Scientists and Religion

[TransmutingSoul]

I am a scientist. It is science that eventually led me away from atheism.

Peace

Exciting times, all knowledge is there for us to grasp. I have heard it said that when humanity finds a unity of mind, the potential of science will be unhindered.

Peace be with you

 

[Regiomontanus]

What "reputable scientists" are you talking about. Claims without support are not very convincing.

Hello. I do not mean to intrude here. But I am an astronomer and know a bit about cosmology (though that is not my area of expertise) and so wanted to say something here. Very few cosmologists/astronomers dispute the BB overall. But there is a lot of work being done on parts of it, in particular on trying to formulate things so to be able to do away with inflation. The most popular approach to that these days (Steinhardt, Penrose, many others) is some sort of cyclic scenario.

As I tell my students though, it is in my opinion always a good thing to take the proclamations of cosmologists with a grain of salt.

Peace.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello. I do not mean to intrude here. But I am an astronomer and know a bit about cosmology (though that is not my area of expertise) and so wanted to say something here. Very few cosmologists/astronomers dispute the BB overall. But there is a lot of work being done on parts of it, in particular on trying to formulate things so to be able to do away with inflation. The most popular approach to that these days (Steinhardt, Penrose, many others) is some sort of cyclic scenario.

As I tell my students though, it is in my opinion always a good thing to take the proclamations of cosmologists with a grain of salt.

Peace.

Theories often have parts that are disputed. That is how they improve over the years. That is how science in general improves over years. None of it is set in stone. I have run into people that think that scientific laws are absolute. They refuse to understand how Einstein's general relativity corrects and improves on Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.

 

[David T]

Science and, presumably, most scientists, work methodically, from observations to theorems to testing and re-evaluation. Science is an evidence based research modality.

Religion is usually faith, not evidence based. It's not falsifiable or even tested.
Scientists, used to following the evidence and withholding belief in unsupported theorems, would be expected to do the same with religious dogma. A low level of religious faith would be expected.

A

Both are clueless experientialists.

 

[WalterTrull]

Both are clueless experientialists.

Now, now, there are lots and lots of clues. Pick 'em up guys. Pick 'em up

 

[David T]

Now, now, there are lots and lots of clues. Pick 'em up guys. Pick 'em up

Well the meme I was responding to is a tired one due to going extinct in a thousand years at this pace.

Scientific American said in a recent article very preachy like "the two deepest mysteries today in science is the cosmos and the human brain" they had a picture of a galaxy superimposed on a head.

To properly put the statement into proper scientific context. "the two things we least understand today as scientists is ourselves and the world around us"... How inadvertantly accurate. Smart=lame.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That study is already outdated. I believe with the insurgence of the LGBTQWXYZ the amount of those believing in God has diminished. Not only has the reprobate minds of the LGBTQWXYZ affected their own, but also the general public and the scientific world as well. Weak believers have been shamed into denouncing God by the secularists who have stated the homosexual acts are sin. People don't want to be known as homophobic.
There has been lots of scientists that have become creation scientist proving the Bible, especially Genesis is factual. It's pretty interesting if you have any curiosity and aren't easily shamed.

How silly. The concept of a 'creation scientist' is laughable. Until creationists can think up a way of testing there fantastical claims that can be verified by others, nothing about creationism is scientific.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Scientists and believers have to begin looking at the physical evidence from their own beginning points of understanding. It's easily possible to prove Genesis true if you start from the belief in God and that the Bible is true. Scientists have to take geological evidence and assume the Big Bang is a true theory. They have to assume that the universe and earth are billions of years old. When they do, they have to guess on much of the time line. And, they have to make other assumptions about human beings not being made in the likeness of our Father in Heaven.

What a silly post. Science doesn't assume that the BBT is accurate... it's based upon VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. They don't rely on assumptions that the universe is billions of years old, they rely on the VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that supports the idea that the universe in billions of years old.

 

[Valjean]

Both are clueless experientialists.

One is an experientialist actvely ignoring clues, the other, an experimentalist actively seeking clues.

Not quite the same:
One believes he already has the answers, the other is skeptical and is seeking answers.
One finds answers in religion, tradition, inspiration and 'gut feelings'. The other finds them through evidence gathering, testing and peer review.
One opposes research and refuses to consider evidence. The other is doing research and seeking evidence.
One is threatened by novelty or progress, the other is excited about them.
When challenged, one cherry picks or manufactures confirmatory evidence. The other challenges her own evidence, seeking flaws.

Scientific American said in a recent article very preachy like "the two deepest mysteries today in science is the cosmos and the human brain" they had a picture of a galaxy superimposed on a head.

To properly put the statement into proper scientific context. "the two things we least understand today as scientists is ourselves and the world around us"... How inadvertantly accurate. Smart=lame.

Do you really think by "the cosmos" the magazine was referring to "the world around us?"
At least the scientists are seeking understanding. The religious are resisting any understanding beyond their own, inerrant canon.

 

[Valjean]

What a silly post. Science doesn't assume that the BBT is accurate... it's based upon VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. They don't rely on assumptions that the universe is billions of years old, they rely on the VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that supports the idea that the universe in billions of years old.

Moreover, science is open to new evidence and willing to modify its ideas; the religious, decidedly not.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Very few cosmologists/astronomers dispute the BB overall. But there is a lot of work being done on parts of it, in particular on trying to formulate things so to be able to do away with inflation. The most popular approach to that these days (Steinhardt, Penrose, many others) is some sort of cyclic scenario.

If you have not yet seen this "Tablet of the Universe", it may help if one meditates upon its explanations. It is only a provisional translation, thus in the future it will need a translator with good scientific knowledge. It tells how all creation was set in motion. I have no doubt it will be a benchmark for understanding in the future;

https://bahai-library.com/abdulbaha_lawh_aflakiyyih

We will be able to traverse time and space easily and swiftly, using the divine force of magnetism, when man finds our Unity.

Peace be with you

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Moreover, science is open to new evidence and willing to modify its ideas; the religious, decidedly not.

It may be science has closed its mind to the source of that mind and as such, has limited its capability, this quote from the link I posted above indicates this is so;

"...Every cycle and dispensation has its own distinctive character, its allotted measure of Grace. The realities of things are manifested in a degree proportionate to their stations, ranks, receptivity and capacity. For instance, regard the human reality, its spiritual perfections, the properties and virtues of the soul: their appearance and manifestation, their propagation and growth depend in degree upon the stage of development reached in the course of this earthly life, which ranges from the condition of the primal germ to the highest stations of mature development. The same principle is to be found in the whole of existence, seen and unseen......"

Without recognition of the Spirt, man is like a rock.

Peace be upon you and all.

 

[Valjean]

It may be science has closed its mind to the source of that mind and as such, has limited its capability, this quote from the link I posted above indicates this is so;

"...Every cycle and dispensation has its own distinctive character, its allotted measure of Grace. The realities of things are manifested in a degree proportionate to their stations, ranks, receptivity and capacity. For instance, regard the human reality, its spiritual perfections, the properties and virtues of the soul: their appearance and manifestation, their propagation and growth depend in degree upon the stage of development reached in the course of this earthly life, which ranges from the condition of the primal germ to the highest stations of mature development. The same principle is to be found in the whole of existence, seen and unseen......"

Without recognition of the Spirt, man is like a rock.

This may all be true, but if its not arrived at by critical analysis of objective, reproducible evidence, it's not, strictly speaking, reasonable. It's not within the purview of science. It's faith.

 

[David T]

One is an experientialist actvely ignoring clues, the other, an experimentalist actively seeking clues.

Not quite the same:
One believes he already has the answers, the other is skeptical and is seeking answers.
One finds answers in religion, tradition, inspiration and 'gut feelings'. The other finds them through evidence gathering, testing and peer review.
One opposes research and refuses to consider evidence. The other is doing research and seeking evidence.
One is threatened by novelty or progress, the other is excited about them.
When challenged, one cherry picks or manufactures confirmatory evidence. The other challenges her own evidence, seeking flaws.
Do you really think by "the cosmos" the magazine was referring to "the world around us?"
At least the scientists are seeking understanding. The religious are resisting any understanding beyond their own, inerrant canon.

