Just gotta say folks that I love this thread. You all probably know that I'm a pastor, so believing in God is for me one of those non-negotiables. Science is all about the observable universe which is in my humble opinion one of the gifts that God gave to humanity: the ability to observe, think, reason, and wonder "why." But there are without question those who refuse to accept reality even when its staring them directly in the face...
There's so much irony in this post I don't even know where to begin.
. If you're a scientifically minded person, what the Rocket Rev said might sound ironic or contradictory, but I don’t think so. He made a pretty strong defense of fact-based reality and believing empirical evidence. I’m not going to put words in his mouth, but it sounded to me like he meant a person can believe in God but should also believe what they observe in the “observable universe”. To me that’s fine. I’m agnostic about the existence of God, because I just don’t know, and I like things to be proven to me empirically. But I think you can certainly also believe in things that can’t be proven, just so long as you don’t twist facts to try to prove something that can’t be proven or use your faith in something not observable to try to deny something that is observable. Faith and science deal with different realms, and they get messy when you try to use one to prove or disprove the other, but if they keep to their own side of the street, they aren’t necessarily contradictory.
Agnostic is an interesting word. Your meaning here is clear but -- in the context of this discussion -- I've encountered a few "climate agnostics" where the word is used to indicate a suspension of judgment, sometimes honestly, sometimes disingenuously, about the anthropogenic hypothesis.
When scientists use it, it has come to mean something like "non-perferential"; antigen-agnostic vaccine, task-agnostic machine learning, etc.
Its a shame, because its original meaning does not have a succinct synonym. Huxley coined the term to mean someone who rejects the idea that the answers to essential questions about reality (why does the universe exist?)
can be known. A very specific rejection of information received by supernatural means (gnosis, esoteric , or occult knowledge). It is an (arguably redundant) extension of ontological parsimony to excluded divine inspiration along with all other unwarranted assumptions when evaluating competing hypotheses.
Used in this sense, it is possible to be an agnostic believer. Such a person does not assign any authority to revelations or insights that arrive through some immaterial or mystical mechanism.
I know a few devoutly religious scientists. I probably know more scientists who are theists or deists, but who are not religious.
It is worth mentioning, I think, because RocketRev made the point that rejection of facts can be willful and arguments against scientific explanations
can be framed by characterizing such explanations as attacks on religion and the "traditional values" supported by various faiths. It is an
ad hominem attack, and a way of othering scientists, to cast the profession of scientist as a kind of religious apostasy. Since many religions hold that moral and ethical behavior requires belief in the supernatural, an apostate must be immoral. It helps the cause of anti-fact demagogues to call scientists "unbelievers" and, therefore, untrustworthy.
edit: got tangled up about who was arguing and who was attacking...
edit2: ..yeah, I made it worse...