I recently had a xtian say to me that my "belief" (sic) in atheism restricts my worldview to naturalism. Yet his belief in god means he is more open minded, because it allows the possibility of a supernatural answer.
I know that you can't just add any old crap to a hypothesis without good evidence supporting it.

So, I'm after some examples of where a scientists personal beliefs in god/myths/woo/monsters etc has actually prevented him/her from advancing his/her field of study.

Bathynomus Giganteus wrote:I recently had a xtian say to me that my "belief" (sic) in atheism restricts my worldview to naturalism. Yet his belief in god means he is more open minded, because it allows the possibility of a supernatural answer.
I know that you can't just add any old crap to a hypothesis without good evidence supporting it.

So, I'm after some examples of where a scientists personal beliefs in god/myths/woo/monsters etc has actually prevented him/her from advancing his/her field of study.

Why do you need a specific example to counter this claim? E.g. Anyone who believes in the existence of monsters without any evidence could not be a biologist. Anyone who believes in an interventionist God who created Man in his own image cannot be an evolutionist. Etc.

Point out that his mind is not ‘open’ to a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the Universe. If he argues ask him if he is open to the idea that there is no God.

Hell; why bother just point out the flaw in his original premise; he is the one with the belief not you.

Richard46 wrote: Anyone who believes in the existence of monsters without any evidence could not be a biologist. Anyone who believes in an interventionist God who created Man in his own image cannot be an evolutionist.

lmao. huh? Why not? Perhaps they couldn't (or shouldnt) believe it on the basis of biological evidence or evolutionist type evidence, but that doesn't suggest that that they cannot believe it. Also: There's nothing within the sciences that states that evolution cannot be the means to an end by some supernatural power; and so we have guys like Francois Collins who are both Christians and evolutionists. Moreover, we have scientific organizations proclaiming that there is no conflict between science and religion.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/youtube]

Richard46 wrote:

Bathynomus Giganteus wrote:I recently had a xtian say to me that my "belief" (sic) in atheism restricts my worldview to naturalism. Yet his belief in god means he is more open minded, because it allows the possibility of a supernatural answer.
I know that you can't just add any old crap to a hypothesis without good evidence supporting it.

So, I'm after some examples of where a scientists personal beliefs in god/myths/woo/monsters etc has actually prevented him/her from advancing his/her field of study.

Why do you need a specific example to counter this claim? E.g. Anyone who believes in the existence of monsters without any evidence could not be a biologist. Anyone who believes in an interventionist God who created Man in his own image cannot be an evolutionist. Etc.

Point out that his mind is not ‘open’ to a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the Universe. If he argues ask him if he is open to the idea that there is no God.

Hell; why bother just point out the flaw in his original premise; he is the one with the belief not you.

He will argue that science is about finding out "how" not finding out "How, not including god". He will also say he accepts naturalism, he just doesn't exclude the possibility of it all being god caused. (Yeah, he's come out with the classic "The universe had a beginning, so must have a cause" and "god is outside of spacetime so is eternal" .... I hit back with the "big-bounce" theory. )

Mick wrote:

Richard46 wrote: Anyone who believes in the existence of monsters without any evidence could not be a biologist. Anyone who believes in an interventionist God who created Man in his own image cannot be an evolutionist.

lmao. huh? Why not? Perhaps they couldn't (or shouldnt) believe it on the basis of biological evidence or evolutionist type evidence, but that doesn't suggest that that they cannot believe it. Also: There's nothing within the sciences that states that evolution cannot be the means to an end by some supernatural power; and so we have guys like Francois Collins who are both Christians and evolutionists. Moreover, we have scientific organizations proclaiming that there is no conflict between science and religion.

If you believe evolution; or indeed anything; is the is the result of intervention by a 'Supernatural' power then you cannot; by definition; also believe in a scientific explanation. it is one or the other although people can of course believe in mutually exclusive propositions if they choose.
You do understand what 'Supernatural' means? Indeed do you understand what science is? The physical Sciences have nothing to say about the supernatural or superstition.

Bathynomus Giganteus wrote:

He will argue that science is about finding out "how" not finding out "How, not including god". He will also say he accepts naturalism, he just doesn't exclude the possibility of it all being god caused. (Yeah, he's come out with the classic "The universe had a beginning, so must have a cause" and "god is outside of spacetime so is eternal" .... I hit back with the "big-bounce" theory. )

I would say I do not rule out the possibility either and when he produces the convincing evidence for a God I will accept it.

