28 replies to this topic

[Infernity]

Religious Scientists / Infernity September 4th, 2006

As we know, more than one or two scientists are certain believers of God. While many materialistic people, (and admittedly, me being one of them); find it hard to accept such episode, those people claim to separate religion from science. Since that issue is mentioned quite often recently, I decided to analyze the situation for I have “scientific-minded-believer-friends” and still it makes absolutely no sense to me.

Let us first explore what science is all about. The definition of ‘science’ is, a system of knowledge gained by systematic research and organized into general laws. Science is always developing and every day more phenomena are figured-out, and more theories are disproved for the sake of a better one constructing new laws. The reason science never ceases to develop is the query of scientists in certain laws and hence the attempt to refute it. From that, we may infer that science’s development leans on skepticism.

Religion though, harshly differs from the scientific technique for it is disallowed to be skeptical about any Godly issues (in the eyes of the believer). This small but highly significant fact is the cause of the confusion, on which me and many others spend a daily period arguing. How can a man be both skeptical for all theories to be open-minded yet tightly vetoing any criticism or doubts on the holy books or God’s existence?








-Infernity

[struct]

Those kind of scientists could be hypocrites or pseodoscientists. Don't forget that many people do jobs/professions that they don't really like but they do it anyways for some reason or another; being a 'scientist' is one of those things, too. 'God' also is being respected by many governments (e.g. USA) so spicing (contaminating) science with some godly flavor won't be bad for the careers of those 'scientists'.

[JohnDoe1234]

Yeah, thats a sticky mess right there... my best guess as to why they do this is to help bridge the gap between the two, and since they are 'the bridge' they can better influence others towards their religion... It makes absolutely no sense to me either, and yeah, as struct put it, it is nothing short of contaminating science.

[Infernity]

I always looked at this as an odd thing but because God =/= science, the creation for example- both religion and science have answers, and they have two different ways. This time though I found another elements disallows that, and that's harder for a believer to argue.


-Infernity

[JohnDoe1234]

Exactly... I find it so pathetic when someone tries to take something that science has discovered or relayed to the public (e.g. Dinosaurs) and tries to mix it with their religion...

An example of that I found yesterday thanks to our local "one-post evangelist" Ronald70060: http://www.answersin....org/docs/2.asp

It both angers me that people actually have the nerve to make this stuff up, and saddens me that people will actually buy it...

I fail to see how someone can live with and actually believe something that they either make up or read in a 2000 year old story book...

I think we should compile a [airquote] religious bullshit [/airquote] list!

[jaydfox]

me that people actually have the nerve to make this stuff up, and saddens me that people will actually buy it...

It intruigues me. The psychology of faith is an interesting thing indeed. I think there's something positive to be said for faith, in that the heuristics gained by a society/culture over time will include a lot of valid principles that are not rationally obvious, yet have been "figured out" by a sort of natural selection process. In a way, faith (not in the strictly religious sense, but in the more general sense) is one's ability to apply these sorts of heuristics, to make good decisions when one has far too few facts and personal experience to rationally determine the proper course of action.

Even more intriguing is how this system sometimes breaks down in relation to things like religion. In a way, I compare faith to the free market economy. Everyone assumes that the free market is never wrong, or that regulation can't do better. But I think of the free market as a sort of faith, and regulation as a sort of naive rationalism. There comes a point when a free market makes bad decisions based on improperly weighted heuristics, where regulation could do a better job, just as there are times when faith will lead to bad decisions where rationality would do better.

Of course, this analogy won't sit well with people who think faith is useless and the free market is the best system, but oh well... And anyway, it's all a matter of degrees. Today, we have better rational tools, so faith is not as important perhaps as it used to be. I think to a degree it was much more important in the previous millenia.

[struct]

The things jaydfox is saying are not that 'intriging'. I think the 'intrigue' is hiding behind the vague definition of 'faith' and how people loosely use that word where in fact they mean 'thinking', 'judgement', 'decision making and excecution' based on their experiences and other's experiences which are not necessarily baseless but rely on some rational thinking or execution(s).
The analogy that jaydfox is using is entertaining to read but it isn't convincing, especially when the word 'faith' itself is unclear.

[nihilist]

i don't see how science and religion is always a bad thing. in my mind, theres a clear divide that don't run into each other besides 'oh, this is why its like this.'

i think you guys are painting with a very broad brush [and more than a little tunnel vision and willful ignorance] a very nuanced personality trait. as long as theyre not pulling the science equivalent of holocaust revisionism, i fail to see the issue.

if you think a religious scientist cant be a good scientist, thats your problem, not theirs.

[struct]

if you think a religious scientist  cant be a good scientist, thats your problem, not theirs.

I agree, that is a problem for me, some others in this forum, and millions around the world. Without going too far about how a religious scientist effects us/people, here are few key words that may tell you something:
stem cell,
clonning,
living longer/immortality,
evolution, etc,

[niner]

I agree, that is a problem for me, some others in this forum, and millions around the world. Without going too far about how a religious scientist effects us/people, here are few key words that may tell you something:
stem cell,
clonning,
living longer/immortality,
evolution, etc,

Perhaps you are conflating religious extremists with quieter, more thoughtful religious people. Large numbers (a majority, I think) of Christians in America do not have a problem with stem cells or evolution, for example. It seems like nearly everyone, regardless of religion, is aghast at the idea of human cloning, although I personally wouldn't be opposed to it if it worked. Immortality and living longer is presently viewed by most people as impossible nonsense, though that is likely to change, with potentially freaky results.

I've known a lot of scientists, quite a few of whom are religious to some degree. Those that tend toward the extreme end of the religious spectrum tend to be lousy scientists, in my experience. I have not detected any correlation between degree or flavor of religious practice and quality of science, other than that.

[shadowrun]

The biggest problem I think

God defies logic

God becomes a problem when we try to approach it logically

Science minded individuals tend to approach religion and god scientifically -

A Logic based issue is generally like

How can a man be both skeptical for all theories to be open-minded yet tightly vetoing any criticism or doubts on the holy books or God’s existence?

Faith...Is blind - very unscientific -

I can see how people with a strong tendencies one way or another can have issues with each other

But I don't see why god can't be separate - I also don't see why someone with faith can't question religion or gods existence (isn't that part of the spiritual process?) - Or why a scientist can't be a great scientist while placing one issue aside as untouchable - Can someone be a scientist if they don't want to know everything? Can someone have faith and science?

Of course - It happens all the time - Its not perfect - Nothing is

Most people will have issues with one of the extremes - I generally have issues with both extremes - I think someone told me once that people like me have a cold place in hell waiting for them [lol]

[Ghostrider]

People turn to religion because science cannot or has not yet solved all problems or at least the problems that really matter. Once this happens, religion will yield to science. Until that happens, unfortunately, science is being forced to yield to religion and the convenient beliefs held by many people -- stem cells, cloning, longevity, etc. Understand that religion is for most people a coping mechanism. It allows them to deal with events and circumstances that they feel that they cannot influence. So religion itself is just a consequence, its cause are they problems that have not been adequately resolved by science.

[caston]

My take:

Either God created man in his own image or man invented God in his own image. What difference does it make? Just like the old question of which came first the chicken or the egg. What matters is that we have the potential to realise God-like ability.

[Infernity]

The egg came a lot before the chicken.. Dinosaurs had eggs....chickens are somewhere in the evolution evolvent of Dinosaurs....

-Infernity

[austix]

I don't believe you can embrace science and a religious belief at the same time and explain it logically. As a proud atheist I'm all for converting the world to my point of view--there is no god, there is no plan, there is no promised land poste this one.

But can you do scientific work and not be a scientist in the strict sense of the word? Of course you can and many do. Just as I could stand in front of a congregation and deliver the sermon if need be or paid enough. For some science is just a job. Follow the rules and then go home. It took me a while before I understood that not all scientists are passionate beleivers. Some are 9-5's just like other parts of the work force.

[mitkat]

The egg came a lot before the chicken.. Dinosaurs had eggs....chickens are somewhere in the evolution evolvent of Dinosaurs....

-Infernity

LOL [thumb]

[Ghostrider]

I don't believe you can embrace science and a religious belief at the same time and explain it logically. As a proud atheist I'm all for converting the world to my point of view--there is no god, there is no plan, there is no promised land poste this one.

The problem is that the world cannot reasonably adopt your point of view since you cannot prove it :-). There may be a god or an afterlife, but not necessarily according to any human conception. If you believe otherwise, that's fine, but you can't prove it one way or another. Agnosticism has been the only reasonable belief so far -- which is essentially to state no beleif. A more reasonable goal is to promote atheism on the basis that decisions should not be based on faith when they can instead be based on reason. This view is more reasonable, but that does not mean that people will be quick to adopt it. Remember what I said above about religion as a coping mechanism.

