NIH nominee draws scrutiny
If Newton knew on faith that angels are what governed the motion of the planets, he would never have discovered gravity. If Darwin knew on faith that God had placed all life in its present form on Earth 6000 years ago, he would never have discovered evolution.
"I don't know" is not actually the start of anything. It's really an end. It's the end of one's knowledge. Progress happens when "I don't know" is followed by "I want to find out." This is the scientific inquiry that you describe above.
Framing their discoveries in terms of "faith" is also a red herring, and completely out of context with the rest of the conversation.
If you can't admit that you don't know something, you have no chance of ever truly explaining it.
but it isn't like atheists categorically assume everything anyone else believes is wrong (though that seems to be what you think and i don't blame you because it can sound like that), it is saying that it doesn't make any sense to believe something without evidence just because it is a nicer solution than saying i don't know.
you are big on questioning fundamental assumptions, so think about why you think that internal meaningless is some how less valuable than some sort of universal meaning.
But if it's not my job to give meaning, and that meaning is given from somewhere else, my decision is entirely different. Do I conform my own sense of meaning to the meaning that has been given from "somewhere else" or do I deny the meaning given from "somewhere else" and replace it with my own meaningless meaning (because it's not my job to give meaning)?
Moreover, there is both an internal sense, and a nearly universal cultural sense that we should somehow be valuing others. And this is why universal meaning is more valuable than personal meaning. Personal meaning leaves me to be completely arbitrary about how I do things -- making it meaningless -- but this is not consistent with an internal sense that I really should be caring about others. It makes far more sense that people are to be valued, not because I say so, but because something else out there has defined them to have value.
this is where you make the big leap. why is Christ any better a vessel for god's word than Muhammad?
Aids in explaining the things you said that god explains but secular science doesn't.
well my point is that if god is the top of the ladder why does everything else need an explanation but not it? it doesn't make much sense to say "well that can't be then end of the chain but this can, it explains everything". i don't see how god actually explains things any more than laws do, if you want to say god is the laws of the universe then we are just at an issue of nomenclature, but i'd rather put off on that until we know a lot more about physics, but we seem to then get in to meaning which doesn't fit in that definition of god.
If you do think that there is meaning or value, then you have to ask where it comes from. Can physical laws ascribe meaning? I don't see how it can, but maybe you can find a way. I have a hard time accepting that meaning can come from us under this perspective since we're nothing but a product of physical laws. This implies that all the things we think are really just the physical laws doing their thing, and there's no reason for our sense of meaning or value to be anything more than mere consequences of physical laws.
I'd like to say that you have probably the most agreeable and well thought out religious beliefs of anyone i've ever talked to
the only belief you've said that i couldn't see myself holding under different circumstances is the jump you make from meaning to Christianity specifically though you have the most logical jump TO a religion i've seen, i just don't see why christianity is any more special than judaism or islam or whatever religion that gets you to the same place.
P.S. we should try to cut these posts down as they are growing quickly and getting cumbersome to respond to in an organized way
The problem here is that the epistemology of knowledge is not there. It's not simply "I don't know" but rather it's "I don't know, but whatever is true must conform to my desired standard of proof." In the Christian sense, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. To the scientific materialist, it's repeatable verifiability is the beginning of knowledge. In both cases, there is an assertion of the nature of knowledge, neither of which can be tested (for if it could be tested, then the test itself would become the assertion of the nature of knowledge).
You're shifting gears and changing the context. In the context of the atheist position, "I don't know" is a stopping point. Atheists do not proceed to then search for a resolution to their atheism. They choose to stay in their atheism.
"I don't know" is not actually the start of anything. It's really an end. It's the end of one's knowledge. Progress happens when "I don't know" is followed by "I want to find out." This is the scientific inquiry that you describe above.
Framing their discoveries in terms of "faith" is also a red herring, and completely out of context with the rest of the conversation.
"I don't know" is not actually the start of anything. It's really an end. It's the end of one's knowledge. Progress happens when "I don't know" is followed by "I want to find out." This is the scientific inquiry that you describe above.
Framing their discoveries in terms of "faith" is also a red herring, and completely out of context with the rest of the conversation.
I think I'm missing your point here. I'm not suggesting we reject anything that we know. I'm saying we should be honest about what we know and what we don't.
But obviously the scientific method is the one that provides us with useful predictions about the future, such as what drugs will cure illnesses, how to land a man on the moon, when a solar eclipse will occur and so on. Whether or not you consider this to be "knowledge" in your narrow definition doesn't really interest me, but the fact of the matter is that science has actual utility in the real world and is supported by evidence whereas religion is not.
