Deism, theism, atheism, and scientific objectivity;

The question is; who can be most scientifically objective the theist scientist or the atheist?  (For purposes of this essay, we will lump deism and theism together, since a belief in a personal or impersonal god does not change the logic of our argument. In other respects, we recognize that the two are quite different, but those differences have no substantial impact on the points of this essay.)

Pronouncements by scientists are far too often not objective. This is especially true relative to subjects relating to a belief in god.  Is there any reason to believe that scientists who are atheists are any more objective than Deists?  We believe that the answer is no and possibly even the opposite is true.

It is not unusual for scientists to portray anyone who disagrees with the current science dogma as a religious _______ (they fill in the blank with some bigotry term.) Christians are often referred to by atheistic scientists as "bible thumpers". There is, in fact, however, no reason to believe that a scientist's opinion is any less valid because he or she believes in god. There is also, of course, no reason to believe that the science opinions of atheistic scientists carry any assurance of objectivity and are not biased against faith in god.

Books such as  "THE SCIENCE OF GOD" WRITTEN BY G. SCHROEDER PH.D. are often written with very reasonable and limited reference to the bible. Such references do not make the science views invalid by any means.

The question of bias from ones belief in god or atheism is, in any case, a valid question, and important, because the reality is that there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion (including ours, of course.) we all have a need and compulsion to validate our beliefs. If we are, therefore, to listen to important scientific related arguments which impact our lives, we should consider and weigh the inherent bias on both sides of the argument.

 We will not discuss in this argument the effect of monetary interests bias, which often is dominant in science research, even though never openly stated so.  The question; is it valid to assume that the scientist who is an atheist is any more likely to be open minded than the scientist who believes in god? (Just less than half of scientists do believe in god, in  PHYSICS A GROUP WHICH AT LEAST AT TIMES DISCRIMINATES AGAINST AND DISCOURAGES THOSE WHO DO BELIEVE IN GOD.) 

Even if their monetary interests does not excessively color their judgment, is the atheist scientist able to argue from a position more objective than the theist?  In this essay, we will argue that the opposite is true. While the atheistic scientists will claim religious bias colors the arguments of those of faith, we will argue that at least in principle, the position of faith offers at least the potential to be more open minded than the atheist.

A theistic scientist (at least if not tied to any particular faith dogma) is inherently open to more possibilities than the atheist, simply by not being limited to materialistic explanations. a theist believes that there is a being not definable in material terms and not limited by materialistic science and the bias limits fundamentally inherent in the more narrow minded (all explanations are natural) position.

CLICK HERE FOR A REVIEW OF A RECOMMENDED BOOK ON SCIENCE SUPPORTING A BELIEF IN GOD.

It is a simple truth that anyone's bias is intimately tied in with how narrow a position one is taking in their beliefs. The narrower the belief, the more fixed (biased) ones position must be for that position to fit ones beliefs.

For example, atheists believe that god does not exist and for them that basically rules out any possibility for anything beyond the physical universe. Everything must be materialistic for them.

It is, of course, also possible to take a narrow position within theism and to be equally closed minded on the other side. With theism, however, there can be the existence of broader viewpoints about the nature of god and the degree to which god is active in the material universe. Essentially, if one defines god as an infinite being in any way, this leaves the theist having to accept that his/her knowledge of god must be imperfect and incomplete. This at least makes it possible and consistent for the theist to have an open mind. The theist should be open minded about the science not being able to define how god has designed the universe while still remaining at core a theist.

Atheists, on the other hand, by definition have no such options. Any scientific evidence of the probable existence of something beyond a materialistic explanation cannot by definition be reconciled with their atheistic belief.

The argument that follows will elaborate somewhat on the argument that the true deist/theist community has more options in taking positions relative to the material universe and is, therefore, less likely to be inherently biased than the atheist community in looking at science.

There will be exceptions to our arguments on both sides of the comparison, of course, and individuals will often be exceptions to the rule of the community, but in general, the following arguments will hold for the communities;

Starting with the definition and use of the word bias used herein; we define bias as the ability to look at actual hard evidence of science and openly/truly consider all possibilities. Please note that;

True science does not and certainly should not rule out any possibility simple because hard evidence for the possibility is not yet within the domain of proven science.

In fact science is supposed to operate by coming up with theories and then looking for evidence to support that theory. Science can, of course, also look for evidence to refute a theory, but most science aims at supporting theories.

Since this essay is about science as it is interpreted by theists and atheists, we would first note that science is not supposed to invoke god to explain something, but science certainly is not fit to rule out god. Sadly, scientist (especially those who are atheists) sometime make the assumption that their theories must be true just because at that time there is no other theory besides invoking god.

In some areas of science, it may be equally plausible or even much more probable (as in the origin of life) based on probability calculations in science, that God is the explanation rather than some random extremely improbably event or events occurring in the material universe. Too often, however, you will find arguments against God based on some atheists conception of God.

This writer is not aware any scientific concept of what god must be or any argument based on science facts which seems to make the existence of god a low probability. The opposite is the case in terms of support for the probability of god's existence; science, we believe, supports a belief in god in many ways. We admit that we have a biased VIEW AS TO HOW SCIENCE SHOULD VIEW GOD.

