Religious scientists

[SevenOfNine]

Hmmm..., for theistic religions, there are the following issues:-

1. God exists [most theists, I assume, believe this to be self-evidently true]
or
2. God does not exist [not explored much by a believer, by definition]

Next : [irrespective if god exists or not]

3. Belief in god [ a reasonable or unreasonable belief? evidence?]
4. Non-belief in god [ a reasonable or irrational belief? evidence?]

Evidence for god:
5. Sufficient [Is true or false?]
6. Insufficient or non-existent. [Is this true or false?]

Now, at first glance, the "methodological naturalism" of the scientist would not appear to be in conflict with a belief in god.

But why say "naturalism" , this implies that there may be more to nature, like the supernatural. There is no evidence for the supernatural.

God is supernatural, above nature, and therefore the cause of miracles [read magic].

Again, miracles and magic have no evidentiary support. So a scientist, who is confronted with no evidence for god [using scientific criteria for evidence] believes in god in his private life, but is a defacto atheist when he does science? Not consistent!

The theist scientist is therefore under an additional burden to the atheist one, because atheism is more compatible with the methodological naturalism of science than a theist position is.

So provided we regard god as a supernatural entity [personal opinion,, he is made up and forfils a psychological need], a scientist who believes in god is being irrational with respect to that belief, and inconsistent in the logic he uses for his scientific and private life.

Now, if a theist scientist demands the typical types of evidence in science when he is doing science. [Things like hearsay, or mere argument from authority would not be part of this]. Then why would he relax this when examining the evidence [or the lack of ] for the existence of god. ?

Even granted that evidence for god of the scientifically acceptable types is hard to come by [which makes scientific investigations of god more or less impossible], why the change, and lack of consistency?

Certain productions of gods can be tested for parsimony of explanation, and so now we "believe" in the science of meteorology and the equations of James Clerk Maxwell to explain "Thor's productions", thus Thor, robbed of his [formally] supernaturalistic products of lightning and thunder , fades back into non-reality. No one believes in Thor anymore, because his explanatory power is gone.

The same [in principle] can be done for the sum of all Abrahamic gods: defeat the miracle claims in detail, one after another as false, and the case for god or gods becomes weaker.

The trend in science is clear. less and less 'gaps" for god to hide in. God goes from being creator of the universe, to some metaphor for "goodness" or "morality". The "soul gap" is a favorite place for the sky daddy to lurk in.

So if science can't explain stuff immediately, "god" gets a break-the benefit of the doubt. Is this logical?

No its not, god beliefs are not logical, because they are an emotional investment of believers. religions that do not have gods, but have supernatural things like disembodied souls or re-incarnation, can be challenged [and defeated] in the same way.

In other words, religious belief is some sort of socially-acceptable illogicality and/or mild hysteria, where the believer demands a reason where it may not even be reasonable to suppose that all things have to have a reason or purpose. The theist is impatient, in this sense. [Understandable though, but it is not clear-thinking].

So where does that leave the theist scientist? On shaky ground, I would imagine.

With a little bit of thought the universe must either be :-

Bottom-up: compplex things arise from the interactions of simple laws and objects. Like life.

OR

Top-down: A supernatural deity starts it all off. [And in some belief systems, keeps in control]

Perhaps a mix of both? God plus evolution? Well, maybe, but I smell a logical rat somewhere, although I can't put my finger on it so far. In any event, such a universe would be hard to investigate. It would be a mixture of natural causation and miracles. I don't think we live in that sort of universe. As no scientific theory has ever required god, then I doubt it.

As far as we know, hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide ALWAYS produces table salt and water [in solution], not Teddy Bears or fairies, but salty water.

So a chemist goes from his lab after the above experiment, and then "sees" bread and wine transmute into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ? I don't think so! If the bread and wine are mere metaphors, or symbols, then that is a case of wanting to believe, rather than belief.

If god does exist, then the theist scientist should see [at least occasionally] teddy bears in the products of the test-tube in his lab.

I am sure I must ave made some error somewhere, perhaps others can point it out to me?

