Scientists: god and science dont mix

[CptStern]

very interesting article here



"At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?"


Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman

Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."


According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."

They note that when Dr. Larson put part of the same survey to "leading scientists" - in this case, members of the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the nation's most eminent scientific organization - fewer than 10 percent professed belief in a personal God or human immortality. "



on the flip side there's some compelling argument that science sooner or later deals with morals and ethics ..the scientist who defend religion say science cannot be exempt from morality ..which they say comes from religion (I dont agree)

 

[Tr0n]

I believe in god AND science. So I don't see how they don't mix.

 

[The Monkey]

Most of the great scientists were religious, and I can't see how thar statement can be true. I do, at some level agree with Lenin "Religion is opium for the people", but I also believe that it can help many people back on the track, so to speak.

 

[OCybrManO]

They go along fine until you start doing research that involves or contradicts something stated by your religion. What they mean by "good science" is that you approach your work using scientific method and without preconceived notions with no scientific evidence to back them up. If you've had strong beliefs in Christianity for your entire life it's probably going to have an effect on your research of evolution, for example. It's looked down upon in the scientific community to start with an unwavering belief and try to find evidence to support it. It doesn't really matter if you're studying something that has no connection with your religion whatsoever... like the migration of the European swallow (remember, African swallows aren't migratory).

 

[Ennui]

Most of the great scientists were religious, and I can't see how thar statement can be true. I do, at some level agree with Lenin "Religion is opium for the people", but I also believe that it can help many people back on the track, so to speak.

If by Lenin you mean Marx...

As for most great scientists being religious, it's easy to ignore the inconsistencies in something if you want to. Scientifically speaking there is absolutely no reason for God to exist.

 

[Absinthe]

The belief in God is not scientifically grounded, but that is not to say that you can't believe in God and the scientific process at the same time. You can be a good scientist so long as you don't mix your faith with your work. Many Christian scientists concede that God, being a scientifically unprovable concept, is not something to factor into the process.

The ones that do try to factor deities into their findings are the ones that should no longer be considered scientists. Creationist scientists are a prime example of this kind of fraud.

(And now Ennui is a mod as well? Huh.)

 

[CptStern]

They go along fine until you start doing research that involves or contradicts something stated by your religion. What they mean by "good science" is that you approach your work using scientific method and without preconceived notions with no scientific evidence to back them up. If you've had strong beliefs in Christianity for your entire life it's probably going to have an effect on your research of evolution, for example. It's looked down upon in the scientific community to start with an unwavering belief and try to find evidence to support it. It doesn't really matter if you're studying something that has no connection with your religion whatsoever... like the migration of the European swallow (remember, African swallows aren't migratory).

QFE

that was the point of some of the religious scientists in the article I posted

 

[Ennui]

The belief in God is not scientifically grounded, but that is not to say that you can't believe in God and the scientific process at the same time. You can be a good scientist so long as you don't mix your faith with your work. Many Christian scientists concede that God, being a scientifically unprovable concept, is not something to factor into the process.

The ones that do try to factor deities into their findings are the ones that should no longer be considered scientists. Creationist scientists are a prime example of this kind of fraud.

(And now Ennui is a mod as well? Huh.)

You make good points. Religion and science can peacefully coexist, they just shouldn't really be combined because then they conflict. And yeah, I am now a mod. Of the lounge.

 

[CptStern]

I am now a mod. Of the lounge.

yay!! since I've always been nice to you does that means I'm entitled to favours? ...political favours? :naughty: ...I have some people in mind that need "silencing"

 

[Ennui]

Nope, not unless Bodacious makes a comeback.

 

[Is This Tea]

There is a world of difference between a general belief in God and belief in the literal inerrancy of a specific holy book. Science deals with questions about the nature of physical reality whereas God is said to exist outside of this jurisdiction. Science is about Physics, God is Metaphysical. Belief, however, in the inerrancy of religious claims that do fall within the jurisdiction of science is wholly unscientific. As OCybrManO pointed out. A scientist should believe that the only path to truth is to follow the scientific method, not to read a book that claims it is mystically reviled truth. A true scientist cannot believe that Noah’s Arc literally happened or that ancient Hindus flew around in Vimanas.

For anyone interested in the conflict between Science and Religion Physicist Paul Davies is an interesting read.

 

[KoreBolteR]

The belief in God is not scientifically grounded, but that is not to say that you can't believe in God and the scientific process at the same time. You can be a good scientist so long as you don't mix your faith with your work. Many Christian scientists concede that God, being a scientifically unprovable concept, is not something to factor into the process.

The ones that do try to factor deities into their findings are the ones that should no longer be considered scientists. Creationist scientists are a prime example of this kind of fraud.

(And now Ennui is a mod as well? Huh.)

science is fact.
god is hope.

 

[CptStern]

Nope, not unless Bodacious makes a comeback.

wha? I'm not talking about the forums silly

 

[The Monkey]

If by Lenin you mean Marx...

