Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Originally posted by googlefudge
No I don't.

I think you do sound rather embittered and angry, you dont need to agree with me, but
then again, its often difficult to be objective about oneself, indeed, our national poet,
Robert Burns terms it a gift, the ability to see ourselves as others see us.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think you do sound rather embittered and angry, you dont need to agree with me, but
then again, its often difficult to be objective about oneself, indeed, our national poet,
Robert Burns terms it a gift, the ability to see ourselves as others see us.

We tell you how we see you constantly, robbie, but you pay no heed. Just take the gift. 😵

Originally posted by googlefudge
Evidence is a word that means different things to different people and what you are calling evidence I don't.

It's not a matter of my not accepting your evidence as strong enough, it's that what you have doesn't actually
qualify as evidence by the standards I use.

Now we can have a discussion about what constitutes evidence and why if you like bu ourself rational at the same time as not
agreeing with it's precepts and requirements.

While I think on your concepts, something for your consideration:

Don't have to see this from the beginning. Start at 4:00 minutes.

Now, Dr. Simon Geenleaf of Harvard was an EXPERT on legal Evidence. Evidence was his specialty. Start on 4:00 to learn about this world renown expert on Evidence.

Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said his testimony is the most compelling testimony to be received in any English speaking court - one of the greatest experts on EVIDENCE.

Dr. Simon Geenleaf was the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University - was one of the greatest legal minds. He sought as a skeptic to analyze the evidence for Christ's resurrection. This man was a non-Christian and a Jew.

Listen to this about Dr. Greenleaf, who rigorously examined the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and as a result became a believer. And I think that evidence is also for the existence of God.

At 4:00 -
YouTube

Originally posted by FMF
We tell you how we see you constantly, robbie, but you pay no heed. Just take the gift. 😵

last time i thanked you i got a lecture, anyhow its not about me.

Originally posted by jaywill
While I think on your concepts, something for your consideration:

Don't have to see this from the beginning. Start at 4:00 minutes.

Now, Dr. Simon Geenleaf of Harvard was an EXPERT on legal [b]Evidence. Evidence was his specialty. Start on 4:00 to learn about this world renown expert on Evidence.

Chief Justice of the for the existence of God.

At 4:00 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZhUrKiRGrQ[/b]

And none of that is at all relevant in the slightest because I am not talking about standards
of evidence in the legal system.

If you want to claim that your position is rational you have to abide by scientific rational
standards of evidence.

What other standards of evidence there might be are irrelevant.


As I said you may or may not agree with those standards but to claim your position to be
rational you must evaluate your position (and evidence ) by that standards set out by rationalism.


If you do an exam your mark will be determined by the marking scheme employed by the exam board
that is going to be marking your exam.

The fact that alternative marking schemes exist is irrelevant. You are going to be held to the standards
set out for the exam you are taking.


None of your 'evidence' meets the standards set out by science or rationality.

Arguing that it meets the standards of evidence for the US court system is irrelevant.

It might, it might not, I don't care.

The issue is if it meets the standards of rationality and it doesn't.

I am happy to discus why it doesn't, but there is no point discussing whether it meets some other lower
standard in a discussion about whether or not theism is rational.

Originally posted by jaywill
While I think on your concepts, something for your consideration:

Don't have to see this from the beginning. Start at 4:00 minutes.

Now, Dr. Simon Geenleaf of Harvard was an EXPERT on legal [b]Evidence. Evidence was his specialty. Start on 4:00 to learn about this world renown expert on Evidence.

Chief Justice of the for the existence of God.

At 4:00 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZhUrKiRGrQ[/b]

Id quite like to read Greenleafs book, i have a book by an excellent Oxford
scholar Albert Edersheim, who wrote a history of the Messiah and one on the temple.
He was also a Jew who converted to Christianity when presented with the evidence.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And none of that is at all relevant in the slightest because I am not talking about standards
of evidence in the legal system.

If you want to claim that your position is rational you have to abide by scientific rational
standards of evidence.

What other standards of evidence there might be are irrelevant.


As I said you may or may not agree meets some other lower
standard in a discussion about whether or not theism is rational.

And none of that is at all relevant in the slightest because I am not talking about standards of evidence in the legal system.

I would think you would be a little interested because the skepticism in the legal realm calls for most rigorous principles of what constitutes good and valid evidence.

Because of utmost rigor in the legal field, I would think you would perceive the relavancy.

If you want to claim that your position is rational you have to abide by scientific rational standards of evidence.

My suspicion is that you are attempting to jury rig the rules of the debate to exclude ie. the miraculous and the supernatural. Probably you wish to jury rig the rules to only permit naturalism and materialism to be considered.

But in the pursuit of truth I see no reason to limit myself to your jury rigged set up to try to force out the supernatural from consideration.

Besides there is the issue of why we should even trust our minds at all if reason itself is only the result of the movement of chemicals and molecules in gray matter.

"The scientific method of searching for causes by observation and repetition is but one means of finding truth. It is not the only means of finding truth." .

I suspect you are trying to force a worldview that only science can be the objective source of truth. The statement that science only can be an objective source of truth, is not a scientific truth. It is a philosophical statement by its nature.

The statment that science only can deliver truth is self defeating. And I think you are trying to rig the debate under that assumption, that only the scientific method can be trusted to arrive at truth.

Originally posted by jaywill

And none of that is at all relevant in the slightest because I am not talking about standards of evidence in the legal system.

I would think you would be a little interested because the skepticism in the legal realm calls for most rigorous principles of what constitutes good and valid evidence.

Because of utmost rigor in the ...[text shortened]... bate under that assumption, that only the scientific method can be trusted to arrive at truth.

Again you miss the point.

I am arguing that you can't call yourself a rational theist.

Rationality is a system of thought and philosophy.
A point of view and a set of methodologies.

If you don't agree with those methodologies then that's fine but it means that you are not a rationalist.

Being rational means to comply with the rules and methods of rationalism.

If you want to argue the merits of those rules then that is fine but it is a different argument from arguing
whether or not your position is in compliance with those rules.



It's like the difference between arguing whether or not someone has broken the law vs whether or not the law
is a good one or should exist in the first place.


I am saying that your claims of 'evidence' do not meet the standards required by rationalism.
And that thus you don't by the standards of rationalism have any evidence to support your belief in god and thus your
belief must be considered to be irrational.


You are responding by trying to argue that the standards of evidence required by rationality are wrong.
Which is as I say irrelevant to whether or not your 'evidence' meets those standards.


Rationality and scientific skepticism is a philosophical position and comes with a set of of positions and value statements that
we can discuss the merits of.

But what you are doing atm is disputing the right of people of that philosophical persuasion to set the standards they
want to abide by for evidence (or anything else).

You are trying to tell me as a rationalist and skeptic what my standards for evidence should be as a rationalist and skeptic
and then using those new standards to say that you are one too.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Again you miss the point.

I am arguing that you can't call yourself a rational theist.

Rationality is a system of thought and philosophy.
A point of view and a set of methodologies.

If you don't agree with those methodologies then that's fine but it means that you are not a rationalist.

Being rational means to comply with the rules and metho tionalist and skeptic
and then using those new standards to say that you are one too.

I am arguing that you can't call yourself a rational theist. ...

Rationality is a system of thought and philosophy.
A point of view and a set of methodologies.

If you don't agree with those methodologies then that's fine but it means that you are not a rationalist.

Being rational means to comply with the rules and methods of rationalism.

In discussing the history of philosophy the book before me talks about these philsophers who were suppose to be of the school of Rationalism:

Rene Descartes (1596 - 1560) ... concerning Descartes I read "The mind then is a thinking thing and this cannot be doubted. But what of the body? According to Descartes the body is an extended thing, and this can be doubted. The senses deceive us and we could be merely dreaming about our body and the physical world ... Since the only thing of which he is certain is the existence of his own mind, Descartes moves next to PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Then, on the grounds that God would not deceive us, Descartes attempts to demonstrate the existence of an external world of bodies." [my ephasis)

Whether you or I agree on this is not the point. My point is that this book list this man Rene Descartes as an exponent of Rationalism.

It seems to me that you are saying Theism and Rationalism are incompatible. Why then is theist Descartes classified as a Rationalist of the 17th century ?

Listed also in this chapter is a pantheistic philosopher Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677).

Concerning him the chapter states - "Spinoza was a younger contemporary of Descartes. Unlike Descartes his RATIONISTIC METHOD brought him to pantheistic conclusions rather than to Christian theism." [my emphasis]

Pantheism is of course a SORT of theism. So it seems your attempt to make Theism Verses the Rationistic Method are historically incorrect. That is unless you have reasons to assert the paragraph of my quotation is incorrect.

Then the chapter goes on to discuss Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) also under the heading of Rationalism. And a sample of the discussion reads -

"The last and perhaps most influential of the RATIONALISTIC THEISTS was Leibniz. His particular brand of RATIONALISM, as developed by Christian Wolff, has been the modern world's chief example of RATIONAL theism. It is to the Leibnz-Wolffian theism that Kant reacted, and it has been subject to constant criticism since his day." [my emphasis]

Once again, I am only interested in the CLASSICATION. Leibniz is classified as a Rationalistic theist. I assume that Rationalism, as a historical movement in philosophy therefore does not exclude, ipso facto, theists.

The book goes on latter - "The Leibnizian argument for the existence of God amply illustrates his RATIONALISTIC METHODOLOGY in both his ontological and cosmological proofs for God's existence." [my epmhasis]

" ... Leibniz' cosmological type of argument is likewise RATIONALISTIC."

Then the book goes on under the heading of "Stuart Hackett: Theistic Rationalism."

"Modern and contemporary Christian thought has not been without its strong strains of RATIONALISM ... Hackett entitles his view "rational empiricism," but it might with equal justice be called "empirical rationalism" since he claims rational certianty for the knowledge about God's existence and nature derive from sense experience." [my emphasis]

Latter on the page the discussion goes to a book of Hackett's called Rational Proof for God's Existence.

Once again, I am only interested in classification here. These theists / pantheists are described in one way or another as employing the philosophical discipline of Rationalism.

Now the book from which I quoted was Christian Apologetics by Norm Geisler, professor of apologetics at Dallas Theological Seminary. And OTHER books to his credit include:

Introduction to Philosophy

Philosophy of Religion

Ethics

Miracles and Modern Thought

Justify then your dichotomy by which you strongly imply the phrase "a Rational Theist" is an oxymoron. Why is Dr. Geisler's historical review on Rationalism in error to include some theists ?

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] I am arguing that you can't call yourself a rational theist. ...

Rationality is a system of thought and philosophy.
A point of view and a set of methodologies.

If you don't agree with those methodologies then that's fine but it means that you are not a rationalist.

Being rational means to comply with the rules and methods of rationalism. istorical review on Rationalism in error to include some theists ?

You are completely confusing the different types of “rationalism”.
The word “rationalism” has DIFFERENT possible meaning depending on context:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationalism

“....
1.
the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.
2.
Philosophy .
a.
the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience.
b.
(in the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza, etc.) the doctrine that all knowledge is expressible in self-evident propositions or their consequences.
3.
Theology . the doctrine that human reason, unaided by divine revelation, is an adequate or the sole guide to all attainable religious truth.
...”

the meaning 2a, and 2b, are what is called “continental rationalism” which must not be confused with meaning 1, .

googlefudge meant meaning 1, from “rationalism” and NOT “continental rationalism” which is quite different.

But being a “rationalist” philosopher as in agreeing to continental rationalism ( meaning 2a, and 2b, ) does NOT equate with being “rational” thus your whole post is flawed because of this.

Rene Descartes is a “ Rationalist” as in agreeing to continental rationalism ( 2a, and 2b, meanings ) but he may not be rational!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

“...Rationalism should NOT be confused with rationality, ...” (my emphasis)
-this is, of course, referring to continental rationalism and NOT meaning 1, .


I, for example, do NOT agree with continental rationalism but I am still rational and I still agree with rationality .
But I DO agree with “ rationalism” with meaning 1, but that is NOT Rene Descartes “ rationalism” ( which I disagree with ) which is continental rationalism.

Originally posted by humy
You are completely confusing the different types of “rationalism”.
The word “rationalism” has DIFFERENT possible meaning depending on context:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationalism

“....
1.
the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.
2.
Philosophy .
a.
the doctr ...[text shortened]... is NOT Rene Descartes “ rationalism” ( which I disagree with ) which is continental rationalism.

That's helpful information. However, you and googlefudge may not be on the same page.

Googlefudge seemed to be writing about the Philosophical methodology of Rationalism.

The googlefudge informed me that -

Rationality is a system of thought and philosophy.
A point of view and a set of methodologies.

So in this little tag team match, please tell me if you and googlefudge are talking about the same thing.

Originally posted by humy
You are completely confusing the different types of “rationalism”.
The word “rationalism” has DIFFERENT possible meaning depending on context:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationalism

“....
1.
the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.
2.
Philosophy .
a.
the doctr ...[text shortened]... is NOT Rene Descartes “ rationalism” ( which I disagree with ) which is continental rationalism.

What humy said... we are on the same page.

Although I will admit I was probably confusing in my language and meaning.


When I used the word rationalism I meant the philosophy of being rational and not the historical
school of rationalism.


My central argument that a theist cannot claim to be rational (at least with regards to their theism)
stands as the historical 'rationalism' school of philosophy was not rational in the modern sense.

Note while I did talk about the philosophy of rationality I didn't (and purposefully so) mention the school
of philosophy rationalism.

However I evidently was not clear enough in my meaning on this and for that I apologise.

humy,

In the Wikapedia article which you quoted I also read these words:

Both Spinoza and Leibniz asserted that, in principle, all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, could be gained through the use of reason alone, though they both observed that this was not possible in practice for human beings except in specific areas such as mathematics. On the other hand, Leibniz admitted that "we are all mere Empirics in three fourths of our actions" (Monadology § 28, cited in Audi 772). Rationalism is predicting and explaining behavior based on logic.

Are you saying, concerning this so-called "continental rationalism" (as far as I can see called so only because it appears on the European continent) compared to your rationality is irrational ?

I am trying to see why you seem to be proporting that your rationality is the "Real McCoy" rationality. And the philosophical rationalists are to you some kind of pseudo rationalists.

What sets your rationality apart and more accute than that of the Rationalists of the continental brand ?

Originally posted by jaywill
humy,

In the Wikapedia article which you quoted I also read these words:

[quote] Both Spinoza and Leibniz asserted that, in principle, all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, could be gained through the use of reason alone, though they both observed that this was not possible in practice for human beings except in specific areas such as mathem rationality apart and more accute than that of the Rationalists of the continental brand ?

To answer your question, I refer to where it says:

“Both Spinoza and Leibniz asserted that, in principle, ALL KNOWLEDGE, including scientific knowledge, could be gained through the use of reason ALONE, “ (my emphases)

you must note here that when Spinoza and Leibniz talk about “reason”, they were talking about deductive logic BUT, unlike when we use the word “reason” in the modern era, they did not regard inductive logic inclusive in “reason”.
You must also note here that “ ALL KNOWLEDGE” includes knowledge about the physical world.
So, taking note of these two things, one thing that is implied by that above statement is that:

Both Spinoza and Leibniz asserted that, in principle, all knowledge about the physical world could be gained through the use of deductive logic ALONE

THIS is were I disagree with continental rationalism for I claim that you necessarily need observation ( sometimes in addition to deductive logic and/or inductive logic and Occam's razor ) to rationally know anything about the physical world. They are irrational for making the assumption that all knowledge about the physical world could be gained through the use of deductive logic ALONE because they made that assumption despite the complete absence of evidence for this and the complete absence of both deductive reason and inductive reason for this. So I would claim that assumption to be an irrational one. I would claim that they are irrational for making that assumption but that that doesn't necessarily mean that I would claim they are generally irrational people -only irrational for making that assumption.
But, of course, I would see any part of their philosophy that relies on their irrational assumption to be flawed because of this.

I do not make that unqualified irrational assumption which they did and therefore would claim my philosophy to be more likely to be 'rational' (not to be confused with rationalist philosophy ) because of this.
But I would not claim to be necessarily more rational than they were when thinking about non-philosophical issues that would be unaffected by their irrational assumption so I would not claim to be necessarily and generally more rational than they were. I hope I made that clear.

Originally posted by humy
To answer your question, I refer to where it says:

“Both Spinoza and Leibniz asserted that, in principle, ALL KNOWLEDGE, including scientific knowledge, could be gained through the use of reason ALONE, “ (my emphases)

you must note here that when Spinoza and Leibniz talk about “reason”, they were talking about deductive logic BUT, unlike when we use the ...[text shortened]... be necessarily and generally more rational than they were. I hope I made that clear.

Some knowdege by humans can only be gained through devine revelation.