Religious scientists

Holy Crap!
User avatar
Bolero
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:18 am
About me: Free
Contact:

Religious scientists

Post by Bolero » Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:05 am

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.
"I wanna exit how I entered: Between two legs."
The Hilltop Hoods.

User avatar
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

Post by goodboyCerberus » Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:15 am

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.
Last edited by goodboyCerberus on Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Charity Navigator - "Find a charity you can trust."

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
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

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:17 am

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'.
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 :nono:
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

User avatar
Theophilus
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:09 am
Contact:

Re: Religious scientists

Post by Theophilus » Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:15 am

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.
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

User avatar
nellikin
Dirt(y) girl
Posts: 2299
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: KSC
Location: Newcastle, Oz
Contact:

Re: Religious scientists

Post by nellikin » Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:33 am

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 :funny: Go figure.
To ignore the absence of evidence is the base of true faith.
-Gore Vidal

User avatar
twistor59
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Religious scientists

Post by twistor59 » Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:36 pm

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.

Bruce Burleson
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:46 am
Contact:

Re: Religious scientists

Post by Bruce Burleson » Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:09 am

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.

Martok
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:18 am
Contact:

Re: Religious scientists

Post by Martok » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:36 am

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.

User avatar
Gareth1984
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:55 pm
Location: Bradford, West yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Religious scientists

Post by Gareth1984 » Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:45 am

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

User avatar
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

Post by JimC » Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:49 am

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.
So how do you view the crazy fundamentalist 6000 year old earth brigade?

With resigned tolerance, or the contempt they deserve?
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
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

Post by Pombolo » Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:13 am

Theophilus wrote:those same people struggle to explain exactly where their faith in logic, mathematical axioms,and scientific methodology stems from
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?
let alone where their concepts of right, wrong, beauty and love are rooted
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?

This is sounding more like a cookie-cutter list of creationist fallacies and false dichotomies.
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
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?
and they can combine to create a fuller (and, I would say, more fulfilling) philosophy.
And the final slamdunk of non-sequiturs... drawing a discussion on science and faith, onto philosophy. ;)

User avatar
twistor59
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Religious scientists

Post by twistor59 » Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:50 pm

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.
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 ?

User avatar
Bolero
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:18 am
About me: Free
Contact:

Re: Religious scientists

Post by Bolero » Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:26 am

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.)
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".

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.

User avatar
A Monkey Shaved
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Religious scientists

Post by A Monkey Shaved » Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:29 am

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.

User avatar
Bolero
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:18 am
About me: Free
Contact:

Re: Religious scientists

Post by Bolero » Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:15 am

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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests