Unveiling the Universe: A Quest for Answers

[easyrider]

Hi yall, I just want to know what is the accepted view on the beginning of the universe among the top cosmologists, physicists, string theorists etc? I definitely believe there is no god to speak of and nature is much more uhh natural. Just try to stay up to date and how were progressing as far as where we came from.

 

[D H]

Many scientists are religious and don't see any conflict between their scientific work and religious beliefs.

While god may or may not be dead, I predict this thread soon wil be. You are trying to provoke a fight.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I see two different questions asked here:

1) What are the views of top cosmologists, physicists, string theorists, etc on the beginning of the universe?
2) What are their religious beliefs, if any?

The first answer you could find probably quite easily if that is their area of research. The second is a personal question, and some will be willing to give that information publicly, some will not.

As far as general surveys on scientists and "belief in God", there is an article you might find interesting:
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected.

DH is right - threads of this nature are very emotionally provocative and tend to degenerate into fights. Thread closed, pending moderation.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Well, we know Nietsche is dead! That should tell us something!

 

[Math Is Hard]

This thread is being reopened, but only with the expectation that this topic stays within the domain of "compatibility or incompatibility of science and religion", and "current trends in beliefs within the scientific community". Let's avoid discussion and attacks on each others' personal beliefs. Tread lightly.

 

[Moridin]

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

93% of the National Academy of Science do not have an active belief in a deity.

If religion and science is compatible, that would depend on what types of religious concepts that one thinks of. Is creationism compatible with the complete description of evolution theory that modern science can provide? It would be hard to see. Science has steadily overturned old religious myths and continues to do so.

Some people seem to embrace NOMA, even though I doubt that Gould ever truly embraced it himself. Obviously 'true' religion and 'true' science (whatever those terms mean) is not contradictory, but let us be honest, religion is dancing to the tune of science. When concepts brought forth by science comes into conflict with old religious ideas (say, rain dance and modern meteorology to name one example), it is not hard to see who 'wins'.

The beauty, if you will, of religion is that it can apply an infinite number of ad hoc hypotheses to make it compatible with science, although the reverse is not necessarily true.

 

[easyrider]

Thanks, I just wanted to know the actual view among top scientists like Bojowald, and other scientsists up there with him.

 

[jostpuur]

I've got an impression, perhaps mostly from some documents where Dawkins and some others appear, that the creationism threat is making atheist scientists more active.

 

[Moridin]

I've got an impression, perhaps mostly from some documents where Dawkins and some others appear, that the creationism threat is making atheist scientists more active.

Not only 'atheist' scientists, but ALL scientists.

 

[OOO]

Not only 'atheist' scientists, but ALL scientists.

As a scientist from the free world I may tell you that creationism plays no role in my life whatsoever. Nevertheless I remain interested in the middle ages.

 

[baywax]

This thread is being reopened, but only with the expectation that this topic stays within the domain of "compatibility or incompatibility of science and religion", and "current trends in beliefs within the scientific community". Let's avoid discussion and attacks on each others' personal beliefs. Tread lightly.

In all practicality, religion did provide a vehicle for science during the middle ages and before. People learned to read and they learned to read the science texts of the age because of the church, its libraries and its instructors.

Insomuchas these libraries and teachings may have been laced with propaganda from the church authorities, the discerning student was able to separate the propaganda from what seemed more like truth and true research.

Another motivating force brought on by the church was the fact that it vemonently suppressed scientific research and discovery. When an authority makes this kind of environment there are always people who thrive on bucking the system and so the church of the time actually contributed motivation to the advance of the sciences.

And so, in conclusion, religion and science have their compatible moments... much the same way that light compliments dark and contrasting textures, colours, sounds and so on end up complementing one another.

 

[Moridin]

But then again, let us not forget Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Darwin etc. etc.