Where's the evidence; those scientists who believe in religion

[pantheory]

Although I haven't seen a poll of such percentages,  not just a small minority of scientists around the world, usually in fields other than the physical sciences, such as the biological sciences and the humanities for instance, believe in God. But where is the evidence for their rational consideration of such beliefs. Of course the answer is that usually there aren't any other than imaginary, and that their personal beliefs are usually contradictory. Their desire to look good for their relatives and society trumps logic. The usual retort by such persons to such questioning are that their personal spiritual experiences and supposed evidence for miracles justify their beliefs. Such persons are nearly always born into and grow up with their religion before they became scientists whereby their retained religious beliefs are forged by social pressures and tradition which they want to maintain.

 

 One religious "approach to this conflict is to argue that science deals with the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual realm; however, this is something of a circular argument as it assumes a priori the existence of the latter. Another approach is to argue that science deals with “how” questions, while religion deals with “why” questions, but many philosophers would argue that “why” questions comprise the domain of the philosopher, not the theologian." Of course science at its best IMO should also be able to answer the "why" questions as well, not just philosophy.

 

Below is a link which discusses such reasoning or lack thereof, while the first paragraph also includes my own take on the subject. What are your thoughts?

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/where-s-the-evidence-a-scientist-s-struggle-with-religion-1.3608241

 

[midniterider]

I guess not all scientists want to continue to act (or think)  like scientists on their days off. Maybe their rational facility needs to be switched off for a while to get recharged. Maybe religion is a nice disconnect from the feeling that your job owns you or that your employer has the right to determine your personality. 

 

 

 

[mwc]

     My gut is telling me (so that should tell you I have no evidence...which kind of seems to fit in with this thread) that many of these scientists likely believe  less to answer the questions of "this world" so to speak but rather the "next" one.  They're probably just concerned with their own mortality like so many folks are and religions provide them some answers to those questions even if those answers aren't really all that sound.

 

          mwc

 

 

[Joshpantera]

The other issue is just go to youtube and see christians trying to refute the standard model and most of it's foundational interpretations. Like red shift, for instance. I think the article is right. These christian scientist's (for lack of a better term) likely struggle with their own mortality, have been raised in religious families, etc., etc. So the urge to try and refute the dominant interpretations likely arise from there. It's as if they think poking a few holes, if successful, automatically defaults reality back in to their own personal interpretations of reality. 

 

But that seems a far cry from true. 

 

Because even if successful, all that does is show an area where science needs to change (also stated in the article) and science will change. But science won't likely regress backwards towards the dark ages, which is what these christian scientist's are actually pushing for. 

 

Thoughts? 

[LuthAMF]

On 8/2/2019 at 7:30 AM, Joshpantera said:

Because even if successful, all that does is show an area where science needs to change (also stated in the article) and science will change. But science won't likely regress backwards towards the dark ages, which is what these christian scientist's are actually pushing for. 

Did I not tell you, this demonstrates you possess faith in science that is on par with faith you so disdain in the Christian? You have no evidence that "science will change" on this matter.

 

Science is a tool and no more. It itself functions in a particular way but does not"change" any more than does the hammer in the hands of a master carpenter or Johnny Destructo. Revealed evidence may change, but the tool does not.

 

 And yours is a blatant unfounded ASSERTION that Christians are pushing for a return to the "dark ages". You've never heard anyone say it nor have they implied it. I doubt you even rightly and fairly define the dark ages.

 

See, none of your words ever have negative consequences  for you. 

[pantheory]

9 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Did I not tell you, this demonstrates you possess faith in science that is on par with faith you so disdain in the Christian? You have no evidence that "science will change" on this matter.

 

Science is a tool and no more. It itself functions in a particular way but does not"change" any more than does the hammer in the hands of a master carpenter or Johnny Destructo. Revealed evidence may change, but the tool does not.

 

 And yours is a blatant unfounded ASSERTION that Christians are pushing for a return to the "dark ages". You've never heard anyone say it nor have they implied it. I doubt you even rightly and fairly define the dark ages.

 

See, none of your words ever have negative consequences  for you. 

 

Having faith can be a good thing if that faith is justifiable and can be backed up by strong evidence, such as faith in a family member. Yes, faith in science theory sometimes may not be a good thing either, but faith in the scientific method is totally justifiable. For instance, many science theories today are partially or totally wrong IMO, especially in Physics, but science in generally has brought us into the modern age enabling us to have much better and healthier lives than our forefathers. One of the primary characteristics about science is that it is self correcting. In time what might be wrong in science theory today will be changed as more certain evidence becomes available.

 

An example of very good science and theory today is Darwin's theory of natural selection. There is a mountain of evidence to support it. Yes, evolution also has almost countless minor hypothesis that accompany it, a number of which will likely change over time. But this says nothing negative about science or the theory of natural selection in that science theory is the result of evidence. When new evidence is presented, theory will necessarily change over time.

 

Religion, on the other hand, chugs along regardless of contrary evidence. True, some drop out of the faith based upon the lack of evidence or contrary evidence, but many or most never question their almost blind faith.

 

[older]

12 minutes ago, pantheory said:

One of the primary characteristics about science is that it is self correcting. In time what might be wrong in science theory today will be changed as more certain evidence becomes available.

....

Religion, on the other hand, chugs along regardless of the contrary evidence. True, some drop out of the faith based upon the lack of evidence, or contrary evidence, but many or most never question their almost blind faith.

An interesting study of the intersection of religion and science in Western Europe is the era of Copernicus, Galileo and others during the 16th and 17th centuries. Religion and government were the same, and its reaction to scientific discoveries that contradicted religious dogma was severe. It was abundantly clear to both Copernicus and Galileo that their ideas would not be accepted. Copernicus kept a low profile but Galileo did not and ended up sentenced by the Inquisition and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. 

 

As to the o.p., my thought is the same as some of the others above: religious scientists are either maintaining the cultural orientation of their upbringing and ignoring the contradiction; are keeping it mostly for the social elements; or are hedging their bets.

[LuthAMF]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

Religion, on the other hand, chugs along regardless of contrary evidence. True, some drop out of the faith based upon the lack of evidence or contrary evidence, but many or most never question their almost blind faith.

Ridiculous. But you say it so well.

[Justus]

16 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Science is a tool and no more

 

Can't help but ask if you view theology as no more than a tool? 

 

The reason I ask is that IMO science in the same class as theology,  each being a discipline in the study of knowledge in their own respective fields. Science being the discipline based upon the study of the laws of nature while theology being the discipline based on the study of the doctrine of Christ. 
 

[older]

19 hours ago, Justus said:

theology being the discipline based on the study of the doctrine of Christ

I would suggest, however, that theology includes all religions, not just Christianity. And I would also claim that the two are not equivalents on a balance scale. Science is based on fact and has significant implications for mankind. Theology, while also having implications for mankind, is not based on fact, and the negative consequences of that can be much more severe than the former.

[Wertbag]

Surely we see plenty of ways to work the two together.  Often it is said that science looks at the tools god used to create the universe, so if you start with that mentality then evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang are all perfectly in line with religious beliefs and the majority of Christians have no problems with them.  It is a mire of issues for guys like Hovind and Ham, who try to overturn the basic scientific understanding of our world, but no one should be confused into thinking those guys ever use science to come to their conclusions.

There are some rare examples of scientists who believe some of the more ridiculous fundy ideas like a young earth, but those guys are few and far between.

[Bhim]

Here's a relevant scientific study from about 20 years ago.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478