Can a Modern Scientist Be Religious?

[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.