Scientists who are religious

IFX

What's the jackanory with the Scientists who are religious?
I'm talking now in 2006, not historically dudes like Copernicus and LeMaitre (althought Le Maitre isn't that historical considering his work was all in the 20th century).

1. Are these people just liberal Theists?
William Reville could be classified as such perhaps. They still believe in a creator have a spiritual aspect to them. Fair enough.

2. Does anybody know any Scientist who is a fundi?
I can't think of any.

By Scientists I mean someone of at least national / international level, not just your Science teacher at school.

Your comments...

Dades

A scientist who is religious is just the same as a bus driver who is. I don't think there's a specific catagory for them, just because statistically they are rarer.

What do you mean by fundie? Creation "scientists"? Or creationists who happily excel in some other field of science and don't let their beliefs get in the way?

Zillah

You can have various combinations of belief/scepticism:

- A competant scientist who puts his own beliefs to the side.
- A bad scientist who allows his own beliefs to alter/warp his research.
- A fundamentalist who pretends to be a scientist.

(This is of course assuming the area of research has the capacity to interact with their beliefs...astronomy, archaeology, paleontology, geology etc.)

IFX

The Atheist wrote:

A scientist who is religious is just the same as a bus driver who is. I don't think there's a specific catagory for them, just because statistically they are rarer.

What do you mean by fundie? Creation "scientists"? Or creationists who happily excel in some other field of science and don't let their beliefs get in the way?

Fundi - a fundamentalist. Believes in pretty much everything the Bible says, including Adam and Eve.
The thing about Scientists over Bus Drivers is that Scientists are supposed to look at things critically and rationally. It is seems a contradiction when they also have a belief of some sorts which involves no logic.

Dades

IFX wrote:

The thing about Scientists over Bus Drivers is that Scientists are supposed to look at things critically and rationally. It is seems a contradiction when they also have a belief of some sorts which involves no logic.

Everyone is supposed to look at things critically and rationally - we just assume that scientists are more so than others. This idea is reflected in the statistics of non-theist people in the scientific community. So given this, what you seem to be asking is why do any (non creationist) scientists believe in a god?

I guess there will always be people in every profession* who believe. Their reasons probably differ as does every believers'.

- And what Zillah said.


* Until moderating here becomes a career.

bonkey

Scientists are supposed to look at things critically and rationally

When doing their job, yes.

I was talking to a maths lecturer recently who was telling me of a mate of his who's a lecturer in evolution in some Uni. starts every first-year semester with the caveat that he doesn't believe a word of what he's about to teach. He'd probably qualify as a "fundi" in your nomenclature.

Thing is the guy is a good evolutionist. He doesn't have to believe its true. He just has to seperate what he believes from the work he is doing. He does, and he does it well.

But here's the kicker: every scientist needs to do this, not just the "fundies" nor just the religious. All of them need to do it. Its no more acceptable to cut corners because you believe Darwin was right then it is to cut them because you believe he's wrong. Its not acceptable to dismiss a theory because you find its implications distasteful nor embrace it because "it all makes sense, man."

Either a scientist allows their beliefs to intrude on their work, or they don't. Seperating the religious from everyone else is arbitrary - they just have more readily-identifiable beliefs that are anathema to good science. However, as long as they can keep those beliefs seperate...there's no problem.

Einstein's original universal constant, IIRC, was brought about as a result of him refusing to accept certain implications of his theory and finding a "hack" around it. It had nothing to do with his religious persuasion, but the result was the same - he allowed his personal beliefs to colour his scientific thinking.

jc

Dave!

I believe Dawkins was asked about this in his recent interview with Jeremy Paxman, and he refused to say that religious scientists are "bad" scientists, but said that he just couldn't understand how they maintain religious beliefs.

It's a good question, and I'm kinda baffled by them as well. Perhaps their beliefs are born out of an emotional need rather than as a result of logical consideration. I mean, surely if someone had all the evidence to date on both sides, and they examined it, as scientists do, then they'd have to fall on the side of atheism.

If your average person thought about "where did all this come from?" then it's understandable that they'd think it's too unlikely for it all to fall into place like this; but surely if a scientist thought about the same, they'd be able to say "okay, the Greeks didn't know where X Y and Z came from, and so they became gods... now we know where X Y and Z came from, and they're no longer gods", and they'd be able to see the pattern.

I dunno, I'm talking sh*te now, cos I really don't understand them. I see science as the truth and as being so logical, and I see religion as being completely irrational, so I don't "get" how they can co-exist in someone's mind.

If you're going to say that god created the universe, then he might as well control everything, and scientific research seems kinda futile unless it's to build a smaller mobile phone or somethin. If you're going to say that science controls everything, then you might as well hold true to that for everything, and keep trying to explain the origin of the universe.

I don't get how someone can mix-and-match!

óbriain1988

I've noticed a lot of ye seem to get mixed up with "Fundis" as someone called them and other people who believe in God...I dont mean this to be patronising so please dont take it as such. Like i dont see how you could have difficulty believing a scientist having faith... I know this might sound a bit fantastical but religion and science don't actually clash with each other...well proper religion anyway...now I know that these fundamentalist Christians believe in Genesis to be taken as literal fact, that there's no evolution and all that... but ye have to realise that these are a minority whos religion began in America (need I say more)....Now, if something is proven scientific fact then that's exactly what it is...science deals with truth on a physical worldy level, religion deals with truth on a metaphysical level. The two are seperate in essence...though that doesn't mean that they clash with each other in any way....There's nothing in science to deny any of the truth of Catholicism...there's no clash...science sheds light on how this world works... It doesn't even begin to explore why it is here or whatever because it's not science, it's a complete different area, i fail to see where the difficulties begin!

