Can a Modern Scientist Be Religious?

[Quincy]

I am an agnostic myself, and I've think many athiests like to claim with certainty that their is no god. But you cannot make such an assertion that you know that their is no god because human beings are not omniscient and are falliable to error . Athiests can make the claim that their is no god because they lack the evidence currently , but they cannot be certain about the origin behind the creation of the universe.

Nobody can be 100% certain about anything. I'm not 100% sure there is no god - more like 99%. Being atheist means that you believe god doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you know god doesn't exist. Just as theists believe god exists, theists don't know god exists.

Why not ? If the species of higher intelligence demoonstrates itself to be far more superior to our civilization in terms of science, a complete understanding of their species psyche that their is no further research needed to understand the psyche and mind of their human species, why would you take their observations of a deity into serious consideration?

It would still require faith to believe in god. If a species of higher intelligence simply told you there is a god, you would be convinced? How do you know they're not lying? You don't have very high standards... I wouldn't be convinced until I saw it for myself.

I claimed that you cannot conclude that a divine force behind the big bang if we don't have sufficient evidence to prove that their was no god behind the big bang either.

Yes, but why would anyone even think that god was behind the big bang in the first place? If god has no association with gravity, laws of motion, thermodynamics, electricity, etc (All of which humans understand thoroughly), why would you assume that he was behind the big bang? Yes, we don't have evidence that god wasn't behind the big bang, but we also don't have evidence that a flying spaghetti monster wasn't behind the big bang. From your reasoning, it would be safe to assume that a flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn was behind the big bang. You keep making this mistake, you think just because there isn't proof that something doesn't exist, you think it's safe to assume that it exists.

 

[noblegas]

Nobody can be 100% certain about anything. I'm not 100% sure there is no god - more like 99%. Being atheist means that you believe god doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you know god doesn't exist. Just as theists believe god exists, theists don't know god exists.

You would not know if they were lying or not because you would not be equipped senses the higher intelligent species possesses that would enabled him to be more sensitive to his surroundings than human beings and therefore you could not determined if they are lying or not just like a dog would not know if its owner is looking out for its best interests.

It would still require faith to believe in god. If a species of higher intelligence simply told you there is a god, you would be convinced? How do you know they're not lying? You don't have very high standards... I wouldn't be convinced until I saw it for myself.

Again in our world god doesn't seem to exist because our brain might not be properly developed to envisioned such phenomena; maybe we have not developed the proper equipment yet to detect a deity just like particle physiscists have yet to developed detector to envisions strings and eleven dimensions. I think we been over this scenario in other posts.One could argue particle physiccists have a model to work with though. But just because we lack a model for the deity now does not mean we can tossed the possibility of a deity in the trash bin. 400 years ago,Galileo would have scoffed at the idea of a substance possessing a particle/wave duality and Newton would have scoffed did idea as mass being equivalent with energy because in their time , the mathematics and the experimenational techniques and eqipement for detecting such physical phenomena did not exist.

Yes, but why would anyone even think that god was behind the big bang in the first place? If god has no association with gravity, laws of motion, thermodynamics, electricity, etc (All of which humans understand thoroughly), why would you assume that he was behind the big bang? Yes, we don't have evidence that god wasn't behind the big bang, but we also don't have evidence that a flying spaghetti monster wasn't behind the big bang. From your reasoning, it would be safe to assume that a flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn was behind the big bang. You keep making this mistake, you think just because there isn't proof that something doesn't exist, you think it's safe to assume that it exists.

the laws of gravity, motion and thermodynamics tell us how the universe operates and functions , they do not tell us why such laws came into existence and why does such laws convienence human beings. I wasn't assuming anything, I don't know everything so I will not draw a conclusive argument about the validity of the existence of god. As I stated above, would might not have developed the proper understanding for the existence of god; Humans have created artificial intelligent beings and machinery , why is it so illogical to you to possibly posit that perhaps life beings and the laws that govern our universe might have been constructed in the mind of an intelligent being, analogous to the human mind, even if we currently lack sufficient evidence to experimentally proved such a position?

 

[Quincy]

You would not know if they were lying or not because you would not be equipped senses the higher intelligent species possesses that would enabled him to be more sensitive to his surroundings than human beings and therefore you could not determined if they are lying or not just like a dog would not know if its owner is looking out for its best interests.

Well, what if a species of an even higher intelligence told that species that god doesn't exist? And what if another species of an even higher intelligence told that species that god does exist but another species of a higher intelligence told that species that god doesn't exist, and so on? This talk about a higher species of intelligence claiming there is a god is completely meaningless, and is very likely never going to happen, so why even talk about it? Again, as I said before, make conclusions based on real observations, not "What if this" or "What if that"...

Again in our world god doesn't seem to exist because our brain might not be properly developed to envisioned such phenomena; maybe we have not developed the proper equipment yet to detect a deity just like particle physiscists have yet to developed detector to envisions strings and eleven dimensions. I think we been over this scenario in other posts.One could argue particle physiccists have a model to work with though. But just because we lack a model for the deity now does not mean we can tossed the possibility of a deity in the trash bin. 400 years ago,Galileo would have scoffed at the idea of a substance possessing a particle/wave duality and Newton would have scoffed did idea as mass being equivalent with energy because in their time , the mathematics and the experimenational techniques and eqipement for detecting such physical phenomena did not exist.

