List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence

You could believe that the moon is made of cheese, yes, and it would be just as valid to you as the idea of gravity. When we hold a belief, it is not because we think it's false. No one is going to say "I believe in God, but God doesn't exist." There is no difference in the mind of a person between scientific beliefs and unsubstantiated beliefs; all beliefs held by any person are held to be true.
Now, you could say that the scientific belief is superior because you have more of a reason to believe in it than in an unsubstantiated religious belief. But as both beliefs, in the eye of the person believing in them, are "true", and because they are both the product of the same process (belief - doubt - inquiry - belief), I don't see how this is the case (metaphysically; pragmatically I can understand the distinction).
You, for example, have likely not done advanced experimentation wherein you observe molecules. You've never seen an electron. You have no evidence that an electron exists other than what has been told to you by people you trust.

So your belief in the electron is only worth as much as someone's belief in God. They have never seen or experienced God, but they were told about God by people that they trust in the same way that you have been told about electrons.
"But wait, many people have done reasearch and it is recognized by some of the best minds that electrons exist." That's one way I could see you approaching this as a counterpoint, but it would do you little good; you would still be relying on the words of others, having never yourself experienced or seen an electron.
Yet you are certain, and correct me if I'm wrong, that electrons exist -- and not only that, but also that electrons have properties such as a negative charge, and that they are not found within the nucleus of an atom; you also believe in atoms, and in the opposing force to the negative electrons, the positive protons, which are found in the nucleus.
These beliefs are also subject to the same thing which I said before.

So you've found yourself some advanced technology and you're going to look at an electron (good luck with that, by the way). But how do you know that whatever you're using to see the electron is not giving you a false image? How do you know that you're still not being deceived? Well, you really can't.
My point here is that you accept these scientific beliefs for practical purposes, because they seem to work most if not all of the time, but that doesn't make it any more viable as a belief than a religious belief. They are both fundamentally beliefs, subject to the doubt-inquiry-belief process.

OB1Shinobi wrote: ideas do not have boundaries
and ideologues do not want to isolate but rather to indoctrinate

Religions are beliefs systems, not ideas. Different category. Ideas are bounded only by how far they can be distributed. Belief systems are bounded by how far the tribe extends and how rigid it indoctrinates its young.

...

unless you can demonstrate that every "religious" person who has ever lived is "such and such nonsense" then to say "religion is such and such nonsense" is incorrect

for instance - "religion makes people kill people"

well, there have been billions and billions of religious people who have never killed anybody

so "religion" does not make people kill people

By that reasoning likewise one could say that you have to demonstrate that nobody was moved to kill by religion if you want to say that religion does not make people kill each other. In fact, every generalizing statement could be made and defended like that. So let's not do this. I shall instead present the following consideration:

There is a well-known patch of desert in the mediterranean area. It is particularly dry and stony and barren, borders some of the saltiest waters on three fronts, and has a notorious lack of anything materially interesting like gold or oil, unlike just about every other patch of desert that surrounds it. With the greatest troubles some people force this dead land into producing foods barely sufficient to keep alive a nation plagued by the very same land and sustained by the rest of the world being for unexplicable reasons interested in visiting it. Two peoples, distinct by choice alone with identical origins and descent, a common history and cultural habits in most things, virtually indistinguishable DNA despite no lack of trying and languages only an expert can tell apart have for over a millennium now spilled each others blood by the lakes with no noteworthy peace time yet or on the horizon.
Now, I'm not saying religion is the only thing that plays a role here. But I can't think of anything else remotely as compelling to people. Revenge for past wrongs might be another motive, I guess, but even that still boils down to religion as the primary cause of the conflict. Is that all religion does and does it do so all the time? Probably not. Would we be better off without it? Well, this part of the planet sure would as some others already are.

They are both fundamentally beliefs, subject to the doubt-inquiry-belief process.

Oh?

religious truths are also verifiable; but they exist at a different level

the problem that many people have is inability or simple refusal to make a distinction between what we could talk about as being FACTS on the one hand and TRUTHS on the other

of course this is just a way of talking, but it hits on a basic TRUTH that we can observe and experience in our lives

generally speaking, FACTS can be corroborated at the material level

truths are maybe more like states of being or understanding

they are essentially psychological and existential in nature

and to fully appreciate them, they must be corroborated through personal experience more than clinical observation

TheDude wrote: You and I both know that science has required and prohibited beliefs.

If you can't show it, then you don't know it. And neither can I.

For example, the belief that testing and retesting will allow us to gain information.

That is not a required belief in science. Sorry.

The physicist believes, presumably, in Newton's laws.

Some do. Others might not. Yet others may not care if they are true either way, like myself. It is not required anyway and nobody was cast out of their field for not believing in those. Sorry.

The astronomer believes that we can determine the chemical composition of a faraway star based on the light it gives off.

Some do. Others might not. Yet others may not care if that is true either way. This is not required to be an astronomer. Sorry.

But you and I both know that all things in science boil down to "It is most often the case that x", not "It is the case that x".

If you can't show it, then you don't know it. And neither can I.

One can be a Jew and say "I don't believe that some guy named Abraham wandered around in a desert talking to God and then circumcised himself". Though that might be seen as a required belief of Judaism.

Except of course a literal understanding of the Bible is not required in Judaism. If you say it is required, show that it is. Otherwise I can say it is not and not show it, and we are right back where we started.

And, someone can say "I'm a Christian, but I believe that there is a time NOT to turn the other cheek" even though that might be seen as a prohibited belief of Christianity.

Again, show that this actually is a prohibited belief. I am sure that whoever thinks that it is will also tell you that those who don't believe it are not "true Christians". And here comes the crucial bit:

Just as the astronomer can say "I don't believe in gravity".

Yes, they can, and while few of their peers will take much of what they say seriously, nobody will say they are not "true astronomers" unless they quit doing astronomy, which is not limited or necessarily including a profession of belief in gravity.

Ultimately, the sciences deal with reinforced beliefs, and some are clearly required to participate in the sciences.

No, that is incorrect. No beliefs are required to participate in the sciences. Being unable to prove a negative, my conclusion is obviously tentative and feel free to try and present other examples of beliefs you think are required. For every belief or lack thereof that scientists can have there is a field of science sufficiently unrelated to be worked at despite said belief or said lack.

That is not to belittle the sciences; all information any of us have is belief.

Depends. I have information about space Jews from Mars, but it is not a belief I have. To believe something means to be convinced that it is true, truth, likewise, being a matter of personal definition.

No one actually knows anything.

Depends on what you mean by knowing. Since we are motivated by what we believe, irrespective of whether we can show it to be true, the question of what we know becomes, at least on a practical level, secondary.

We have beliefs which we hold until they are contested, at which point we engage in doubt and inquiry, and form new beliefs because of that inquiry.

Some of us do. Others don't. There are people who do not believe anything at least until after the inquiry, and there are yet other people who will not inquire despite contest against what they hold to be true. Sorry.

Any form of practice in any field requires certain beliefs, and science is not an exception to this.

Actually, no. Ideologies have required and prohibited beliefs, because they are defined by the beliefs and little else. Science, in this context, on the other hand, is defined exclusively as a process of examination and conclusion drawing and nothing else. Given the appropriate application I can say that Newton's laws are unhelpful and that the Earth is flat, and if my reasoning is sound I will be no lesser scientist for it. Nor will I be more welcome amongst my peers for saying the opposite. Science is no exception not because it is the same in these regards, but because it is a different category altogether. It is not an ideology. If anything, it is the opposite of one.

