|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 08/23/2005 : 19:41:25 [Permalink]
|
| I'd say that a fundamentalist cannot be a good scientist because they hold their beliefs to be knowledge. But one can be a freethinker and believe in God. As long as they stop believing if they find evidence to the contrary of their beliefs. So I guess a good scientist can be religious as long as they put science before belief. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2005 : 00:39:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82mattquote:
Originally posted by Starman
...can you really be a good scientist if you rely on faith to answer such important questions?
I'm assuming that you mean 'important scientific questions'.
Yes, that is what I and I believe Hauptman mean.
For religious ideas where there are loads of conflicting evidence, I would say that if you really don't care how life appeared and developed, you could belive that creation is true and still be a good scientist in unrelated fields.
If you on the other hand do care (read about it and/or express an opinion) I would not call you a good scientist even if you are able to succeed where your work does not come into conflict with your faith. You are just lucky that your shortcomings has not affected your work yet.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2005 : 00:42:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
I know! Sherlock Homes 
Correct!
 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2005 : 07:21:34 [Permalink]
|
Today, the Times printed some letters responding to the article. One was particularly interesting:quote:
Re "Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science" ("A Debate Over Darwin" series, front page, Aug. 23):
You quote Steven Weinberg, a physicist and Nobel laureate, as saying, "I think one of the great historical contributions of science is to weaken the hold of religion."
This statement is yet another example of how modern scientists hurt their cause of rational exploration into natural phenomena by their unequivocal attacks on belief in God.
Dr. Weinberg and his fellow scientists would find that if they did not strive to push an agenda of unfettered atheism into all aspects of education, believers would feel less need to combat reasonable instruction of generally accepted scientific theory.
I think the writer is right. Or at least, I think that the ID-pushing theocrats would have less sway over the hapless right-leaning public if some from the world of science weren't so hostile to religion and so smug in professing that science "proves" that god/God/religion is useless.
Yes, there are plenty (a majority?) of Christian (or at least Judeo-Christian god worshipping) scientists. The problem is that while they're probably comfortable in their religion, they probably aren't comfortable arguing in a public forum how they can be both religious and an evolutionary biologist. Or whatever. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2005 : 11:40:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
You quote Steven Weinberg, a physicist and Nobel laureate, as saying, "I think one of the great historical contributions of science is to weaken the hold of religion."
This statement is yet another example of how modern scientists hurt their cause of rational exploration into natural phenomena by their unequivocal attacks on belief in God.
Dr. Weinberg and his fellow scientists would find that if they did not strive to push an agenda of unfettered atheism into all aspects of education, believers would feel less need to combat reasonable instruction of generally accepted scientific theory.
I think the writer is right. Or at least, I think that the ID-pushing theocrats would have less sway over the hapless right-leaning public if some from the world of science weren't so hostile to religion and so smug in professing that science "proves" that god/God/religion is useless.
Yes, there are plenty (a majority?) of Christian (or at least Judeo-Christian god worshipping) scientists. The problem is that while they're probably comfortable in their religion, they probably aren't comfortable arguing in a public forum how they can be both religious and an evolutionary biologist. Or whatever.
I think Steven Weinberg is referring to organized religion. The letter writer is IMO misinterpreting Weinberg's remarks as being an attack on belief in God rather than an attack on organized religion.
Weakening the hold of organized religions and letting people know that there are ways of thinking other than the way they were raised to think is a good thing in my books. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2005 : 16:59:32 [Permalink]
|
Faith is antithetical to the scientific method.
People have been known to apply both in their lives without contradiction, but only because science is incapable of providing answers to all conceivable questions, and some people it seems really need answers--regardless of whether or not they are true.
Bertrand Russell said "What science cannot tell us, mankind cannot know", and that's exactly right. Religion conflicts with science because it claims there is another way of "knowing," a method that has been proven demonstrably unreliable. So long as people continue to believe they can know things which are in reality impossible to know, they will find themselves in conflict with the aim of science.
It seems to me incidental if they can modify their beliefs in accordance to the facts of science if they reject the actual methods of knowing it advocates.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2005 : 04:46:24 [Permalink]
|
"Are you less likely to become a good scientist if you belive in God?".
Will you become less religious if you adhere to scientific facts? |
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2005 : 08:55:11 [Permalink]
|
Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?
Yes. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2005 : 09:46:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by CourseKnot
"Are you less likely to become a good scientist if you belive in God?".
Maybe, Maybe not
quote:
Originally posted by CourseKnot
Will you become less religious if you adhere to scientific facts?
I don't know if you will....but you should. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2005 : 09:46:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?
Sure. But only if your field of science is one that doesn't contradict your particular flavor of religion.
If, for example, you are an evolutionary biologist I don't think you can adhere to any religion that maintains special creation of humans. If you do either your science will suffer or you will only actually be paying lip-service to your religion. But if your science were meteorology....
quote:
Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Johannes Kepler and Tycho Brahe lived in earlier times when pretty much everybody was religious.
Well, honestly, pretty much everyone is religious now as well. The major difference between then and now? Now you can't be tortured then burned alive for contradicting the church. While some of the great names from the history of science may have been true believers, I'd say that many of them also just professed the belief to prevent premature death, or more recently to prevent social and professional ostracism.
quote:
Will you become less religious if you adhere to scientific facts?
If you are intelectually honest, yes.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2005 : 18:57:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
The major difference between then and now? Now you can't be tortured then burned alive for contradicting the church.
Unless you live in, say, Taliban-controlled Afganistan.quote:
Originally posted by CourseKnot
Will you become less religious if you adhere to scientific facts?
That depends on your application of the verb "adhere." If by that you mean that you make choices based upon nothing but facts and scientific conclusions, then yeah, you'll become less religious, but you'll also miss out on opportunities for love (for example), 'cause there's not much that science can tell you about that girl across the street (or whomever), and if you approach her "scientifically," you'll probably get locked up for stalking.
On the other hand, if you "adhere" to science only as far as science can take you, and wing it in all other areas of life, then there's no reason for one to become less religious. Science cannot speak to that which is defined solely through faith.
(The problem with creationists being that they want to make the object of their faith real, thus "infringing" upon the empirical world of science.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2005 : 19:12:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Unless you live in, say, Taliban-controlled Afganistan.
Yeah. I was thinking more of western societies.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2005 : 20:07:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by CourseKnot
Will you become less religious if you adhere to scientific facts?
I think it's funny that some of the posters said "no" or "you should" after the number of times "evolution says nothing about god" has come up. No sciences say anything about god(s)/religion. Assuming a sensible person, there no reason for religion and science to conflict. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2005 : 20:15:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
No sciences say anything about god(s)/religion. Assuming a sensible person, there no reason for religion and science to conflict.
No, reason and religion conflict. As science sharpens your reasoning skills, the arguments for religion should become less and less persuasive. Again, assuming a sensible person.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/25/2005 20:30:21 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 01:12:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
No sciences say anything about god(s)/religion. Assuming a sensible person, there no reason for religion and science to conflict.
Maybe not, but most religions say things that conflicts with science.
From the article:quote:
But Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary theorist at Oxford, said that even scientists who were believers did not claim evidence for that belief. "The most they will claim is that there is no evidence against," Dr. Dawkins said, "which is pathetically weak. There is no evidence against all sorts of things, but we don't waste our time believing in them."
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
