What is at the core of the science/religion conflict?

[Ben Dhyan]

First worldwide survey of religion and science: No, not all scientists are atheists
http://news.rice.edu/2015/12/03/fir...d-science-no-not-all-scientists-are-atheists/
Amy McCaig – December 3, 2015 Rice University News & Media

“No one today can deny that there is a popular ‘warfare’ framing between science and religion,” said the study’s principal investigator, Elaine Howard Ecklund, founding director of Rice University’s Religion and Public Life Program and the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences. “This is a war of words fueled by scientists, religious people and those in between.”

The study’s results challenge longstanding assumptions about the science-faith interface. While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists, the global perspective resulting from the study shows that this is simply not the case.

“More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious,” Ecklund said. “And it’s striking that approximately twice as many ‘convinced atheists’ exist in the general population of Hong Kong, for example, (55 percent) compared with the scientific community in this region (26 percent).”

The researchers did find that scientists are generally less religious than a given general population. However, there were exceptions to this: 39 percent of scientists in Hong Kong identify as religious compared with 20 percent of the general population of Hong Kong, and 54 percent of scientists in Taiwan identify as religious compared with 44 percent of the general population of Taiwan. Ecklund noted that such patterns challenge longstanding assumptions about the irreligious character of scientists around the world.

When asked about terms of conflict between religion and science, Ecklund noted that only a minority of scientists in each regional context believe that science and religion are in conflict. In the U.K. – one of the most secular countries studied – only 32 percent of scientists characterized the science-faith interface as one of conflict. In the U.S., this number was only 29 percent. And 25 percent of Hong Kong scientists, 27 percent of Indian scientists and 23 percent of Taiwanese scientists believed science and religion can coexist and be used to help each other.

In addition to the survey’s quantitative findings, the researchers found nuanced views in scientists’ responses during interviews. For example, numerous scientists expressed how religion can provide a “check” in ethically

Cont.....

- See more at: http://news.rice.edu/2015/12/03/fir...scientists-are-atheists/#sthash.3djBjpKX.dpuf

 

[outhouse]

The researchers did find that scientists are generally less religious than a given general population.

Because knowledge destroys mythology.

 

[outhouse]

While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists, the global perspective resulting from the study shows that this is simply not the case.

Thank you.
This shows how ignorant some theist are who think knowledge is all atheist driven

And of course we atheist are the first ones to tell people many scientist are theist.

But that does not make a single YEC credible, nor the scientist and pseudoscientist who back their claims.


Its not about the scientist himself, anyway. It is about the work he produces, and how it passes peer review.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Because knowledge destroys mythology.

True knowledge will send all faulty knowledge into the dustbin of history...much of the scientific theory and hypotheses of today will eventually be falsified and be looked back on as myth in the future.. Who was it that said...words to the effect..."the heresy of today can be the scientific truth of tomorrow, only to be looked back upon as a superstition in the future." ?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you.
This shows how ignorant some theist are who think knowledge is all atheist driven

And of course we atheist are the first ones to tell people many scientist are theist.

But that does not make a single YEC credible, nor the scientist and pseudoscientist who back their claims.


Its not about the scientist himself, anyway. It is about the work he produces, and how it passes peer review.

Who thinks knowledge is driven by atheists?

If you mean that in many cases peer review is not sufficiently critical and is more like pal review...I agree that it needs fixing as politics and profits gets involved in certain disciplines...eg. medical and climate...

 

[outhouse]

much of the scientific theory and hypotheses of today will eventually be falsified

No it will not. Much is based on fact, not weak hypothesis.

 

[outhouse]

Who thinks knowledge is driven by atheists?

YOUR ARTICLE so that would be theist.

The study’s results challenge longstanding assumptions about the science-faith interface. While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists,

 

[gnostic]

Who thinks knowledge is driven by atheists?

If you mean that in many cases peer review is not sufficiently critical and is more like pal review...I agree that it needs fixing as politics and profits gets involved in certain disciplines...eg. medical and climate...

The requirements for those doing the peer reviews are those with the scientific qualification, experiences and expertise in those fields - scientists.

The qualification for peer reviewers are not "atheists" or "theists", Ben.

In numbers, not just percentages, because percentages can be deceiving if not use in proper context, showed that there are far more scientists who are religious than those who are atheists or agnostics.