As for the next post, I think the point is sufficiently exhausted in my response so far, but just so you know: I actually have seen electrons, thank you very much. Seeing may be believing but believing isn't knowing and neither is seeing. However I do know that they exist in the sense that I can show that they do. Now, whether the person I show them to will accept that is beyond my control but it is also beyond my interest as is, in fact, my own knowledge of the fact. Whether electrons actually exist makes no difference to the predictive power of the models that include them. Nothing about the workings of lightbulbs or computers or their construction would change if tomorrow we found out that there are no electrons. If tomorrow all Muslims found out that God's receiving antenna isn't in Mecca after all, much of their daily lives would see quite the change.
Also, I know Catholics who claim that they have seen the virgin Mary, and while I can't prove to them that I saw electrons, you can't prove to them that they haven't seen Mary. But I can replicate the consistent effects of electrons while they can't show you even a singular instance of the effects of the virgin. I don't have to rely on researchers to believe in electrons. In fact, in the lab, I specifically must not rely on their say so but instead present only results and assumptions that I could verify myself and only with a margin of error large enough to accomodate all uncertainties and inaccuracies that can potentially occur if anyone ever did have to rely on my findings.
Finally, about the last paragraph: Yes, there are reasonable assumptions and you can technically refer to them if you lack the resources to test them yourself or if your project depends on them but is not strictly about them. There is no need to believe any of them though. It is enough to take them as premises and draw conclusions and predictions. In fact, this is how ideas are tested. You don't accept they are true, you just see what follows if they are. Your work will be then helpful, regardless of whether your predictions are correct or false. In either case we would learn something new and that is what science is all about. Truth and definitive knowledge, unlike what philosophers of science will tell you, are, in actuality, more or less completely irrelevant in the scientific process.

TheDude wrote: No one is going to say "I believe in God, but God doesn't exist."

I disagree, because this is exactly how I feel about Santa and dragons and elves.

belife systems are things that people take with them and promote wherever they may go

they exist in the psychological realm and are not inherently limited by physical location

there are exceptions, like belifes associated with particular geographic features - volcano gods or mountain kamis for example - but the conviction THAT SUCH THINGS EXIST is not limited to the geographic boundaries

we can say such are limted to the CULTURAL boundaries, but examples abound of cultural exchange and integration of ideas and belifes

all it takes is exposure, really

especially with the internets

many people make a sharp distinction with the word "religion" and the word "spirituality"

i did for a while myself

imo its understandable and there is a reality that is expressed by using this distinction, but its not altogether necessary

however, if we wanted to frame the conversation in those terms then thats fine - ive presented my personal definition (what a person belives is true about life, existence, and their place within it or relationship to it)

for the purpose of this conversation and the point about the distinction between spirituality and religion, my personal view is that religion is basically articulated spirituality

my distinction between the healthy and unhealty faces of religion is to use words like "dogma" and "control" and "manipulation" ect

certainly religions and religious ideas have been used for these purposes, but to say that religion itself is "bad" because of this is, imo, not only innaccurate but probably quite dangerous in the long run

its kind of like saying bread is "bad" because mold exists

bread is fine, its eating the weird stuff that grows on it when it isnt taken care of correctly that hurts people

How many of you knew about this before now?

The Two Biblical Stories of Creation

http://www.leighb.com/genesis.htm

"Most people don't realize it, but there are two (yes, count 'em TWO) different and contradictory stories of Creation in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. The first story runs from Genesis 1:1 thru Genesis 2:3; the second story picks up at Genesis 2:4 and runs to the end of the chapter at Genesis 2:25.

In the first story, Creation takes six days and man (and woman) are created last after all the plants and animals are created. In the second story, Creation takes one day, man is created first, then all the plants and animals are created, and finally woman is created."

Here are the two stories side-by-side for easy comparison. http://www.leighb.com/genesis.htm

Actually, many scholars and theologians (myself included) believe that the two "different" accounts are actually the same account told two ways: the first account is detailed, and the second account is a summary of the first. Like the difference in a book and its Cliff's Notes.

Anyone of you, guys, know the Frank Zappa's third story of creation ? :evil:
Here it is :

In the beginning God made 'the light.' Shortly thereafter God made three big
mistakes. The first mistake was called MAN, the second mistake was called
WO-MAN, and the third mistake was the invention of THE POODLE. Now the reason
the poodle was such a big mistake is because God originally wanted to build a
Schnauzer, but he fucked up...

Excerpt from Frank Zappa - The Poodle Lecture

:blush:
OK, I'm out
:whistle: