scientific and faith

[alishan]

if we see the famous scientist of the past and of nowadays

what is the % of beleaver and disbeleaver?

can we make a little list of scientist and their beleaf?

thanks

 

[HonestJoe]

There are countless such lists all over the internet (some more balanced than others) though personally I don't see why it matters. It's perfectly possible to practice good science independently of personal religious beliefs and it's perfectly possible for non-religious people to let their personal beliefs inappropriately influence their science.

Anyway, determining exactly what people believe isn't all that easy, especially those long dead and who lived in times and places where not publicly following an accepted faith was socially frowned upon at best.

 

[Breathe]

There are countless such lists all over the internet (some more balanced than others) though personally I don't see why it matters. It's perfectly possible to practice good science independently of personal religious beliefs and it's perfectly possible for non-religious people to let their personal beliefs inappropriately influence their science.

Anyway, determining exactly what people believe isn't all that easy, especially those long dead and who lived in times and places where not publicly following an accepted faith was socially frowned upon at best.

Yeah. That.



In my opinion, science and religion don't need to be enemies - but science and literalism (and fundamentalism) do. If religion and science are enemies, we end up with superstition.


A large number of scientists in the past were religious.
Why? Possibly because of society's beliefs.
Possibly because they used a God-of-the-Gaps.
Possibly spiritual experiences.
Possibly personal opinion.

Some people today may be religious but hide it - possibly because they fear their work will be ridiculed because of this. How can we know what lies within a person's heart?


Anyway - define being a believer. Confined to a specific religion or set of religions? Literalist? Spiritual but not religious? Syncretic? Religious naturalism? - What about a disbeliever? Atheist? Anti-theist? Agnostic?

Where would you put an atheistic Buddhist, for example?


Such surveys can be pretty unreliable, anyway.

However, there are definitely a lot of atheists in scientific fields. Nothing wrong with that, though.


My $0.02.

 

[outhouse]

if we see the famous scientist of the past and of nowadays

what is the % of beleaver and disbeleaver?

can we make a little list of scientist and their beleaf?

thanks

All I know is there is a direct link to ones education and faith in deity or religion

its a rather sharp curve with very little belief among highly educated people

 

[Oneatatime]

I recently finished reading a book about "Evolution Vs Creationism: An Introduction, 2nd Edition" by Eugene C. Scott and it reports from a US study which gave a breakdown of the religion or lack of religion amongst scientists. Most were atheist/agnostic and of those that where religious religion had played a consistantly important role in the lives from a young age. Those who had been raised in a religious environment but where religion wasn't hugely important often failed to stay with that religion. Essentially in the absence of a strong religious background most scientists aren't religiously inclinced. As has already been said its perfectly be possible to be religious and a good scientist.

If interested this is the study it was taken from...

Elaine Howard Ecklund & Christopher P Scheitle (2007) Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographies. Social problems (Journal), 54, No 2, p289-307.

Writing this on my Wii so can't Italic and suchlike to reference properly.

 

[Reptillian]

He's a poor scientist who reaches his conclusions before opening his eyes. What I mean by this is that religion is only incompatable with science in the sense that it sometimes reaches conclusions independent of observation. If one believes that there is truth in one's religion and one sees science as a valid method for seeking truth, then one can be a scientist, follow a religion, and have nothing to fear.

 

[charles brough]

if we see the famous scientist of the past and of nowadays

what is the % of beleaver and disbeleaver?

can we make a little list of scientist and their beleaf?

thanks[/quote

The question is a little simplistic. The depth of belief and the number of scientific minds who believered in Christianity varied according to the centuries. Before the Reformation, there was not much science and all intellectuals in the West were fundamentalist Christians. From the Reformation to the Age of Enlightenment, (the 15th and 16th centiuries approximately) most scientists were still Christians but perhaps not so fundamentalist. They were not trying to discredit Christian dogma, only trying to find out what the Bible did not explain.

During the Age of Readon and Enlightenment, scientists took to finding out things that contradicted the Bible. This set up a public controversy which pitted Voltaire, Didero and others against the Church. More scientists became non-theists.

The ideological turmoil that followed made necessary a sort of accommodation between science and the faith. Most Christians became liberal Christians and their watered-down version of the faith became public opinion and enabled a total acceptance of the weaker version by the social science theory consensus. The result was that social science theory was compromised and adopted by society into Secular Humanism's public opinion, the public opinion which now runs the world.

 

[Manahel.Fatima]

Science and religion are really not enemies and Science proofs Religion and religion give us path to work in science. But Science ends and some times are unanswerable where religion exceeds.

 

[darkendless]

Science and religion are really not enemies and Science proofs Religion and religion give us path to work in science. But Science ends and some times are unanswerable where religion exceeds.

Science and religion are not one in the same.

The only way science proves religion is if you force it to. It is however like forcing a sqaure peg through a round hole.

Religion is not scientific and never will be. Its extent of science is non-existant.

People who disagree and feel science proves religion are ignorant and delusional because it does no such thing.

 

[Manahel.Fatima]

Science and Religion are interrelated but at many points science are seriously lack many things which is discovered by reading or getting knowledge about religion.

 

[darkendless]

Science and Religion are interrelated but at many points science are seriously lack many things which is discovered by reading or getting knowledge about religion.

They are completely unrelated. Science does not bother with religion.

Religion only bothers with science when the theists make claims that can be directly destroyed by scientific fact. Two examples are that humans were not created by clay and that Noahs flood never happened.