Zillah

&#243 wrote: »

I know this might sound a bit fantastical but religion and science don't actually clash with each other

Yes they do, all the time. Science is a sceptical approach to the universe while religion is a presumptuous approach. Completely irreconcilable.

...well proper religion anyway...

*picks brain off floor*

Please define "proper religion"... And if your answer is "my religion" then we have a problem...

Although to be honest I'm having trouble thinking of an answer that will suffice.

now I know that these fundamentalist Christians believe in Genesis to be taken as literal fact, that there's no evolution and all that... but ye have to realise that these are a minority whos religion began in America (need I say more)....

Yay, lets throw a national slur in there too!

Now, if something is proven scientific fact then that's exactly what it is...science deals with truth on a physical worldy level, religion deals with truth on a metaphysical level.

Specious silliness to be quite honest. Religion invents answers, science proves them.

The two are seperate in essence...though that doesn't mean that they clash with each other in any way....There's nothing in science to deny any of the truth of Catholicism...there's no clash

:eek:

Ok, off the top of my head, here's a quick list of things about Catholicism that are completely irreconcilable with science:

- Presumed existence of God.
- Presumed existence of other realms of existence.
- Presumed belief in extradimensional entities in service to afformentioned God.
- Transubstantiation (my personal favourite).
- Miracle healings.
- Jesus' immaculate conception.
- Jesus' ressurection.
- Magic saints.

i fail to see where the difficulties begin!

Perhaps the above will have elucidated it for you.

Dave!

But religion says that 'god' created the universe, whereas I think a logical person would say 'I don't know' what created the universe -- but hopefully some day we'll discover what did.

That's kind of a sticking point for me.

I think tacking supernatural qualities onto something just because we don't currently fully understand it, is a cop-out. A scientist should be trying to understand and explain the unknown rather than just giving up and saying "ahh sure it's the work of god".

We no longer need a god Apollo or whatever, cos we know what the sun is!

edit: @ the other guy

Beruthiel

&#243 wrote: »

Like i dont see how you could have difficulty believing a scientist having faith...

I tend to see scientists having analytical minds where logic comes first, how religion fits into that is something I don't get.

I know this might sound a bit fantastical but religion and science don't actually clash with each other...

They do for me.

well proper religion anyway...

Brilliant

science sheds light on how this world works.....It doesn't even begin to explore why it is here or whatever because it's not science, it's a complete different area, i fail to see where the difficulties begin!

So what you are saying here, is that when one cannot explain why the world is here, we should just make something up. Ignorance is no reason to turn the reason into some mythical god. At one stage in our history, there was outrage at suggesting the world was not flat. Now we know differently. At sometime in the future science will continue to discover more about the universe, I prefer to wait for those answers rather than making something up and filling in the cracks with a god figure.

bonkey

When religion and science clash, it is because religion has stepped over what should be its boundary point.

Science does not and cannot address matters of faith.

It cannot address the existence or non-existence of a God unless and until a scientific definition of what God is exists. Such a definition, in and of itself, is anathema to the very concept of God, so its just not going to happen.

I am not aware of any genuine science that has ever intruded on matters of faith. There is some pseudo-science out there who's entire aim is to blur this distinction, I know, but thats seperate.

The reverse, however, is all too often untrue. Religion will often try to make pronouncements about the nature of reality, where quite frankly it has no business. Rather than sticking to the "why" of it all, religion has tread upon the uncertain ground of the "how", and generally ended up having its nose bloodied by science as a result.

Sometimes this is where religion has stepped up in the past to explain something before science did. The earth being at the centre of the universe and it all beginning with a single couple called Adam and Eve are nice illustrations of this. Alternately, we also have the more modern clashes, where the religious find certain scientific theories anathema for whatever reason, and will go to varying lengths to undermine such positions. Evolutionary theory is the obvious cause celebre here, but consider also the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality amonst other issues.

So yes, they clash, but only because and when some religious have claimed authority in a field that they have no authority in.

The notion of a religious/faithful scientist only causes a problem when the person in question has a faith or religious belief that erquires them to give their religious convinctions about the material world primacy over science. To be honest, though, at that point they cease to be scientists in any meaningful sense of the word.

pH

bonkey wrote:

The reverse, however, is all too often untrue. Religion will often try to make pronouncements about the nature of reality, where quite frankly it has no business. Rather than sticking to the "why" of it all, religion has tread upon the uncertain ground of the "how", and generally ended up having its nose bloodied by science as a result.

I'm not sure about the 'religion will often try ...', what exactly do you mean by that? I'm not sure that religion can in itself try and do anything. When you say 'religion will often try ...' do you actually mean 'people with supposed religious authority will often try ...'

Alternately, we also have the more modern clashes, where the religious find certain scientific theories anathema for whatever reason, and will go to varying lengths to undermine such positions. Evolutionary theory is the obvious cause celebre here, but consider also the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality amonst other issues.

Homosexuality is a scientific theory?

So yes, they clash, but only because and when some religious have claimed authority in a field that they have no authority in.

What field do they have authority in? From where does this authority come, and how can I tell if what they say is authoritative or the ravings of a madman?

bonkey

pH wrote:

I'm not sure about the 'religion will often try ...', what exactly do you mean by that?

