to be this way? Who benefits from such conflicts? “God created us in his image†is spiritually acceptable. And “we created on God in our image†is physically acceptable; God belongs to the spiritual world, not to the physical world. Our ancestors believed that God is a material entity but we do not have to accept this.

A year ago my dentist was very frightened, after a diagnosis of aggressive cancer. Six months later I saw her again, still working. But her head was covered; she had lost her hair. But she was very different yesterday--her hair had grown back.. I am fine, she said, because God is in my heart and because he does not want me to die. How can anyone have doubt that God exists in her spiritual sphere? Telling her that God does not exist would be just as arrogant as telling Galileo that his astronomical findings should be ignored.

Comment 2
Religion is the science of our distant ancestors. ... Attempts to qualify or defend religious truth claims with scientific terminology are not only inaccurate but I would say demonstrably fraudulent both by the standards of science and by the letter of the religious scriptures themselves. There needs to be a line in the sand on this issue. ...

Comment 3
... Clearly, most humans “mix†theistic precepts quite often with both secularist values, as well as scientific idea.* The inconsistency does not seem to bother them all that much...

Comment 4
You wrote: "... If I believe that the purple dragon will build me a space ship and take me to the planet he made just for me, no amount of faith in this idea will change the fact (proven by observation) that I in fact have not found myself in possession of a spaceship made just for me to travel to a special planet. ..." I agree. I was referring to the concept of God, not to poetry (psalms), glorification, or "events" described in holy books. Some of these events are no longer taken literally, even by some theologians. Many theologians are not hostile to science; many scientists are not hostile to theology. That is how it should be--the more the better.

Comment 5
You wrote “We have absolutely no reason to accept the premise that there is even such a thing as a ‘spiritual entity.’ What makes us, us is our personality, our thoughts, our minds. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that a mind can exist outside of a physical brain. So start with that...if you can even offer some kind of plausible theory as to how a mind...what makes an entity sentient...can exist outside of some kind of physical, MATERIAL, brain....then we can move to the next step of asking if God....or any entity...actually exists.†By spiritual entity I meant God, not “what makes us us.â€

The “soul†is also not a material entity, as imagined by our ancestors. My arguments are based on the assumption that we live in two words, material and spiritual. The brain is a material entity.

Comment 6
I would argue many religions disagree. Mormonism and Islam both came to be by God issuing "orders" to people. But I agree that mixing science with religion is not useful. Person2 wrote: “Holy books do not define God in terms of material attributes. The best a scientist can do is to confirm that God is not a material object. But that would not be a surprise to sophisticated theologians; they have already accepted this--God is a spiritual entity.†God is not natural, however he does have an effect on the natural world. Therefore we should expect to come across some sort of inconsistencies in the natural world which would give evidence to a supernatural. Even then, if we did, they could simply be a matter of our own ignorance and not god. So, its a tough question.

Yes, the idea of living in two worlds, spiritual and physical, will generate many difficult questions. Are these two worlds influencing each others, and to what extent? That is one of such questions. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to answer.

Comment 7

Person2 wrote: “...theologians say that the universe was created in seven days, as revealed in holy books.†Not all theologians. Many liberal Christians do not read the Bible literally, and "creationism" is very rare among modern Jews. Person2 also wrote that “Scientific methodology is not used to validate holy books and holy books are not used to validate scientific claims.†That is true, which is why mixing science with religion is not useful. Science cannot be done with an eye to supernatural intervention, or we would never have learned that thunder isn't the sound of the gods' bowling alley -- and we would still be dying of diseases that are easily prevented and cured, assuming that illness and death were the will of God. A scientist may or may not be personally religious, but his or her religion cannot directly be applied to the scientific work or it ceases to be science; but then, that's true of a given scientist's politics, too. Cf. Trofim Denisovitch Lysenko. Science must be objective and free of philosophical, political or religious influence.

How can I, a nuclear physicist, disagree with this?

Comment 8

Yes, mixing science with religion is not useful. Science can only answer falsifiable questions; Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. A lot of otherwise intelligent people have a lot of misconceptions about science, and I did too.

Comments 9 to 60 are not shown because of the length limit.​

.

 

[kowalskil]

Possible? Not really.

Desirable? I think so, yes.

I was going to start a thread here in this very topic, when I get the time to put together a concise opening post. The two sides talk past one another - and I blame this on BOTH SIDES just about evenly.

A scientist cannot stand (or understand) a person who believes without proof, who employs faith as a way to guide their life or make decisions.

And a deist will deny scientific fact if it, in any way, contradicts or appears to contradict an article of faith.

Faith is a wonderful thing, but it can lead us astray - just think of the killing in the name of God and religion that has happened all during recorded history.

I wish the two sides could come together, but I don't see it happening.

I will be TRYING to promote an understanding in the thread I start. But again, it is a daunting task. I am sure I am not really up to it.

Yes, the task is difficult and changes will be slow. What we can do is to make small intellectual contributions.
.

 

[Free]

Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence​

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians).

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.

Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski

I'm a little confused since, as has been pointed out, Deism is a specific belief about God and not at all synonymous with theology in general. That is to say, while there may be deists who are theologians, not all theologians are deists. In fact, they are likely a small minority.