[nellikin]

Seems sound to me. I'll post you if I ever get teddy bears in my HCl NaOH solution

[dyet-b]

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).

That is the prerogative of those particular scientist, and it does not invalidate methodological materialism (AFAIK, this is the foundation of the scientific viewpoint). It just points out that humans seek explanations.

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.

Fuller in what sense? Fulfilling in what sense?
You do see, that it cuts both ways, do you? It means, that even you have to accept the "materialism", because without it your own worldview would not be as full as with it. This renders the notion of faith dependent on "materialism": what science has not answered yet, there is your god. Strangely, this seems to coincide with the unknown and the unknowable. The unknowable is unknowable to human knowledge in general, by definition, thus you cannot hide your god there - you cannot know he/she/it/them is/are there. All is left is the unknown. This is just the god-of-the-gaps argument. If substituting "I don't know" with "goddidit" is more fulfilling to you, than I wouldn't stand in your way.

Or are you claiming that this "fuller, and more fulfilling philosophy" has to have any effect outside of personal psychology; outside the head of the particular person having that philosophy?
What happens, when a new piece of knowledge is alighted upon by science? Should god "back out" from that area?

[A Monkey Shaved]

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?

It even mixes badly with other religions like is all too evident in the Middle East

[MattHunX]

OP:

The better question would be: how many of those supposedly theist scientist, are really believers? They're either "faking it for Jesus" or they simply don't want to commit social suicide.

[A Monkey Shaved]

John Polkinghorne is one of interest and one of the a very small minority. I personally think that the God ingredient does nothing for me in explaining the universe's complexity, if fact it is quite the contrary as it just serves to complicate it further. He did reiterate that the universe can be rather messy, especially with mass extinctions and disease. Very observant of him to acknowledge that fact because it is only from our rare vantage point it appears to be well ordered to us. I just think if God truly does exist the universe should be a very different place as we observe it, like I do not think there would be so many dead planets for a start.

[CookieJon]

"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?"

First, creationism and theism are not synonymous, so it's possible to be a theist scientist, and NOT believe in creationism.

Second, you may want to check out Project Steve.

Creationists just love to trot out their brief list of creationist scientists, as though that somehow invalidates evolution. But Project Steve has a list of scientists who support Evolution, and which only includes those named Steve (reckoned to be about 1% of all scientists anywhere). Currently the list of just the Steves who support evolution is at about 1,100, more than twice the ENTIRE list of scientists known to support creationism.

So, given those statistics, your partner's question should really be...

If religion and science are so incompatible compatible, how come so many few scientists believe in god, and are creationists?"

[MattHunX]

John Polkinghorne is one of interest and one of the a very small minority. I personally think that the God ingredient does nothing for me in explaining the universe's complexity, if fact it is quite the contrary as it just serves to complicate it further. He did reiterate that the universe can be rather messy, especially with mass extinctions and disease. Very observant of him to acknowledge that fact because it is only from our rare vantage point it appears to be well ordered to us. I just think if God truly does exist the universe should be a very different place as we observe it, like I do not think there would be so many dead planets for a start.

LOL...you know, I've pretty much been an unbeliever all my life.

When I heard these stories about a god creating men...I didn't go..."Oh, we're so complex, if you look at a biology book, all those arteries, skin, cells...It could've only been the work of someone very smart"
No.
I went..."No freakin' way did anyone design ALL THAT so thoroughly down to the last detail, no one's that smart"...I was in elementary school, around the age of 10. The only thing I didn't understand 'til the age of about 12 was how languages came to be. I kinda believed the Tower of Babel thing, I just couldn't imagine one caveman started jabbering in Russian the other in German the third in English.

[Theophilus]

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

With resigned tolerance, or the contempt they deserve?

I'm tolerant of them; it really doesn't matter to me whether people believe in a young or old earth. The YECs, I believe, do have a strong sense of God creating which I respect even though I differ on how and when creation came about.

[Theophilus]

Fuller in what sense? Fulfilling in what sense?

