Religious scientists
Religious scientists
OK, so I need a bit of help here.... (ongoing personal debates with fundie spouse)
Yet another fundamentalist argument for creationism:
"Evolution actually goes against science - look at all the religious scientists out there. If you think religion and science are so incompatible, how come so many scientists believe in god, and are creationists?"
Are there stats on this kind of thing? I saw some in TGD, but I need more. What percentage of actual fair dinkum scientists are religious? Anybody able to assist me with this?
My thanks,
Bolero.
Yet another fundamentalist argument for creationism:
"Evolution actually goes against science - look at all the religious scientists out there. If you think religion and science are so incompatible, how come so many scientists believe in god, and are creationists?"
Are there stats on this kind of thing? I saw some in TGD, but I need more. What percentage of actual fair dinkum scientists are religious? Anybody able to assist me with this?
My thanks,
Bolero.
"I wanna exit how I entered: Between two legs."
The Hilltop Hoods.
The Hilltop Hoods.
- goodboyCerberus
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:47 am
- About me: They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA
- Contact:
Re: Religious scientists
While the stats would be interesting, I'd say its mostly irrelevant. Religious people do a fairly good job compartmentalizing their faith and day-to-day rational behaviors. For example, most people think they're going to Heaven when they die. Most people also wear seat belts. Go figure.
The same is mostly true with work, scientific or otherwise, with politics being an outlier.
Scientists who adulterate their work with non-science garbage are generally not taken seriously.
The same is mostly true with work, scientific or otherwise, with politics being an outlier.
Scientists who adulterate their work with non-science garbage are generally not taken seriously.
Last edited by goodboyCerberus on Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Xamonas Chegwé
- Bouncer
- Posts: 50939
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
- About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse. - Location: Nottingham UK
- Contact:
Re: Religious scientists
Even if ALL of them were religious, it wouldn't invalidate the arguments for evolution one iota.
Actually, the fact that religious scientists agreed with evolution would validate it all the more because it would show that its veracity transcended such trivialities as faith (or the lack of it.)
And, as I understand it, the number of scientists professing any faith is usually quoted as somewhere in the teens, percentage wise - meaning that 80+% are agnostic at very least. Of course, that would depend upon ones definition of a 'scientist'.
Actually, the fact that religious scientists agreed with evolution would validate it all the more because it would show that its veracity transcended such trivialities as faith (or the lack of it.)
And, as I understand it, the number of scientists professing any faith is usually quoted as somewhere in the teens, percentage wise - meaning that 80+% are agnostic at very least. Of course, that would depend upon ones definition of a 'scientist'.
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing

Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
- Theophilus
- Posts: 212
- Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:09 am
- Contact:
Re: Religious scientists
Hello. I am a religious scientist and I know many others (Christian, Jewish, Muslim), though I could only guess at the percentage.
It doesn't cause me a problem being both religious and a scientist, though I know some scientists who struggle to understand how anyone can believe anything outside of materialist rationalism (those same people struggle to explain exactly where their faith in logic, mathematical axioms,and scientific methodology stems from, let alone where their concepts of right, wrong, beauty and love are rooted).
I think as soon as one accepts that not everything is, or can be, explained by materialism the conflict between faith and science pretty much dissolves away and they can combine to create a fuller (and, I would say, more fulfilling) philosophy.
It doesn't cause me a problem being both religious and a scientist, though I know some scientists who struggle to understand how anyone can believe anything outside of materialist rationalism (those same people struggle to explain exactly where their faith in logic, mathematical axioms,and scientific methodology stems from, let alone where their concepts of right, wrong, beauty and love are rooted).
I think as soon as one accepts that not everything is, or can be, explained by materialism the conflict between faith and science pretty much dissolves away and they can combine to create a fuller (and, I would say, more fulfilling) philosophy.
Last edited by Theophilus on Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible" St. Thomas Aquinas
- nellikin
- Dirt(y) girl
- Posts: 2299
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
- About me: KSC
- Location: Newcastle, Oz
- Contact:
Re: Religious scientists
I'm an atheist scientist and would reckon it depends on the science. Geologists - 100 % non creationist, 90 % atheist, 10 % religious but believe in evolution. Biologists, ditto. Physicists, probably a lower percent atheist and maybe a few creationists. Chemistry bout the same. I reckon people who deal with earth processes (environmental scientists, biologists etc.) are way more inclined to be non-religious than those who deal with theories and man-made processes. But not always so. Apparently one of the hydrology profs at Melbourne is a creationist. Doesn't even believe in landscape evolution
Go figure.