The (peer) reviewers can have any religious background, so they are not necessarily atheists or agnostics. But the peer review are not out there to promote theism or atheism; they are only there to investigate and verify the science behind any presented paper (theory or hypothesis), not religion.

The majority of biologists who accept evolution as a valid theory are not only atheists and agnostics, but also those who are theists and those who have religions.

Those same majority also reject Intelligent Design because papers, like that of Behe's Irreducible Complexity (IC) were shown to be not only unscientific, but that Behe had acted unprofessionally by stubbornly resisting discarding his already refuted paper on IC. Behe cannot provide any test, experiment or verifiable evidences for the existence of the Designer.

For any hypothesis or theory to have chance to get through the peer review, it must have testable prediction that can POSSIBLY verify the hypothesis or theory being "true".

You cannot present just about any claim or speculation, and think it won't be scrutinised by experts in that fields or related fields.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No it will not. Much is based on fact, not weak hypothesis.

Based on fact....haha ,,,how many Hollywood movies have you seen based on fact....and as the newer ones come out...also based on fact...the earlier ones just fade away....so it will be with many of the presently orthodox scientific theories....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

YOUR ARTICLE so that would be theist.

The study’s results challenge longstanding assumptions about the science-faith interface. While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists,

So you are saying the authors of the paper are theist....where is your evidence?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The requirements for those doing the peer reviews are those with the scientific qualification, experiences and expertise in those fields - scientists.

The qualification for peer reviewers are not "atheists" or "theists", Ben.

In numbers, not just percentages, because percentages can be deceiving if not use in proper context, showed that there are far more scientists who are religious than those who are atheists or agnostics.

The (peer) reviewers can have any religious background, so they are not necessarily atheists or agnostics. But the peer review are not out there to promote theism or atheism; they are only there to investigate and verify the science behind any presented paper (theory or hypothesis), not religion.

The majority of biologists who accept evolution as a valid theory are not only atheists and agnostics, but also those who are theists and those who have religions.

Those same majority also reject Intelligent Design because papers, like that of Behe's Irreducible Complexity (IC) were shown to be not only unscientific, but that Behe had acted unprofessionally by stubbornly resisting discarding his already refuted paper on IC. Behe cannot provide any test, experiment or verifiable evidences for the existence of the Designer.

For any hypothesis or theory to have chance to get through the peer review, it must have testable prediction that can POSSIBLY verify the hypothesis or theory being "true".

You cannot present just about any claim or speculation, and think it won't be scrutinised by experts in that fields or related fields.

I have no idea what your rambling post is about gnostic... If you have a point to make....quote my exact words and point out specifically the error. I don't mean to sound short with you but you are rarely succinct and to the point with your posts and if you have a criticism to make...make sure it hits the target....as it is you are missing the target...or perhaps as an analogy...you are using a shotgun approach rather than a sniper rifle...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A refusal to think freely is making universities increasingly irrelevant
The vast majority of academics are of the Left – and their research often disappears without trace

There was a time, not that long ago, when universities embodied the best of Western civilisation. Having broken away from their narrowly theological and often obscurantist past, they thrived during much of the 20th century, dedicating themselves to research, debate and learning. They were, at their best, cosmopolitan in outlook before the rest of society, beacons of genuine diversity and home to the greatest of thinkers.

But with a few brilliant and wonderful exceptions, they are now slowly drifting back to their pre-19th century role as a purveyor of a single, illiberal world view. Instead of opening the minds of young people by exposing them to every kind of idea and every sort of controversy, they are losing their nerve, pandering to destructive activists who would rather they serve up a thin, tightly controlled and unchallenging intellectual gruel. Rather than pushing the boundaries of human knowledge, most universities now churn out dreary, predictable research that nobody reads.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...ing-universities-increasingly-irrelevant.html

 

[Blastcat]

Modern science tends to presuppose a naturalistic worldview. Evolution is strictly to be thaugt as a "random" process without guidance. This assumes that it is a process governed by nature and not a deity. Any deity is ruled out of the picture altogether and only nature is the cause of evolution. There are many other such conflicts but evolution gives a perfect example.

You obviously love to put the cart before the horse. Science does not presuppose anything. That's what makes science useful. Religions however, make things up, and then insist that they are true. Without any evidence.

Science gives us real results, and religions gives us only confirmation bias, which is the OPPOSITE of how science works. People deny evolution, because their faith isn't reliable, and they don't want to have to admit it. But real science really gets to understand reality. Religion gets to invent beliefs.

And evolution isn't at all about "random processes". We know precisely what processes they are, and they aren't random at all, or they are as "random" as physical processes. Like gravity is random. You should not presume to lecture people on what you don't even understand.

 

[viole]

Thank you.
This shows how ignorant some theist are who think knowledge is all atheist driven
.

Well, I believe that too. Lol.

Joking, of course.

Ciao

- viole

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

A refusal to think freely is making universities increasingly irrelevant
The vast majority of academics are of the Left – and their research often disappears without trace

There was a time, not that long ago, when universities embodied the best of Western civilisation. Having broken away from their narrowly theological and often obscurantist past, they thrived during much of the 20th century, dedicating themselves to research, debate and learning. They were, at their best, cosmopolitan in outlook before the rest of society, beacons of genuine diversity and home to the greatest of thinkers.

But with a few brilliant and wonderful exceptions, they are now slowly drifting back to their pre-19th century role as a purveyor of a single, illiberal world view. Instead of opening the minds of young people by exposing them to every kind of idea and every sort of controversy, they are losing their nerve, pandering to destructive activists who would rather they serve up a thin, tightly controlled and unchallenging intellectual gruel. Rather than pushing the boundaries of human knowledge, most universities now churn out dreary, predictable research that nobody reads.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...ing-universities-increasingly-irrelevant.html

I don't know about "most universities," but the ones I attended, the one I am at, and most others where I have friends and acquaintances working, we are finding a much greater push "to be relevant," as in to stress real world employable skills (that is, what our state politicians think our local/state employers are looking for--nurses and other health sciences techs, computer and communication technology techs, lab scientists and techs, etc.) versus what employers tell us they really want: individuals with broad knowledge (the ability to recognize the value and applicability of concepts and knowledge from other fields is one of the most important requirements for innovation), ability to communicate, critical thinking skills, interpersonal skills, and a basic knowledge of computer and other technical knowledge (including math and logic), with the ability to learn a variety of other technical skills as needed for their own particular industries.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Based on fact....haha ,,,how many Hollywood movies have you seen based on fact....and as the newer ones come out...also based on fact...the earlier ones just fade away....so it will be with many of the presently orthodox scientific theories....

But that's the difference between science and religion isn't it? When new data comes in science re-evaluates it's conclusions. That isn't true of religious belief, particularly with the revealed religions where articles of faith are set in stone.

 

[outhouse]

. That isn't true of religious belief, particularly with the revealed religions where articles of faith are set in stone.

So extreme in fact, facts do not register, nor does reason or logic of any kind. many are beyond learning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But that's the difference between science and religion isn't it? When new data comes in science re-evaluates it's conclusions. That isn't true of religious belief, particularly with the revealed religions where articles of faith are set in stone.

See...you rely on your own experience when you had a God based religious belief before giving it up....but those of us who persevered and ultimately transcended the belief basis, now understand THAT which is beyond conceptual belief.. Iow, you currently believe that all who practice a God religion have a belief as you did before giving it up for the reasons you explain....and that is just plain wrong...

 

[LuisDantas]

Science and religion have always found themselves in conflict with each other. A state of discord or at least perception that still exists today.

So why such conflict, and where does the fault lie? .

Like Riverwolf, I suspect it is in fact a modern conflict.

Mainly, religion is often sustained by superstition and ill supported by tools to correct its course when scientific knowledge improves.

The fault is almost entirely due to flawed religious conceptions that glorify superstition when they should instead flush it out of the doctrine.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You obviously love to put the cart before the horse. Science does not presuppose anything. That's what makes science useful. Religions however, make things up, and then insist that they are true. Without any evidence.

Science gives us real results, and religions gives us only confirmation bias, which is the OPPOSITE of how science works. People deny evolution, because their faith isn't reliable, and they don't want to have to admit it. But real science really gets to understand reality. Religion gets to invent beliefs.

And evolution isn't at all about "random processes". We know precisely what processes they are, and they aren't random at all, or they are as "random" as physical processes. Like gravity is random. You should not presume to lecture people on what you don't even understand.

Sure, knowledge is unfolding at an unprecedented rate and will continue to do so bar some armageddon type event... However, what the article is saying is also correct....but I don't want to derail the thread going into it but climate science is an example where political correctness is a substitute for 'open to all' applied science... Regardless, I am very glad to hear of your experience..