You've misunderstood me. No one is saying "I don't know if I'm an atheist." I know I'm an atheist just as you know you're a theist (presumably). I'm saying "I don't know how or why the universe exists," and that is certainly followed by "I want to find out," as I'm sure it is by many atheists.
My point about Newton and Darwin stands; if they had faithfully assumed that the religious explanations in their fields of study were correct, then they would have never discovered anything and we would still be living in the dark ages.
Similarly, I don't think Darwin (about whom I know significantly less) was influenced so much by young earth creationism, which is something that really came about as an American Evangelical phenomenon during the early-mid 1900s. From "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" by Mark Noll:
Despite widespread impressions to the contrary, [young earth] creationism was not a traditional belief of nineteenth-century conservative Protestants or even early twentieth-century fundamentalists. The mentality of fundamentalism lives on in modern creation science, even if some of the early fundamentalists themselves were by no means as radical in their scientific conclusions as evangelicals have become in the last forty years. For instance, during the century before the 1930s, most conservative Protestants believed that the "days" of genesis 1 stood for long ages of geological development or that alength gap existed between the initial creation of the world (Gen. 1:1) and a series of more recent creative acts (Gen 1:2ff.) during which the fossils were deposited...
The major hinderances to scientific development are more about what you already assume to be true about the world.
I think I'm missing your point here. I'm not suggesting we reject anything that we know. I'm saying we should be honest about what we know and what we don't.
I agree about "honesty" but being honest includes being aware of and willing to be explicit about specific worldview assumptions that are brought to the table. If you bring a purely mechanistic worldview to the table, then you must also admit that you've precluded your own ability to find God (as something other than another physical law) if he's out there. The requirement of replicable results also means that event that happens to be unique in the universe *MUST* be denied status as an actual event, REGARDLESS of what actually happened.
You seem to use words in a unique way, in this case somehow confusing materialist with atheist. There is no need for an atheist to be a materialist. Heck, there is no need for an atheist to be an atheist.
You can ( as several on here have reported in the past) really, really, really want there to be a personal god ... at the present you just don't believe there is, so you report in as an atheist.
Reporting you are without shoes doesn't mean you have excluded shoes from your worldview.
Cultural conditioning does that to a person. When raised in a culture where atheists are very much spiritualist or dualist one is not likely to make this error.
Realer? No. I can think of a hundred things that could be better, but I don't make a habit of playing pretend all the time.
Women don't have the moral right to an abortion after their baby is born. They also don't have the right to throw their children into a live volcano a.k.a. lake of fire, for not cleaning their room. Parents don't have a right to torture their children for even 5 seconds, much less all eternity, even if it were possible.
You seem to use words in a unique way, in this case somehow confusing materialist with atheist.
Better? Yes.
Realer? No. I can think of a hundred things that could be better, but I don't make a habit of playing pretend all the time.
Women don't have the moral right to an abortion after their baby is born. They also don't have the right to throw their children into a live volcano a.k.a. lake of fire, for not cleaning their room. Parents don't have a right to torture their children for even 5 seconds, much less all eternity, even if it were possible.
Realer? No. I can think of a hundred things that could be better, but I don't make a habit of playing pretend all the time.
Women don't have the moral right to an abortion after their baby is born. They also don't have the right to throw their children into a live volcano a.k.a. lake of fire, for not cleaning their room. Parents don't have a right to torture their children for even 5 seconds, much less all eternity, even if it were possible.
Are women before the baby is born in a position to know as much as God can know?
The impression that they often leave in a discussion is not just "I don't know" but it's also "whatever it is you believe must be wrong."
Try to close your eyes and imagine that you see Christianity in the same light that you see Scientology. See whether the atheist posts make more sense in that light. I think much of what you consider unreasonable in these debates, you might consider more reasonable if it were directed at a worldview you personally find just as onerous as I find Christianity.
Imagine a Scientologist who openly states that his highest value is Scientology, and imagine he is nominated for the head of NIMH. Do you need to do further research on this person in order to reach a conclusion? Hell, even if you think it would be necessary for you to do more research before forming a purely personal opinion on the subject, would you maybe not react with disgust at the initial thought of a Scientologist heading NIMH? Would you be horribly unreasonable for having this reaction?
