- #1
T.O.E Dream
- 219
- 0
Can a modern scientist be religious or even have a religion?
Vanadium 50 said:It is a fact that many scientists are religious people. So the OP's question has an answer: "yes". Beyond that, we're drifting into the realm of Should a Modern Scientist Be Religious?
I maintain that the answer to that is none of our business.
leroyjenkens said:There's lots of different kinds of scientists. As long as what the scientist is studying and/or teaching about doesn't conflict with any religious doctrine, I could easily see him or her being religious. Now if you're a cosmologist or an evolutionary biologist or something like that, I don't see how you could honestly be religious, since you would be gathering information that contradicts scripture.
Quincy said:Absolutely not. How a scientist can believe in something without evidence/accept mystical answers, I'll never understand. It's cognitive dissonance.
diffusion said:In the case of God(s), there does not seem to be any convincing evidence either way, so I will remain neutral until shown otherwise.
FayeKane said:What do you mean "either way"? The proposition under question is whether x exists. A complete lack of evidence of x combined with no good reason to believe x, doesn't require the Scientist to abstain from believing that x probably doesn't exist, even absent the fact that belief in gods and goddesses is ridiculous, prima facie.
Sure, technically, all REAL Scientists are atheists about everything. And qantum uncertainty makes, literally, anything possible. But as Bertrand Russell said, "I cannot prove that no Chinese teapots orbit Mars. But I consider the likelihood so remote that there is no detectable distinction between my opinion on the matter and complete disbelief".
Agnostics are cowardly atheists, fearing popular opinion, death, or both.
Note that none of the above precludes awe and wonder.
Or love.
--faye
FayeKane said:Agnostics are cowardly atheists, fearing popular opinion, death, or both.
Faith is often motivated by experience and the experiences of others.
Proving whether or not a deity does exist is totally out of the domain of science.
He wasn't a modern physicist. He didn't know about evolution or the big bang theory.noblegas said:Sure why couldn't they? Issac Newton , who established the foundations for basic physics and created calculus was a religious zealot and devoted more time to christian rituals and practicing alchemy than physics.
It's impossible to try to prove that something doesn't exist. Scientists can't prove god doesn't exist, and neither can they prove that santa clause or invisible pink unicorns don't exist. It doesn't mean that there's a good reason to believe in those things. You can't prove a negative, that's a law of logic.noblegas said:I don't think you are automatically irrational because you believe in a deity or you are religious nor do I think you are automatically a rationalist or a person of scientific inquiry if you choose not to believe in god . You have to actively against in scientific inquiry to be a rationalist . You might be consisted with your disbelief in god best on the little evidence you are given for the existence of god, but be irrational and ignorant in a completely another field , like economics for instance .Science hasn't dispproved that god does not exist, science cannot proved that god exist given the tools humans used to conduct and form experiments to tests hypothesis/observations and formulated theories based on those experiments. Proving whether or not a deity does exist is totally out of the domain of science.
I never said he was a modern physicist and I never said he new about evolution, I implied that he laid out the ground out the ground work for classical mechanics and created a mathematical language for physicist. Since when does the theory of evolution disapproved that their is no deity? As I recalled , it only disproves the christian version of how God created the universe as told in Genesis.He wasn't a modern physicist. He didn't know about evolution or the big bang theory.
As I said in my in post. I think it is futile for human beings to try to prove/disprove the existence of God just like it is futile for an ant or dog to attempt calculus; I think our brains might not wired to fully visualized a deity; We humans sometimes make the mistake of assuming that we are omniscient creatures; We are not; if we were , we would not have to developed the scientific method to helped us better understand the world around us. We would know everything already. A species of lesser intelligence might say that 'they cannot visualized calculus, therefore it does not exists'; Just because a person does not understand or perceive something does not mean it does not exist.It's impossible to try to prove that something doesn't exist. Scientists can't prove god doesn't exist, and neither can they prove that santa clause or invisible pink unicorns don't exist. It doesn't mean that there's a good reason to believe in those things. You can't prove a negative, that's a law of logic.
Integral said:Therefore the doors to religion are wide open to any human who needs to believe in something bigger then themselves or needs a guide on how to relate to other humans.
Integral said:A "real" scientist knows the limits of science. There is much that is outside of those limits. That includes pretty much any "why" question such as "why life" , and the whys and hows of human relations. All the why stuff is perfectly good fodder for religion, a man (or woman) of science can and does have interest and curiosity about these questions not addressed by science. Therefore the doors to religion are wide open to any human who needs to believe in something bigger then themselves or needs a guide on how to relate to other humans.
But the question in the thread is: "Can a modern scientist be religious?"noblegas said:I never said he was a modern physicist and I never said he new about evolution, I implied that he laid out the ground out the ground work for classical mechanics and created a mathematical language for physicist.
Evolution doesn't disprove anything. As physicist Steven Weinberg once said, "Science doesn't make the existence of god impossible, it makes the non-existence of god possible." Before evolution and the big bang theory, there was really no way to explain the origin of life and the universe without bringing up god, so it was excusable for people and even scientists to believe in god. But evolution and the big bang theory made it possible to explain those things without god.noblegas said:Since when does the theory of evolution disapproved that their is no deity? As I recalled , it only disproves the christian version of how God created the universe as told in Genesis.
lol bad analogy. Humans can't visualize a deity just like species of lesser intelligence can't visualize calculus, BUT humans are the ones who invented the deity and the species of lesser intelligence did not invent calculus. Humans invented the concept of a deity but can't really explain it and don't really know anything about it -- religion is not humankind's best work...noblegas said:A species of lesser intelligence might say that 'they cannot visualized calculus, therefore it does not exists' Just because a person does not understand or perceive something does not mean it does not exist.
Count Iblis said:Human relations fall under science. Humans consist of atoms that are described by the known laws of physics.