Study: science vs. religion attitudes (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Sunday, February 23, 2014, 02:03 (3927 days ago)
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-misconceptions-science-religion.html-Some surprising material, which might skewed by the number of evangelicals interviewed (% not given)
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
by David Turell , Sunday, February 23, 2014, 02:06 (3927 days ago) @ David Turell
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-misconceptions-science-religion.html > > Some surprising material, which might be skewed by the number of evangelicals interviewed (% not given).
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, February 23, 2014, 03:21 (3927 days ago) @ David Turell
It was a good article right up until the comment sections, whereupon it was set upon by a virulent band of trolls.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
by David Turell , Sunday, February 23, 2014, 06:16 (3927 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: It was a good article right up until the comment sections, whereupon it was set upon by a virulent band of trolls.-Comments are aways like that
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
by David Turell , Friday, July 19, 2019, 19:47 (1954 days ago) @ David Turell
A new paper which shows that in some people study of science can lead to a belief in an abstract God:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-07-people-engage-science-unbelief-beliefs.html
"Many Americans perceive science and religion as incompatible, but a study from the ASU Department of Psychology has found that how people engage with science can change how they think about God -- and even promote belief in God. People who associated science with logical thinking were more likely to report not believing in God or that God was unknowable. But when people were awed by science, they reported stronger belief in abstract views of God.
"The team first surveyed participants about how interested they were in science, how committed they were to logical thinking and how often they felt awe. Reporting a commitment to logic was associated with unbelief. The participants who reported both a strong commitment to logic and having experienced awe, or a feeling of overwhelming wonder that often leads to open-mindedness, were more likely to report believing in God. The most common description of God given by those participants was not what is commonly found in houses of worship: They reported believing in an abstract God described as mystical or limitless.
"'When people are awed by the complexity of life or the vastness of the universe, they were more inclined to think in more spiritual ways," Johnson said. "The feeling of awe might make people more open to other ways of conceptualizing God."
"In another experiment, the research team had the participants engage with science by watching videos. While a lecture about quantum physics led to unbelief or agnosticism, watching a music video about how atoms are both particles and waves led people to report feeling awe. Those who felt awe also were more likely to believe in an abstract God.
"'A lot of people think science and religion do not go together, but they are thinking about science in too simplistic a way and religion in too simplistic a way," said Adam Cohen, professor of psychology and senior author on the paper. "Science is big enough to accommodate religion, and religion is big enough to accommodate science.'"
Comment: Not surprising to me. I am in awe of all the science that shows many functional aspects of living organisms have to have been designed.
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, July 23, 2019, 00:26 (1951 days ago) @ David Turell
"'A lot of people think science and religion do not go together, but they are thinking about science in too simplistic a way and religion in too simplistic a way," said Adam Cohen, professor of psychology and senior author on the paper. "Science is big enough to accommodate religion, and religion is big enough to accommodate science.'" (my bold)
David's Comment: Not surprising to me. I am in awe of all the science that shows many functional aspects of living organisms have to have been designed.
Pretty sure this is what we've been saying all along. I've even gone so far as to say science and religion must agree, to the extent that they overlap.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 23, 2019, 05:08 (1951 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
"'A lot of people think science and religion do not go together, but they are thinking about science in too simplistic a way and religion in too simplistic a way," said Adam Cohen, professor of psychology and senior author on the paper. "Science is big enough to accommodate religion, and religion is big enough to accommodate science.'" (my bold)
David's Comment: Not surprising to me. I am in awe of all the science that shows many functional aspects of living organisms have to have been designed.
Tony: Pretty sure this is what we've been saying all along. I've even gone so far as to say science and religion must agree, to the extent that they overlap.
I agree.
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
QUOTE: 'A lot of people think science and religion do not go together, but they are thinking about science in too simplistic a way and religion in too simplistic a way," said Adam Cohen, professor of psychology and senior author on the paper. "Science is big enough to accommodate religion, and religion is big enough to accommodate science.'"
DAVID: Not surprising to me. I am in awe of all the science that shows many functional aspects of living organisms have to have been designed.
TONY: Pretty sure this is what we've been saying all along. I've even gone so far as to say science and religion must agree, to the extent that they overlap.
DAVID: I agree.
I agree that science and religion CAN go together, since science has so far failed to answer any of the fundamental questions about life’s origin, evolution and consciousness. “Must” goes too far in my opinion. It’s all a matter of faith – either in a level of existence totally unknown to us (theism) or in properties of materials that are equally unknown to us (atheism).
Under “Ruminations on multiverses”
QUOTE: "Science progresses one experiment at a time, and it's always the full suite of evidence that must be considered in evaluating our theories at any given time. But there is no greater false flag than an experiment pointing to a new signal extracted against a poorly understood background. In the endeavor of pushing our scientific frontiers, this is the one area that demands the highest level of skeptical scrutiny. Mirror matter and even a mirror Universe might be real, but if you want to make that extraordinary claim, you'd better make sure your evidence is equally extraordinary."