Naturally, you hardly put your beliefs on the level of Scientology. On the contrary, you consider your viewpoints to be the very most credible viewpoints (we may all do that). And that clearly colors your perceptions of our responses to those beliefs. But what I see when I look at Christianity is something extremely different from what you see when you look at Christianity.
The reason that a revealed religion must conform to my standard of belief is simple. I think my standard of belief is reasonable. If God were to stake my eternal soul on my belief, and if God were just, then God could not indict me based on conclusions arrived at from a reasonable standard of belief. So if my standard of belief is reasonable, if God exists and is just (according to my definition), and if God will make my fate dependent on my belief in his existence, then God must provide evidence that meets my standard of belief. The absence of such evidence is proof against the existence of such a God (or proof against the reasonableness of my beliefs).
You're shifting gears and changing the context. In the context of the atheist position, "I don't know" is a stopping point. Atheists do not proceed to then search for a resolution to their atheism. They choose to stay in their atheism.
"I don't know" is not actually the start of anything. It's really an end. It's the end of one's knowledge. Progress happens when "I don't know" is followed by "I want to find out." This is the scientific inquiry that you describe above.
You can never "truly explain" something unless you first know it.
Let me explain it this way: If meaning is all proximate (ie, dependent upon me), then there is no compelling reason to care about people. I can value people because I want to value them, or I can not value them because I don't want to value them. Either way, it doesn't matter. Since I am the one making the definitions, I can do it however I want and be completely justified in my decision.
Moreover, there is both an internal sense, and a nearly universal cultural sense that we should somehow be valuing others. And this is why universal meaning is more valuable than personal meaning. Personal meaning leaves me to be completely arbitrary about how I do things -- making it meaningless -- but this is not consistent with an internal sense that I really should be caring about others. It makes far more sense that people are to be valued, not because I say so, but because something else out there has defined them to have value.
It all comes down to what you fundamentally believe about the universe. If the universe is ultimately derived from physical laws, then there is no meaning to it because physical laws lack the capacity of assigning meaning.
If you do think that there is meaning or value, then you have to ask where it comes from.
I think few of the atheists here are scientific materialists. I believe you significantly underestimate the complexity of the philosophies you are encountering. You don't need to be a materialist to apply materialist reasoning. You seem to see atheists here applying materialist reasoning and then to assume that we are materialists on that basis. This is not a justifiable assumption.
-Aaron:
Can you clarify the subjective difference between 'proximate' meaning and 'absolute' meaning? I know you're already in about fifty conversations ITT, but I've talked to you about 'proximate' v. 'ultimate' meaning before and the discussion was never resolved satisfactorily.
Can you clarify the subjective difference between 'proximate' meaning and 'absolute' meaning? I know you're already in about fifty conversations ITT, but I've talked to you about 'proximate' v. 'ultimate' meaning before and the discussion was never resolved satisfactorily.
-Aaron:
Can you clarify the subjective difference between 'proximate' meaning and 'absolute' meaning? I know you're already in about fifty conversations ITT, but I've talked to you about 'proximate' v. 'ultimate' meaning before and the discussion was never resolved satisfactorily.
Can you clarify the subjective difference between 'proximate' meaning and 'absolute' meaning? I know you're already in about fifty conversations ITT, but I've talked to you about 'proximate' v. 'ultimate' meaning before and the discussion was never resolved satisfactorily.
Madnak -- that's a lot of typing. It will take time to get to it.
I appreciate it. Given our past exchanges, I thought there was a good chance you were ignoring me by now.
Besides, I think I probably like to argue too much to start ignoring people I strongly disagree with.
I believe my meaning is just as meaningful as your meaning. You keep using the assumption that if meaning "only" exists in a person's mind, that somehow makes it less meaningful than if it were a component of reality. If this is just one of your worldview assumptions, then it's one on which we differ so you won't get anywhere by applying it with me (us, I assume, as I know many atheists share my views here). If it is not, then I'd love to hear the justification.
If something is "meaningful" then it carries some sort of content or purpose on its own.
But when you start talking about "your meaning" and "my meaning" you run into conflicts regarding the "content" which is why we have to use modifiers like "meaningful to you" and "meaningful to me." This sort of personal meaning is probably what you're thinking of when you say meaning. The problem is that if it's only "meaningful to me" then none of the content that I assign to that object actually ever reaches the object (ie, it's not actually contained in the object).
This is why my assigning of meaning to objects is meaningless. I say it carries content, but it doesn't actually contain content. It's all an illusion inside of my head. No meaning was ever actually endowed on the object.