Well then, since we don't have the "proper equipment" to detect a deity yet, we should believe in what we currently can detect.

the laws of gravity, motion and thermodynamics tell us how the universe operates and functions , they do not tell us why such laws came into existence and why does such laws convienence human beings.

Like most of what you post, this has numerous grammatical errors, but I think what you're trying to say is that the laws of thermodynamics, motion, and gravity are convenient for human beings. That is absolutely false. It is a completely subjective statement.

why is it so illogical to you to possibly posit that perhaps life beings and the laws that govern our universe might have been constructed in the mind of an intelligent being, analogous to the human mind, even if we currently lack sufficient evidence to experimentally proved such a position?

Do you find it illogical to say that invisible pink unicorns might exist? If so, why?

 

[Jasongreat]

In the US, according to the first ammendment scientists can believe in any religion or not to, so yes a scientist can be religious or not, it is up to them.

To say that science is not faith based in some instances, is false IMO. There are not very many theories that don't have an assumption or two in them. Since we don't know what caused the assumption(or it wouldn't be an assumption) just that it works in the equation, we have to use a little faith(less and less the more times it works) that the theory is valid. It seems that with the big bang one person states people that believe something was behind it are basing that on faith because they have no proof, but another states that since we have no proof that something caused it, then it couldn't have happened that way, which is faith based also since they can't prove that something didnt cause the big bang. I would agree with noblegas as to the fact that we don't know for sure one way or the other, anyone claiming other wise is basing some beliefs on faith(isnt that basically what a belief is, something you believe to be true but can't completely prove(faith based), a truth is something you can prove to be true(not faith based) but even that is subjective to the information available at the time, if we don't have complete information what may seem to be a truth one day might be proven wrong the next when more information is discovered, which means that even the truth had elements of faith involved.

 

[muppet]

There is indeed a science called psycology that covers human behavior. But it is a study of how people interact. It makes no effort to dictate how we interact or why we should treat others the way we do. Religion is where many people find those rules.

I don't think it's quite so simple. Neuropsychology relates human behaviour to the brain itself- although it doesn't dictate a behavioural code per se, it does suggest a direct causal connection between a material system and human behaviour.

That being said, I don't think I'd go so far as to say that ethics or morality are themselves something that science can explain away or systematically analyse. The problem with such an approach as I see it is that whilst you can relate our instincts to our brain function, or evolutionary heritage, or the proliferation of particular memes, human intelligence has developed the ability to think in abstraction. Thus, "right" and "wrong" can be subjected to rational inquiry, just as we've developed schemes such as quantum mechanics that allow us to accurately describe a world which our mind never evolved to handle intuitively.

As a related aside on the connection between religion and ethics: philosophers like to talk about Euthyphro's dilemma: are actions good because God commands them, or does God command actions because they are good? Theologians and philosophers alike generally come to the latter conclusion, implying the existence of a moral structure external to and independent of God. Then, people who derive their moral guidelines from religious sources do so not because it is (morally) important to do what God says per se, but because God's asserted supreme intelligence gives Him a better knowledge of what is right and wrong than we could hope to attain.

 

[muppet]

In the US, according to the first ammendment scientists can believe in any religion or not to, so yes a scientist can be religious or not, it is up to them.

To say that science is not faith based in some instances, is false IMO. There are not very many theories that don't have an assumption or two in them. Since we don't know what caused the assumption(or it wouldn't be an assumption) just that it works in the equation, we have to use a little faith(less and less the more times it works) that the theory is valid. It seems that with the big bang one person states people that believe something was behind it are basing that on faith because they have no proof, but another states that since we have no proof that something caused it, then it couldn't have happened that way, which is faith based also since they can't prove that something didnt cause the big bang. I would agree with noblegas as to the fact that we don't know for sure one way or the other, anyone claiming other wise is basing some beliefs on faith(isnt that basically what a belief is, something you believe to be true but can't completely prove(faith based), a truth is something you can prove to be true(not faith based) but even that is subjective to the information available at the time, if we don't have complete information what may seem to be a truth one day might be proven wrong the next when more information is discovered, which means that even the truth had elements of faith involved.

There's not a single theory that doesn't contain an assumption or two. But what do you mean by "faith"? Take evolution as an example. The assumptions are:
1)That variation occurs within a population
-Consideration of human beings shows this to be obviously true in at least some cases.
2)That variation leads to some individuals being better adapted to survive in a competitive environment than others
-Thinking about variation in characteristics such as running speed, musculature, intelligence readily suggests ways in which this condition could be fulfilled
3)That those animals which have a survival advantage are more likely to reproduce
-At the very least, a plausible assumption
4)That there is some mechanism of heredity by which offspring exhibit similar physical traits to their parents
-Both an observed phenomenon and now the subject of the well-established field of genetics.

If by "faith" you mean "confidence", then scientists certainly have faith in these four assumptions. If, however, you mean "belief that is not based on proof", then only the most ardent skeptic (or creationist) doubts that the truth of these assumptions is not proven -to that standard of "proof" which can be attained by a scientific theory. The problem with "proof" in science is that if a theory is shown to make a prediction, which is then confirmed, you can't exclude the logical possibility that another theory makes the same prediction. The big bang theory (in its most modern form) has some excellent empirical support going for it. It's not a mere guess that just might be true; it's a postulate that unavoidably leads to non-trivial predictions which have been demonstrated to be true. There's really no more "faith" involved than in the hypothesis that every time I drop an apple, it will fall in roughly the direction of the centre of the earth.