Having said that, it is error to set up science versus theology (or religion). Many today think that religion and science are mutually exclusive but that is not at all the case. There are many scientists who are also theists and find evidence for God in the way the universe is structured. In fact, modern science was founded on the belief that since God created the universe, there should be evidence of his design which can be studied.

In the end, it isn't that science and theology aren't in peaceful coexistence, it's those scientists who are also virulent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, that have falsely divided science and religion. It's atheism against theism and the atheists use their beliefs in naturalism to create this false divide.

And I'm sure there are some arguments to be made against certain fundamentalist Christian groups which are outspoken against science.

So, is it possible? Yes, because it already happens. Is it desirable? Yes. What should we do to promote it? Promote rational dialogue about it with each side of the discussion realizing the limitations of their positions.

 

[Ashua]

deism allows scientists to entertain the very legitimate hypothesis of a "God(s)" while not having to worry about "Thou shalts and thou shalt nots."

 

[old_tractor]

Free is correct here in stating that it should be labeled theism vs. science instead of deism.

Science has become a belief system of sorts. I can't tell you how many people I have encountered who simply believe scientific pronouncements as a matter of "faith". Whether it is global warming, evolution or whatnot they are completely ignorant of the subject and the science involved yet accept whatever "scientists" tell them as if they were high priests having knowledge and wisdom greater than mortal men.

The problem, as I see it, is that science is not the pure, objective endeavor scientists claim it to be and that scientists are human after all and what is called "scientific" is all too often marred by personal antagonism toward religion, political ideology and sometimes simple pride. A scientific hypothesis (an educated guess meant to serve as a starting point in the scientific method) is, all too often, trotted out as fact.

Scientists seems to understand within themselves that there are limits to what they can know, yet hypotheses are often treated as established and proven fact when they themselves know it is not the case. How many times have you heard that a comet or asteroid impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs? Did it? Not proven. It is simply a hypothesis. Does all the evidence point to a catastrophic even? No. How many dinosaur fossils have been found in the theorized impact layer or strata? Zero. Paleontologists will admit that both the number of dinosaur remains and the number of dinosaur species found were declining before the proposed impact event. Yet, on every TV show of schoolbook, we are told that an event in today's Ucatan peninsula killed the dinosaurs.

I think it would help the two sides to coexist if science simply would honestly admit that science itself doesn't have all the answers and that there is much science simply cannot address. I think the faithful would be less likely to view science as an enemy in this case.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

deism allows scientists to entertain the very legitimate hypothesis of a "God(s)" while not having to worry about "Thou shalts and thou shalt nots."

You do realise that Deists have moral, right? Religious folk aren't the only ones who lay claim to them.

 

[Ashua]

You do realise that Deists have moral, right? Religious folk aren't the only ones who lay claim to them.

Yes. Deist have a self-appointed moral code. The moral parameters set to "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not" are limited by the deists themselves. Deists believe in a creator who couldn't care less what mortals do. Deists do not believe God is an active part of humanity and as such, any "moral code" is self appointed.

That means that "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not" are not the commandment of God, but of the deist. Its one thing to be told "no" by someone else. When you tell yourself "no" then its a "choice" based off of personal volition. Oh, and there is one very big difference yet still. You see, breaking a moral code except in cases of criminal violation has no real consequence. "oops, I made an 'accident'. I'm still a good person though." Deists have no one to answer to, but themselves. (Or so they think.)

Not the same at all.

 

[Simon]

I'm either too optimistic, or I'm misreading your question. To which extent do you wish the two to get along? I happen to think science and religion get along relatively well given how contradictory they may seem at times. This is particularly true in the United States, which boasts powerful scientific credentials and remains, as far as I know, one of the most spiritual countries in the western world.

I think an important medium for these two concepts is the political spectrum. This is a beneficial ''bridge'' to have in my opinion, given how inherent debate is in the policy-making process is, and how fundamental science and personal philosophy are to society in general.

I think when we begin to see great polarization in political parties, like now haha, we need to keep in mind that science and religion are not competing, but in fact coexisting in a broader political entity. The separation of church and state can be positive for both parties.

While ideas founded in science, law and modern psychology wont always concord with some theist outlooks, it's important to recognize that they are the continued basis for western democratic political development.

 

[kowalskil]

Possible? Not really.

Desirable? I think so, yes.

I was going to start a thread here in this very topic, when I get the time to put together a concise opening post. The two sides talk past one another - and I blame this on BOTH SIDES just about evenly.

A scientist cannot stand (or understand) a person who believes without proof, who employs faith as a way to guide their life or make decisions.

And a deist will deny scientific fact if it, in any way, contradicts or appears to contradict an article of faith.

Faith is a wonderful thing, but it can lead us astray - just think of the killing in the name of God and religion that has happened all during recorded history.

I wish the two sides could come together, but I don't see it happening.

I will be TRYING to promote an understanding in the thread I start. But again, it is a daunting task. I am sure I am not really up to it.

I agree with you; it will be a difficult task. But we should be promoting understanding.

Ludwik
.
.