Religious scientists

[Theophilus]

Hi Theophilis

What field of science do you work in?

(apologies if you've already answered this question)

Hi colubridae

I had 25 years in physiology, pharmacology, molecular biology with some involvement in clinical trials. Now I am in the more applied field of clinical systems (which historically has not been too scientific, but now we are trying to bring in more science and evidence-based approaches).

[JimC]

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?

Fair enough.

However, what is your reaction to the other part of my post?

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...

which came from your comment (which I do appreciate, BTW...):

Whatever the theology, I can accept that some people have no desire or pull towards a life of faith

[Bruce Burleson]

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 ?

It is not that the concept of God is "necessary" (logically or philosophically). It is that, for some, the experience of God is real. My experience of God has nothing to do with superstition, but that is my personal, subjective experience, not yours.

[JimC]

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 ?

It is not that the concept of God is "necessary" (logically or philosophically). It is that, for some, the experience of God is real. My experience of God has nothing to do with superstition, but that is my personal, subjective experience, not yours.

If that was all there was to religious belief, fine...

However, most religious people assume their personal, subjective experience allows them to definitively describe how the universe works (in a broad sense), and, what is worse, to insist that others should share their particular inner vision, often by force...

[Bruce Burleson]

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 ?

It is not that the concept of God is "necessary" (logically or philosophically). It is that, for some, the experience of God is real. My experience of God has nothing to do with superstition, but that is my personal, subjective experience, not yours.

If that was all there was to religious belief, fine...

However, most religious people assume their personal, subjective experience allows them to definitively describe how the universe works (in a broad sense), and, what is worse, to insist that others should share their particular inner vision, often by force...

Assuming the authority to coerce others into following one's own beliefs betrays an insecurity regarding those beliefs. If one is secure in one's own faith, there is no need to force others to comply or agree.

[Bolero]

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.

I must say, I have to wonder this, too. The fakers don't help my argument, though, as it would be impossible to prove.

[Bolero]

"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?"

Haha! Project Steve is my new favourite party conversation gem. I'll try it on hubby, but he's of the opinion that "science comes from Christianity", so as far as he's concerned, "Christian science" is the only kind of science that's important. It's a twisted viewpoint with little rational justification - kinda hard (and a bit exhausting)to argue with, to be honest.

[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.

I must say, I have to wonder this, too. The fakers don't help my argument, though, as it would be impossible to prove.

But, it would be quite amusing to watch the aftermath. How their theist friends and families would react.

The intolerance towards atheism in some cases is shocking. On the "old" RDF forum, a member had told me about one if his friends who he had long discussions with, and the guy turned atheist. When he told his parents, they threw him out of the house, on the street, literally, permanently. The guy was 17.

So it would interesting to see the kind of reactions these so-called theist scientist would get from friends and family, and the public in general.

[Theophilus]

However, what is your reaction to the other part of my post?

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...

Well, it is no surprise that Christians disagree . That has been the case since the apostles first squabbled, even in the presence of Jesus.

But as for Christians who like to dogmatically damn all non-Christians, I would ask them to consider the fate of babies who die, those born before Christ and those that die who have never heard the Gospel. I would ask them to consider the words of our Lord in John 15:22 (where Jesus says that only once he had spoken to the Jews had they no excuse for their sin), Matthew 25:31-46 (where Jesus says that his "sheep" are the ones who show mercy and charity to others) and Romans 2:14 (where Paul says that the Law of God is written on our hearts and we will be judged by our consciences).

There is no easy answer to the question of the fate of non-Christians (from a Christian perspective; I realise that atheists will consider all fates the same), and so I would simply ask other Christians to be wary of dogmatic responses and accept that scripture paints a complex picture.

[JimC]

However, what is your reaction to the other part of my post?

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...

Well, it is no surprise that Christians disagree . That has been the case since the apostles first squabbled, even in the presence of Jesus.

But as for Christians who like to dogmatically damn all non-Christians, I would ask them to consider the fate of babies who die, those born before Christ and those that die who have never heard the Gospel. I would ask them to consider the words of our Lord in John 15:22 (where Jesus says that only once he had spoken to the Jews had they no excuse for their sin), Matthew 25:31-46 (where Jesus says that his "sheep" are the ones who show mercy and charity to others) and Romans 2:14 (where Paul says that the Law of God is written on our hearts and we will be judged by our consciences).

There is no easy answer to the question of the fate of non-Christians (from a Christian perspective; I realise that atheists will consider all fates the same), and so I would simply ask other Christians to be wary of dogmatic responses and accept that scripture paints a complex picture.

To me, you seem a little like Jerome from RDF (and here, at least briefly...), which is high praise - a theist one can have an amiable conversation with...

[Theophilus]

Jim

Thankyou for your kind comments. Yes I remember Jerome - he seemed a very level headed chap.

[Pombolo]

Hello again Theophilus.

Perhaps my question, at the top of the page, wasn't phrased as I wanted it to be, but I feel the last line needs repeating.

... the non-believer loses only the notion that they had something to lose?

I mention this again because your response seemed like a repetition of what you had said before. I don't think you were being evasive, I accept that you have found something fulfilling in your faith. What I'm wondering is, if it could be objectively shown to you tomorrow that there was definitely no God, beyond any doubt whatsoever: would you feel any loss of fulfillment?

What is this thing that was "niggling" away? What is it that you feel a naturalistic universe lacks, which you personally find fulfilling within religion? If you knew with certainty that you were in a naturalistic universe, what do you imagine would happen to that sense of fulfillment?

[Theophilus]

Hello Pombolo

What I'm wondering is, if it could be objectively shown to you tomorrow that there was definitely no God, beyond any doubt whatsoever: would you feel any loss of fulfillment?

I think there would be a pain of readjustment of world view; I think any large paradigm shift in our presuppositions is going to be a little disorienting for a while. There may even be some sense of "bereavement" (I don't want to overplay things but I hope you see what I'm getting at), but in the long term I would not expect a loss of fulfillment.

What is this thing that was "niggling" away? What is it that you feel a naturalistic universe lacks, which you personally find fulfilling within religion?

I think that niggling away was the sense of the numinous.

If you knew with certainty that you were in a naturalistic universe, what do you imagine would happen to that sense of fulfillment?

I think I would have a sense of fulfillment (as much as we can ever reasonably expect; none of us live in Nirvana 100% of the time).