All I can say is rorschach nature love to hide according Heraclitus. Whom BTW said 2,600 years ago everything is made of the same matter fire. Or as we "scientifically" call it today energy.. He also said "the logos I'd common but everyone seems to have their own private understanding" science is absolutely not exempt from that pheno. E a and many in science hold that in fact private understanding is fundemental It's called phds today priests 500 years ago. Modern emperical science gave us the Easter bunny how exactly clueless is that? We see as we see across spectrum usually vary narrowly specifically to our own view and nothing more. Religion is steeped in it science generally is fact till later it becomes science fiction. Newton is a prime example and feynman says exactly what I just wrote. So if you disagree with me you are just disagreeing with feynman is all. I am only quoting Richard feynman.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This may all be true, but if its not arrived at by critical analysis of objective, reproducible evidence, it's not, strictly speaking, reasonable. It's not within the purview of science. It's faith.

That is why we are asked to search the Truth of a claim, that is why it is recorded what we are to look for.

If God does exist and gives guidance, then by following that guidance we should logically expect to acheive the goal promissed.

As this does happen, then the guidance has been proven over and over to be sound.

If we choose not to look at what is proof of the Spirit, then we choose to discard much of what is truth.

In this age Science and Religion will embrace as the wings if one bird. This is already cemented in the Mind of man.

Peace be with you.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

Science has always had a closet love affair with Religion but tends to be afraid to admit it, because it's still in it's age of angst.

 

[Valjean]

That is why we are asked to search the Truth of a claim, that is why it is recorded what we are to look for.

But you condemn the only discipline effectively doing this, and the church has traditionally discouraged any search for truth.

If God does exist and gives guidance, then by following that guidance we should logically expect to acheive the goal promissed.

So the first step should be to determine whether God exists, then to determine His nature, then His will, then His legitimacy. So far we haven't even established His existence.
The wisdom of following his desires is also questionable. If we're sheep of His fold; If he is our shepherd, then what if the analogy is extended. Look what happens to real sheep.

As this does happen, then the guidance has been proven over and over to be sound.

Examples, please.

When has this happened? How do we know it was divine guidance? The history of the Christian nations seems to be one long series of wars -- with God on everyone's side.
Perhaps we're more like fighting cocks or pit bulls than sheep, tearing each other apare while Heaven looks on in glee, with angels taking bets.
]quote]If we choose not to look at what is proof of the Spirit, then we choose to discard much of what is truth.[/quote]If we don't look for the truth we'll never find it, anyway.

In this age Science and Religion will embrace as the wings if one bird. This is already cemented in the Mind of man.

Explain, SVP

Science has always had a closet love affair with Religion but tends to be afraid to admit it, because it's still in it's age of angst.

Explain, por favor.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But you condemn the only discipline effectively doing this, and the church has traditionally discouraged any search for truth.

I embrace Science that does not reject Faith. That is a true person of science

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So the first step should be to determine whether God exists, then to determine His nature, then His will, then His legitimacy. So far we haven't even established His existence.

That is where we are asked to undertake a search. The only way we can know God is through His Messengers. Thus we must judge the Messenger with their own Message in the age it was given.

They ask us to do this.

Peace be with you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Explain, SVP

I came upon this quote to which expressed the need for this day;

"The virtues of humanity are many but science is the most noble of them all. The distinction which man enjoys above and beyond the station of the animal is due to this paramount virtue. It is a bestowal of God; it is not material, it is divine. Science is an effulgence of the Sun of Reality, the power of investigating and discovering the verities of the universe, the means by which man finds a pathway to God. All the powers and attributes of man are human and hereditary in origin, outcomes of nature’s processes, except the intellect, which is supernatural. Through intellectual and intelligent inquiry science is the discoverer of all things. It unites present and past, reveals the history of bygone nations and events, and confers upon man today the essence of all human knowledge and attainment throughout the ages. By intellectual processes and logical deductions of reason, this super-power in man can penetrate the mysteries of the future and anticipate its happenings. Abdu’l-Baha (Foundations of World Unity, pp 60)

As a person of Faith, I relish faith that pursues science; "Science may be likened to a mirror wherein the infinite forms and images of existing things are revealed and reflected. It is the very foundation of all individual and national development. Without this basis of investigation, development is impossible. Therefore seek with diligent endeavour the knowledge and attainment of all that lies within the power of this wonderful bestowal." https://bahai-library.com/friberg_science_technology

I am excited that science will soon find that when it works without its spiritual connection, that it is not real science.

Peace be upon you, science and all.