óbriain1988 mentioned "religion and science" clashing.
Sillah mentioned "Religion invents answers"
DaveMcG mentioned that "religion says that 'god' created the universe"
Beruthiel mentioned that "science will continue to discover more about the universe"

All of this is before my post. Why, then, am I the first one being the one asked what my usage of religion as a personification means? Are theirs clear but mine somehow obscure?

Homosexuality is a scientific theory?

The causes of it are scientifically theorised about and investigated.
It is also "explained" by the Catholic church.

What field do they have authority in?

Where did I imply they have authority in any field?

how can I tell if what they say is authoritative or the ravings of a madman

You can't, no more than you can say that your own beliefs
(or anyone else's for that matter) about the existence or lack thereof of the spiritual and/or divine are authoritative or the ravings of a madman.

In such a field, religion and faith are equally as qualified as anyone else. Or as unqualified, if you prefer.

óbriain1988

Zillah wrote:

Ok, off the top of my head, here's a quick list of things about Catholicism that are completely irreconcilable with science:

- Presumed existence of God.
- Presumed existence of other realms of existence.
- Presumed belief in extradimensional entities in service to afformentioned God.
- Transubstantiation (my personal favourite).
- Miracle healings.
- Jesus' immaculate conception.
- Jesus' ressurection.
- Magic saints.



Perhaps the above will have elucidated it for you.

- Presumed existence of God.

How does science clash with this? Science hasn't proven that there is no God.. If you think of all the theories put forward for the "how" of the creation of the universe there's always the first cause issue...what caused the first cause in the chain that...eg the big bang theory...like the idea of what caused whatever it was to exist that exploded and turned into the universe...
Figuring out how exactly the universe in a physical sense was created doesn't really even get into the area of religion or denying it or anything..there's always the issue of what created the thing that created the blaa blaa blaa and so forth and so on....but this not really being the main issue is the point i was trying to make, they are complete seperate endevors...
Science is the study or the physical universe using available logic and all that carry on...Theism is the belief that there is a greater force that operates OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE that created it....in essence the goals they aim for are seperate from each one another and not related. It is for this reason that theists can "presume" things....it's the belief thats there's things we'll never understand at work...but they dont present these ideas as LOGICAL PROOF WITHIN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE...it's not science in the physical sense of the word...they dont presume things that exist in this world that oppose science...that's not religion is...so they don't clash on issues because they don't study the same issues so to speak! that's what im trying to say....sorry if it's a bit long and all that...but im just hoping like that i can get this across...no need for any hostile comments now like...discussing is the way to go like

I suppose the rest of the examples are just more "presuming" on our part....but that's also called "Faith". It's not presuming something that can be physically proven/disproven...it operates on the level that there's a level of existence that we can't understand....Science doesn't deal with this level...it deals with the physical universe etc etc...

On a side note, i wonder what this complete approach of "it must be proven before i will believe it" says about things like the creation of the universe..none of the theoires have been proven..yet the creation of the universe has happened...so what about people who believe in the big bang? this hasn't been fully proven...it's "presuming" that it could be true...it's exercising a bit of "faith"......ohhhhhh dirty word!

pH

&#243 wrote: »

Science is the study or the physical universe using available logic and all that carry on...Theism is the belief that there is a greater force that operates OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE that created it....in essence the goals they aim for are seperate from each one another and not related.
...
it's exercising a bit of "faith"......ohhhhhh dirty word!

Excellent, you're practically an atheist already.

Science as you say has nothing to say about the actions of a supernatural being that exists outside of (and created) this universe.

So if God to you is a supernatural being that created this universe 14 billion years ago and sodded off never to be seen from again, then great for you. I'm certainly not going to get into an argument with a fellow atheist about the first few thousandths of a second of the universe, when we agree on the next 14 billion years.

That means that God has no plan for us, there's no soul, no afterlife, he's never revealed himself here on earth.

But you know what? That's not what most God-botherers would have us believe, here's what they say:

• God is eternal (He's already existed for an infinite time - that's quite a while, in fact enough time to to everything possible ... each one an infinite number of times)
  
• But in all this infinity he fires off a big bang, and creates a huge universe:
  
• 100,000,000,000 (100 Billion) Galaxies, each containing between 100 Million and a trillion stars.
  
• Because in one of those Galaxies, on a small planet orbiting an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy, a race of bipedal hairless apes will evolve after a process lasting about 4 billion years.
• All of those other Stars seem to have been created solely to make the night sky look good, the rest of the stuff (Billions of Galaxies) we can't see with the naked eye seems to have been put there solely to fascinate astronomers.

And why has he done all this? Because out of 14 billion+ years available, he's decided that the carbon based lifeforms on this planet need 'testing' for about 80 years apiece to see if they are destined to spend the rest of 'eternity' celebrating that they passed this test, or bitterly regretting that they failed it.

Yea, but you've got your faith and that's what counts.

I wouldn't normally quote Freud, but here goes

"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."

Funsterdelux

&#243 wrote: »

I know this might sound a bit fantastical but religion and science don't actually clash with each other...

I think a Simpson's quote is in order here:

"As for religion and science, I'm placing a restraining order, Religion must stay 500 feet from Science at all times."

There could be many scientists who are "yes mother" guys/gals.

stevejazzx

pH wrote:

Excellent, you're practically an atheist already.

Science as you say has nothing to say about the actions of a supernatural being that exists outside of (and created) this universe.

So if God to you is a supernatural being that created this universe 14 billion years ago and sodded off never to be seen from again, then great for you. I'm certainly not going to get into an argument with a fellow atheist about the first few thousandths of a second of the universe, when we agree on the next 14 billion years.