I think both of them said it, but since Marx undoubtly said it first, I suppose you're right.

I was sure than it was Lenin who said it... ah well.

 

[Ennui]

wha? I'm not talking about the forums silly

Oh, well hell yeah I'll talk to my friends in the shadow government and get you the President's job. Which is incredible since you're Canadian.

and The_Monkey, "Religion is the opiate/opium of the masses" (I've seen both opiate and opium in different translations) is a quote out of the Communist Manifesto which was written by Marx and Engels. Lenin just quoted it.

 

[The Monkey]

Oh, well hell yeah I'll talk to my friends in the shadow government and get you the President's job. Which is incredible since you're Canadian.

and The_Monkey, "Religion is the opiate/opium of the masses" (I've seen both opiate and opium in different translations) is a quote out of the Communist Manifesto which was written by Marx and Engels. Lenin just quoted it.

Well, you learn something new every day!

 

[Top Secret]

Personally, I think it's ignorant to say God exists. And it is ignorant to say God doesn't exist.

I specifically think that of any REAL scientist.

 

[CptStern]

Personally, I think it's ignorant to say God exists. And it is ignorant to say God doesn't exist.

I specifically think that of any REAL scientist.

but that's not the point here ..the point is wether or not their religious beliefs get in the way of science ...for example ..evolution. I dont see how a devoted christian could believe in creationism yet work in genetics

 

[Absinthe]

Personally, I think it's ignorant to say God exists. And it is ignorant to say God doesn't exist.

I agree with that... to an extent.

I believe one can disprove clearly defined gods that are either logically contradictory or does not correspond with reality.

With that said, I don't believe it's rational to posit faith in any deity.

 

[Absinthe]

but that's not the point here ..the point is wether or not their religious beliefs get in the way of science ...for example ..evolution. I dont see how a devoted christian could believe in creationism yet work in genetics

Devoted Christians can believe in evolution just as well. There is nothing in Christianity that denies it. The only people that take issue with the theory are the fundamentalists who believe the Bible on a literal level, who are typically creationists.

The idea of the two being incompatible is a myth that's perpetuated by the frenzied debate begun by fanatics.

 

[Top Secret]

but that's not the point here ..the point is wether or not their religious beliefs get in the way of science ...for example ..evolution. I dont see how a devoted christian could believe in creationism yet work in genetics

No no, that's what I'm saying. Just not very clearly.

To me, the best scientist.... the most RATIONAL scientist there could ever be, would be agnostic.

 

[Top Secret]

Sorry for the double post. But I'm gonna keep going on this, as I find it fun. =)

If there was, let's say for example a Buddhist scientist (For the sake that I like Buddhism more than any other religion.) that one day discovers that reincarnation isn't possible. (Assuming it was testable.) Now, what would he do? One of two things, for there are only two things to be done.

1. Immediate conclusion would be that science is "wrong".

2. Immediate conclusion would be that Buddhism is "wrong".

1's and 0's is where it's at people.

 

[Absinthe]

To me, the best scientist.... the most RATIONAL scientist there could ever be, would be agnostic.

Another myth: Agnosticism is a third way.

This is not true. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, not belief in deities. You either believe in a god or gods, or you don't. Agnosticism is, simply put, the absence of certainty. You can be an agnostic theist; you believe in God, but you don't know if he exists for certain. You can also be an agnostic atheist (also known as "weak atheist"); you don't believe in God, but can't claim for sure that there are none.

Rational people should be agnostic in many respects. But agnosticism is not some kind of middle ground between theism and atheism, and with that in mind, it's not a "more valid" position.

 

[Top Secret]

Another myth: Agnosticism is a third way.

This is not true. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, not belief in deities. You either believe in a god or gods, or you don't. Agnosticism is, simply put, the absence of certainty. You can be an agnostic theist; you believe in God, but you don't know if he exists for certain. You can also be an agnostic atheist (also known as "weak atheist"); you don't believe in God, but can't claim for sure that there are none.

Rational people should be agnostic in many respects. But agnosticism is not some kind of middle ground between theism and atheism, and with that in mind, it's not a "more valid" position.

Sure it is.

Is it so much to simply say "I do not know." ?

Because, I don't. I don't know how you can be more rational than that.

In my eyes, it is more valid. Because it's scientific. Blatantly saying God(s) exist(s), or do not, sounds aweful ignorant to me.

 

[Ennui]

Another myth: Agnosticism is a third way.

This is not true. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, not belief in deities. You either believe in a god or gods, or you don't. Agnosticism is, simply put, the absence of certainty. You can be an agnostic theist; you believe in God, but you don't know if he exists for certain. You can also be an agnostic atheist (also known as "weak atheist"); you don't believe in God, but can't claim for sure that there are none.

Rational people should be agnostic in many respects. But agnosticism is not some kind of middle ground between theism and atheism, and with that in mind, it's not a "more valid" position.

As far as agnostic atheism goes, that's really just my definition of atheism. I don't believe in god because I don't see a reason or purpose or any viable proof or evidence at all that one does has or needs to exist. I don't believe, but saying that a God doesn't exist for certain is just as unprovable as saying he does.

 

[CptStern]

Devoted Christians can believe in evolution just as well. There is nothing in Christianity that denies it. The only people that take issue with the theory are the fundamentalists who believe the Bible on a literal level, who are typically creationists.

The idea of the two being incompatible is a myth that's perpetuated by the frenzied debate begun by fanatics.

yes I agree ..my parents are catholic but they dont believe in creationism ..that said the predominant religion in the US is christian ...evangelical if I'm not mistaken ...arent they creationists?

 

[Absinthe]

Sure it is.

Is it so much to simply say "I do not know." ?

Because, I don't. I don't know how you can be more rational than that.

In my eyes, it is more valid. Because it's scientific. Blatantly saying God(s) exist(s), or do not, sounds aweful ignorant to me.

You are not understanding me.

Theism and atheism are simply the belief or absence of belief in deities. Agnosticism is not a half/half middle position, as that's an impossible position. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge and therefore exists independently from such beliefs. It is the absence of certainty.
In the end, you either believe in a god or you don't. There are no other alternatives. Agnosticism, in the context of theism, is the certainty of such beliefs. Hence why you have agnostic theism and agnostic atheism. It's the same as belief in aliens or the supernatural. It's belief without certainty.

You treating it as anything different displays a misunderstanding of theism, atheism, and agnosticism.

Reiteration: Agnosticism is not a third way. It is not a "more valid" position due to the simple fact that it is not comparable to theism and atheism.

 

[SAJ]

the point is wether or not their religious beliefs get in the way of science ...for example ..evolution. I dont see how a devoted christian could believe in creationism yet work in genetics

Dont forget that Darwin himself was a devout christian.

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.

Einstein's speech 'My Credo' to the German League of Human Rights, Berlin, autumn 1932

But on the other hand he contradicts(seemingly)that position with this:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it

 

[Absinthe]

Dont forget that Darwin himself was a devout christian.

"Was" is the key word here. He lost his faith.

A popular rumor that's been around is The Lady Hope story in which an evangelical claims that Darwin recanted the theory of evolution and embraced Jesus on his deathbed. This has never been substantiated and even Darwin's children refute it.

And those two Einstein quotes are not contradictory. "In this sense I am religious" is important to take note of. He compares his feeling to that of a religious one, but does not state he is a subscriber to religion itself.

 

[SAJ]

And those two Einstein quotes are not contradictory. "In this sense I am religious" is important to take note of. He compares his feeling to that of a religious one, but does not state he is a subscriber to religion itself

.

Which is why the "(seemingly)" caveat is in there. But you are right ,the "god" of einstein sounds more like a useful philosophical construct than a traditional judeo/christian belief.

Again you are right about Darwin, he had lost his faith after the death of one his children(six years before OoTS),but I doubt he would have called himself agnostic or aetheist.

A popular rumor that's been around is The Lady Hope story in which an evangelical claims that Darwin recanted the theory of evolution and embraced Jesus on his deathbed. This has never been substantiated and even Darwin's children refute it.

Love it , that ones almost as good as the dinosaurs on the ark.

Anyway , the point I was leading to is that the schism between faith and science is a very modern one but-seen from this side of history-all too inevitable.

 

[Absinthe]

Actually, Darwin proclaimed himself to be an agnostic.

 

[dream431ca]

Religon cannot live without science, and science cannot live without religon.

 

[SAJ]

Mmmm, guess I shouldve looked that one up rather than rely on my patchy memory.
I dont suppose theres any chance you get bored of being right all the time,is there?


edit:

Religon cannot live without science, and science cannot live without religon

Yes it can, and yes it can.
How wonderfuly random of you.

 

[dream431ca]

Yes it can, and yes it can.
How wonderfuly random of you.

It's not random...if the scientist fail to explain something...what are they gonna believe then? And if the church fails to believe in evolution, who will shove them in the right direction? :E

Of course they can, but in the end they can't.

 

[qckbeam]

Yes it can, and yes it can.
How wonderfuly random of you.

It's not random...if the scientist fail to explain something...what are they gonna believe then? And if the church fails to believe in evolution, who will shove them in the right direction? :E

Of course they can, but in the end they can't.

If a scientist fails to understand something he’ll turn to religion for an explanation? Is that what you're saying? That's simply not true. If a scientist can't explain something he doesn't throw his hands up and say "it's magic". He continues probing until he has a firm grip on the truth. Science doesn’t need religion. The relationship between the two is not symbiotic. Science and religion both serve similar purposes. They both try and explain things which seem unexplainable, but the ways they go about garnering those explanations couldn’t differ more. Religion relies on faith and magical thinking, while science relies on observation, experimentation and logic.

 

[Absinthe]

I was going to post something similar, but you beat me to it.

pwnbeamed