Another talk on evidence

(66) Stephen C. Meyer: Church Talk State of the Art [Talbot Chapel] - YouTube

It's a relief to see a video 'justifying' belief in 'God' that's less than an hour in length!

But I winced when I heard the speaker state this (6:15)...

"..the Biblical writers and the New Atheists disagree about what science has to say about the reality of 'God' "

But science doesn't have anything to say about those things that are beyond the bounds of scientific enquiry! Science is a method by which we strive to establish the matters of fact about various natural processes and that's all.

What people choose to make of those 'established facts' (this always needs to be qualified) is up to them but sometimes people of faith talk as if they think there're research groups of scientists devoted to the refutation of 'God' - there are not!

Did you watch the other one from the detective?

Scientist have a lot to say about justifying or rejecting belief in God, you cannot claim life looks like it is designed, but claim the appearance is only illusionary, and not be casting an inference towards the existence of a designer as unneeded or necessary.

The fact of the matter is that the great majority of professional scientists don't go anywhere near that subject! And we must also acknowledge that a proportion of those are religious.

A very small minority (for example Richard Dawkins) choose to challenge religious dogma with the current knowledge we have, derived from scientific research, especially where that knowledge contradicts such dogma.

This is a very long way from being able to claim that science or scientists are challenging belief in 'God'.

On the other point about the illusion of 'design' - if the argument is made that something as complex as the living world we experience could only have been created by some conscious creator but a more credible evidence-based explanation is now available, shouldn't it be stated?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you look at the person speaking before listening to them?

@stephen_33,

I really like your assessment of things.  While there are outliers like Dawkins, yes, I think you're right that most scientists 'don't go anywhere near that subject', and there are many scientists who are also religious.  YECs have really done such a huge disservice not just with misinformation but with this false narrative and dichotomy that paints science as secular and inherently atheistic.

As far as teleology/design goes, that is of course an extremely complex issue and the relationship to science even more complex.  In the physical sciences, including physics, astronomy, cosmology in particular, design/teleology is something more likely to be entertained by scientists and discussed when it comes to things like 'fine-tuning'.  However, when it comes to the biological sciences it could not be more night and day.  Design/teleology is absolute anathema.  There is such an aversion and negative knee jerk reaction against anything that hints of it in biology.  This is unfortunate imo because it ultimately plays out as a bias and a priori rejection of anything teleological with accompanying a priori assumption that the 'blind watchmaker' of natural selection can accomplish anything; an assumption without empirical justification.

Yeah, all that stuff about God said ignore.

?

You've lost me here - do you mean look in the sense of seeing? I don't need to see the person speaking on a radio programme before hearing what they have to say.

I don't know if that's what you were driving at but it's the only way I can answer at the moment.

Again, what? Come back - we're losing you!  😉

If researchers in the field of OOL can be said to be at fault for not acknowledging the practical impossibility of finding a naturalistic cause for life (your position, not mine), isn't it just as foolish to attempt to pick up possible alternative explanations and run with them?

I think it's wise to limit ourselves to what we know with confidence and avoid straying too far beyond that.

Really?  Back to this?

One might as well suggest caution about following the evidence to a logical conclusion.

More than once you told me about a speaker's affiliations either before or after you listen to them as if that altered the message truthfulness. In context what you said you winced over was a little strange since he gave specific people's names and quotes, so the points of view surrounding the topic under discussion were specific. It wasn't a blanket statement for all.

Did you watch the other video?

If someone is stating what appears to be a falsehood (or as close as makes little difference), why would I need to research their biography before responding? At best he was misrepresenting  the facts by a considerable margin, at worst utterly distorting them.

But I'll admit that I give far greater credence to statements made by (for example) the President of the Royal Society than I would for those made by the 'high priest' of creationism. I believe I'm perfectly justified in doing that.

That would be no.

But I assumed you were alluding to the 'design' question of OOL, not 'design' as it might be thought to have affected evolution itself? If the latter, I concur that we should leave that line drawn and agree to disagree.

But how strong is the case for insinuating design into the evolutionary process? Relatively weak I'd have thought.

What was false?

This from post #2:-

"..the Biblical writers and the New Atheists disagree about what science has to say about the reality of 'God' "

Science has nothing to say on the subject of anything beyond the physical. If it can't be observed and/or measured then it isn't subject to the scientific method. At best the speaker was being clumsy in the way he expressed this opinion and probably meant that certain scientists choose to challenge certain parts of religious dogma.

At least, if you can find any pronouncements on 'the reality of God' by scientific bodies or organisations, I'd be extremely surprised.