DAVID: We live in this universe. How do we look out? The theory currently in vogue is if an other universe bumped into ours there should be a telltale circle in the CMB. There isn't. All the attempts are is to get rid of the appearance that the universe had a starting point and looks created.
I agree that you need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as mirror universes. You also need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as an unknown, eternal, sourceless, super-intelligent, immaterial mind that creates at least one universe which includes life, reproduction, multicellular organisms and consciousness. Since we do not have and, in my view, are unlikely ever to have “the full suite of evidence”, those who believe in any of these theories can only base their beliefs on faith and not on science.
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 18:00 (1943 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: 'A lot of people think science and religion do not go together, but they are thinking about science in too simplistic a way and religion in too simplistic a way," said Adam Cohen, professor of psychology and senior author on the paper. "Science is big enough to accommodate religion, and religion is big enough to accommodate science.'"
DAVID: Not surprising to me. I am in awe of all the science that shows many functional aspects of living organisms have to have been designed.
TONY: Pretty sure this is what we've been saying all along. I've even gone so far as to say science and religion must agree, to the extent that they overlap.
DAVID: I agree.
dhw: I agree that science and religion CAN go together, since science has so far failed to answer any of the fundamental questions about life’s origin, evolution and consciousness. “Must” goes too far in my opinion. It’s all a matter of faith – either in a level of existence totally unknown to us (theism) or in properties of materials that are equally unknown to us (atheism).
Note Tony said: 'science and religion must agree, to the extent that they overlap'. You have pointed out the 'non-overlap'.
Under “Ruminations on multiverses”
QUOTE: "Science progresses one experiment at a time, and it's always the full suite of evidence that must be considered in evaluating our theories at any given time. But there is no greater false flag than an experiment pointing to a new signal extracted against a poorly understood background. In the endeavor of pushing our scientific frontiers, this is the one area that demands the highest level of skeptical scrutiny. Mirror matter and even a mirror Universe might be real, but if you want to make that extraordinary claim, you'd better make sure your evidence is equally extraordinary."DAVID: We live in this universe. How do we look out? The theory currently in vogue is if an other universe bumped into ours there should be a telltale circle in the CMB. There isn't. All the attempts are is to get rid of the appearance that the universe had a starting point and looks created.
dhw: I agree that you need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as mirror universes. You also need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as an unknown, eternal, sourceless, super-intelligent, immaterial mind that creates at least one universe which includes life, reproduction, multicellular organisms and consciousness. Since we do not have and, in my view, are unlikely ever to have “the full suite of evidence”, those who believe in any of these theories can only base their beliefs on faith and not on science.
And I firmly believe ID literature convincingly proves that a mind is re required/necessary to create the designs we see,
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
QUOTE: 'A lot of people think science and religion do not go together, but they are thinking about science in too simplistic a way and religion in too simplistic a way," said Adam Cohen, professor of psychology and senior author on the paper. "Science is big enough to accommodate religion, and religion is big enough to accommodate science.'"
DAVID: Not surprising to me. I am in awe of all the science that shows many functional aspects of living organisms have to have been designed.
TONY: Pretty sure this is what we've been saying all along. I've even gone so far as to say science and religion must agree, to the extent that they overlap.
DAVID: I agree.
dhw: I agree that science and religion CAN go together, since science has so far failed to answer any of the fundamental questions about life’s origin, evolution and consciousness. “Must” goes too far in my opinion. It’s all a matter of faith – either in a level of existence totally unknown to us (theism) or in properties of materials that are equally unknown to us (atheism).
DAVID: Note Tony said: 'science and religion must agree, to the extent that they overlap'. You have pointed out the 'non-overlap'.
We need Tony to explain what he means.
QUOTE: "Mirror matter and even a mirror Universe might be real, but if you want to make that extraordinary claim, you'd better make sure your evidence is equally extraordinary."
DAVID: We live in this universe. How do we look out? The theory currently in vogue is if an other universe bumped into ours there should be a telltale circle in the CMB. There isn't. All the attempts are is to get rid of the appearance that the universe had a starting point and looks created.
dhw: I agree that you need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as mirror universes. You also need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as an unknown, eternal, sourceless, super-intelligent, immaterial mind that creates at least one universe which includes life, reproduction, multicellular organisms and consciousness. Since we do not have and, in my view, are unlikely ever to have “the full suite of evidence”, those who believe in any of these theories can only base their beliefs on faith and not on science.
DAVID: And I firmly believe ID literature convincingly proves that a mind is re required/necessary to create the designs we see.