To ignore the absence of evidence is the base of true faith.
-Gore Vidal
-Gore Vidal
Re: Religious scientists
I suspect that most of the scientists that are religious adopt the "non overlapping magisteria" approach - i.e. there's the universe, which is describable by science, but there's also the spiritual stuff inc. God which isn't. These type of scientists are adopting a non falsifiable "world"view of the spiritual stuff, which makes it essentially useless.
There are rare examples, where they speculate on the mechanisms of interaction between the spiritual and physical realms (I think Polkinghorne has tried to do this), however, they're a bit embarrassing.
I would imagine the other type of "scientists" - biblical literalists/creationists are much rarer because of incompatibility of their batshit ideas and observable facts.
Would be nice to see some survey of scientists views though.
There are rare examples, where they speculate on the mechanisms of interaction between the spiritual and physical realms (I think Polkinghorne has tried to do this), however, they're a bit embarrassing.
I would imagine the other type of "scientists" - biblical literalists/creationists are much rarer because of incompatibility of their batshit ideas and observable facts.
Would be nice to see some survey of scientists views though.
-
- Posts: 268
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:46 am
- Contact:
Re: Religious scientists
If theists would simply understand that evolution and an old universe/earth do not contradict the concept of a creator God, then we wouldn't have any creationists or young-earthers at all. It is Old Testament literalism, crammed down their throats every Sunday, that is the problem. We all rely on science every day, but pulpit-pounding fundamentalist preachers have convinced their congregants that we should be wary of it on issues of origins.
Re: Religious scientists
Georges Lemaître was a Catholic priest and he helped establish big bang cosmology. He was able to keep his Catholic faith and his interest in science separate.
- Gareth1984
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:55 pm
- Location: Bradford, West yorkshire
- Contact:
Re: Religious scientists
IF you look at those scientists who are involved in fields related to evolution and who also believe in god you tend to find that many of those scientists also accept evolution. Of those who reject evolution none of them ever seem to do so for scientific reasons but rather because it contradicts their interpretations of scripture or because of philosophical reasons. Perhaps the next time someone brings up scientists who are also creationists you should ask them to provide peer reviewed scientific papers supporting creationism written by these scientists.
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" Carl Sagan
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74151
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Religious scientists
So how do you view the crazy fundamentalist 6000 year old earth brigade?Theophilus wrote:Hello. I am a religious scientist and I know many others (Christian, Jewish, Muslim), though I could only guess at the percentage.
It doesn't cause me a problem being both religious and a scientist, though I know some scientists who struggle to understand how anyone can believe anything outside of materialist rationalism (those same people struggle to explain exactly where their faith in logic, mathematical axioms,and scientific methodology stems from, let alone where their concepts of right, wrong, beauty and love are rooted).
I think as soon as one accepts that not everything is, or can be, explained by materialism the conflict between faith and science pretty much dissolves away and they can combine to create a fuller (and, I would say, more fulfilling) philosophy.
With resigned tolerance, or the contempt they deserve?
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- Pombolo
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:59 pm
- About me: is a miasma of sun-faded hopes and sharply honed skepticism.
- Location: Fife, Scotland
- Contact:
Re: Religious scientists
Faith is not used in the acceptance of any of those things. They can be demonstrated to work. Not only that, their processes and results are repeatable and observable. Faith is belief without evidence. Where do you see the similarities?Theophilus wrote:those same people struggle to explain exactly where their faith in logic, mathematical axioms,and scientific methodology stems from
Is this a joke? In all seriousness, are you being serious? You work with scientists who struggle to explain where love and beauty are rooted... and moral rights and wrongs? Do you think anything that feels trancendental to humans does not have an explanation within natural methodology? Or at least that your colleagues have trouble explaining it?let alone where their concepts of right, wrong, beauty and love are rooted
This is sounding more like a cookie-cutter list of creationist fallacies and false dichotomies.
No, this is another false dichotomy. There is no need to presume in the first place that materialism can or even should explain everything. Once that is understood, it is no longer a failing of materialism that it cannot do so. The conflict between faith and science would be closer to the fact that falsifiability is a core component of the scientific process, so as a scientist: what would it take for you to accept that your religious faith was completely wrong in every way?I think as soon as one accepts that not everything is, or can be, explained by materialism the conflict between faith and science pretty much dissolves away
And the final slamdunk of non-sequiturs... drawing a discussion on science and faith, onto philosophy.and they can combine to create a fuller (and, I would say, more fulfilling) philosophy.

Re: Religious scientists
Bruce, you've made it clear that you're not a fundamentalist - you wish to keep the concept of God along with the facts of science. But what is it that makes you think that the concept of God is necessary at all ? We have the universe described in ever increasing comprehensiveness (OK, some way to go yet !) by science, so why even bother with the "extra" bits - i.e. God and other transcendent stuff ? Don't they smack to you of superstition ?Bruce Burleson wrote:If theists would simply understand that evolution and an old universe/earth do not contradict the concept of a creator God, then we wouldn't have any creationists or young-earthers at all. It is Old Testament literalism, crammed down their throats every Sunday, that is the problem. We all rely on science every day, but pulpit-pounding fundamentalist preachers have convinced their congregants that we should be wary of it on issues of origins.
Re: Religious scientists
Yes, I tend to agree with this idea, Xamonas. I think the dangerous ones are the "creation scientists" (anyone care for some oxymoron?), but I really can't figure out what warped version of science they think they're "researching".Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
Actually, the fact that religious scientists agreed with evolution would validate it all the more because it would show that its veracity transcended such trivialities as faith (or the lack of it.)
Edited twice: My typing is rubbish.
Last edited by Bolero on Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
"I wanna exit how I entered: Between two legs."
The Hilltop Hoods.
The Hilltop Hoods.
- A Monkey Shaved
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:43 pm
- Contact:
Re: Religious scientists
I can just think of one thing worse than mixing science with religion and that is mixing politics with religion :pissed: .
Just because more people believe Jesus is the son of God and not the son of Satan does not make it any truer.
Re: Religious scientists
A Monkey Shaved wrote:I can just think of one thing worse than mixing science with religion and that is mixing politics with religion :pissed: .
Religion not a good mixer, then?
"I wanna exit how I entered: Between two legs."
The Hilltop Hoods.
The Hilltop Hoods.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests