Comments on: Separation between Scientific Truth & Belief

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 05:20:18 +0000

Hi Pamela,

First, I would like to thank you for the hours and nights I have fallen asleep listening to you and Fraser on astronomycast.com. The candid approach you take to educatung people about the cosmos is truly remarkable and very relaxing for the mind.

I have always been interested in the questions of “how” and “why”, but only in the past five or so years since I graduated from school have really taken in an depth (borderline obsessiveI interest in astrophysics, astrobiology, quantum mechanics etc… Unfortunately, as a financial adviaor who is about to get my mba in finance, whatg I love isn;t what I do for a living. As much as I would love to do what you do, financially and professionally it makes no sense for me at this point. My question for you, as I am sure you are asked this all of the time, how can I become more involved with what you do. It all interests me…research, observation, calculations, education, media…I just would like an organized way to gain exposure to your world. Keep up the great work and if you our any of your followers have suggestions it would be greatly appreciated.

Best,

Mike

By: steve oberski

steve oberski — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:26:44 +0000

What’s your take on leprechauns ?

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:49:29 +0000

There are many people like you, Dr. Gay that believe in God and also science. I hope your faith sustains you through the attacks you have gotten on this issue. Just know that you are not alone. Always remind the atheist/skeptics that there is no scientific proof that random molecules can spontaneously create life either. Life came from a Creator or just by chance so their chosen beliefs are just as susceptible to critical argument as your’s and mine are.

By: R. Schauer

R. Schauer — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:40:20 +0000

First, Pam, I love astronomy and your site is tops in my book. Second, I have to admire you coming out and saying what you’ve said above. You have opened a conversation we’ve all had with ourselves, without malice, about believing in god. You don’t elaborate much about the subject of god which I find unfortunate since our understanding of the definition “god” is central to further discussion. From my observations, god is many things to many people. I see memes. For example, Christian cultural behaviors collide love and mainly worship rituals, praying, meditating also include preaching of god’s intolerance, wrath, hate, judgement, guilt, sin, etc, etc…that his son was brutally “sacrificed?” Well, I don’t know about you, Pam…but one ‘ol book’s unsubstantiated and conflicted story regarding a loving creator who has to resort to using, famine, flood, plague, salt pillars, death and mayham on his creation and ends up without even enough power to save his son from man’s false judgement, brutality and intolerance…doesn’t inspire my confidence to follow or believe in…but there is a “story” in there sonewhere to interpret. Finally I ask, what is god to you, Pam?

By: LDS

LDS — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:58:38 +0000

Later or Earlier- take your pick: both silly.

I say: “say no to stupid! say yes to science.”

By: Anthony

Anthony — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 11:43:52 +0000

This is a debate that will never die. The scientific method has yielded more good in the world than what many professors of religion have had to offer. I believe that religion has been used as an instrument of great evil in the past. The power vested in some preaches was immense and caused great suffering to those who sought truth which, incidentally, impeded the progress of science for centuries. Who can deny these facts?
I personally believe, however, that the chemist Henry Eyring put the argument in a nutshell when he said: “Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.”
A personâ€šÃ„Ã´s religion should invoke the highest ethical standards or she/he has not understood it correctly. This reason alone should ring bells with those who are sceptics since better ethical standards would eliminate a great deal of bad science.
I believe for different reasons, however, that science and religion should remain separate in the class room just as the church and state should. Nonetheless, I would like to believe that those who have religious convictions are able to make significant contributions to the society in which they live whether they are scientists, politicians, teachers or mums and dads.
PS: I am a Latter Day Saint. I love Astronomy Cast and although I do not agree with everything on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe I think that is a great show also. Thanks to Pamela for the great job she does in making good science more accessible.

By: hugo

hugo — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:05:12 +0000

@Kemp,

I’m just about as happy as i can be without being happy clappy….

Yeah right- ‘documentation’ decades after he died doesn’t really qualify as an eye-witness account. Not only that, the gospels don’t even agree with each other- maybe you should read them again with an open mind.

