Can a Modern Scientist Be Religious?

[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.

 

[Mattara]

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.

No, it is not making stuff up. We simply make the following argument.

1. We should believe worldviews that makes predictions that is more consistent with observation of our empirical reality.
2. Worldview X is more consistent with observation of our empirical reality than worldview Y.
3. Thus, we should believe worldview X.

 

[WaveJumper]

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.

In what other way can you explain certain weird 'coincidences' like the existence of laws of physics, physical constants, Time, space, matter? Or you'd pass on, as if they didn't need an explanation?

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.

Capital or not, I don't think i have met a religion that i didn't find contradictory.

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.

Why? This is a bare assertion. Why do you use purely deterministic causal science only to where its supportive of your beliefs? How come all of this weird 'coincidence' that after the Big Bang that matter was formed and later the orderly universe we see today? Through the laws of physics? Where did they come from? You assume that's natural, right? If that's natural, then my 'unnatural' is the same your 'natural'.

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.

Your knowledge of the universe and existence is "knowledge of the gaps". There are three things that science doesn't say what they are - these things are Time, Space and Matter. You feel you know what these things are, but scientists do NOT. And neither do you. From the little we know about existence and the universe, it's absolutely impossible to rule out a creator. In fact, it makes sense, as opposed to saying - this 'coincidence' does not need explanation because it just happened like that, for no reason; reason is a human concept, etc.

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.

The only famous atheist physicist i am aware of was Carl Sagan. What change of reality are you talking about? That the universe is a fluke? How about some evidence for this assertion? I am particlularly interested to know how energy can naturally create a classical-looking universe? Explain how a kind of condensed energy can manifest as a human being that falls in love, reasons, talks and cries in a very predictable environment.

It would be interesting if you could explain what you consider an argument that there is no god. Also, what would you consider evidence/clues that we don't live in a simulated informational universe?

 

[WaveJumper]

No, it is not making stuff up. We simply make the following argument.

1. We should believe worldviews that makes predictions that is more consistent with observation of our empirical reality.
2. Worldview X is more consistent with observation of our empirical reality than worldview Y.
3. Thus, we should believe worldview X.

How does worldview X hint that there is no god/the universe wasn't created? Does worldview X hint if we live in a deterministic universe or otherwise? What is worlview X? Non-existence -- extreme luck/coincidence -- Big Bang -- existence?

 

[Loren Booda]

What about one's experience of God alternating with one's non-experience of God? I believe most people undergo such an existence.

 

[Mattara]

How does worldview X hint that there is no god/the universe wasn't created? Does worldview X hint if we live in a deterministic universe or otherwise? What is worlview X? Non-existence -- extreme luck/coincidence -- Big Bang -- existence?

Big Bang is not about the origin of the universe, is not based on "luck" and no one is claiming that "non-existence" existed before the Big Bang; that would be a contradiction in terms.

Worldview X and Y are just examples; that's how you compare opposing worldview to find out which is more reasonable. You can yourself compare the predictions of, say, philosophical naturalism and a random brand of theism.

 

[Evo]

Locked pending moderation. The constant pushing of a single god, and certain other statements is too close to pushing a certain religion. The arguments of a single god concept can be upsetting to those that do not hold this belief and is not appropriate in this discussion. Perhaps we need to to be less specific and just replace the concept of a "god" with "supernatural beings" so that there is no bias. Even better, let's stop bringing up "gods" altogether. For some, being spiritual doesn't even require a supernatural being, and that is their "religion".

Religion is highly personal, and pushing this idea of a single god as creator can be offensive to people that don't hold this view. People of many religions as well as non-religious are members here and we need to be considerate and not push any specific views.

The title of this thread is "Can a Modern Scientist Be Religious?". That is appropriate.