 

[Looncall]

Science and Religion are interrelated but at many points science are seriously lack many things which is discovered by reading or getting knowledge about religion.

Please provide examples.

 

[LuisDantas]

Science and Religion are interrelated but at many points science are seriously lack many things which is discovered by reading or getting knowledge about religion.

Hi, Fatima. Welcome to RF.

I fear I have to disagree, however. Let's see if we find out how and why exactly?

Science is indeed lacking in many things. It must, because it originates by recognizing a lack of knowledge and attempting to solve it. In the process, new findings are made and new questions present themselves. So yes, science is lacking and it is also likely to be always lacking, yet ever more complete.

Religion is a bit tricky to define. I sometimes define it as something like the art of bridging the reality of our finite, limited lives with the craving for a connection with the absolute.

I purposefully refuse to make any references to God in my religious concepts, because God is in my opinion a somewhat misleading, way too vaguely defined concept. Usually when two people talk about God they are in fact talking about two very different conceptions, often enough without realizing it.

Religion, too, is always incomplete yet (hopefully) ever more complete. Despite being very different from science, it too can and should learn and grow, albeit by a completely distinct method. Religion has a duty to remain relevant, to be always well-connected to the everyday experiences, hopes and worries of its adherents as well to their higher ideals and purposes.

And how can religion remain relevant? By being aware of the changes of the world around it and daring to redefine its own specific goals and priorities accordingly. Economic, military, medical, political social and demographic circunstances will of course all have an effect in people's religious practice. How could they possibly fail to have such an effect? Religion, after all, is an activity practiced by human beings.

That is in my opinion how religious faith should be understood. Not as some static loyalty to a specific school of religious thought, much less to scripture. Scriptures are, after all, quite static and therefore unable of dealing with the subtleties and complexities of one's religious life. They are useful to the extent that well-meaning, wise and compassionate practicioners manage to learn and teach inspiration from their text.

Faith is instead something far more bold than plain loyalty. It is the daring, courageous decision to employ one's efforts and resources towards a bet of sorts, the bet that people may learn to be wiser and more compassionate if given adequate support and encouragement. And for that, one shoud be humble and realistic, and use any reasonable tools available, including whichever advances in science, medicine and other fields may exits. That includes psychological and sociological knowledge.

It bugs me that so many otherwise religious people spend their time attempting to "fight" biological evolution, since it is not even a true religious matter at stake. All too often people get confused and attempt to protect their own beliefs at the expense of religious courage. Religious people should be willing to embrace true knowledge, not to fear it. If it turns out that we know so much more about physical and psychological health these days then we did at the time of origin of our faiths, shouldn't we recognize that and act in accord? Of course we will then be living in a very different way from that of the founders of our faiths. But then again, that is both unavoidable and actually a good thing. Much like parents, spiritual teachers can only feel pride and happiness when their proteges dare to stand up at their own feet and learn to be skilfull, able in their own affairs even if it leads them to a different routine than that which they were grown into.

Or so I think, anyway.

 

[leedan]

Science holds the key to unlock our future. Only scientific advancement will ensure our existence. Is it our ever so short lifespan that confuses us.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Science and religion are really not enemies and Science proofs Religion...

For example?

 

[McBell]

Science and religion are really not enemies and Science proofs Religion and religion give us path to work in science.

Would you be so kind as to provide a few examples of how science proves religion?

But Science ends and some times are unanswerable where religion exceeds.

Since I am unable to make any sense of this, would you please provide an example where science failed but religion succeeded?

Science and Religion are interrelated but at many points science are seriously lack many things which is discovered by reading or getting knowledge about religion.

You will have to provide some examples of this as well.

 

[WordSpeaks]

He's a poor scientist who reaches his conclusions before opening his eyes. What I mean by this is that religion is only incompatable with science in the sense that it sometimes reaches conclusions independent of observation. If one believes that there is truth in one's religion and one sees science as a valid method for seeking truth, then one can be a scientist, follow a religion, and have nothing to fear.

The thing is, everyone is biased. A Christian believes that God created the universe. An athiest believes that God does not exist and did not create anything. Both are biased.

There are scientists who are athiestic, Christian, Muslim, and so on. They each start out with a bias.

My point is that regardless of the title or occupation, everyone has basic assumptions that they start out with. That doesn't mean that those assumptions can't change, but they are very difficult to change.

 

[WordSpeaks]

Science and religion are not one in the same.

The only way science proves religion is if you force it to. It is however like forcing a sqaure peg through a round hole.

Religion is not scientific and never will be. Its extent of science is non-existant.

People who disagree and feel science proves religion are ignorant and delusional because it does no such thing.

Are you saying that nothing religious can have any scientific basis?

 

[outhouse]

Are you saying that nothing religious can have any scientific basis?

if it does ,, its pure luck and your just trying to connect dots

 

[outhouse]

The thing is, everyone is biased. A Christian believes that God created the universe. An athiest believes that God does not exist and did not create anything. Both are biased.

There are scientists who are athiestic, Christian, Muslim, and so on. They each start out with a bias.

My point is that regardless of the title or occupation, everyone has basic assumptions that they start out with. That doesn't mean that those assumptions can't change, but they are very difficult to change.

you make a good point """BUT""" it has nothing to do with science.

science has to withstand peer review from religious and non religious scientist.

I believe you have a lack of understanding the scientific method