Science Is in the Details

Watermark said:
That's a 20 year old fire muff, thankyou very much. STUDYING TO BE A PHYSICIST! Don't care if that really doesn't mean shit.

Seriously, I am sure this man is very respectable, and will try his darndest to keep his personal beliefs out of his decisions of what projects to fund. But he will definitely be subconsciously influenced by it, and it would be a tragedy if important areas of science were funded below their merit because the NIH director ultimately believes the human mind to be unknowable. I am sure there were better choices out there; this was evangelical affirmative action.
Click to expand...
I don't know if I can agree with that. His views parallel the personal beliefs of other highly regarded scientist such as the respected evolutionary biologist Ken Miller. I think the argument that one cannot have deeply felt philosophical and religious beliefs and yet be able to maintain one's professional objectivity as a scientist is a false paradigm nor has the case been made that he is out to implement a religious agenda or enforce his personal beliefs on others.
 
Watermark said:
For one thing, you misrepresented his views and created a false equivalence between him and evangelicals for no other reason than to pimp your status as a pseudo-moderate. For another, *sigh*....
Click to expand...
No, I said that because Dr. Collins is correct. The subject of religion and God and the supernatural and other non-natural philosophies are something for which science is silent about. It has nothing to say about those subject either for or against as they are outside the scope of science. Science is neutral on non-natural phenomena and Dr. Collins is quite clear in making this distinction.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No, I said that because Dr. Collins is correct. The subject of religion and God and the supernatural and other non-natural philosophies are something for which science is silent about. It has nothing to say about those subject either for or against as they are outside the scope of science. Science is neutral on non-natural phenomena and Dr. Collins is quite clear in making this distinction.
Click to expand...

I disagree. They aren't outside the scope of science. Nothing is outside the scope of science. That's nothing but a copout. You can claim you don't believe in science when you believe in God, but you can't claim your belief in God isn't contradictory with science.
 
Watermark said:
No he hasn't. You have failed to refute him. You just barge in here, say some nonsense, and talk like an asshole a bit and then leave.
Click to expand...
It's easy to refute the author. He's advocating a false paradigm. Science has it's limits. It's only designed to describe and understand natural phenomena. Outside of this limit science has nothing to say.

I personally share Dr. Collins belief that God is the ultimate creator of life and the universe. I also believe in theistic evolution. That God created the evolutionary process as God's mechanism for creating the diversity of life we see. But as a scientist I do understand that this is my personal belief and it is not a scientific belief and that my personal belief goes beyond the limits of science. This does not mean that I cannot practice my profession objectively and within the limits and bounds of science.
 
Watermark said:
I disagree. They aren't outside the scope of science. Nothing is outside the scope of science. That's nothing but a copout. You can claim you don't believe in science when you believe in God, but you can't claim your belief in God isn't contradictory with science.
Click to expand...
Then you do not understand what science is or it's limits and that will be an impediment to your continued learning as a scientist. Science does indeed have its limits.
 
Watermark said:
His beliefs present a conflict of interests with numerous important health research goals. Should he remain an important scientist and advisor? Yes. Should he be put in a position with such broad power? No.
Click to expand...
Where do you see that?
 
Watermark said:
We should appoint Richard Dawkins head of the NIH. :)
Click to expand...
Well I don't know if an evolutionary biologist with have the necessary qualifications but I am an admirer of Dr. Dawkin's scientific work. He's also a phenomenal educator, something that doesn't seem to be held in high regard in scientific circles these days.
 
This guy is freaking dangerous.

They're really going to try a one world totalitarian religion, now that god is science.

Olam Ha Ba or bust!


Do you fools really want theocracy?
 
AssHatZombie said:
This guy is freaking dangerous.

They're really going to try a one world totalitarian religion, now that god is science.

Olam Ha Ba or bust!


Do you fools really want theocracy?
Click to expand...
Right... Everything even new religions are O lam ha ba... or whatever.

If they do make a new religion, it won't be noahidism because that's supposedly part of an old one.
 
Damocles said:
Right... Everything even new religions are O lam ha ba... or whatever.

If they do make a new religion, it won't be noahidism because that's part of an old one.
Click to expand...

Or whatever. Yeah. It's not really a concept. I'm making it all up. :rolleyes:



Anyhoos, noahidism is fine with different religions being included under the umbrella, as long as they acknowledge the god of abraham, have no others and agree to legal rule by world rabbinical courts. *shrug* The propaganda that we're somehow a judeo christain society is already putting jews into an openly revered, yet undeserved position. The power to make money can buy you a lot of friends.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Or whatever. Yeah. It's not really a concept. I'm making it all up. :rolleyes:



Anyhoos, noahidism is fine with different religions being included under the umbrella, as long as they acknowledge the god of abraham, have no others and agree to legal rule by world rabbinical courts. *shrug* The propaganda that we're somehow a judeo christain society is already putting jews into an openly revered, yet undeserved position. The power to make money can buy you a lot of friends.
Click to expand...
I put "or whatever" because I didn't want to check the spelling. If Science is God, then it isn't the God of Abraham.
 
Damocles said:
I put "or whatever" because I didn't want to check the spelling. If Science is God, then it isn't the God of Abraham.
Click to expand...

It's not god is science, it's god is scientific. I misspoke, i guess.

Wow, full on nitpicking. You're really rattled by my presentation of the unflappable truth.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not god is science, it's god is scientific. I misspoke, i guess.

Wow, full on nitpicking. You're really rattled by my presentation of the unflappable truth.
Click to expand...
I'm the one rattled when you are the one misspeaking? Yeah. You almost covered that up well.
 
Does God (if he/it exists) not exist under laws of science?
Of course laws that we could not even fathom at this point.

would not even heaven and hell exist based on scienctific laws and rules?
 
Watermark said:
Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?
Click to expand...
no, but we can choose to.....now, pray tell, do you believe that thinking you can only consider human nature in scientific terms makes you better or worse qualified than this candidate.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top