I'm not saying that the meaning we assign to objects is non-functional in how we operate in our lives. I'm simply pointing out that we must recognize that it is an illusion we put in front of ourselves, and that there's no "real" meaning in any of the "meaningful" stuff that we have. It is "meaningful to us" but without inherent meaning.
Now if meaning is an inherent property of objects, then you lose the ability to redefine the meaning to whatever you want it to be. In other words, it tells you what its meaning is, not the other way around. In a sense, there is an authoritative structure that is endowing things with meaning. For example (and sorry for the weak analogy), consider a military setting. The sergeant says "don't touch that." This is meaningful. Everyone below him must respect "don't touch that." Furthermore, violation of "don't touch that" comes with consequences from the one who endowed the object with "don't touch that." Even if you didn't know that the object contained "don't touch that," touching opens the door for consequence.
That is the difference between "meaningful" and "meaningful to ..."
Imagine a Scientologist who openly states that his highest value is Scientology, and imagine he is nominated for the head of NIMH. Do you need to do further research on this person in order to reach a conclusion? Hell, even if you think it would be necessary for you to do more research before forming a purely personal opinion on the subject, would you maybe not react with disgust at the initial thought of a Scientologist heading NIMH? Would you be horribly unreasonable for having this reaction?
The reason that a revealed religion must conform to my standard of belief is simple. I think my standard of belief is reasonable. If God were to stake my eternal soul on my belief, and if God were just, then God could not indict me based on conclusions arrived at from a reasonable standard of belief. So if my standard of belief is reasonable, if God exists and is just (according to my definition), and if God will make my fate dependent on my belief in his existence, then God must provide evidence that meets my standard of belief. The absence of such evidence is proof against the existence of such a God (or proof against the reasonableness of my beliefs).
Atheism is not a brick wall. It is a world as rich and full as theism. Atheists do not "stop" at "I don't know." Atheists never stop. But no, we don't leave atheism - if you happen to view atheism as narrow, then I can see why you consider it a dead end. But as there is so much to explore in my atheist world, I don't see myself stopping any time soon.
Many (perhaps most) scientists do not try to equate these models with epistemic "truth."
I don't accept the premise that meaning must derive from what the universe derives from. The fact that the universe derives from physical laws doesn't imply that meaning derives from physical laws. Listen to this - my worldview is not a linear hierarchy. I also don't accept the premise that physical laws lack the capacity of assigning meaning.
I think few of the atheists here are scientific materialists. I believe you significantly underestimate the complexity of the philosophies you are encountering. You don't need to be a materialist to apply materialist reasoning. You seem to see atheists here applying materialist reasoning and then to assume that we are materialists on that basis. This is not a justifiable assumption.
1) "Scientific" = The scientific method is the only source of reliable knowledge
2) "Materialism" = The fundamental reality of the universe is matter and energy
When I say that someone is a scientific materialist, I'm simply saying that they hold these two assumptions somewhere among all of their other assumptions. I'm aware that there is some other baggage that people have put onto this term, but this is much like how people have put on extra baggage to "Christianity." (I'd use a different phrase, but I don't know of any other succinct phrase that carries precise this content... so I'm stuck with it.)
Aaron W. would you support an outspoken qualified atheists for this position?
It's probably down there with some assumptions and definitions. I don't know if this will make any sense if you believe the universe is all in your head. Also, I draw a line between "meaningful" and "meaningful to ...".
If something is "meaningful" then it carries some sort of content or purpose on its own.
If something is "meaningful" then it carries some sort of content or purpose on its own.
But when you start talking about "your meaning" and "my meaning" you run into conflicts regarding the "content" which is why we have to use modifiers like "meaningful to you" and "meaningful to me." This sort of personal meaning is probably what you're thinking of when you say meaning. The problem is that if it's only "meaningful to me" then none of the content that I assign to that object actually ever reaches the object (ie, it's not actually contained in the object).
This is why my assigning of meaning to objects is meaningless. I say it carries content, but it doesn't actually contain content. It's all an illusion inside of my head. No meaning was ever actually endowed on the object.
I'm not saying that the meaning we assign to objects is non-functional in how we operate in our lives. I'm simply pointing out that we must recognize that it is an illusion we put in front of ourselves, and that there's no "real" meaning in any of the "meaningful" stuff that we have. It is "meaningful to us" but without inherent meaning.
This is why my assigning of meaning to objects is meaningless. I say it carries content, but it doesn't actually contain content. It's all an illusion inside of my head. No meaning was ever actually endowed on the object.