That means that God has no plan for us, there's no soul, no afterlife, he's never revealed himself here on earth.

But you know what? That's not what most God-botherers would have us believe, here's what they say:

• God is eternal (He's already existed for an infinite time - that's quite a while, in fact enough time to to everything possible ... each one an infinite number of times)
• But in all this infinity he fires off a big bang, and creates a huge universe:
• 100,000,000,000 (100 Billion) Galaxies, each containing between 100 Million and a trillion stars.
• Because in one of those Galaxies, on a small planet orbiting an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy, a race of bipedal hairless apes will evolve after a process lasting about 4 billion years.
• All of those other Stars seem to have been created solely to make the night sky look good, the rest of the stuff (Billions of Galaxies) we can't see with the naked eye seems to have been put there solely to fascinate astronomers.

And why has he done all this? Because out of 14 billion+ years available, he's decided that the carbon based lifeforms on this planet need 'testing' for about 80 years apiece to see if they are destined to spend the rest of 'eternity' celebrating that they passed this test, or bitterly regretting that they failed it.

Yea, but you've got your faith and that's what counts.

I wouldn't normally quote Freud, but here goes

"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."

Superlative posting PH, particulary the piece I've highlighted. One thing though isn't the world supposed to be 4-5 billion years though and not 14 as you say or have I missed a science lesson(s)?

Funsterdelux

Steve

From what Ive learned the universe is 14 years old and the world around 4 years old times a billion

guildofevil

14 Billion years ~= Age of universe, according to current thinking.
Although I have seen figures between 10 and 20 billion years quoted.

All ridiculous though, as everyone knows that the earth is a meer 6,000 years old and that the universe was created a matter of days before that, just so that there was something for the Earth to exists in.

stevejazzx

Funsterdelux wrote:

Steve

From what Ive learned the universe is 14 years old and the world around 4 years old times a billion

oh yeah the universe I forget about that....primitive old me....4 billion ought to be enough though...how much time does someone need:) ?


Note to self: Stop forgetting about the universe.

Zillah

&#243 wrote: »

- Presumed existence of God.

How does science clash with this? Science hasn't proven that there is no God..

Exactly. Anyone being scientific has to say "I don't know" when asked how the Big Bang happened. A Catholic says "God did it". Hence, Catholicism and Science are not compatible.

If you think of all the theories put forward for the "how" of the creation of the universe there's always the first cause issue...what caused the first cause in the chain that...eg the big bang theory...like the idea of what caused whatever it was to exist that exploded and turned into the universe...

Ah, now you're thinking! What started God? If nothing started God and he transcends space and time, why can't you just apply that same logic to the Big Bang?

Because a book didn't tell you to? I can write that book if you like.

but they dont present these ideas as LOGICAL PROOF WITHIN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE...

Yes they do, like all those examples I posted above that you've ignored. A pure theist doesn't clash with science on a practical level. Someone who says "I believe there is an all powerful entity who created the universe but is outside the universe" does not clash with science.

But a Catholic doesn't say that, he says the above and says "...but then did a whole load of other stuff that interferes with the world including sending a magic son to save the world, causes miracles, blew up Soddom etc etc".

that's what im trying to say....sorry if it's a bit long and all that...but im just hoping like that i can get this across...no need for any hostile comments now like...discussing is the way to go like

You're ignoring what I'm saying, like.

I suppose the rest of the examples are just more "presuming" on our part....but that's also called "Faith". It's not presuming something that can be physically proven/disproven...it operates on the level that there's a level of existence that we can't understand....Science doesn't deal with this level...it deals with the physical universe etc etc...

More specious silliness. Saints who can magically cure people clash with science. Transubstantiation is specifically described as not being a metaphor, it is the literal transmutation from bread and wine to body and blood. You think that completely unprovable observation is scientific?

You just don't get science.

On a side note, i wonder what this complete approach of "it must be proven before i will believe it" says about things like the creation of the universe..none of the theoires have been proven..yet the creation of the universe has happened...so what about people who believe in the big bang? this hasn't been fully proven...it's "presuming" that it could be true...it's exercising a bit of "faith"......ohhhhhh dirty word!

Finally, I think you might be starting to get it.

People who presume things are not scientific. Like someone who believes whole heartidly that the Big Bang created the universe. Thats not scientific. If someone has "faith" in the big bang then their not scientific. 'Faith' is a dirty word, well done.

Dades

I think what Zillah is "enthusiastically" trying to say is that the concept that a god created all matter is not at odds with science. However the concept of specific gods that have been given credit for occurances that have scientific explanations - are at odds with science.

Religion is the attempt to define an otherwise stand-alone god concept, by applying characteristics to god(s) which almost always result in conflicts with what science has taught us.

The idea that the laws of science shouldn't apply to religion is fine so long as religion doesn't tell us that something happened that contravened the laws of science.

Zillah

I am most enthusiastic

Its rivalled only by my vociferousness....ness.

r3nu4l

Okay, I'm a scientist (molecular Biologist) who has published in International journals. I know other scientists who are very well respected in International industry and are members of the Knights of Columbanus, ergo practicing Roman Catholics.

I have manipulated DNA to clone genes for experimentation, developed genetically modified virus, bacteria and yeast, and I have mutated genes so they perform as I want them to.

That sets the scene...
I am a practicing Roman Catholic who believes in God. I don't believe everything written in the Bible as being literal truth and so far as I'm aware neither does the church.

So far as I am aware the church accepts the Big Bang theory because it allows for the existence of God before the Big Bang. Accepting the Big Bang also accepts (by default) that the universe is a tad older than 6,000 years.

A scientist must accept the possibility of a divine being simply because science should never rule out anything that cannot be disproved. Until someone can perform an experiment that conclusively proves there is no God, then we must accept that there may be a God.

We should also remember that proof is hard to find, hence we have Pythagerous theorum in trigonometry, not yet proven. There is staggering amounts of evidence to say that it is correct but no proof. It will take only one instance where the theorum does not apply for it to be scrapped and trigonometry to be re-written.

That is the nature of science and therefore a really good science will set belief aside and think that rationally, we cannot disprove God, therefore we must allow for the existence of God, subsequently we must then decide whether we have belief or not.

My life experience and prayer has led me to believe that there is a God but I accept I could be wrong, despite believing I'm right.

Dave!

r3nu4l wrote:

A scientist must accept the possibility of a divine being simply because science should never rule out anything that cannot be disproved. Until someone can perform an experiment that conclusively proves there is no God, then we must accept that there may be a God.

We must therefore also accept that there may be such things as unicorns, they're just extremely unlikely.

Rev Hellfire

DaveMcG wrote:

We must therefore also accept that there may be such things as unicorns, they're just extremely unlikely.

While they are unlikely its not impossible, given that a lot of legend stems from an historical source it is not unreasonable to suggest that perhaps the unicorn is a corruption of of the idea of a oryx or some other horned animal. Even at times the ridiculous can have a grain of truth.

r3nu4l

DaveMcG wrote:

We must therefore also accept that there may be such things as unicorns, they're just extremely unlikely.

Now you're getting there, that's the spirit!

People thought there were only two species of elephant, now we know there are at least four...

Last week in a survey of a small area in the Amazon jungle 40 new species were discovered and at least one new genus.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
The Sign of Four (1890)

"Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."
The Sign of Four (1890)

"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet (1892)

"That is the case as it appears to the police, and improbable as it is, all other explanations are more improbable still."
Silver Blaze (1892)

"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The Adventure of Bruce-Partington Plans (1908)

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The Adventure of The Blanched Soldier (1926)

"It is more than possible; it is probable."
Silver Blaze (1892)

bonkey

r3nu4l wrote:

We should also remember that proof is hard to find, hence we have Pythagerous theorum in trigonometry, not yet proven.

Huh? There's no shortage of proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem.

Heres 64 of them.

There is staggering amounts of evidence to say that it is correct but no proof. It will take only one instance where the theorum does not apply for it to be scrapped and trigonometry to be re-written.

Umm...no. In science, theories may never be proven, but in mathematics they can be and are.

The only way to "disprove" a theory in maths is to show as false one of the base axioms of the entire mathematical system on which any given proof is based on.

However, the point you make is valid in terms of scientific theory.

Our understanding of gravity always being attractive, for example, and being related to the square of the distance...that is unproven and could be turned on its head by observation.

jc

Dades

r3nu4l, thanks for the viewpoint from the other side.

r3nu4l wrote:

I accept I could be wrong, despite believing I'm right.

I think that all most of us can say.

And before anyone says it - no, that doesn't make us agnostics.

r3nu4l

bonkey wrote:

Huh? There's no shortage of proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem.

Heres 64 of them.

Okay, didn't realise that, replace pythagerous and trig with some other random unproven theory! Feel better?:p

bonkey wrote:

Umm...no. In science, theories may never be proven, but in mathematics they can be and are.

Umm...yes. The structure of DNA has been Mathematically proven. Also, Mathematics is the fundamental (and some would say, only) true science. Therefore science theories can be proven, but biological and chemical ones aren't often because they are too complex for Mathematics as it stands. New branches of Mathematics and greater computing power are needed to prove many observations from the "other" sciences. C'mon guys, catch up! Sharpen those pencils and get the calculators out!

bonkey wrote:

The only way to "disprove" a theory in maths is to show as false one of the base axioms of the entire mathematical system on which any given proof is based on.

However, the point you make is valid in terms of scientific theory.

Our understanding of gravity always being attractive, for example, and being related to the square of the distance...that is unproven and could be turned on its head by observation.

jc

Glad you agree

robindch

> The structure of DNA has been Mathematically proven.

Could you explain what you mean by this? The sentence doesn't have much meaning as it stands.

> Also, Mathematics is the fundamental (and some would say, only) true
> science. Therefore science theories can be proven, but biological and
> chemical ones aren't often because they are too complex for Mathematics
> as it stands.

I think you should read up on Karl Popper's work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

...as there are some basic errors in your understanding of what science is.

Beruthiel

r3nu4l wrote:

A scientist must accept the possibility of a divine being simply because science should never rule out anything that cannot be disproved. Until someone can perform an experiment that conclusively proves there is no God, then we must accept that there may be a God.

Why must you accept that there maybe a god? As a scientist, I would have thought that just because you do not have the answer to a problem just yet, doesn't mean there will not be a very logical one in the future. Just because we do not have the answer now, does not mean you fill in that lack of knowledge using god as the answer. That is not at all scientific, thus I cannot get my head around the fact that scientists especially can be religious.

r3nu4l

robindch wrote:

> The structure of DNA has been Mathematically proven.

Could you explain what you mean by this? The sentence doesn't have much meaning as it stands.

huh? Mathematics has been used to prove that the structure of DNA elucidated by Watson and Crick (and others) is correct. [unapologetic]Don't ask me to provide a linky, as I'm not bothered, I've other things to do.[/unapologetic]

robindch wrote:

...as there are some basic errors in your understanding of what science is.

Ah yes, the wonderful wonderings and ponderings of philosophy...:rolleyes: Philosophical observancies on "what science is" are many and varied, Poppers' is just one. As a fully trained PhD scientist with years of practical laboratory experience and now working in Scientific and Medical Communications I don't have much time for the musings of philosophers or noise..trees falling...woods. Sorry but I'm not going to waste my time, if it pleases you to think I am bathing in my own ignorance that is fine by me

I think I'll drop out of this now, I gave my opinion based on the OP's question so I'm not hanging around...feel free to pick my post apart, I won't be responding

@Beruthial: We must accept the possibility because there is no definitive proof to say there is no God. Nor is there even any evidence to say there is no God. Once there is a definite answer then we can stop accepting that there must be a God. We can't just stop believing in possibilities just becasue there is the chance that someone will disprove them in the future. Believing in possibilities allows for experimentation and thus knowledge, Increased knowledge allows refinement of experiments to the point where in some cases you can decrease the odds of likelihood that your theory is correct.

I don't think science should accept the possibility of various gods, I think science should ignore the whole issue entirely until there's evidence etc enough to convince them otherwise.

Just because we do not have the answer now, does not mean you fill in that lack of knowledge using god as the answer.

Precisely, hence my old sig:

Who stole the cookies from the cookie jar?
I don't know so it must be god!

I'm a buddhist and a scientist in training... yes...
I don't think the two (science and more theistic religions) are mututally exclusive I guess, they're just generally better off being kept apart

Beruthiel

r3nu4l wrote:

@Beruthial: We must accept the possibility because there is no definitive proof to say there is no God. Nor is there even any evidence to say there is no God. Once there is a definite answer then we can stop accepting that there must be a God. We can't just stop believing in possibilities just becasue there is the chance that someone will disprove them in the future. Believing in possibilities allows for experimentation and thus knowledge, Increased knowledge allows refinement of experiments to the point where in some cases you can decrease the odds of likelihood that your theory is correct.

I'm sorry r3nu4, I simply cannot get my head around this must word.
It's like DaveMc said, we must therefore also accept that there may be such things as unicorns, or fairies or ghosts, santa claus. It all has as much meaning to me. I cannot accept that there must be a god unless I have full proof evidence of one, even then I'm not sure what that 'evidence' could be to make it so. I'm probably more likely to think this god to be Q from Star Trek.

Dades

Beruthiel wrote:

I'm probably more likely to think this god to be Q from Star Trek.

I'd hope god would have a cooler hat.

r3nu4l

Beruthiel wrote:

I'm sorry r3nu4, I simply cannot get my head around this must word.
It's like DaveMc said, we must therefore also accept that there may be such things as unicorns, or fairies or ghosts, santa claus. It all has as much meaning to me. I cannot accept that there must be a god unless I have full proof evidence of one, even then I'm not sure what that 'evidence' could be to make it so. I'm probably more likely to think this god to be Q from Star Trek.

Beruthial before edit wrote:

I cannot accept that unicorns exist until one stands before me.

[picks at pre-edit post]I've never seen a live kangaroo but I believe they exist [/picks at pre-edit post] Apologies.

I accept your point, it is very difficult for anyone to believe in things they cannot see. I didn't believe in ghosts until I saw one! I was an extreme sceptic. Maybe it was a manifestation from my mind projected before me, maybe I prefer to believe it was a ghost rather than believe I was a bit crazy that day, who knows?

Just for the record, at one time I didn't believe a God or any other supreme being existed either. Now I do. Again, perhaps it is psychological.

I'm just saying what I believe, when I was in the lab performing experiments I wasn't thinking every day "Hmm, wonder if there is a God?" I was more likely thinking "Hmm, wonder if these extended PCR primers will work?" I separated my belief from my work. It's easy for some people to compartmentalise, sociopaths do it all the time


Finally, what's this you're saying about Santa Claus?

robindch

> Mathematics has been used to prove that the structure of DNA elucidated
> by Watson and Crick (and others) is correct.

Maths has been used to understand (for example) the topology of DNA, but you cannot "prove correct" the structure of DNA, any more than you can prove correct the structure of a house.

> As a fully trained PhD scientist with years of practical laboratory experience
> and now working in Scientific and Medical Communications I don't have much
> time for the musings of philosophers or noise..trees falling...woods.

Er, Karl Popper documented the basics of the modern scientific method. And "as a fully trained PhD scientist with years of practical laboratory experience", I would have expected you to be completely familiar with his work, from the practical point of view, even if you hadn't read it. And even if you hadn't heard of it, I would have expected you to at least be interested by it. Oh well.

> Sorry but I'm not going to waste my time, if it pleases you to think I
> am bathing in my own ignorance that is fine by me

Taking a half an hour out to understand the philosophical basis for your life's work is hardly a "waste of time" in my book. You believe otherwise. As you wish, my friend! Thanks for dropping by

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I accept your point, it is very difficult for anyone to believe in things they cannot see.

actually it's very easy. you're doing it right now, as are billions across the planet.

it's what we're doing that's not easy for most people, accepting the uncaring, unloving deterministic nature of the universe is a bit of a stretch for them atm.

Beruthiel

r3nu4l wrote:

I accept your point, it is very difficult for anyone to believe in things they cannot see.

Which is why I don't.

I didn't believe in ghosts until I saw one! I was an extreme sceptic. Maybe it was a manifestation from my mind projected before me, maybe I prefer to believe it was a ghost rather than believe I was a bit crazy that day, who knows?

I'm going with your imagination on that I'm afraid.
Myself and my partner both experienced something very strange once. I consider it happened for no other reason than the fact we both had too much to eat and drink that particular night and the goats cheese at the end of the dinner probably did not help. Another person might have run from the hotel room and never come back.

Just for the record, at one time I didn't believe a God or any other supreme being existed either. Now I do. Again, perhaps it is psychological.

I'm intrigued.
Do you feel comfortable enough to discuss why you changed your mind?

It's easy for some people to compartmentalise, sociopaths do it all the time

That explains it for me better than anyone else has so far!

Finally, what's this you're saying about Santa Claus?

oops

r3nu4l

Mordeth wrote:

actually it's very easy. you're doing it right now, as are billions across the planet.

it's what we're doing that's not easy for most people, accepting the uncaring, unloving deterministic nature of the universe is a bit of a stretch for them atm.

Oooh, nice viewpoint! Not what I was thinking of but very acceptable:)

@robindch: Meh! Sorry, just can't be arsed. Sir Karlie was a great man etc etc and his work on conditional prediction, unconditional prophecy etc was nice and all that but having read a ton of it in the past, I'm honestly not bothered and to say I fundamentally misunderstand some of the basic principles in science is codswallop, baloney and other words not often used in modern society

I just don't have time for many philosophers anymore but to give Karlie his dues at least he was a true professional and knew what he was talking about. He gave it his all, unlike a lot of the pseudo-armchair philosophers about the place who claim to understand what they've read in some book or in philosophy 101 lectures.

pH

r3nu4l wrote:

[picks at pre-edit post]I've never seen a live kangaroo but I believe they exist [/picks at pre-edit post] Apologies.

I accept your point, it is very difficult for anyone to believe in things they cannot see. I didn't believe in ghosts until I saw one! I was an extreme sceptic. Maybe it was a manifestation from my mind projected before me, maybe I prefer to believe it was a ghost rather than believe I was a bit crazy that day, who knows?

As a scientist I'd have thought you could differentiate between verifiable and unverifiable claims.

So why can you trust the claim 'Kangaroos exist' but not the ghosts one? The answer is verifiability - Any claim, where the claimant also provides *you* with a mechanism/instructions to verify it *yourself*.

- Ghosts exist
- How do I verify that?
- Ummm you can't, trust me though I did speak to one late one night 3 years ago
- right.

- Kangaroos exist
- How do I verify that
- Simple, head to Australia (or even your local zoo) and see for yourself.
- Right!

Yes, providing a way of verifying the claim does not automatically make the claim true, the verification may well fail when you attempt it, but claims which are in principle verifiable are rightly given far more credence that the "Trust me, God told me" ones.

r3nu4l

pH wrote:

As a scientist I'd have thought you could differentiate between verifiable and unverifiable claims.

I think you completely missed out on my point...

I said I 'believe' not 'I know'. I cannot verify, so I believe. I verified my 'belief' in kangaroos by going to see one at the zoo, so now I 'know' kangaroos exist.

I never said I 'know' ghosts exist and even questioned my own 'belief' by wondering if it was simply a psychological event.

bonkey

Beruthiel wrote:

I'm sorry r3nu4, I simply cannot get my head around this must word.

I think you're focussing on the wrong word.....but lets run with it.

We must accept that science cannot establish a probability of 0 that God exists.
We must also accept that science cannot establish a probability of 1 that God exists.

Thus, science (using personification) cannot establish that God certainly does or certainly does not exist.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the possibility that God may exist. We could argue the likelihood of that possibility all day long, but it is always going to remain somewhere between a certainty of existence and a certainty of non-existence.

That is as far as science takes us on the issue. Thus, the scientist must accept that the best science can do is not arrive at a definite conclusion.

It's like DaveMc said, we must therefore also accept that there may be such things as unicorns, or fairies or ghosts, santa claus.

Must we? I'd argue that in some of those cases, just as has been argued about the existence of an "interfering God", that science can establish with relative certainty that they don't exist. But that is - again - as far as it goes.

As a simple parallel....science appears to tell us that gravity is always attractive and in is attractive in an inverse-square manner with respect to distance. However, this has only been verified down to scales of about .1 mm (I believe). Thus, we assume that it holds true everywhere, but its possible that it doesn't.

So, even with something as relatively-well understood as gravity a scientist must - strictly speaking - accept the possibility that gravity may not always be attractive and may not always follow an inverse-square relationship with distance.

What a scientist believes to be the case in this respect is entirely up to them. It has no bearing on how good or bad a scientist they are as long as they keep their belief seperate from their work. Should they allow their belief to influence their work, however....thats a different story. The scientist who dispenses with the inverse-square law at small scales because he believes it to be the case but cannot verify it....such a scientist would be treading on very thin ice indeed. The scientist who assumes it to hold should strictly-speaking state that any resultant finding is dependant on it being verified that gravity does indeed behave as expected at these unverified scales.

I cannot accept that there must be a god unless I have full proof evidence of one,

Science cannot accept that there must be a god either, so you're in good company.

However, science must accept that there might be a God because it cannot rule out the possibility.

It can arguably rule out an interfering God, but even then it cannot do so completely from a strict reasoning point of view.

In short, Science is agnostic on the issue because all other positions require untestable, unverifiable assumptions - whether they be for or against existence. Agnostic means that regardless of what you believe the likelihood to be, you accept that the possibility exists.

Beruthiel

I get everything you say bonkey, I don't disagree with how you state it.
The possibility of many things exist. However, for me, I guess that is not enough.

guildofevil

r3nu4l. To be a practising Roman Catholic, you must also, for example, accept the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, right?

I mean, in catholic doctrine, that is what really happened. It is not a parable, it is a miracle performed by Jesus. How can you, as a scientist, reconcile that with the laws of thermodynamics?

I can accept that it may be considered reasonable, form a scientific standpoint, to hold a belief that there is, or was, a creator being. I do not share that belief, but I can see how it could be considered reasonable.

What I do not see, is how you can go from, “You have to accept the possibility of a god”, to “and the god I believe in is this particular one, as described in this particular book, which is interpreted for me by this particular religious organisation”?

Doing that, is going from a point of lack of information and filling the void with all sorts of assumptions. Every unproven, untested, assumption you make in your belief system, makes it less and less likely that what you believe overlaps significantly with reality.

How about this for an analogy:

We have no proof of life on other planets.

We also have no proof that we are the only planet with life.

It would be reasonable, under these circumstances, to hold the belief that extra terrestrials exist or that they do not.

If I were to go further and say that, not only do I believe that life exists on other planets, but that life exists on a particular planet, orbiting around a particular sun and that the aliens are, on average 1m 17cm high, with blue hair, on red skin, living in a pre-industrial, matriarchal society, but put forward no further evidence to support my assertions, it would not be considered a reasonable belief. You cannot prove that they do not exits. But that does not make me correct in believing that they do and it does not make my belief as reasonable as a simple belief that life exists out there, somewhere.

r3nu4l

guildofevil wrote:

r3nu4l. To be a practising Roman Catholic, you must also, for example, accept the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, right?

I mean, in catholic doctrine, that is what really happened. It is not a parable, it is a miracle performed by Jesus. How can you, as a scientist, reconcile that with the laws of thermodynamics?

It is the duty of all practicing Catholics to question their religion and belief. The days of blindly following what comes from the pulpit are thankfully long gone

This miracle comes from the Bible, the Bible is made up of a mish-mash of books and scriptures etc that have been edited, translated, mis-translated etc over two millenia.

It is therfore quite possible that there were originally 5 people and not 5000 and people at the time said "Wow, fair play to you Jesus, I didn't think you'd manage to feed that many people with a few hunks of bread and some cod"

I don't know, I have my doubts and question the miracle but it is a teaching of the Catholic faith. To be a practicing Catholic does not mean that you have to believe everything you are told without question.

I am a practicing Catholic because that is the religion I know. I would however say that I am a Christian first and a Catholic second. I accept that if you believe in God you can praise God anywhere. You can behave as a good Christian and have no belief in God at all. If there is a God, I sincerely doubt that you wouldn't be let in past the pearly gate bouncers simply because you hadn't joined the club!

As a scientist it is very hards for me to reconcile many miracles with the laws of physics. The easiest non-thinking thing to do is explain it all away by saying God did it through Jesus. After all if I believe in a supreme being surely I believe that that being can operate through his 'son' and feed millions with a rusty razor blade if necessary? Tough call. I don't really have an answer that can be easily pinned down and as a scientist it only makes me more curious.

r3nu4l

r3nu4l wrote:

I am a practicing Catholic because that is the religion I know.

Er, so why don't you learn more about another religion? That seems a bit lazy...

Dave!

r3nu4l:

Why do you have to try and reconcile them at all?! Why don't you just accept that they did not happen?

I don't get why you have to channel your belief in a creator through a specific "church". You said yourself that you don't think god will turn you away from the pearly gates for not being in a church.

Can you not just (a) believe in the creator, after-life, etc., (b) pray to this god and observe whatever the results may be (I'm sure you'll find the results pleasing to you), and (c) live a moral life. Surely that'd be enough to appease any god.

You said that you're a practising catholic because that's the religion "you know". So do you "know" anything about the other religions? What makes you think that they're not the "right" religion? Have you examined them all carefully and came to the conclusion that you're in the corrent one, or were you just baptised so you're comfortable in this religion, despite the fact that it could be sending you to hell for being the wrong one?

I don't follow your thinking at all. It seems completely ridiculous to me for a supposed scientist to think like that. But that's just what I think.

By the way, and this may be too personal a question so feel free to disregard it, do you use condoms? Also, as your location is in England, I presume (perhaps incorrectly) that you're surrounded by Protestants -- what do you think will happen to them after they die? Surely if catholics, protestants, and muslims all think they're going to heaven after they die, someone must be wrong!

I haven't read the rules of the catholic church, so perhaps someone can clear it up for me -- in order to be a good catholic, does one not have to follow exactly what il papa says? I would have thought that one would, otherwise there'd be no point

r3nu4l

bluewolf wrote:

Er, so why don't you learn more about another religion? That seems a bit lazy...

@Bluewolf and DaveMcG...what makes you think I haven't :rolleyes: I spent a lot of time in the wilderness of religion and returned to Catholocism as I felt it had more to offer than the others I looked at.

@DaveMcG as for the term "supposed scientist" :rolleyes:
Scientists are human beings, we think and feel and have emotions. We do not operate on logic and rationality alone. It would be a very poor excuse for a human that operated only on these. Imagine not enjoying art or music...shudders!

Why can you guys not accept that other people believe differently to you? Are you so insecure in your own belief that you need me to justify mine to you? I don't have to you know Weird...