No, I said I thought it was incorrect without reading it.....

You're missing the point that unless you have a justified true belief, you don't have the beginning of the chain in the first place, and justified true beliefs are not held without any evidence. The claim he's making is false.

Did you try it with one of your beliefs? I dont know why you are bringing in "justified true belief" as if that negates his point. It doesnt.

I dont think you actually understand the point being made.

a justified true belief isnt the beginning of the chain, its the end of the chain. It rests upon other, more basic, justified true beliefs, which rest on still more basic justified true beliefs. At some point you reach a belief that doesnt rest on anything, and actually cant rest on anything and cant be shown to be true. You therefore have to take that base belief as axiomatic, otherwise your whole structure of beliefs is invalid.

Again, try it with one of your beliefs, any one

Neither are theists and scientists. You keep on inserting this as a premise in your argument. It isn't a premise, it is the conclusion for which you supposed to argue. My claim is that theism and scientist can be complementary rather than opposed identities/methodologies/paradigms.

Regarding the bolded, the possibility of conflict between science and theism doesn't show that there is a conflict. It is possible that my liberalism can come into conflict with science, but that doesn't mean that being a liberal is in conflict with science. It just means my political beliefs are based on or imply empirical claims about the world.

Let's say I am a theist and a scientist. I'm committed to following the scientific method wherever it takes me in my investigation of the universe. This even includes my theism - if I ever become convinced the scientific evidence shows there is no god, then I'll give up my theism. However, I don't think science has demonstrated this so far. I think science has explained many things that used to be explain through superstition or religion through natural laws instead, and will continue to do so in the future. However, I also believe in a god that created the universe and who created a moral order and cares about intelligent beings like humans. Let's say I've been convinced by some combination of the ontological argument, experiences of connection or relationship with a divine being, the history of my religion, pragmatism, and good ol faith to accept theism. Where is my conflict?

It was Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest, who first proposed the Big Bang Theory, so I don't buy your claim that theists only grudgingly accept it. In fact, many theists are quite enthusiastic about the Big Bang - see for instance William Lane Craig's usage of it in his arguments for the existence of God. Many atheists initially rejected it because it implied a beginning to time, and hence they thought a way of bringing creationism into science. Also, Laurence Krauss's theory is not in direct conflict with god having caused the Big Bang.

You are writing checks you can't cash.

I brought in "justified true belief" because we're talking about beliefs and whether or not they're supported....

The claim is that any chain of beliefs contains "at least one belief that they accept without evidence" is false.

Some reading for you. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Belief

The purpose of science is to explain our reality, it will necessarily conflict with any other paradigm that seeks to do the same thing but in a different way and comes up with different explanations. E.g. theism.

Theism accepts scientific explanations only when they don't contradict theist explanations, or they regress god further and further back to being simply a first cause. They'll have to do that again if Hawking's 'boundary condition' hypothesis ever achieves the status of 'scientific theory', but it's also possible that this idea will leave no room for god at all.

No, numerous conflicts show that there is a conflict. How many theistic beliefs/explanations have we now rejected in favour of scientific explanations? Let's not forget just how far we've come. This isn't restricted to modern YEC's... gods were once the explanation for absolutley everything.

Your context is flawed and the question is meaningless, it's not possible for science to show that there's no god. It can't show the non-existence of something it ignores the possibility of in order to be effective in the first place. We've already covered this. If you thought that "scientific evidence shows there is no god" then you don't understand what science is.


It's irrelevant who 'proposed' it as a mere idea, the current theory is a scientific theory and meets all the criteria that determine what a scientific theory is. A religious equivalent would not, and could never, do that. That theists are 'enthusiastic' about TBB is a measure of how far we've come and how far religion has retreated in the face of scientific explanations. I find it very encouraging. Only a few hundred years ago you would have been risking your life to propose such an idea and in some places you still would be, but they are far fewer than they once were.


No, I'm really not. All you have to do is define a means of establishing 'better', and then you can do that thing. This is trivially obvious and I was actually making a joke when I said that.

Georges Lemaître was one of the great physicists of the 20th century, his work deserves a little more respect than "proposed it as a mere idea". Theoretical physics (which was his field) is an extremely important part of physics that work in conjunction with experimental physics, not against it.

Contradicting Einstein and the reigning paradigms of astronomy (steady state universe) and later be shown to be correct is a fairly momentous achievement, and speaks highly of his character as a scientist coupled with exceptional talent.

I mean, his work on the early stage of the universe was dubbed "the big bang theory" as an insult. Now it is the moniker on reigning theory on the development of the universe in an early stage. It doesn't get much cooler than that.

If you can't appreciate strong character and exceptional science, then I don't think you should speak too highly of what science is or what it should be like.

An idea is just an idea, whether it's good or bad and no matter who it's proposed by, a scientific theory is not a mere idea and great people have had terrible ideas so your defence of this particular idea because it was a great person who had it is laughable and retrospectively convenient...

Perhaps you'd care to apply your standards for how we should judge ideas to Tesla's 'earth quake machine', or Edison's 'Ghost busting machine', or Bell's 'six nippled sheep'....

Worst appeal to authority ever...

Ah yes, Einstein and his "just mere ideas", Heisenberg and his "just mere ideas".

All just village idiots bumbling about with crazy schemes until some experimental physicists takes pittance and decides to elevate their useless ramblings into actual science.

They they (and people like Lemaître) manage to produce frameworks on which our current understanding of the universe and modern physics rests is irrelevant, it's "just mere ideas".

My understanding of your view is this: science is a paradigm for gaining knowledge about the world and religion is a paradigm for gaining knowledge about the world. Religion says that god causes A to happen, but science says natural law B causes A to happen. These explanations are in conflict because they ascribe different causes to A. Thus, theism and science are in conflict and mutually exclusive.

