Another non-answer, questions unanswered, your claims unevidenced, the inference becoming more unavoidable each time. The regulars here have long shown a disdain for such dishonest evasion, and preaching, so no magnanimity is necessary, just an ability to read the room.
Any thoughts on what relevance the link you posted, has to the quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson? Think hard know, read the whole article, and scour it for meaning, then decide if it’s relevant, and if so why? Ideas that are held uncritically are not much use, especially when offered in debate.
You have a right to your own beliefs. But you have no right to be angry or frustrated with others when you fail to convince them as to why they should believe the way you do.
I do not care about what you believe in. I care about what I believe in. I am not convinced a deity or a race of deities exists.
There’s an absence of evidence, as in there isn’t any. Just holy books and a religious movement making god claims while offering nothing but words of faith and no evidence to back that these beings exist. You can believe in it if you want. I’m just not sold on it.
I admire your patience. He’s not even trying to make a point. Most of the time, confronting theists is like arguing with bricks.
S. Hawking said: there isn’t a grand designer, but rather a grand design. As for the evidence, there are tons !
Science hasn’t proven yet whether a god or deity, or a race of them, exists, but it has well established how the human brain created them and why, through evolution and cognitive mechanisms from neuropsychology. Additionally, paleontologists, linguists, and historians have provided evidence for the human nature of the construction of organized religions.
This platitudinal response doesn’t address anything in my post that you linked, and is demonstrable nonsense. Since science is a group of methods, designed to study evidence and test our ideas against objective reality, in an attempt to better understand it, whereas love is a group of evolved emotions that are entirely subjective.
Direct your claim at the title if that is your intent, but please don’t link my post then ignore it.
Science is not God or a religion. But it is the best tool we have for figuring out how the world and universe work and what goes on within both. No it’s not perfect, but used correctly, it is self-correcting. You come up with a theory and then try to destroy it. If after exhausting every means to wipe the theory out, it still stands, then you know you have something reliable at least until something else comes along to disprove it. That’s the beauty of scientific discovery.
It depends on your definitions for “greatest” and “religious”.
Einstein was by any measure a great scientist who was fairly respectful of religious people and made some nice noises about religion that are widely cherry picked by believers while ignoring that he also said the Bible is a collection of "honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish". He added that no interpretation could change his view, calling the idea of a personal God a product of “human weaknesses”.
I would suggest that since science is concerned with quantifiable facts and religion is concerned with religious faith (assent to assertions without requiring evidence), that competent scientists either compartmentalize their religion or abandon it. Either that, or as in the case of Einstein, what believers perceive as religious leanings or beliefs are really just damning with faint praise – being respectful of people while not adopting those people’s beliefs.
Also just to be thorough, in my experience theists often mis-identify scientists. For example it was (IRRC) the Creation Research Institute that released a list of over 100 “scientists” who support Young Earth Creationism, and nearly all of them were technicians and engineers with some science related degree rather than actual scientists. The couple of actual scientists were not practicing science in a field relevant to the Theory of Evolution (e.g., paleontologists) and so putting them on the list would be a classic Appeal to Authority fallacy.
The fact that you make this statement is a way of saying “smart people believe in religion, therefore God”, and this does not follow (in either direction; what a scientist (does not) believe about one or more deities neither validates nor invalidates religion). In other words science stands on its own, independent of varying personal beliefs of its practitioners.
True. But some of the most religious people have been scientific, some of the greatest scientists have been non-religious, and some greatest non-religious people have been scientific, so I fail to see the point.
Abdus Salaam was a devout Muslim and very religious man indeed. But he was also a highly competent and professional scientist, not bringing his religious beliefs into his scientific work because he understood that science is an agnostic system of thought which can tell us nothing about religious, theological or spiritual matters.
Until recently, being someone who rejected religion was extremely dangerous professionally, socially, and legally. My family is full of scientists who pretended to be Christian to avoid it; seeking shelter in the Unitarian church. People will lie to you to save their skin. When I was about 7 I complained about going to church, because I didn’t believe. I was informed that no one believes (in the family), but you have to pretend, and you have to attend church if you want to get anywhere in life.
Indeed, I was rather hoping this latest drive by proselytising might provide an answer to my question, and explain why he thinks his claim has any significance at all. I wasn’t really hoping of course, I’ve seen this kind of drive by trolling too many times.
Sir Isaac Newton believed in alchemy, are we to assume this drive by thinks this lends alchemy some credence?