OK, this is what I'm up against. I have been debating this guy for a few days, often with some very long posts from both side, and I have been very busy double checking my research (using this site and others for info). And I am now growing weary.
I'm running out of idea's, but certainly don't want him to claim a victory if I back down/give up.

Triviality: He asked me if I had any beliefs. I told him one of them,(nothing to do with religion or atheism) and added I do not threaten people with eternal suffering if they also do not believe it. His point was that my belief is trivial compaired to religious beliefs...In a way this is correct.

Lack of belief: I told him I do not force "my atheism" (lack of belief) onto other people, but I do defend atheism and science whenever I see it being attacked.
(The missing part behind the facebook banner : my relationship with a living, loving creator God. This type of thing could be countered with theology, but never with naturalistic science because we are not talking about natural things but abstract, which naturalism has no room for. )

Creation: I pointed out the flaws in Genesis 1

Goddidit: I pointed out the fundie (il)logic of inserting the "god-of-the-gaps", which includes his own logic of saying god must have caused the big bang.

Evidence: He has provided no scientific evidence, only the bullshit we see posted here.

Fine-tuning: I have pointed out how dangerous this world is for life, and how we evolved to suit the environment. Not the other way around.

Size of the universe: This was his responce to this comment bellow:-
"Travelling at the speed of light (Light can travel 7 and a half times around the earth in one second), it would take 100,000 years to travel from one side of the galaxy to the other.
In this galaxy there are an estimated 200 billion stars. Most will probably have planet orbiting them.
And a German supercomputer has calculated that the could be 500 billion galaxies out there. There are more stars in the universe, than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on earth.
The typical distance between galaxies is about 2-4million light years.
So, the size of the universe really is unimaginable. And 99.9999999999% of it in completely uninhabitable to any life.
So I ask you, what is the point of all that space? Why would a god, which is so interested in humans, create all that space, and takes 13.5 billion years for humans to come along, and evolve on a tiny spec of dust?
We are not special. Not by a long shot."

I can pretty much respond to most of it, I could really do with some evidence of a personal belief prevent scientific advancement.

Bathynomus Giganteus wrote:I can pretty much respond to most of it, I could really do with some evidence of a personal belief prevent[ing] scientific advancement.

Hindering might be a better word because it seems that "science" just keeps trudging on.

So here are a few examples that I can think of in no particular order:

Heliocentric solar system.

Stem cell research in the US.

Andrew Wakefield has done a lot to set back scientific understanding, by many people, of vaccines where children are concerned.

I'm actually after an example where a scientist has come to a blank in his line of research decided it must have been caused by god. So left it at that and didn't pursue it any further.

Bathynomus Giganteus wrote:I'm actually after an example where a scientist has come to a blank in his line of research decided it must have been caused by god. So left it at that and didn't pursue it any further.

I suppose you could argue that the proponents of Intelligent design have given up on the evidence for natural selection because God must have done it. Problem is most of them where never scientists and those that are would not agree that they have given up on proper research.

What about this?

Beliefs are incompatible with science, because our perception is flawed through beliefs. It causes bias. What we belief is out there is not what is objectively determinable, hence "belief". If it is, then believing it is, would be superfluous. In science everything is done to drive personal bias from the proces.

Belief only has motivational power in individual behaviour. Its mechanics can be a studied as a field of science. But that would be it. Science is about building models with explanatory power of real world phenomena. Held belief can only hamper the scientific method in every step - from formulating hypothesis, designing experiments, collecting data, up to the conclusions drawn.

Bathynomus Giganteus wrote:I'm actually after an example where a scientist has come to a blank in his line of research decided it must have been caused by god. So left it at that and didn't pursue it any further.

As you wish, from one of best science educators alive:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 994873365#

Shrunk wrote:

Bathynomus Giganteus wrote:I'm actually after an example where a scientist has come to a blank in his line of research decided it must have been caused by god. So left it at that and didn't pursue it any further.

As you wish, from one of best science educators alive:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 994873365#

Great talk, but it isn't clear that Newton et. al. stopped pursuing because of a belief in God or rather invoked God where they had already stopped,

epepke wrote:,,,

Great talk, but it isn't clear that Newton et. al. stopped pursuing because of a belief in God or rather invoked God where they had already stopped,

That was my impression. I have only watched up to the Newton segment but the main point being made I thought was that all believers even Scientist believers are IDers at some point usually at the point where they run out of ideas or the calculations get too much.

epepke wrote:Great talk, but it isn't clear that Newton et. al. stopped pursuing because of a belief in God or rather invoked God where they had already stopped,

Good point. However, I think the OP might still consider asking his friend how Newton's theism helped him make discoveries that could not have made otherwise.

Well, the most obvious examples are found in expositions of a heliocentric cosmos. Copernicus presented his work as a model for predicting the motions of celestial bodies only, not as an accurate picture of reality, precisely because he was concerned about charges of heresy*.

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for going on step further and asserting it as truth. The church was perfectly happy to accept a heliocentric model as a basis for the purposes of prediction, but asserting it as truth strays into heresy, and indeed it was this that led to the trial of Galileo. Galileo, of course, submitted to the will of the church and recanted position in this regard. Essentially, it's the distinction between a predictive model and a metaphysical statement, as susu.exp has pointed out on occasion.

*It should be noted that some of the blame for this is laid at the feet of Osimander, who is thought to have edited the work somewhat when he took control of the publication of Copernicus' work while Copernicus was on his deathbed.

hackenslash wrote:Well, the most obvious examples are found in expositions of a heliocentric cosmos. Copernicus presented his work as a model for predicting the motions of celestial bodies only, not as an accurate picture of reality, precisely because he was concerned about charges of heresy*.

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for going on step further and asserting it as truth. The church was perfectly happy to accept a heliocentric model as a basis for the purposes of prediction, but asserting it as truth strays into heresy, and indeed it was this that led to the trial of Galileo. Galileo, of course, submitted to the will of the church and recanted position in this regard. Essentially, it's the distinction between a predictive model and a metaphysical statement, as susu.exp has pointed out on occasion.

*It should be noted that some of the blame for this is laid at the feet of Osimander, who is thought to have edited the work somewhat when he took control of the publication of Copernicus' work while Copernicus was on his deathbed.

Don't you know that anytime you mention Bruno that Tim descends to tell you how wrong you are?

Bruno is a no no He was persecuted and executed for heretical religious ideas that he could not defend, don't you know? And Galileo caused his own demise because he was a fucking arrogant asshole that could not defend his ideas.

My answer to the OP, quite simply, is that belief itself presents the danger of being a hindrance to science. Why? Because belief, as practised by supernaturalists, consists of accepting uncritically unsupported blind assertions, and treating those assertions as established fact, regardless of what reality has to say on the matter.

An example of where this proved to be lethal, of course, is 1348. The year that the Black Death arrived in Europe.

At that time, thanks to the ruthlessness of enforcers of conformity to doctrine, most Europeans did not even know that there existed an alternative to Magic Man. They were unaware of the idea of subjecting blind supernaturalist assertion to critical test. They were soon, however, to see that subjection of blind supernaturalist assertion to critical test take place in a particularly brutal fashion. Courtesy of the fact that those same Europeans spent three years kissing the arse of Magic Man, only for Magic Man, if he existed, to sit on his arse and do nothing, whilst 25 million of those Europeans died a horrible, lingering death. Supernaturalist assertions were tested to destruction during that three year period, but tragically, it took something like three centuries for the message to sink in.

Eventually, Europeans started looking to something other than mythology to learn from, and, in a moment that changed everything, chose the real world. The moment they did this, they started developing what we now call science. That was what set us apart from everything that had gone before. And when we did this, we started learning about the real causes of disease, and started doing something material about those causes.

Belief itself is a hindrance to science, whenever mythological assertions are treated as established fact simply because the relevant mythologies erect those assertions, and evidence from the real world is ignored, or worse still, subject to duplicitous apologetic manipulation to force-fit it to mythological assertions. Because the moment this happens, you take the dangerous turn down the same road that was trodden by Europeans in 1348. The moment you start making scientific facts and theories subordinate to mythological assertion, that is the moment you act as a drag anchor on progress, possibly with lethal consequences.