 

[noblegas]

Like most of what you post, this has numerous grammatical errors, but I think what you're trying to say is that the laws of thermodynamics, motion, and gravity are convenient for human beings. That is absolutely false. It is a completely subjective statement.

I meant convenient in the sense that if the sun was slightly hotter and/or the region of the universe we humans inhabit was slightly colder than it actually is, life would not exist; If we were the second planet from the sun rather than the third, humans would not exist; If the gravitational constant was that of the moon or that of jupiter, we would have either a difficult time keeping are belongings and ourselves to the ground or we would barely be able to lift our feet above the ground. Not to mentioned we would not survive on Jupiter or the moon anyway regardless of their gravitational fields because Jupiter has too much hydrogen and is too cold for humans to inhabit and the moon has no oxygen. Their is synchronicity for humans on the earth, because we just happened to be in the right region of the universe inhabitable for humans.

Well, what if a species of an even higher intelligence told that species that god doesn't exist? And what if another species of an even higher intelligence told that species that god does exist but another species of a higher intelligence told that species that god doesn't exist, and so on? This talk about a higher species of intelligence claiming there is a god is completely meaningless, and is very likely never going to happen, so why even talk about it? Again, as I said before, make conclusions based on real observations, not "What if this" or "What if that"...

exactly my point! We truly have no way of answering whether god or not exists , other than our own mind ,because a species of higher intelligence could in principle point out the mistakes the second intelligent species made about their being a deity and vice versa. I think it is likely that we could encountered another intelligent species because we have yet to explore all of the universe and we have only explored less than four percent of the universe

 

[Quincy]

I meant convenient in the sense that if the sun was slightly hotter and/or the region of the universe we humans inhabit was slightly colder than it actually is, life would not exist; If we were the second planet from the sun rather than the third, humans would not exist; If the gravitational constant was that of the moon or that of jupiter, we would have either a difficult time keeping are belongings and ourselves to the ground or we would barely be able to lift our feet above the ground. Not to mentioned we would not survive on Jupiter or the moon anyway regardless of their gravitational fields because Jupiter has too much hydrogen and is too cold for humans to inhabit and the moon has no oxygen. Their is synchronicity for humans on the earth, because we just happened to be in the right region of the universe inhabitable for humans.

Most of the solar systems in the universe can not sustain life, so if anything, the laws of physics are NOT suitable for life. Our solar system just happens to be one that can sustain life on one of its planets. Most of the universe does not contain life, so I would say that the laws of physics are very inconvenient for sustaining life.

I think it is likely that we could encountered another intelligent species because we have yet to explore all of the universe and we have only explored less than four percent of the universe

Even if we were to encounter another intelligent species, I highly doubt that they would even know about the concept of god. The concept of god was created by us humans to explain mystery; intelligent species from other parts of the universe might not have that desire to explain mystery so they might be completely oblivious to the idea... Stop relying on this idea of "what if a more intelligent species claimed they saw god", and base your thinking on what is true, not what might be true.
And where did you get less than 4 percent? We have explored way less than one percent. Do you have any idea how big the universe is? You obviously don't know what you're talking about...

 

[Lancelot59]

So essentially our fun little planet was a huge coincidence?

I think that is why most people think that scientists can't be religious. Because god implies some all powerful omniscient being that can do anything without consequence or boundaties. Or because religion is an artificial construct that tries to describe the universe, without any actual backup besides "I believe".

 

[noblegas]

Most of the solar systems in the universe can not sustain life, so if anything, the laws of physics are NOT suitable for life. Our solar system just happens to be one that can sustain life on one of its planets. Most of the universe does not contain life, so I would say that the laws of physics are very inconvenient for sustaining life.

Even if we were to encounter another intelligent species, I highly doubt that they would even know about the concept of god. The concept of god was created by us humans to explain mystery; intelligent species from other parts of the universe might not have that desire to explain mystery so they might be completely oblivious to the idea... Stop relying on this idea of "what if a more intelligent species claimed they saw god", and base your thinking on what is true, not what might be true.
And where did you get less than 4 percent? We have explored way less than one percent. Do you have any idea how big the universe is? You obviously don't know what you're talking about...

The universe contains 4 percent of matter , 25 percent of DARK matter, and 75 percent of DARK ENERGY! Scientists are not completely sure what dark matter or dark energy is MADE of. I did not say we have explored 4 percent of the universe. I said we explored LESS than 4 percent. I included 4 percent because the universe is made of 4 percent of matter. I suspect if the species we hypothetically encountered follows a similar mode of life , shares the same values as humans, i.e. altriusm, investing in their young , not murdering people randomly for strictly survival purposes, looking down on cannabalism, then its possible for this hypothetical species to believe in that a deity is responsible for the creation of the universe as well.

 

[Lancelot59]

Well we didn't know what atoms were at one point. People came up with all kinds of crazy things until the model we have today was developed.

The same holds true for lightning, spontaneous life generation, and many other things throughout history.

Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean that it's some super-natural phenomenon. Everything can be explained and described. It's just a matter of actually doing it properly.

 

[noblegas]

Well we didn't know what atoms were at one point. People came up with all kinds of crazy things until the model we have today was developed.

The same holds true for lightning, spontaneous life generation, and many other things throughout history.

Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean that it's some super-natural phenomenon. Everything can be explained and described. It's just a matter of actually doing it properly.

I'm not really sure what ontological argument to buy because even if you supposed that their is a creator responsible for the creation of the universe, one wonders who created the creator, and ad infinitum. Let's end this debate. I see no point in proceeding with it.

 

[Quincy]

I did not say we have explored 4 percent of the universe. I said we explored LESS than 4 percent. I included 4 percent because the universe is made of 4 percent of matter.

This sentence just shows me you really don't know what you're talking about; we have not even explored our whole solar system and our solar system is less than one percent of the universe. Matter being 4 percent of the universe has nothing to do with what we have explored! Please, before you post again, do some research on inductive reasoning or logic, you lack in that area (no offense). This whole debate you have been presenting opinions that have been refuted centuries ago...

So essentially our fun little planet was a huge coincidence?

There are billions of planets in the solar system; we just happen to be on one that sustains life.

 

[noblegas]

This sentence just shows me you really don't know what you're talking about; we have not even explored our whole solar system and our solar system is less than one percent of the universe. Matter being 4 percent of the universe has nothing to do with what we have explored! Please, before you post again, do some research on inductive reasoning or logic, you lack in that area (no offense). This whole debate you have been presenting opinions that have been refuted centuries ago...

Let me make myself clear: I NEVER claimed that humans explored 4 percent of the universe. I said we explored LESS than 4 percent of the universe; Less than 4 percent can be 3.5 percent, 2.0 percent or .018 percent. I included the 4 percent of matter part of the universe because that's the only region of space humans have explored! Did I ever say we explored all of the solar system? Direct me to the post where I make this claim.

 

[Quincy]

Let me make myself clear: I NEVER claimed that humans explored 4 percent of the universe. I said we explored LESS than 4 percent of the universe; Less than 4 percent can be 3.5 percent, 2.0 percent or .018 percent. I included the 4 percent of matter part of the universe because that's the only region of space humans have explored! Did I ever say we explored all of the solar system? Direct me to the post where I make this claim.

Everyone knows:

- humans have explored part of the solar system
- solar system is less than 1 percent of the universe

With these two pieces of information, you can make the conclusion that humans have explored less than one percent of the universe.
Whether 4 percent of the universe is matter or 2 percent or 70 percent is completely irrelevant to how much humans have explored the universe.

 

[noblegas]

Everyone knows:

- humans have explored part of the solar system
- solar system is less than 1 percent of the universe

With these two pieces of information, you can make the conclusion that humans have explored less than one percent of the universe.
Whether 4 percent of the universe is matter or 2 percent or 70 percent is completely irrelevant to how much humans have explored the universe.

Whatever. less one percent is PART of the less than 4 percent range. We are straying off of the original topic of this thread. So I will end our little ontological argument like this: Even though one can assumed their could possibly be a creator responsible for the creation of the universe, one still might wondered who created to the creator and ad - infinitum. Therefore , discussions of the existence of non-existence of a creator is futile. the end.

 

[lubuntu]

The solar system is ridiculously less than 1 percent!

Roughly:

(1/8 Planets) * (1/10^9 Stars in the Galaxy) * (1/10^9 Galaxies)

1/80^18 Of the universe Explored!(...and even that not entirely)

I'm guessing we aren't getting an Xbox achievement for that one.

Humans are so ignorant and it is wonderful as there is so much to learn!

 

[Quincy]

The solar system is ridiculously less than 1 percent!

Roughly:

(1/8 Planets) * (1/10^9 Stars in the Galaxy) * (1/10^9 Galaxies)

1/80^18 Of the universe Explored!(...and even that not entirely)

I'm guessing we aren't getting an Xbox achievement for that one.

Humans are so ignorant and it is wonderful as there is so much to learn!

Exactly, that's what I was thinking. Why say less than 4 percent when it's way less than one percent?...

who created to the creator and ad - infinitum. Therefore , discussions of the existence of non-existence of a creator is futile. the end.

So I'm curious to hear if you are still agnostic? Has your belief towards the existence of god changed in any way?

 

[noblegas]

So I'm curious to hear if you are still agnostic? Has your belief towards the existence of god changed in any way?

I considered myself an agnostic athiest. Unlike you , I believe that even though their is currently no evidence to back up the existence of god, I am not going to rule it out completely because we presently have no evidence for god's existence. I still think we would either need to developed our technology to better understand the universe or come in contact with a species who may be more knowledgeable about the universe than we are.

Exactly, that's what I was thinking. Why say less than 4 percent when it's way less than one percent?...

I defined the universe by 3 regions. matter region, dark matter region and dark energy region. the solar system is in the matter region; that's why I included the less than 4 percent of matter range

 

[lubuntu]

Nobel,

From reading your past posts your scenario where we encountered another species who tells us about god isn't consistent. First of all, how can you say that the "God" they might no of isn't just a more advanced race? Secondly, just because they tell us something or give us their version of religion doesn't make it true, any claim they make would have to be backed up with pretty strong evidence.

 

[noblegas]

Nobel,

From reading your past posts your scenario where we encountered another species who tells us about god isn't consistent. First of all, how can you say that the "God" they might no of isn't just a more advanced race? Secondly, just because they tell us something or give us their version of religion doesn't make it true, any claim they make would have to be backed up with pretty strong evidence.

