Evidence for God from Science

I thought this would be an interesting thread to cause some headaches.

Sheldrake wrote:The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to fill in. This is a very widespread belief in our society. It's the kind of belief system of people who say, "I don't believe in God, I believe in science." It's a belief system that has now been spread throughout the entire world. But there's a conflict in the heart of science between science as a method of enquiry based on reason, evidence, hypotheses and collective investigation, and science as a belief system or a worldview. And unfortunately the worldview aspect of science has come to inhibit and restrict the free enquiry which is the very lifeblood of the scientific endeavour. Since the late 19th century, science has been conducted under the aspect of a belief system or worldview which is essentially that of materialism, philosophical materialism. And the sciences are now wholly own subsidiaries of the materialist worldview... I think that as we break out of it that the sciences will be regenerated.

Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake (read bio) at TEDx Whitechapel

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE)

Sheldrake discusses what he sees as ten dogmas which form the default worldview of most educated "scientific" people all over the world. They are as follows:

Dogma #1) Nature is mechanical or machine like. The Universe is like a machine, animals and plants are like machines. We are like machine. Infact we are machines. We are lumbering robots in Richard Dawkin's vivid phrase. With brains that are genetically programmed computers.

Dogma #2) Matter is unconscious. The whole universe is made up of unconscious matter. There's no consciousness in stars, in galaxies, in planets, in animals, in plants and there ought not be any in us either if this theory is true. So a lot of the philosophy of mind over the last 100 years has been trying to prove that we're not really conscious at all.

Dogma #3) The laws of nature are fixed. The laws of nature are the same now as they were at the time of the big bang and they'll be the same forever. Not just the laws but the constants of nature are fixed which is why they're called constants.

Dogma #4) The total amount of matter and energy is always the same. It never changes in total quantity except at the moment of the big bang when it all sprang into existence from nowhere in a single instant.

Dogma #5) Nature is purposeless. There are no purposes in all nature and evolutionary process has no purpose or direction.

Dogma #6) Biological heredity is material. Everything you inherent is in your genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes, or in cytoplasmic inheritance. It's material.

Dogma #7) Memories are stored inside your brain as material traces. Somehow everything you remember is in your brain in modified nerve endings, phosphorylated proteins. No one knows how it works. But nevertheless almost everyone in the scientific world believes in must be in the brain.

Dogma #8) Your mind is inside your head. All your consciousness is the activity of your brain and nothing more.

Dogma #9) Psychic phenomena like telepathy is impossible. Your thoughts and intentions can not have any effect at a distance because your mind is inside your head. Therefore all the apparent evidence for telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory. People believe these things happen but it's just because they don't know enough about statistics, or they're deceived by coincidences, or it's wishful thinking.

Dogma #10) Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works. That's why governments only fund research into mechanistic medicine and ignore complementary and alternative therapies. Those can't possibly really work because they're not mechanistic. They only appear to work because people would have got better anyway, or because of the placebo effect. The only kind that really works is mechanistic medicine.

Watch YouTube video for more.

Of note is how so many of our religious sorts try to fault atheism by calling it a religion.

The word 'dogma" is widely, as here, similatly / ironocally misapplied.

Where's Atheism mentioned? Where's calling it a religion mentioned?

• dogma
  noun
  a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
  "the dogmas of faith"

Nonetheless, I'll dance with you and this red herring.
So re: Atheism being religion... I guess you don't watch Southpark?
The one with Richard Dawkins in, and you know way into the future how godless factions all inspired by their leader Dawkins were at war with each other over how to interpret Atheism? No. You didn't did you?!? Enuf said.

Where'd that post go, Audacity?

RickD wrote:Where'd that post go, Audacity?

Sorry about that, but in re-watching the video I realized he was speaking about a slightly different change than I had decided to address. My reply lost its relevance so I pulled it.

Kurieuo wrote:Where's Atheism mentioned? Where's calling it a religion mentioned?

• dogma
  noun
  a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
  "the dogmas of faith"

Nonetheless, I'll dance with you and this red herring.
So re: Atheism being religion... I guess you don't watch Southpark?
The one with Richard Dawkins in, and you know way into the future how godless factions all inspired by their leader Dawkins were at war with each other over how to interpret Atheism? No. You didn't did you?!? Enuf said.

Rhetorical questions are always a charmer esp. when paired with 180 degree acuity.

No prior mention of atheism. I made a comparison. The charges of religion, and dogma
are often, yes, ironically levelled by who but of course the theistians and the dogmatarians themselves.

The "dogma" and "atheist religion" bits are two of a kind.
Gibberish.

A person who can claim one will claim the other.

AND-this is important- that is a person who will steal sheep!

Nuff said?

So it's the mentioning of "dogma" that has your feathers ruffled?
Heh, I've never associated that word as being of a purely religious nature.

Anyway, I found his talk quite interesting.
Some of his listed "dogmas" seemed a little arbitrary, or further removed if you will.
However, nonetheless a good talk.

@Audacity, I'd be interested to hear where your thoughts were going nonetheless?

Kurieuo wrote:So it's the mentioning of "dogma" that has your feathers ruffled?
Heh, I've never associated that word as being of a purely religious nature.

Anyway, I found his talk quite interesting.
Some of his listed "dogmas" seemed a little arbitrary, or further removed if you will.
However, nonetheless a good talk.

Nah, no feathers ruffled.

No lucks ruffling your either.
But you knew I was having fun.

Science doesnt do "dogma", tho those with dogmatosis may.

And yes, some of the items put in to try to round it out to ten are sketchy at best.

Now, is the proffered list and associated possible fallacies something characteristic
of any known person, or are we just going after an amorphous "They"?

Ten points at once is a bit much, tho some are as noted, kinda lame. Is there one in particular you think worthy?

While science doesn't do dogma (neither does religion since neither do anything really, they aren't things capable of doing anything), scientists do talk in dogmatic terms all the time.
They do make absolute statements (yes, we know they shouldn't, but they do).
EX:
Dogma is :a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

And how many times have we heard a scientist say ( using the examples above):

Dogma #5) Nature is purposeless. There are no purposes in all nature and evolutionary process has no purpose or direction.
Dogma #6) Biological heredity is material. Everything you inherent is in your genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes, or in cytoplasmic inheritance. It's material.
Dogma #8) Your mind is inside your head. All your consciousness is the activity of your brain and nothing more.

PaulSacramento wrote:While science doesn't do dogma (neither does religion since neither do anything really, they aren't things capable of doing anything), scientists do talk in dogmatic terms all the time.
They do make absolute statements (yes, we know they shouldn't, but they do).
EX:
Dogma is :a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

And how many times have we heard a scientist say ( using the examples above):

Dogma #5) Nature is purposeless. There are no purposes in all nature and evolutionary process has no purpose or direction.
Dogma #6) Biological heredity is material. Everything you inherent is in your genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes, or in cytoplasmic inheritance. It's material.
Dogma #8) Your mind is inside your head. All your consciousness is the activity of your brain and nothing more.

Having been around scientidts pretty much all my life, how many times have I personally heard
scientists say some version of "incontrovertibly true"?
Probably never.

It sure isnt the way I am accustomed to them talking, and it is so contrary
the discipline of scientific thinking, I am disinclined to think you can name an exception.

Of course, as in all things, you find some individuals who've
lost a wheel along the way.

PaulSacramento wrote:And how many times have we heard a scientist say ( using the examples above):

Dogma #5) Nature is purposeless. There are no purposes in all nature and evolutionary process has no purpose or direction.
Dogma #6) Biological heredity is material. Everything you inherent is in your genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes, or in cytoplasmic inheritance. It's material.
Dogma #8) Your mind is inside your head. All your consciousness is the activity of your brain and nothing more.

Actually, not all that much. This isn't to say that notions like "nature is purposeless" aren't common among scientists, but it isn't taken as dogma because scientists recognize that the assertion may turn out not to be true at all. So why make it in the first place? Because it's become the default position through a lack of any worthy evidence to the contrary. Looking at nature, the scientist asks himself, "Hmm...is there anything that suggest some kind of purpose to nature? No!, then there's no reason to assume there is." BUT, not finding any evidence doesn't mean there isn't any, so a statement like "Nature is purposeless" always comes with the unstated, but understood caveat that it's possible that nature does indeed have a purpose. Understood that is, among scientists, but relatively few lay people. Scientists are acutely aware that new information may be just around the corner to upset the apple cart. It's comes with the territory. So statements that may appear dogmatic to the lay person are nothing of the sort to scientists. It's an unfortunate disconnect between the world of science and the public at large, but then few lay people care enough about science to really try to understand how it works.

I notice some anti-Sheldrake are focusing on the structure of his presentation rather than the actual content.

Re: the dogmatism, I know Audie that you don't terribly like Dawkins much, but...
in the field of research that Sheldrake deals with he seems to have copped quite a bit of flak.

You know, different fields in science like to believe their field is more scientific than others.
It seems to me the Sheldrake is fairly writing of his experiences with those in other fields of science.

Dawkins is someone who I'd call a very dogmatic Atheist and scientist, however you want to describe him, such dogmatic really seems like an appropriate badge for Dawkins. Certainly not representative of ALL, but this way I see it, Sheldrake is very defensive of his own research, hypotheses and the like, as any scientist would be.

Audacity wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:And how many times have we heard a scientist say ( using the examples above):

Dogma #5) Nature is purposeless. There are no purposes in all nature and evolutionary process has no purpose or direction.
Dogma #6) Biological heredity is material. Everything you inherent is in your genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes, or in cytoplasmic inheritance. It's material.
Dogma #8) Your mind is inside your head. All your consciousness is the activity of your brain and nothing more.

Actually, not all that much. This isn't to say that notions like "nature is purposeless" aren't common among scientists, but it isn't taken as dogma because scientists recognize that the assertion may turn out not to be true at all. So why make it in the first place? Because it's become the default position through a lack of any worthy evidence to the contrary. Looking at nature, the scientist asks himself, "Hmm...is there anything that suggest some kind of purpose to nature? No!, then there's no reason to assume there is." BUT, not finding any evidence doesn't mean there isn't any, so a statement like "Nature is purposeless" always comes with the unstated, but understood caveat that it's possible that nature does indeed have a purpose. Understood that is, among scientists, but relatively few lay people. Scientists are acutely aware that new information may be just around the corner to upset the apple cart. It's comes with the territory. So statements that may appear dogmatic to the lay person are nothing of the sort to scientists. It's an unfortunate disconnect between the world of science and the public at large, but then few lay people care enough about science to really try to understand how it works.

So not finding any evidence doesn't mean there isn't any?
Except when it comes to God, perhaps?

An assertion:
a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.

Is dogma:
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Because both state something as fact:

Fact:
a thing that is indisputably the case.

So, to assert is to make a statement about a fact ( or belief) and a fact is something this is indisputable ( incontrovertibly true) so, a scientist making an assertion is being dogmatic.

It is just what the words mean, pure and simple and that is why it is important to realize this:
religion and science do NOT make anything, no statements, nothing.
PEOPLE make statements so, religious people make statements and scientists make statements.
Science and religion make no statements about anything.

So, yes, scientists can be dogmatic, just like religious people.