Arguments based on atheists conceptions of god are, we believe, are essentially a circular argument. Theists, however, have no reason to let atheists define god. Theists generally believe that god is infinite in some way, and an infinite god is, of course, not limited by our inherently finite understanding. in a circular way, atheist's concepts of god limit their understanding of how god may interact with the material universe and that tends to support their atheism.

An infinite god, has by definition literally infinite potential. True theists cannot, therefore, rule out any physical phenomena without hard evidence. The theist is open to god acting within and without the realm of science. the true theist is open to all possibilities except for the possibility that the laws of physics and the universe arise from nothing and without cause.

An atheist cannot, on the other hand, accept as possible, anything forever outside the realm of science. An atheistic position inherently requires a materialistic and reductionistic philosophy. There must be nothing for them that is beyond science and man's finite understanding.

The theist is under not such restriction of having to be materialistic and reductionistic. In theory at least, therefore, the theist is open to infinitely more possibilities and less biased or close minded than the atheist.

Certainly individuals can, of course, be open minded from each position. The purpose of this essay is to argue that theist can actually be the most open minded. Arguments by atheistic scientists about closed minded theists are not valid against the whole class of theists. Such claims might be true for some individual who is a dogmatic theist but there is no logic on which to make such a claim general about theists.

It is true that there are some theists who are inherently closed minded about science. One example would be Christians who interpret all of the bible literally in the modern meanings of their present day language as it has been interpreted by others from the original language. That position is one of extreme faith which may be true and valid but which is not fully defendable from a scientific point of view. Again, it may be a valid belief, but it is not scientific

An atheist would argue that a deist would be biased against any true science fact if it actually conflicted with his/her beliefs. To a degree, that would be true if the science tends to reduce the apparent probability of the need for God in explaining reality.   As we have argued, however, it would usually be more true for an atheist in many more cases since again, science must explain everything if it is to leave no room for God in the atheist worldview. The atheist is arguing from what is inherently a much more limited materialistic viewpoint.  The theist or deist, on the other hand, is arguing from a belief in an entity that created material laws as well as the substance of the universe and who is not limited by the laws of physics. as we have argued, this is inherently a broader position. A broader position as least gives the possibility of being more open minded.

More specifically, if one is talking about science dealing with the origin of the universe or the origin of life, the atheist would be inherently completely biased against any explanation which pointed to something beyond and, therefore, inexplicable by science. On the other hand, the theist, at least should be more open to the findings of science, since, for example if they are of the Christian or Jewish faith, even the biblical story does not talk about the origin of the laws of physics and does not go into detail about the origins of most forms of life. What the bible does say about the origin of the universe is, however, consistent with any science at least as long as a day for God is much greater than a day for a human (which is stated in the bible itself.), the bible leaves things unexplained from a physical viewpoint without diminishing its position. Atheistic science, on the other hand has to explain all things materialistically. Again, the atheist is inherently in a narrower defensible position stuck with their bias to explain all things from a material/reductionist viewpoint.

In essence, a theist who believes in an essentially infinite God, should not preclude any logically consistent way in which god could have created the universe and life, which does not directly conflict with the bible or other religious teaching which is believed to reveal god and gods work. The true theist will not try to confine god to his/her finite and very limited human understanding.

The atheist can only rely on the laws of physics to explain the entire universe and all of life. This inherently biases him/her to one interpretation derived only from the facts of science known at that point in time. The atheist will always remain ignorant (as we all will) of the initial conditions at the big bang. Roger Penrose (world class physicists) has calculated that the initial conditions had to be carefully chosen by the "creator" (Roger's word *.)

The atheist physicists would like us to believe that they have a simple explanation for everything without the need for god. The truth is that their explanations can never be shown to be certain (again fundamental ignorance of the how the very special initial conditions of the universe came about) anymore than a theist faith can be demonstrated to be certain by science.

These arguments about bias in science apply not only to interpretation of science findings but also to the selection of what science experiments to run, especially in the evolution sciences.
 CLICK HERE FOR INCONSISTENCIES IN ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION BELIEFS. 

Such restricted experiments are a form of bias. Atheistic scientists do not run experiments which might show the probable necessity of God.

Scientists would like the public to believe that their science is pure when in fact there is a lot of history which proves that to be a myth. This misperception foisted on the public limits science to certain positions which is again a form of bias. This is true not only of interpretations of science findings but also inherently applies to the funding of experiments and to some degree even to the analysis of experimental results.

Arguments such as ours will not change the fact that each side will believe, of course, that the other is closed minded. The simple truth, however, is that a belief in an infinite God and  A RELIANCE ON FAITH INHERENTLY MAKES THE TRUE THEIST MORE ABLE TO TEST AND VIEW REALITY  As something which is infinitely open to an infinite gods will and action.

What it all boils down to is that the openness to a possible creator and creation which is not finitely limited to what man can comprehend, inherently allows the true theist more positions consistent with their believe and thus to be more likely on the basis of logic to be less biased and more objective in finding and interpreting the facts of science.

FAITH CAN BE BASED ON LOGIC.  Certainly, we believe that the Christian faith is logical and has no need to bow to any science bias.

*Scientific calculations by one of the top two or three physicists in the world (Roger Penrose) in his book "The Emperors New Mind" on figure 7:19 page 343 leads Mr. Penrose to say of another scientific calculation "In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes".   He then calculates a probability 1 in 10 followed by 123 zeros that such would happen by chance without a creator.

We also recommend the book; "The Case For A Creator" by L. Strobel.