Biologist vs. Physicist on god :P

[ninar]

Biologist vs. Physicist on... "god" :P

Hello!

Some time ago I was watching an interview between... Richard Dawkins and... another scientist, whose name I can't recall.

In the interview he comments on his impression that there seems to be a different level of approval to the concept of 'a god' in the beliefs of biologists vs. physicists. He argues the reason is, physics cannot yet explain for certain enigmatic phenomena on the universe, so, it sort of leaves space for a kind of "mysticism" or at least a sense of "spiritualism" or perhaps "beauty" that accounts for the notion of 'a god' in this sense, even so to speak of "nature", you know, poetic stuff.

I share his idea about this distinction, but it is only my impression, I don't know what is the general feeling about this in biology? My invitation is for comments on your observations on the sentiment toward this idea on the field of biology, or even in physics or other sciences, what do you believe about this?

 

[Monique]

Note that we have special guidelines for discussions on religious subjects

Religious Discussion Guidelines:
Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems. However, it is essential to use good judgment whenever discussing religious matters to ensure that the discussion does not degenerate into a messy dispute. If in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, there are no hard and fast moderation rules that apply over all possible cases. Ultimately, it is up to the administrators and mentors to decide what is appropriate and what it not on a case-by-case basis. Discuss religious matters at your own risk: Administrators and mentors retain the right to lock or delete any religious thread or post at any time without warning or explanation. All administrator and mentor action taken with regard to religious discussions will be final and will not be up for dispute.

Religious proselytizing is strictly prohibited! PF is not the place to promote or discuss particular religious dogma.

I must say I don't know where you are going with this question, so I doubt that it would be appropriate for this forum.

 

[ninar]

Yeaaaahh... I kinda thought that would be a possible reaction. Its not my intention to spark controversy, I understand this is a delicate subject, so, well I can't expect much affinity to be reached.

My only curiosity was towards the comment over the acceptance of this... ideology in different scientific areas? As, in, perhaps, a subject of philosophy of science, or psychology maybe. It even made me realize the different treatment even I give to different subjects. I get this sublime sense, for example, from poetry and physics. But to economics, I give it the cold treatment.

Honestly, I don't know how in all my good senses could believe I could raise a thread like this It was just my curiosity towards this comment by Dawkins. And, well, since it involved a renowned biologist, and the biology scientific community, well, maybe I got overexcited lol.

So, yeah, do what its appropiate for this. Maybe its better off to the general talk?

 

[ninar]

Ahhh, btw I am neutral on the... god subject.

And I don't know if its obvious by my first post but its not my intention to make it a battle against Dawkins in any way. What I just find it funny that he has made himself so controversial these days, I kinda assumed everybody else perceived him also as controversial.

Some years ago, I fell in love with his book The Selfish Gene, and ever since to other topics in genetics, biology, etc. I am still not sure how I feel about how positive it is for a personality like him (and even more because I like to follow his investigation) to gather so much criticism on one side, and praise on the other, from two very antagonist groups. Peace everybody! :)

 

[Monique]

You may be interested in reading this thread
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=340300"

 

[DavidSnider]

Ahhh, btw I am neutral on the... god subject.

And I don't know if its obvious by my first post but its not my intention to make it a battle against Dawkins in any way. What I just find it funny that he has made himself so controversial these days, I kinda assumed everybody else perceived him also as controversial.

Some years ago, I fell in love with his book The Selfish Gene, and ever since to other topics in genetics, biology, etc. I am still not sure how I feel about how positive it is for a personality like him (and even more because I like to follow his investigation) to gather so much criticism on one side, and praise on the other, from two very antagonist groups. Peace everybody! :)

I think Dawkins realizes this too. On the book tour for The Greatest Show on Earth every single interview was still about The God Delusion. Nobody even wanted to talk about anything related to evolution.

 

[Proton Soup]

Hello!

Some time ago I was watching an interview between... Richard Dawkins and... another scientist, whose name I can't recall.

In the interview he comments on his impression that there seems to be a different level of approval to the concept of 'a god' in the beliefs of biologists vs. physicists. He argues the reason is, physics cannot yet explain for certain enigmatic phenomena on the universe, so, it sort of leaves space for a kind of "mysticism" or at least a sense of "spiritualism" or perhaps "beauty" that accounts for the notion of 'a god' in this sense, even so to speak of "nature", you know, poetic stuff.

I share his idea about this distinction, but it is only my impression, I don't know what is the general feeling about this in biology? My invitation is for comments on your observations on the sentiment toward this idea on the field of biology, or even in physics or other sciences, what do you believe about this?

that's an interesting point of view. i would say that physics is more exacting, and there is less room for arrogance and bullsh!t pet theories.

 

[DavidSnider]

BTW, This was an interview with Laurence Krauss. It was pretty good.

I think Steven Weinberg also said something similar. Both are from the "Voices of Science" interviews.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=60FA6951C8318996 Krauss
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AFE6DDDA9CEA82BF Weinberg

 

[DavidSnider]

that's an interesting point of view. i would say that physics is more exacting, and there is less room for arrogance and bullsh!t pet theories.

Then why do the majority of crackpots seem to frequent the physics forums rather than the biology ones?

 

[Proton Soup]

Then why do the majority of crackpots seem to frequent the physics forums rather than the biology ones?

i dunno, maybe for the same reason crackpot zoologists get rich writing pop-sci books

 

[Monique]

that's an interesting point of view. i would say that physics is more exacting, and there is less room for arrogance and bullsh!t pet theories.

That is nonsense. No truth can come from generalized statements, such as the one you just posted.

 

[DavidSnider]

i dunno, maybe for the same reason crackpot zoologists get rich writing pop-sci books

Not nearly as much money as the Ramtha\Deepak Chopra\Etc Etc new age people make exploiting quantum mechanics.

You might have an argument with nutritionists though

 

[Proton Soup]

That is nonsense. No truth can come from generalized statements, such as the one you just posted.

i love irony

 

[ninar]

Not nearly as much money as the Ramtha\Deepak Chopra\Etc Etc new age people make exploiting quantum mechanics.

You might have an argument with nutritionists though

It seems to me that biology and physics both expose topics which may be controversial for a religious consistency --even almost historically equally for the two; both for science, and for the "psychological" or "emotional" perception or agreeability of the community towards the theories; and in relationship with the religious body...

I have an impression that fewer in the public are willing to sort of 'merge' the central dogmas in biology with their personal religious ideology, than it would be in the case of physics.

DS, you point something interesting... maybe those authors (Deepak Chopra, Ramtha) and maybe more have made a good job pointing out the agreeable, happy, letsbefriends implications of the theories in physics, towards religion or at least "spiritually"; and I am not aware of any other in biology that has done something similar, at least on such a scale of "popular" diffusion.

 

[ninar]

BTW, This was an interview with Laurence Krauss. It was pretty good.

I think Steven Weinberg also said something similar. Both are from the "Voices of Science" interviews.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=60FA6951C8318996 Krauss
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AFE6DDDA9CEA82BF Weinberg

Btw, I was rewatching that interview ( thanks for the link :) ) and he does mention something about Sagan looking at the universe and pointing out: "ahhhh what a wonderful, amazing, beautiful, etc universe!" and he (Dawkins) says, well, me too! I share that sense of wonder.

As far as I know, Sagan did not define himself as an atheist, but he did call for a redefinition of the conventional conception of 'god'. I feel Dawkins feels he's been unfairly threated hehe. Even though, every time I hear him speak or read his books, I get such a sense of, well, he can be very politically correct... then maybe it was his statement that came too harsh?

 

[DavidSnider]

Btw, I was rewatching that interview ( thanks for the link :) ) and he does mention something about Sagan looking at the universe and pointing out: "ahhhh what a wonderful, amazing, beautiful, etc universe!" and he (Dawkins) says, well, me too! I share that sense of wonder.

As far as I know, Sagan did not define himself as an atheist, but he did call for a redefinition of the conventional conception of 'god'. I feel Dawkins feels he's been unfairly threated hehe. Even though, every time I hear him speak or read his books, I get such a sense of, well, he can be very politically correct... then maybe it was his statement that came too harsh?

Sagan said he was an Agnostic in interviews, but he only said that because he thought the idea of saying 'There absolutely is no god' would be unscientific. Dawkins thinks the same thing, but he thinks using the term Agnostic is too weak to describe that position and that using the term 'God' to describe the laws of the universe like Einstein did was confusing.

You also have to remember that Sagan was a product of a different time when Atheism was still strongly linked to Communism and Nazism.