Your firm belief (or “faith”) is no firmer than Dawkins’ firm belief (or “faith”) that science will one day prove your God to be a delusion. Neither of you has “the full suite of evidence” for your “extraordinary claims”.
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 31, 2019, 18:18 (1942 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: 'A lot of people think science and religion do not go together, but they are thinking about science in too simplistic a way and religion in too simplistic a way," said Adam Cohen, professor of psychology and senior author on the paper. "Science is big enough to accommodate religion, and religion is big enough to accommodate science.'"
DAVID: Not surprising to me. I am in awe of all the science that shows many functional aspects of living organisms have to have been designed.
TONY: Pretty sure this is what we've been saying all along. I've even gone so far as to say science and religion must agree, to the extent that they overlap.
DAVID: I agree.
dhw: I agree that science and religion CAN go together, since science has so far failed to answer any of the fundamental questions about life’s origin, evolution and consciousness. “Must” goes too far in my opinion. It’s all a matter of faith – either in a level of existence totally unknown to us (theism) or in properties of materials that are equally unknown to us (atheism).
DAVID: Note Tony said: 'science and religion must agree, to the extent that they overlap'. You have pointed out the 'non-overlap'.
dhw: We need Tony to explain what he means.
QUOTE: "Mirror matter and even a mirror Universe might be real, but if you want to make that extraordinary claim, you'd better make sure your evidence is equally extraordinary."
DAVID: We live in this universe. How do we look out? The theory currently in vogue is if an other universe bumped into ours there should be a telltale circle in the CMB. There isn't. All the attempts are is to get rid of the appearance that the universe had a starting point and looks created.
dhw: I agree that you need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as mirror universes. You also need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as an unknown, eternal, sourceless, super-intelligent, immaterial mind that creates at least one universe which includes life, reproduction, multicellular organisms and consciousness. Since we do not have and, in my view, are unlikely ever to have “the full suite of evidence”, those who believe in any of these theories can only base their beliefs on faith and not on science.
DAVID: And I firmly believe ID literature convincingly proves that a mind is re required/necessary to create the designs we see.
dhw: Your firm belief (or “faith”) is no firmer than Dawkins’ firm belief (or “faith”) that science will one day prove your God to be a delusion. Neither of you has “the full suite of evidence” for your “extraordinary claims”.
Don't argue with me. Read the ID literature and then debate me.
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
dhw: I agree that you need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as mirror universes. You also need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as an unknown, eternal, sourceless, super-intelligent, immaterial mind that creates at least one universe which includes life, reproduction, multicellular organisms and consciousness. Since we do not have and, in my view, are unlikely ever to have “the full suite of evidence”, those who believe in any of these theories can only base their beliefs on faith and not on science.
DAVID: And I firmly believe ID literature convincingly proves that a mind is re required/necessary to create the designs we see.
dhw: Your firm belief (or “faith”) is no firmer than Dawkins’ firm belief (or “faith”) that science will one day prove your God to be a delusion. Neither of you has “the full suite of evidence” for your “extraordinary claims”.
DAVID: Don't argue with me. Read the ID literature and then debate me.
You know perfectly well that I have accepted the logic of ID, which prevents me from embracing atheism, and you know perfectly well that I have accepted the logic of atheism, which is that you don’t solve one mystery by creating an even greater one (that of an unknown, hidden, in-control, superintelligent mind which has simply always and inexplicably been there).
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
by David Turell , Friday, August 02, 2019, 18:09 (1940 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I agree that you need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as mirror universes. You also need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as an unknown, eternal, sourceless, super-intelligent, immaterial mind that creates at least one universe which includes life, reproduction, multicellular organisms and consciousness. Since we do not have and, in my view, are unlikely ever to have “the full suite of evidence”, those who believe in any of these theories can only base their beliefs on faith and not on science.
DAVID: And I firmly believe ID literature convincingly proves that a mind is re required/necessary to create the designs we see.
dhw: Your firm belief (or “faith”) is no firmer than Dawkins’ firm belief (or “faith”) that science will one day prove your God to be a delusion. Neither of you has “the full suite of evidence” for your “extraordinary claims”.
DAVID: Don't argue with me. Read the ID literature and then debate me.
dhw: You know perfectly well that I have accepted the logic of ID, which prevents me from embracing atheism, and you know perfectly well that I have accepted the logic of atheism, which is that you don’t solve one mystery by creating an even greater one (that of an unknown, hidden, in-control, superintelligent mind which has simply always and inexplicably been there).
I know you are trapped on your picket fence. Logic should tell you the designs require a planning mind. Therefore it must exist.
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
dhw: I agree that you need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as mirror universes. You also need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as an unknown, eternal, sourceless, super-intelligent, immaterial mind that creates at least one universe which includes life, reproduction, multicellular organisms and consciousness. Since we do not have and, in my view, are unlikely ever to have “the full suite of evidence”, those who believe in any of these theories can only base their beliefs on faith and not on science.