My objection to this view is this: Particular religious views can come into conflict with science, but neither religion nor theism taken as a category are inherently in conflict or mutually exclusive with science. This is because theism, taken as a category, doesn't imply the claim that god causes A to happen. Instead, it only implies that God exists, a claim that we both agree is not contradicted by science. Thus, theism as a category term doesn't conflict with science.

Similarly with religion. No specific belief that God causes A is an inherent part of religion, instead only being characteristic of specific religious groups. Thus, if science says that natural law B causes A to happen, since God causing A is not an inherent part of religion, it can be given up - removing the contradiction.

You foresee this possibility and so acknowledge that the continuing increase of explanatory power in science can push theists to a more deistic view of god. I somewhat agree, but I don't see how this preserves your claim that there is a conflict. What about deism implies that natural law B doesn't cause A to happen?

Okay, so change my scenario so the context isn't flawed and then tell me where the conflict is. The question is obviously meaningful - you are claiming that theism and science are mutually exclusive and I am giving an example of a theistic scientist. Presumably, according to you, this person's beliefs/methodology/paradigms are in conflict. So what is the conflict?

Correct. Are you now starting to see the difference between an idea and a scientific theory?

I notice that you didn't try to defend the dumbass ideas those geniuses I listed had.... neither are you honest enough to accept that the source of an idea doesn't make it a good idea.

Hey, tame_deuces, would you please be more honest!

Has an historical note, TBB was considered by many scientists to be a "dumbass idea" when first proposed. (Although they probably just said that it was 'dumb")

These are complicated theoretical frameworks developed by brilliant men and women which fit the data and offer new explanations and venues for scientific understanding, and these specific examples have given rise to some of the most fantastic developments in modern science and physics. You can pretend all day long that this is what you meant by "a mere idea", but don't expect anyone to believe you.

And to return to your claim. At the end of the day, you have still failed to in any way or form adequatedly explain why LeMaitrê shouldn't have been a scientist - which is the actual position you are arguing for.

Why not? I think you should explain to everyone reading this thread why LeMaitrê should not have been doing science.

Indeed, it went up against the reigning paradigm and theories of cosmology / astronomy, the steady state universe - or the idea that the universe was not expanding or shrinking. A view supported even by Einstein.

That said, LeMaitrê was not a lone man fighting the establishment or anything like that (you rarely are in science, it being a form of academic wrestling after all). There were proponents of the expanding universe view, and two years after LeMaitrê's work a rather smart fellow joined the fray when he also showed work that supported it. He is a bit more well known, Edwin Hubble.

Buwahahahaa... c'mon... Don't embarrass yourself with tactics like this....

Sorry, I can't take this seriously enough as an attempt to understand my point of view to bother answering it.

A general principle which is almost universally adhered to in empirical science is to differentiate strictly between that a normative statement and empirical statements, or as it is usually coined - empiricism should remain descriptive.

So it would very rarely use the term "better". That would not be empirical science. You could derive the normative from the empirical (which medicine does when your doctor tells you apples are good for you), but it would be regarded as going beyond the actual scientific effort.

This is also of course because norms are hazy, fuzzy, often ill-defined and ever-changing. A bad framework to rest quantitative conclusions on. There is a very small minority that claim empirical science should sometimes be normative, but it's rare and very controversial.

You could use science to support your case however, but that's something else entirely.

Tone. LOL.

If you somehow think that me asking you to explain why a religious man like LeMaitrê shouldn't be a scientist is somehow worse than you saying that religious people shouldn't be scientists, then you aren't really understanding the gravity of your statements.

Because you are pretty damn close to statements like "black people should ride in the back of the bus".

Its not false at all. give me one belief of yours that you think is supported all the way down, and we will follow the chain of belief.

Since it appears that no one has a single, damn story to tell except for 1, and I want to lighten the mood, I will regale you w/ this:

Short back-story: I've gotten bored w/ poker and vowed to take 3 months off. I am two weeks into withdrawal.

The other day I saw that one of my tires was almost flat and I went to the gas station to fill it. Yesterday morning the urge to go play poker was about to overwhelm me. When I was about to give in I went to my car and that damn tire was flat again forcing me to get it patched. I happens that I've got 25K miles on my car and the guy at Discount Tire said that he wouldn't charge me bec I was going to need new tires soon. I suspected an up-sell attempt but he showed me the evidence and it HAS been 25K so I decided to buy 4 new tires. I had to sit in the waiting area for about 1.5 hours by which time the urge to break my vow and go play poker had faded away.

Tell me there is no God.

New tires should last 50-60 K miles; old tires ?

Maybe it's that I'm in Metro-Phoenix, IDK, bec the summers are really hot (5 year guaranty batteries last 2.5 years) but the tires were obv nearly worn out. They were Continentals if that means anything and I bought the same ones. $526, jfc.

Tell me there is no Satan.

I never said that he can't be a scientist, or that any theist can't be a scientist. It's up to them how they reconcile the problems the two very different types of knowledge will no doubt eventually cause them.

Also, apologies for my snarky reaction yesterday, I was tired and a bit grumpy.

There is a god, and he took time out from running the universe and causing innocent children to go blind because of parasites that eat their eyes from the inside out, and making other innocent children die in awful suffering because of childhood cancers and/or starvation, to make your tire flat and stop you playing poker.

How's that for lightening the mood?

Not very good at compartmentalizing is my guess.

Even worse at finding humour in things that aren't in the slightest bit funny, or humouring those who manage to forget the mysery and suffering endured by countless numbers of people while they thank (or ask) god for the most trivial, ridiculously egocentric crap.

You think god made your tire flat. I despair.