Thats true. As I said in other posts, if they have superior senses than our five senses, we would have no way of knowing if they were lying or not because they would be more intelligent than our species. This scenario would be compared to a owner lying to his dog, but the dog would have no way of knowing that his owner was lying to him because the owner is more intelligent than the dog just like the advanced hypothetical race we encountered is more intelligent than us.

 

[lubuntu]

If we can't tell if they are lying their information is useless to us.

 

[FayeKane]

So, because it can't describe the origin of the big bang, it was god who caused it? What reason do you have to assume that a divine being caused it?

HAHA! And it's even worse than that! Positing a guy doing things with magic like Harry Potter does NOT explain the origin of the universe any more than when asked where the elephants in India came from, saying "their mothers".

And another thing. This is Kanes' modification of Clarke's law:

Any magic is identical to a sufficiently advanced technology.

That is, even if these superstitions were true (gods, angels, etc), all it would mean is that there are space aliens who can do things we can't. Where does the "worship" of these aliens come from?

I happen to know where!

First impressions are the deepest, most important ones, and we will never give them up.

"God" is the vestigial memory of the baby's parents, primarily the mother, before the brain became organized enough to experience anything but emotion.

Mother came from above, out of nowhere, to magically fulfill your needs (food and a clean diaper).

Isn't it odd that when people posit "gods" as a cosmology, they also invariably believe that these aliens, of all things, LOVE us? Where did THAT come from? It's WAY incongruous!

Love us? We might be someone's science fair exhibit. Or mold on their food. We might even BE their food! When does the "love us" slip in there?

And check this out:
They even refer to the all-powerful being who controls everything as "father" and in some religions, "mother".

The baby was not able to understand that these were two individuals. All it knows is that an omnipotent and unknowable presence sometimes appears.

Who loves us.

I mean, how much clearer do the stupid people have to make it, man?

"God" is a vestigial memory of the infant's parents.

And "praying" is the vestigial memory of the baby crying.

--faye

 

[FayeKane]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no.

 

[noblegas]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no.

Georges Lemaître, Father of the big bang theory, was a catholic priest. Sorry , being religious does not make you any less scientific minded. I don't why know this discussion is still being continued; it is obvious that you can simultaneously be religious and scientific minded. Just because most scientific minded people don't believe in a god doesn't that mean a lack of a belief in god will make you a more scientific minded person; just like a being an american does not mean you will automatically be a fat person, even though most americans are fat. Thats not the result of being an american, it is thtie result of fostering a culture that values overeating.

(and don't even say lematre isn't a modern scientist ; modern physics has existed for over 100 years)

 

[FayeKane]

being religious does not make you any less scientific minded. I don't why know this discussion is still being continued; it is obvious that you can simultaneously be religious and scientific minded.

Ever since the loud arguments in the high school hallway, I've noticed that the superstitious become disingenuous when backed against a rhetorical wall.

The honest interpretation of the question "Can a Modern Scientist Be Religious?" is: "Is modern science consistent with religious beliefs?", which it is not.

However, you have chosen to reinterpret the question as "is it physically possible for person A to do B?", or "do there exist individuals who do A by day and B by night?"

Science and superstition are polar opposites; if you're doing one, you're not doing the other. That's the only salient issue.

That some people choose to live their lives in an inconsistent, internally contradictory way is neither surprising nor interesting. Cowardly Republican senators do it all the time.

--faye

 

[noblegas]

Ever since the loud arguments in the high school hallway, I've noticed that the superstitious become disingenuous when backed against a rhetorical wall.

The honest interpretation of the question "Can a Modern Scientist Be Religious?" is: "Is modern science consistent with religious beliefs?", which it is not.

However, you have chosen to reinterpret the question as "is it physically possible for person A to do B?", or "do there exist individuals who do A by day and B by night?"

Science and superstition are polar opposites; if you're doing one, you're not doing the other. That's the only salient issue.

That some people choose to live their lives in an inconsistent, internally contradictory way is neither surprising nor interesting. Cowardly Republican senators do it all the time.

--faye

you are trying to redefine the OP'S question. He simply asked if modern scientists could be religious and the answer is yes, for there are many prominent scientists who are religious.I supposed if religious people interpreted a religious text literally , then yes religious dogma can erode the rational part of their mind. Most religious people(in the free world anyway) don't take the bible literally; They only follow the central tenets of their religion.

 

[WaveJumper]

Well we didn't know what atoms were at one point. People came up with all kinds of crazy things until the model we have today was developed.

The same holds true for lightning, spontaneous life generation, and many other things throughout history.

Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean that it's some super-natural phenomenon. Everything can be explained and described. It's just a matter of actually doing it properly.

Why are we able to explain it? What is 'explaining' and what is 'understanding'? How would we understand what understanding is? What is information? What do you mean by 'natural'?

Suppose it was actually possible to explain everything(which of course it isn't). What would that mean to you?

 

[Lancelot59]

If it was possible to explain everything using science, then I would take it to mean that there is nothing beyond the physical world, if that's what the conclusion turned out to be.

 

[Mattara]

I suppose the answer depends on how religious and whether or not the question really is "can you be a rational and logically consistent religious scientist?".

You can obviously be a successful scientist and believe in various religious ideas as long as you make sure that you keep your religious ideas vague enough to avoid intersecting with science or any other form of rational examination of reality. Look at the catholic cell biologist Ken Miller, for instance, who was instrumental for the defeat of the intelligent design creationists at Dover or Francis Collins. When pressed on the issues of immaculate conceptions and virgin births, they usually retreats into symbolism: "of course we did not mean to suggest that humans can be haploid in reality, it should be thought of as symbolizing innocence" or something like that.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

When pressed on the issues of immaculate conceptions and virgin births, they usually retreats into symbolism: "of course we did not mean to suggest that humans can be haploid in reality, it should be thought of as symbolizing innocence" or something like that.

Most religions are filled primarily with symbolism. Those that purport to be literally true are mostly modern (or modern interpretations).

 

[Mattara]

Most religions are filled primarily with symbolism. Those that purport to be literally true are mostly modern (or modern interpretations).

I suppose that depends on your take on modern. There where certainly people who interpreted the claims as fact claims rather than mere symbolism during the past 400 or so years.

 

[T.O.E Dream]

Here's my view. I think science is good at answering the how's and what's but only religion can answer the why's as far as we know it.

I'll never understand even with science why everything came into existence, and why the laws of science are the way there are. It just seems like we can only explain how everything works but the why's are the more deeper questions.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I suppose that depends on your take on modern. There where certainly people who interpreted the claims as fact claims rather than mere symbolism during the past 400 or so years.

Yes, that's fairly modern as far as religion goes.

 

[Evo]

Here's my view. I think science is good at answering the how's and what's but only religion can answer the why's as far as we know it.

I'll never understand even with science why everything came into existence, and why the laws of science are the way there are. It just seems like we can only explain how everything works but the why's are the more deeper questions.

As in what? If we can explain how everything works, as you have said, then anything else is just make believe stories to explain "why". Fairy stories to explain why are meaningless, IMO.

 

[NeoDevin]

Here's my view. I think science is good at answering the how's and what's but only religion can answer the why's as far as we know it.

And how precisely do you decide if you have the "why" right? What differentiates one person's religious explanation of "why" from another's? If you have no way of determining what is right, you're all just making it up.

I'll never understand even with science why everything came into existence, and why the laws of science are the way there are. It just seems like we can only explain how everything works but the why's are the more deeper questions.

Just because you can't understand something (or no one understands/knows it) doesn't suddenly mean any particular religion has it right (and most of them are demonstrably self-contradictory, which to me is pretty conclusive evidence that they have it wrong).

 

[WiFO215]

If it was possible to explain everything using science, then I would take it to mean that there is nothing beyond the physical world

And you have reason to believe otherwise because...?

 

[lubuntu]

And how precisely do you decide if you have the "why" right? What differentiates one person's religious explanation of "why" from another's? If you have no way of determining what is right, you're all just making it up.



Just because you can't understand something (or no one understands/knows it) doesn't suddenly mean any particular religion has it right (and most of them are demonstrably self-contradictory, which to me is pretty conclusive evidence that they have it wrong).

This hits the core thing I think in the science versus religion debate, to us, I think to most of us the "whys" aren't even really valid questions. There is no intrinsic why for anything, what ever is is because it is ;) Religious people often don't accept that and that leaves a gap to fill a why with whatever makes the feel better.

 

[Pattonias]

I don't think anyone would argue that, for the most part, any discussion of a Deity is not a philosophical question.

I think from the point of view that the universe itself may possesses an intelligence or a "omnipotent" being might one day be proved scientifically. It has to be admitted though that, so far, no evidence to support this conclusively has been found.

Any idea of the intent or feelings of such a being would still have to be speculated on from a philosophical viewpoint.

 

[WaveJumper]

As in what? If we can explain how everything works, as you have said, then anything else is just make believe stories to explain "why". Fairy stories to explain why are meaningless, IMO.

Science will never explain how everything works because there will always be a very Big question about the initial conditions and how(what caused) the emergence of a law-ruled universe like ours(which is just about everything and anything that exists and means that at least 99% of the mystery of existence will never be explained).

If you don't like "Why's" you can always substitute it with "how" and "what caused?".

Even if science were able to explain most everything, it would not be able to explain how it was possible that most everything has an explanation at all. I'd say that science is powerful survival tool, not a guide to fundamental truths(if they exist). From what i have read, the biggest names in physics all understand the limits of science.

 

[Kronos5253]

Can a modern scientist be religious or even have a religion?

Yes.

 

[NeoDevin]

Science will never explain how everything works because there will always be a very Big question about the initial conditions and how(what caused) the emergence of a law-ruled universe like ours

...

Even if science were able to explain most everything, it would not be able to explain how it was possible that most everything has an explanation at all.

How do you know this to be true? You are making unfounded assertions as far as I can tell, can you provide some support for your claims?

 

[lubuntu]

Science will never explain how everything works because there will always be a very Big question about the initial conditions and how(what caused) the emergence of a law-ruled universe like ours(which is just about everything and anything that exists and means that at least 99% of the mystery of existence will never be explained).

If you don't like "Why's" you can always substitute it with "how" and "what caused?".

Even if science were able to explain most everything, it would not be able to explain how it was possible that most everything has an explanation at all. I'd say that science is powerful survival tool, not a guide to fundamental truths(if they exist). From what i have read, the biggest names in physics all understand the limits of science.

Wavejumper what you say is mostly true but it seems almost that you imply that since we don't know everything it is ok then to come up with unfalsifiable hypothesizes and declare the true by fiat, which is essentially which all religious and spiritual claims are. There is no "other way of knowing" that as far as we know produces anything like viable results. I remember you mentioning Einstein above, so I'll use his own quote here.