I'm not saying that the meaning we assign to objects is non-functional in how we operate in our lives. I'm simply pointing out that we must recognize that it is an illusion we put in front of ourselves, and that there's no "real" meaning in any of the "meaningful" stuff that we have. It is "meaningful to us" but without inherent meaning.
The only way I can see the meaning (that is an intrinsic part of reality - an intrinsic part of me) if my mind's eye is directed outward is to observe something that reflects that meaning. The clearest example of this is another human being - another human acts like a "mirror" to me. You can call this an illusion if you like - other humans may be philosophical zombies, in fact they are necessarily philosophical zombies in the universe as it is. But they appear to resemble me, and so they appear to share the meaning that is intrinsic to me. Because it is difficult to view "myself," to view reality "in itself," (though people who meditate constantly show signs of extreme happiness and contentment, so maybe it would be wiser for me to take that path - regardless) it is necessary for me to experience "my" meaning in these things that resemble the inexplicable aspect of myself that you might call my "awareness" (though I think that misses the point, I'd have to get mystical to describe it otherwise).
Of course, it's not just that objects in the universe reflect meaning. The truth is that there is only one object at all, and that object does intrinsically have meaning. Again, I won't elaborate because it would get into mysticism. But I am not arbitrarily assigning meaning. When I experience meaning in an object, that implies that some reflection of underlying reality is communicated by that object. Illusion or not, the underlying meaning is intrinsic to reality, regardless of whether it is "really" associated with the object in question.
Now if meaning is an inherent property of objects, then you lose the ability to redefine the meaning to whatever you want it to be. In other words, it tells you what its meaning is, not the other way around. In a sense, there is an authoritative structure that is endowing things with meaning. For example (and sorry for the weak analogy), consider a military setting. The sergeant says "don't touch that." This is meaningful. Everyone below him must respect "don't touch that." Furthermore, violation of "don't touch that" comes with consequences from the one who endowed the object with "don't touch that." Even if you didn't know that the object contained "don't touch that," touching opens the door for consequence.
If I were to be upset, it would not be with the one who was nominated, but the one who did the nominating. I think this comes down to a completely different view of authority and authoritative structures than anything else.
See above regarding authoritative structures. If God is in the position to endow "this is how it is" on the universe, then your disagreement with God is impotent. Just as if the segeant says "don't touch that," what recourse do you have if you touch it? "I didn't know" or "I wasn't convinced that you said 'Don't touch that'" have zero traction.
If you believe that universe derives from physical laws, but you also think that meaning is not derived from the universe, then meaning is not a part of the universe. So if it's not a part of the universe, then where is it?
Or to clarify further, there are two "universes" I talk about. The first is the "little universe" that I discuss 99% of the time. This is the universe that works according to physical laws, it is a model that I have constructed in order to make sense of my perceptions. It is my conceptual model that allows me to say "this is an apple" instead of "this is a region of red in my sensory apparatus." But my only knowledge of the apple, the sole source of my inference that "there is an apple," is my sensations (and the perceptions derived from those sensations). If I had never sensed anything like an apple in any way, had never seen an apple with my eyes or heard one described with my ears, then I would have no concept of an apple. What an apple is to me is the result of sensory information I have achieved and processed. That is, inputs coming from sensory "places." This applies to everything I know about the universe. Thus, my universe is necessarily derived from my senses. It seems contradictory to describe my sensations as being contained within something derived from my sensations, so my capacity for sensation must be "outside" the little universe.
Within my little universe is my "little self," the me that was born, grew up through the human stages of development, is now a grown adult, and has thoughts and feelings based on a brain. This "little self" bears some striking resemblances to my "big self," which is my ultimate reality. The thoughts that I can infer my "little self" is having, I can also directly experience in my "big self." But the "little self" is still just a model. My "big self" contains things that my little self does not appear to contain (such as what we can refer to as qualitative experiences or qualia). My big self also contains the universe, whereas my little self is contained by the universe.
So the question can be raised - is there a "big universe" out there, that resembles the little universe in the same way that my big self resembles my little self? And my answer is simple - my sensory inputs do not justify any conclusion about an "outside" universe. I would need to arbitrarily assume the existence of such a universe. And I'm not willing to do that. But the idea is certainly comfortable, and is intuitively plausible. Of course, if there were a big universe, it would probably differ from the little universe (just as my big self differs from my little self). The big universe, even if it bore a superficial resemblance to my little universe (and I'm not sure it would), might not work according to physical laws (as the little universe does). But my mind is far, far too limited to reach any conclusions about a big universe. Understanding the little universe is tough, understanding my big self is almost impossible, it is clear to me that the big universe is beyond me. (Especially based on the reasoning of the idealists, etc, about the impossibility of understanding the "thing in itself" which I believe is a necessary condition for understanding the big universe.)