The cave was empty… what a miracle that was! Top of my head? I can think of a dozen non-supernatural reasons why His body was missing.

Also, i think you’re confusing skeptics with Christians – you’re the ones who think you’ve got the answers for everything. You don’t know s#$%^!. Why don’y you explain why you think all those Muslims are going to hell? The Jews? The Hindus?

@Michael,

the possiblility of Extraterrestrial Intelligence is interesting but unproven- The possibility of God is also interesting but unproven. What we can say is that if god exists, he’s very unlikely to have been Jesus.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:30:44 +0000

I really like the use of beliefe in intelligent extraterrestrial life as an example of something that can be believed without verifiable evidence. It is a reasonable belief but not currently provable. I think a mind that functions only on verifiable facts is quite …. limited.

By: Kemp

Kemp — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 00:19:26 +0000

Dr. Gay, is a skeptic with some humility, which some of you “holier than thou” skeptics could stand to have a little more of. Your skepticality makes you feel powerful, you are way above those puny, naive, superstitious brains below aren’t you? Sorry, you don’t know s#%$#! We are less than a blink of an eye in this Universe and you think you will have it all figured out.
By the way, not sure how the multi-documented life of Jesus Christ equates to “magical fantasies” and being a “crazy Jew”. Try reading the gospels with an open mind…I know, it’s scary, you might get sucked in and heaven forbid, be happy

By: hugo

hugo — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:05:06 +0000

I think i know why this is such a ‘hot topic’!

Those of us who listen each and every week to AstronomyCast with Pamela and Fraser know it is one of the BEST science podcasts out there… absolutely astounding effort- and i don’t know why it isn’t broadcast on NPR or PRI etc. etc.

(I know it’s not ‘astronomy’, but i’d love to hear a special “God” edition of Pamela vs Fraser)

I think we science-geek-fans easily get ‘posessive’ about the things we love..

We might feel ‘betrayed’ or angry when we find out that our beloved uber-skeptic-science -godess turns out to be a theist!

This is her Jar-Jar-Binks moment and, although we love her, we can never forgive.

-sigh-

It’s like when i found out the tooth fairy didn’t exist… only in reverse.

Hugo

By: Mike H

Mike H — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 06:23:41 +0000

Benny
“I get pretty annoyed with the assumption that all smart people, all scientific people, and all skeptical people are/should be atheists as well.”

Why would it annoy you?

How can someone who claims to be a “sceptic”, believe in something for which there is no evidence? The two are mutually exclusive, surely?

Indeed, one of the definitions of “sceptic” in the OED is: “a person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions”

Seems pretty clear cut really.

By: Benny

Benny — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 03:29:44 +0000

I’m really glad you made this post. While I am an atheist, I get pretty annoyed with the assumption that all smart people, all scientific people, and all skeptical people are/should be atheists as well. There are some Christians (and also Muslims, Jews, Taoists, and Pagans) in my life that I respect greatly and are very smart people with a lot of knowledge in their areas of expertise. Although I disagree with belief in God, it is important to me to do so mostly privately and always respectfully.

When I do get upset about religion, it’s not with people like you. I don’t see belief in religion damaging when it does not restrict one’s ability to see and understand what we do have evidence for. As long as evidence comes before dogma, it’s all good. When I DO object it’s when people are using their faith as a way to restrict science, or restrict the rights of other people.

By: Mike H

Mike H — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 10:14:45 +0000

I too have just come to your website after listening to, and being impressed by, your joint podcast. And this is the first place I landed. And I am rather surprised.

I find it impossible to believe anyone who is a sceptic could also be a Christian (or Hindu, Moslem, Jew etc.) How can one have a belief in something for which there is no evidence?

What is to stop you believing anything? Why not believe that chocolate teapots fly between the stars? Or that we are secretly ruled by lizard shape-shifters? The (lack of) evidence is exactly the same.

Why “your” god rather than the multitude of other gods in which humans have believed or do believe? Had you been born in (say) India or Malaysia, would you still be a Christian?

How can it be rational to accept that an accident of birth changes the nature of your “true god”? Or is everyone else wrong? Or were you just lucky to be born into the one true faith?

I’m curious and perplexed.

Thanks for the podcast though. I am sure I will continue to enjoy it.

By: pamela

pamela — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 23:00:02 +0000

I just deleted a post from someone who left a false email, a false URL, and claimed that I’d made scientific statements I’ve never made. People are welcome hold opinions and state them. They are not welcome to lie from a position of anonymity.

By: Brock Hardman

Brock Hardman — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:45:15 +0000

I applaud you for having the courage to post this!

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:19:24 +0000

I actually dont care if Pamela is religious shes one hell of a communicator,sticks to the facts and is drop dead gorgeous (sorry something about an intelligent woman is sooo sexy!)

By: John B

John B — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:34:55 +0000

A philosophy teacher pointed out to me an interesting point comparing religion and science. Religious followers believe in entities that are eternal; non-physical things that existed before humanity and will exist “forever”. But scientists do too! For example, a triangle is something that was not invented so much as discovered. The concept of “triangle” had no beginning, nor has an end: it is eternal. It is non existant; there is no such physical structure that is a perfect triangle. So a triangle is eternal and non-physical. And it is accepted without question by scientists as a perfect “icon”. It isn’t that much apart from an angel.

By: John B

John B — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:16:44 +0000

Another point: Science can never invoked to make ethical judgements. Facts have no feelings, can not be used to weigh arguments about whether killing a lab rat is OK ; whether human experiments are OK. Why not? Science is objective. If you can only answer a scientific question by killing a human being, they why shouldn’t you if you are interested in the pursuit of TRUTH?

Underneath we all (I hope) believe killing humans is ethically wrong. Many of us think that killing lab rats is OK for science (some don’t) . Why is that? There are no scientific explanations for making these judgements. They come from a realm of ethical beliefs, from an area of human experience that is not governed by the cold hard facts required by the scientific method. Ethical decisions are NOT grounded in science. They are relative judgements derived from the human values we hold. Facts don’t apply to our values. We could raise a whole population with complete disregard for human life (e.g. the Spartans of ancient Greece) and thus a different set of ethics.

There is a huge reason to “hang on” to those ancient religious beliefs. They are how we define our humanity. Science is how we define the universe. They are not the same subjects.

By: John B

John B — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:02:41 +0000

Thank you Dr. Gay for pointing out what should be more obvious. After all, skepticism, aka science, deals with the objective observable universe; with facts. Faith and religion do not overlap in this area of human experience, and they should not. Even people of faith should recognize boundaries where faith should not go: we cannot be blind to scientific observations.

I wish scientists would spend a little thought on the FACT that science cannot explain all there is in our human experience. When we feel grief, love, joy, or anger, although a scientist might identify specific chemical and electrical impulses in our bodies, they don’t explain, nor do they do anything to aid our spirit, our feelings, our souls.

Scientific knowledge does nothing to explain or deal with our inner self. Humans are spiritual beings. We know there are things that a six year old can identify yet science cannot explain: why did the big bang occur? where were we before we were born? after we die? why do all of us billions of humans experience the same set of emotions? have the same set of needs? etc.

Skeptics, you can have faith and experience your inner self, and still rely on science to explain the world around us.

By: Gerald

Gerald — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:47:58 +0000

“there are things that in the absence of sufficient data I may choose to believe in or not believe in (such as God)”

With the same argument I could also firmly believe that the world is coming to an end in (year) by (pseudoscientific cause). If (year) is far enough away, such a belief can hardly be disproven by sufficient data like for example now Planet X 2012 impact theories can be dismissed using “we would have seen it with telescopes by now”.

Choosing a random belief in absence of supporting data is neither rational nor scientific. Of course one is free to live a scientific life on the job and a life of magic in private and there is absolutely no reason to hate Pamela just for that…

But… then again, how it is possible for someone to use the scientific method to debunk pseudoscience and – at the same time – believe in a childish wish-it-were-true-fantasies like afterlife/heaven will probably always elude me.