"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have."

 

[WaveJumper]

Wavejumper what you say is mostly true but it seems almost that you imply that since we don't know everything it is ok then to come up with unfalsifiable hypothesizes and declare the true by fiat, which is essentially which all religious and spiritual claims are.

What do you mean by 'true'? Where did i present a model of our universe as 'truth'? Those who make science a religion by insisting that a particular model(of the dozen suggested) is true, are usually the least knowledgeable.

There is no "other way of knowing" that as far as we know produces anything like viable results.

That's seems to be true. It's worth to know that this method has limitations too. Science operates within the laws of physics, which were imposed on us, not chosen by us through our own scientific research.

I remember you mentioning Einstein above, so I'll use his own quote here.

"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have."

Yes, that seems to be right. Moreover, Einstein was aware that science was no substitute for religion, more than anyone else at his time.

 

[WaveJumper]

Science will never explain how everything works because there will always be a very Big question about the initial conditions and how(what caused) the emergence of a law-ruled universe like ours

...

Even if science were able to explain most everything, it would not be able to explain how it was possible that most everything has an explanation at all.

How do you know this to be true? You are making unfounded assertions as far as I can tell, can you provide some support for your claims?

How do you know this to be true? You are making unfounded assertions as far as I can tell, can you provide some support for your claims?

Well, i don't support the view that we are Gods. I do not believe that we can ever have absolute knowledge of anything. As far as i am concerned, this science-based religion is the weirdest of all.

Knowledge is never absolute in practice and the equations of Newtonian mechanics and GR exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions, meaning small errors in knowledge of initial conditions can result in large deviations from predicted behaviour.


As for my second comment, i have never seen anyone claiming to know why anything has an explanation. Following a cause-effect chain of events brings you back and stops 14 billion years ago before a mathematical atrifact. This deterministic scientific approach treats the universe as a machine, and it works. Though it says nothing about how the mathematical artifact came to be as it was.

The hypothesis of a multiverse does not explain existence at all, either. It just raises more questions about the validity of causality-based logic in an infinite environment. Infinity isn't something that a human can comprehend either.

Look at it from a different point of view. It's seems that you are an atheist and believe that god/s/ and purposeful first causes do not exist. All animals have a limit on understanding the environment around them. My dog is pretty smart(he comprehends and uses some causality based logic), but it can't comprehend air travel. Most animals have even more limited understanding of theor immediate environment, so what makes you think a descendent of Ardi would somehow have unlimited understanding?

 

[lubuntu]

Well, i don't support the view that we are Gods. I do not believe that we can ever have absolute knowledge of anything. As far as i am concerned, this science-based religion is the weirdest of all.

Knowledge is never absolute in practice and the equations of Newtonian mechanics and GR exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions, meaning small errors in knowledge of initial conditions can result in large deviations from predicted behaviour. As for my second comment, i have never seen anyone claiming to know why anything has an explanation. Following a cause-effect chain of events brings you back and stops 14 billion years ago before a mathematical atrifact. This deterministic scientific approach treats the universe as a machine, and it works. Though it says nothing about how the mathematical artifact came to be as it was.

The hypothesis of a multiverse does not explain existence at all, either. It just raises more questions about the validity of causality-based logic in an infinite environment. Infinity isn't something that a human can comprehend either.

Look at it from a different point of view. It's seems that you are an atheist and believe that god/s/ and purposeful first causes do not exist. All animals have a limit on understanding the environment around them. My dog is pretty smart(he comprehends and uses some causality based logic), but it can't comprehend air travel. Most animals have even more limited understanding of theor immediate environment, so what makes you think a descendent of Ardi would somehow have unlimited understanding?

It doesn't take unlimited understanding to figure that since we have no evidence for a universe creator, it is safe for now to assume there probably isn't one. You imply that the universe came into existence at a discrete time that isn't necessary the case. Simply there is a time beyound which we are unable to say much if anything. Again, just because we can't and don't know everything doesn't mean we get to make stuff up.

 

[WaveJumper]

It doesn't take unlimited understanding to figure that since we have no evidence for a universe creator, it is safe for now to assume there probably isn't one. You imply that the universe came into existence at a discrete time that isn't necessary the case. Simply there is a time beyound which we are unable to say much if anything. Again, just because we can't and don't know everything doesn't mean we get to make stuff up.

Asserting that science proves or points to the universe not being created is making stuff up. Assuming/believing the existence of the universe is a fluke is totally different story.

 

[NeoDevin]

Well, i don't support the view that we are Gods. I do not believe that we can ever have absolute knowledge of anything.

And so you prefer made up answers instead?

As for my second comment, i have never seen anyone claiming to know why anything has an explanation. Following a cause-effect chain of events brings you back and stops 14 billion years ago before a mathematical atrifact. This deterministic scientific approach treats the universe as a machine, and it works. Though it says nothing about how the mathematical artifact came to be as it was.

The "mathematical artifact" may just be a result of our current mathematical framework, it's possible in the future we will discover something new that allows us to extrapolate backwards in time farther than that, or it may turn out that we remain ignorant, or there may actually be nothing before that. Your argument amounts to "We don't know, therefore goddidit". The first half is correct, the second half is nonsense.

Look at it from a different point of view. It's seems that you are an atheist and believe that god/s/ and purposeful first causes do not exist. All animals have a limit on understanding the environment around them. My dog is pretty smart(he comprehends and uses some causality based logic), but it can't comprehend air travel. Most animals have even more limited understanding of theor immediate environment, so what makes you think a descendent of Ardi would somehow have unlimited understanding?

When did I claim to have unlimited understanding? There are lots of things I don't understand, and will probably never understand. There are lots of things the human race is ignorant about, and may or may not always remain ignorant about (Godel's incompleteness applied to the universe comes to mind). The thing is, I'm willing to accept that there are things that I/we don't know (such as the origin of the universe as we know it, or the laws of physics) rather than make up answers. We may someday have the means to study those questions, or we may not. Either way doesn't affect the current answer, which is "We don't know", NOT "God did it".

 

[WaveJumper]

And so you prefer made up answers instead?

What made up answers? People mean different things by 'God'. You assume you know what i mean by 'God' the way you assume that the universe is a fluke. The fact is not all concepts behind the vague term "God" are nonsensical. What is nonsensical is putting all ideas about intelligence mocking with the laws of physics and matter/energy to create a universe like ours together with the Dinosaur-denying religion. I don't mix atheism with cretinism, so i'd appreciate it if you treated different concepts of gods according to the merrits of their basic tenets.

The "mathematical artifact" may just be a result of our current mathematical framework, it's possible in the future we will discover something new that allows us to extrapolate backwards in time farther than that, or it may turn out that we remain ignorant, or there may actually be nothing before that. Your argument amounts to "We don't know, therefore goddidit". The first half is correct, the second half is nonsense.

Look, you can believe whatever you want. Whatever it is you believe is the First Cause will not be nonsense to you(though i have a feeling it will be total crap to me).

When did I claim to have unlimited understanding? There are lots of things I don't understand, and will probably never understand. There are lots of things the human race is ignorant about, and may or may not always remain ignorant about (Godel's incompleteness applied to the universe comes to mind). The thing is, I'm willing to accept that there are things that I/we don't know (such as the origin of the universe as we know it, or the laws of physics) rather than make up answers. We may someday have the means to study those questions, or we may not. Either way doesn't affect the current answer, which is "We don't know", NOT "God did it".

What do you mean by god? We may be talking about the same thing in different terms.

It's not that i think that certain unanswered question point to there being a God(what you'd carelessly call a god of the gaps argument). I think every single question that you could ever ask, answered or otherwise, points to a form of intelligence many orders of magnitude greater than us. Why do you think nearly all of modern day's famous physicists subscribe to a similar type of god(collectively termed - the god of physicists)?

 

[NeoDevin]

What made up answers?

In your particular case, the idea that there was necessarily a first cause, and that that first cause was somehow more "intelligent" than us in some way.

People mean different things by 'God'. You assume you know what i mean by 'God' the way you assume that tat the universe is a fluke. The fact is not all concepts behind the vague term "God" are nonsensical.

Your use of capital "G" God strongly suggests a Christian god, if you meant some other non-self-contradictory God, then please clarify because I obviously misinterpreted your meaning.

What is nonsensical is putting all ideas about intelligence mocking with the laws of physics and matter/energy to create a universe like ours together with the Dinosaur-denying religion. I don't mix atheism with cretinism, so i'd appreciate it if you treated different concepts of gods according to the merrits of their basic tenets.

Creationism is not the same as the God you are referring to, nor have I ever suggested it was. Creationists actively deny established scientific fact, while you seem content to fill in the gaps.

Look, you can believe whatever you want. Whatever it is you believe is the First Cause will not be nonsense to you(though i have a feeling it will be total crap to me).

When have I ever claimed to believe in a "First Cause" (Why is that capitalized?)? I have never even claimed the necessity of a first cause. I don't know if there was a first cause, and if there was, I don't know anything about it. Here's the kicker though: Neither do you! Your declaration that there must be a first cause, that that cause must be intelligent, and that "God" is a remotely accurate descriptor of that first cause are all completely unfounded.

What do you mean by god? We may be talking about the same thing in different terms.

I'm using the term fairly generally to refer to any hypothetical intelligent supernatural being who created the universe (the minimalist or deist god), as well as the more specific varieties. I'm pretty sure that discussion of particular gods is against the rule, so I'm trying to keep it fairly general.

It's not that i think that certain unanswered question point to there being a God(what you'd carelessly call a god of the gaps argument).

When you are claiming that there must have been a first cause, and that that first cause is God, you are making a "god of the gaps" argument.

I think every single question that you could ever ask, answered or otherwise, points to a form of intelligence many orders of magnitude greater than us.

I'm working on a post on my blog that will reply to this, but I don't have much time to write right now, so I'll post the link when I'm done.

Why do you think nearly all of modern day's famous physicist subscribe to a similar type of god(collectively termed - the god of physicsts)?

I don't know what you're talking about here, I've known many physicists, including some you might call famous. I know a couple who are among the top in their fields and are devout Catholics, I know others who are also among the top in their (different) fields, and are atheists. I know many who aren't the tops of their fields who subscribe to all sorts of different beliefs. Please elaborate on this "god of physicists", because I've never noticed such a phenomenon.

Further arguments from popularity or (false) authority are invalid. Even if every scientist in the world believed in the same sort of god, that doesn't suddenly change reality to fit their beliefs.