Thus, while there may be a "big universe" out there, I am not in direct contact with that universe. I am only in contact with my self and my perceptions. And thus, reality is my self and my perceptions. There is no "big universe" to speak of, because in order to speak of the big universe I would need to make assumptions about it. Still, there are times (such as now) when I do speak of the "big universe" as an intuition pump.
I think there are two core assumptions of scientific materialism:
1) "Scientific" = The scientific method is the only source of reliable knowledge
2) "Materialism" = The fundamental reality of the universe is matter and energy
When I say that someone is a scientific materialist, I'm simply saying that they hold these two assumptions somewhere among all of their other assumptions. I'm aware that there is some other baggage that people have put onto this term, but this is much like how people have put on extra baggage to "Christianity." (I'd use a different phrase, but I don't know of any other succinct phrase that carries precise this content... so I'm stuck with it.)
1) "Scientific" = The scientific method is the only source of reliable knowledge
2) "Materialism" = The fundamental reality of the universe is matter and energy
When I say that someone is a scientific materialist, I'm simply saying that they hold these two assumptions somewhere among all of their other assumptions. I'm aware that there is some other baggage that people have put onto this term, but this is much like how people have put on extra baggage to "Christianity." (I'd use a different phrase, but I don't know of any other succinct phrase that carries precise this content... so I'm stuck with it.)
I would have no inherent issues with an "outspoken qualified atheist" in the same sense I wouldn't have any problems with an "outspoken qualified Muslim." The operative word here is "qualified."
Ok just checking. I think most Christians would have a problem based on all the polls i have seen on atheists in positions of power.
Christians and politics in the US is a combination that has caused great damage due to the last 50-100 years of increasingly misguided leadership. Their focus got distracted by power and influence, which turned them away from the ministry of reconciliation that was given to them. It's going to take at least 1-2 generations, if not more (if it ever happens), for that mess to be cleaned up.
I guess this is no different from madnak having a problem of Christians in positions of power.
Christians and politics in the US is a combination that has caused great damage due to the last 50-100 years of increasingly misguided leadership. Their focus got distracted by power and influence, which turned them away from the ministry of reconciliation that was given to them. It's going to take at least 1-2 generations, if not more (if it ever happens), for that mess to be cleaned up.
Christians and politics in the US is a combination that has caused great damage due to the last 50-100 years of increasingly misguided leadership. Their focus got distracted by power and influence, which turned them away from the ministry of reconciliation that was given to them. It's going to take at least 1-2 generations, if not more (if it ever happens), for that mess to be cleaned up.
To be fair, you would have to object to all theists holding positions of power. There's nothing explicitly "Christian" about those laws.
I would disagree that any other theist besides Christians had anything to due with establishing those laws. The US was and is a predominantly Christian nation and i hold them more accountable for those discriminatory laws. Its not like a bunch of Hindu or Muslims put those laws in place or have the power to remove them. But i would not support any other theists that are in favor of them remaining.
I'm pretty sure there were a good number of enlightenment deists out there in the 18th century. (Plus post-enlightenment 19th centruy deists.)
It is that he has made very public statements through books and other media that take a concrete position on the inevitable outcome of several avenues of research that most of the scientific community would say is premature and unsupported. This makes me worry that he may allow those positions to negatively affect research in those areas. As long as he doesn't I don't think there will be any major problems.
The other problem of his stance on stem cells isn't really a huge deal since we can make them in other ways now, but as a precedent it could be an issue in the unlikely event that a similar dilemma presents itself during his tenure.
It is that he has made very public statements through books and other media that take a concrete position on the inevitable outcome of several avenues of research that most of the scientific community would say is premature and unsupported. This makes me worry that he may allow those positions to negatively affect research in those areas. As long as he doesn't I don't think there will be any major problems.
But this is also not a problem that would be unique to Collins, and it would be a fair concern to have regardless of who was nominated.
The only other sources I can think of requires an acceptance that you, or Pletho, have special knowledge or that I have special knowledge. Iow, it's not demonstrably reliable, even to myself ( if I could demonstrate to myself I could demonstrate it to you).
The others come down to "it is reliable because I believe it is reliable".
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE