do scientist

[thugfella]

do scientist believe in god?? i no that most dont and i wanne no why....because lets say a kid is in science class and the science teacher is sayin how the earth was created and the kid happens to be christian hes learin things about how the earth was created in two different places his school and the bible.....so what do you guys think

 

[kmarinas86]

Yes scientists can believe in god if they want to. Some scientists try to reconcile their religion with their science, while other scientists who "believe" in God stick to the scientific mainstream. There are quite a lot of scientists who were not raised as an atheist.

 

[Saiph]

I'd say a large number (perhaps the same proportion as the average populace) believe in "god".<br /><br />However, most usually have unorthodox views of god. They have their own idea of what it is, and what it does, which don't always agree with your standard religions.<br /><br />Some people try to fit science to god, or vice versa. This can often give bizarre results, but sometimes they fit together okay (take genesis and the big bang...ignoring the fact that genesis quotes two different orders for the creation events...)<br /><br />Some are very orthodox. My current advisor is a born again christian.<br /><br />You're also likely to find many of us "fence sitting" agnostics in the group. In general we see that you can't prove, or disprove, the existence of "god" and as such, don't bother to ask the question. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

I'm not a scientist, but I'm madly in love with science. I like knowing how things work. I like explanations backed up with evidence to prove the truth.<br /><br />I also believe in God. The 2 aren't mutually exclusive. At least not to me.<br /><br />But like Saiph pointed out, my idea of God and the Bible are very unorthodox to say the least. Unorthodox compared to traditional Christian dogma that is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I think it's common for scientists to have their own ideas about God. This is because they are, by nature, questioning people. They're also used to the idea of people having different ideas at the same time without some of them being idiots and even without some of them being actually wrong. They're trained to think of questioning as a normal, healthy thing to do, and to come up with their own ideas about things. Even the born again Christian scientists have probably done a great deal of questioning of God before reaching a conclusion that satisfied them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[alpha_taur1]

"You're also likely to find many of us "fence sitting" agnostics in the group."<br /><br />Yes, I'm one of those fence sitting agnostics. An interesting point was made to me in that you can be an Agnostic Christian or an Agnostic Atheist. The difference comes in the different meanings of the verbs to believe and to know. Many people don't _know_, but choose to _believe_ in a supreme being through faith. <br /><br />Religion is a very personal thing, and everybody should be entitled to make up their own minds when they are ready. <br /><br />You could have a spectrum of totally convinced atheists through to convinced One True Church Western Evangelist, 2nd Church on the right Pentacostalists. <br /><br />Agnostics can also range from those who believe that it is impossible to know anything about any spiritual world, whom I term big 'A' agnostics, to those small a agnostics like myself who respect (and take an interest in ) many religions, and give the beliefs of others the benefit of the doubt, based on the fact that not everybody has the same world view and experiences.<br /><br />I have worked with scientists who are Muslim, Buddhist, devout Christians or atheists. If anything, I'd say that there are more theists than atheists in the medical profession and in teaching, and fewer in physics and mathematics.

 

[kmarinas86]

Amen!!!

 

[lewcos]

"There is no God in the sciences and many just simplify it and say there is no God. But they are then left without any moral or ethical guides. So society will collapse, and there will be no science, either. "<br /><br />Well that is perhaps true to some extent and with some people but I think society and it rules and consequences does a pretty good job of eliminating collapse or anarchy or the such.<br /><br />I don't go and steal something, not because god will punish me - I don't steal it because I'm pretty sure that jail sucks <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[igorsboss]

One criteria for a good scientific theory is that the theory be falsifiable. That is, there must exist a statement, the truth of which implies that the theory is false.<br /><br />On the other hand, one criteria for a good religious belief is that it be taken on faith. That is, the belief is presumed correct, without the requirement that it be provable.<br /><br />How can we justify faith and falsifiability? It is exceedingly difficult!<br /><br />A scientist who is also religious is well advised to know the difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief, and to act accordingly.

 

[alpha_taur1]

"A scientist who is also religious is well advised to know the difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief, and to act accordingly."<br /><br />Exactly. In most cases, particularly in the pure sciences, it is a question of never the twain shall meet. Anyone who uses religious doctrine to justify a direction in scientific research is playing with fire.<br /><br />However in certain fields, such as medicine, and other disciplines where human beings are involved, eg teaching, it is essential to take into account the religious beliefs that people hold, and the values of society. <br /><br />I gave the example of logic versus morality in another thread, citing the works of Vaclav Havel, the first post Cold War president of the Czech Republic. Whatever his ineptitude in the political field, his position on morality and ethics has often been quoted as an ideal to aspire to.<br /><br /> The point I made was that the basic principles of humanity, or concern for human dignity and welfare must take precedence over cold logic. The case that Havel cited was that of a person being asked to do a terrible deed (eg kill his mother) to avoid a major human catastrophy (eg a nuclear bomb being set off in a major city). <br /><br />Basic Marxist philosophy, which is extremely logical and scientific in its approach, would say that this deed must be done for the good of society, and that is exactly the methodology adopted by totalitarian regimes to achieve their objectives.

 

[Saiph]

though it's not uncommon for religious beliefs to give guiding questions to research. I.e. what do I want to study? The creation of the universe! Or origin of life, etc.<br /><br />But, if religious belief is used to sus out the answers...that's when one must draw the line. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[meteo]

<font color="yellow"><br />They are two separate realms. The sciences cannot create morality and social stability and justice, which are necessary for the maintenance and advancement of the sciences. Neither can theology create computer chips, electric power systems or antibiotics, all of which we need to survive. </font><br /><br />I totally agree; however I think you can lump together theology and government/social norms as all play this role in maintaining social stability. Throughout history there is often little difference between theology and government/social norms. By social stability I'm not just refering to preventing revolts; in most cases social stability is a support for the community. Everyone works together and even sacrifices themseleves for the "greater good," this allows a society (and individuals) to survive.<br /><br />There is a tradeoff between social stability and progress. More restraint and your trading more social stability for less progress, and vice versa. There has been a longterm trend of looseing the social reigns, I'm emphasising the longterm. I think this is because longterm progress gives you some social stability slack, were not scratching out an existance on the edge of collapse as we were in ancient times.

 

[the_masked_squiggy]

I agree that religious texts are not the final answer to scientific questions--they wind up being pretty vague between the writer's understanding of things, and all the retranslation--they can also be a guide to the inquisitive. For example: okay, it talks about a worldwide flood. Are there clues to such a thing occurring? What are the implications? Etc. One thing to be careful about here for those who look to reconcile faith and empirical science: there is a LOT of really BAD creation science out there. A lot of it. People who don't know what they're talking about, or who think they do and try to make everything fit into their little framework, or use a lot of "black boxes" to wave things away. Because if you're right, then you will be able, eventually, to find a feasable way for it all to work out. But you need to work within the parameters of science to find it, not just the way some line in your particular religious text is worded.