DAVID: And I firmly believe ID literature convincingly proves that a mind is re required/necessary to create the designs we see.
dhw: Your firm belief (or “faith”) is no firmer than Dawkins’ firm belief (or “faith”) that science will one day prove your God to be a delusion. Neither of you has “the full suite of evidence” for your “extraordinary claims”.
DAVID: Don't argue with me. Read the ID literature and then debate me.
dhw: You know perfectly well that I have accepted the logic of ID, which prevents me from embracing atheism, and you know perfectly well that I have accepted the logic of atheism, which is that you don’t solve one mystery by creating an even greater one (that of an unknown, hidden, in-control, superintelligent mind which has simply always and inexplicably been there).
DAVID: I know you are trapped on your picket fence. Logic should tell you the designs require a planning mind. Therefore it must exist.
Logic tells me that intelligence requires a source, and it is as difficult for me to believe in random chance being the generator as it is to believe in a super-intelligence simply being there without a generator. My third option, billions of individual “panpsychist” intelligences, is equally difficult to believe in.
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
by David Turell , Monday, August 05, 2019, 17:21 (1937 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I agree that you need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as mirror universes. You also need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as an unknown, eternal, sourceless, super-intelligent, immaterial mind that creates at least one universe which includes life, reproduction, multicellular organisms and consciousness. Since we do not have and, in my view, are unlikely ever to have “the full suite of evidence”, those who believe in any of these theories can only base their beliefs on faith and not on science.
DAVID: And I firmly believe ID literature convincingly proves that a mind is re required/necessary to create the designs we see.
dhw: Your firm belief (or “faith”) is no firmer than Dawkins’ firm belief (or “faith”) that science will one day prove your God to be a delusion. Neither of you has “the full suite of evidence” for your “extraordinary claims”.
DAVID: Don't argue with me. Read the ID literature and then debate me.
dhw: You know perfectly well that I have accepted the logic of ID, which prevents me from embracing atheism, and you know perfectly well that I have accepted the logic of atheism, which is that you don’t solve one mystery by creating an even greater one (that of an unknown, hidden, in-control, superintelligent mind which has simply always and inexplicably been there).
DAVID: I know you are trapped on your picket fence. Logic should tell you the designs require a planning mind. Therefore it must exist.
dhw: Logic tells me that intelligence requires a source, and it is as difficult for me to believe in random chance being the generator as it is to believe in a super-intelligence simply being there without a generator. My third option, billions of individual “panpsychist” intelligences, is equally difficult to believe in.
Still trapped.
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
DAVID: I know you are trapped on your picket fence. Logic should tell you the designs require a planning mind. Therefore it must exist.
dhw: Logic tells me that intelligence requires a source, and it is as difficult for me to believe in random chance being the generator as it is to believe in a super-intelligence simply being there without a generator. My third option, billions of individual “panpsychist” intelligences, is equally difficult to believe in.
DAVID: Still trapped.
I would say still open-minded. It’s people with fixed beliefs who are trapped.
Study: science vs. religion attitudes
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 06, 2019, 18:25 (1936 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I know you are trapped on your picket fence. Logic should tell you the designs require a planning mind. Therefore it must exist.
dhw: Logic tells me that intelligence requires a source, and it is as difficult for me to believe in random chance being the generator as it is to believe in a super-intelligence simply being there without a generator. My third option, billions of individual “panpsychist” intelligences, is equally difficult to believe in.
DAVID: Still trapped.
dhw: I would say still open-minded. It’s people with fixed beliefs who are trapped.
There are no absolute answers. See Reading God's divine nature Part II. God just IS, no generator required.
Study: science vs. religion
by David Turell , Monday, January 20, 2020, 19:26 (1769 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Monday, January 20, 2020, 19:38
Another book like mine and an atheist author comes to believe by reason of study:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1434707849/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=coldcasechris...
Note these comments:
"There are a lot of reasons that can be imagined for why an omniscient, omnipotent and eternal God would make the universe so big. If the cosmos had been discovered to be otherwise, objectors would opine that if there were an omniscient, omnipotent and eternal God, certainly He would not have made its expanse so easy to comprehend."
***
"You nailed it. It seems that people who paint themselves as semi-evolved primates with pathetic brains have lots of knowledge about how to design universes.
Same goes for their lame complaints about our ‘poor designed bodies’.
If there is not ‘design’ in Nature?
How the **** can something be ‘badly designed’?
a) A non-existent entity
b) Can not have any qualities (neither posive, nor negative)."
Comment: Now at about 31,000 book ranking. At one short point in time mine was 15,000. The argument wins without question. dhw needs a copy. Note the comments can be directly applied to dhw thoughts about God and the enormous size of the universe.