That is a fair question. From a personal perspective I am a Christian and a scientist. If either one of those parts of me is not allowed to express itself then I would not be living out the full me. Now maybe some people don't have a spiritual bone in their body and so full expression of themselves would not be limited by supressing any faith; but that is not how I am.

[Pombolo]

Fuller in what sense? Fulfilling in what sense?

That is a fair question. From a personal perspective I am a Christian and a scientist. If either one of those parts of me is not allowed to express itself then I would not be living out the full me. Now maybe some people don't have a spiritual bone in their body and so full expression of themselves would not be limited by supressing any faith; but that is not how I am.

What would your personal take be on those who say the above, and then become atheist? Do they lose the sense of fulfillment, or is it possible that a sense of fulfillment is an after-effect, i.e. the non-believer loses only the notion that they had something to lose?

[Theophilus]

What would your personal take be on those who say the above, and then become atheist? Do they lose the sense of fulfillment, or is it possible that a sense of fulfillment is an after-effect, i.e. the non-believer loses only the notion that they had something to lose?

Hello Pombolo

Yes, I have been that person (I think in part due to feeling at the time that faith and a life in science were incompatible)

If someone genuinely has not the smallest amount of faith left then they probably can happily exist as an atheist and stay absolutely fulfilled. But for me there was always a niggle, and so I did not feel completely satisfied again until I did let that faith blossom again. I fully accept that there may be people who have no spiritual inclinations, but I believe it is a false conclusion to say that therefore no-one should seek fulfillment through faith. This is also recognized in Christian theology, perhaps in its most extreme form in Calvinism which boldly (too boldly in my opinion) asserts that the only people drawn to God are those who God decides to draw to himself. This is also consistent with biblical scripture; though an alternative view is that God chooses to draw all men to himself, by prevenient grace, and the choice of whether to accept or reject that drawing comes from man. Whatever the theology, I can accept that some people have no desire or pull towards a life of faith; but others of us do feel that pull and find fulfillment in both faith and science (or wherever our secular interests lie).

[JimC]

What would your personal take be on those who say the above, and then become atheist? Do they lose the sense of fulfillment, or is it possible that a sense of fulfillment is an after-effect, i.e. the non-believer loses only the notion that they had something to lose?

Hello Pombolo

Yes, I have been that person (I think in part due to feeling at the time that faith and a life in science were incompatible)

If someone genuinely has not the smallest amount of faith left then they probably can happily exist as an atheist and stay absolutely fulfilled. But for me there was always a niggle, and so I did not feel completely satisfied again until I did let that faith blossom again. I fully accept that there may be people who have no spiritual inclinations, but I believe it is a false conclusion to say that therefore no-one should seek fulfillment through faith. This is also recognized in Christian theology, perhaps in its most extreme form in Calvinism which boldly (too boldly in my opinion) asserts that the only people drawn to God are those who God decides to draw to himself. This is also consistent with biblical scripture; though an alternative view is that God chooses to draw all men to himself, by prevenient grace, and the choice of whether to accept or reject that drawing comes from man. Whatever the theology, I can accept that some people have no desire or pull towards a life of faith; but others of us do feel that pull and find fulfillment in both faith and science (or wherever our secular interests lie).

(My colouration)

Problem is, the majority of christians would not see the coloured section in a neutral way, such as I might think of people who have no interest in science fiction. Indeed, many of them will think it an example of wilful folly, and quite a few will openly say it makes me destined for an eternity of extreme pain...

Have you considered that your "pull to faith" is a more general aspect of your personality, one that in another cultural setting may incline you towards yogic meditation, or shamanistic ritual?

[Theophilus]

Have you considered that your "pull to faith" is a more general aspect of your personality, one that in another cultural setting may incline you towards yogic meditation, or shamanistic ritual?

Indeed, I think that is very possible/probable. The sense of the numinous is common to many cultures but the way that is expressed and explored is different. I admit it did in the past cause me some concern, but now I simply accept that Christianity is the faith that presents itself to me to explore and grow in. Perhaps even atheism can be a way of exploring one's place in creation?

[colubridae]

Hi Theophilis


What field of science do you work in?

(apologies if you've already answered this question)