[eternaltraveler]

But can you do scientific work and not be a scientist in the strict sense of the word? Of course you can and many do. Just as I could stand in front of a congregation and deliver the sermon if need be or paid enough. For some science is just a job. Follow the rules and then go home. It took me a while before I understood that not all scientists are passionate beleivers. Some are 9-5's just like other parts of the work force.

heh, thats true. And they do serve a valuble function. Though I wouldn't necessarily call such individuals "scientists" I'd call them technicans, no matter what the decal on their door says.

[caston]

heh, thats true.  And they do serve a valuble function.  Though I wouldn't necessarily call such individuals "scientists" I'd call them technicans, no matter what the decal on their door says.

They must have had the fire at some point though but later found it was easier to work in someone elses business than it was to start their own. Easier to go to work, come home and drink beer and watch sports, buy a nice car, get a home loan and accept programmed ageing.

May I never have enough money and be comfortable. May I never resolve all the conflicts for then the story ends.

[austix]

I think Huxley was the first to use the word agnostic and to him it meant believe nothing that cannot be demonstrated by the senses. To others it now means that the existence of god is unknown and unknowable. To still others it means evidence for against the existence of god is inconclusive.

Wait and see is fine. In the interim god does not exist. Ergo atheism.

Religion is a socialy organizing force. Granted. And a good one. It shapes authority as in who gets to tell who what to do and the move from panthesim to monotheism streamlined the who's in charge process. Conflicting commandments from different gods became one edict from one boss and emporers and priests became much more powerful. Also monotheism set in motion the battle for the one true god which still rages even in 2007. I'm not saying George Bush believes in God and wages war in His name. But many of the troops on both sides of the U.S. initiated Iraq war are religiously motivated i.e. my god told me you are wicked and said it was okay if I kill you.

Would atheists go to war in Iraq?The answer is no, not very easily. We would find other more economical ways to take their oil and subjugate the population. Atheists have a greater potential for respect of the human condition. There is no god. This is it. On average you get 80 years of consciousness. Try and enjoy it. When the light goes out, it will be out for a long time.

[desmash]

why not, instead of science / religion, try stability / change or repetition / new, basically the system and its functioning. at this point we are still dealing with concepts on either side, it is more interesting when identity of the difference is active, when the time-span between the two (whatever, but also very precise) is still there, but not the basis any more, rather the identity of it and itself, this does not cause a problem with making a difference, but the selection (which is the difference) is a different one with less ballast. [wis]

[austix]

desmash-- I know I struggle to express myself but you may have raised the bar to a new record height. Were you sober/stoned/tripping on your last post. Man, I haven't a clue what you are driving at. Must be me. Sorry

[struct]

Were you sober/stoned/tripping on your last post.

that was his first post.

[Ganshauk]

Science and Religion are identical. They are the same thing. Someday, everyone will realize this simple fact.

[zoolander]

Science is based on facts and truths whereas Religion is based on belief and assumptions. They are not the same they appear to be one step removed from each other i.e science tests the belief/assumptions to find the truth hence it's no longer a belief or assumption

[Luna]

Science and Religion are identical. They are the same thing. Someday, everyone will realize this simple fact.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr................!

[Luna]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

http://en.wikipedia....Natural_science

Religion goes by this way: Someone makes something up, let's say: Aliens live inside the earth, which is hollow (!!!).
No one tests it they make theories to prove it and explain anything that goes against it by trickery, magic or whatever.. "We dug, it is not hollow!" "Yes it is, the aliens just make it APPEAR as if it is not hollow."

Science goes by theories which are based on reality in order to explain reality in a logic way, those theories are observed, tested, get opposed, sometimes fail sometimes prove themselves.

Yes, sure, religion sometimes goes by the same process as theories (cause well, they are theories) the difference is religion theories mostly have no science basing and are protected blindly by those who believe it for whatever reasons (blind faith!).

If it sounds nice, people mostly believe it. once it gets opposed, they protect their small little dream.

Religions are DANGEROUS.

[Cyberbrain]

Science and Religion are identical. They are the same thing. Someday, everyone will realize this simple fact.

[Infernity]

lol Kostas, I must say it's funnier in Hebrew.