Science and Religon

[ QUOTE ]
How can scientest be religous? There are many scientist out there who are devout catholics or christians or whatever faith based religon. I find this very contradicting. How can u base your life on faith in a superior entity when your whole life is about discovering the truth through facts and experimentation.

[/ QUOTE ]

hashi92,

Fist of all, just incase someone is not aware, I am an atheist and somewhat militant at that.

Having said that, I have no issue with scientists being religious, indeed some of my best friends are. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I don't even see the conflict. Thos scientist friends of mine however do not confuse the two domains, science and religion and they surely not let religious authority undermine or rule their scientific domain. This seems to be a behaviour associated with fundamental and fanaticists religious inclination.

I know of a surgeon, who when he needs perform a very critical interventation, brings a little stone with him to the hospital. It is a form of superstition, he knows, but it is of very little import as a device that may help him give the confidence neccesary top operate with steady fingers. I know of other writers that describle similar superstitious behaviour in forex trader (see "Fooled by Randomness" by Nicholas Nassim Taleb for an example). It seems to be a human frailty and may even have an evolutionary value in allowing to make a decision when one would stay forever indecisive otherwise.

I must point out that it is the moment when religion interferes with science of societal rules that the danger of religion exists. Outside of that, I reckon peple can believe whatever they find helpful in coping with life and its vicissitudes. It's no skin off my mose. Just don't ever let anyone go beyond that, dictating science methodology or human behaviour to others
based on their personal beliefs (by definition irrational, imo). Let it guide them and change their own behaviour and be an example to us all. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I doubt that, since their no 1 Model seems to be quite iniquitous, but don't ram it down my throat or try to obscure the boundary between the rational and the irrational (as with ID) by puporting something to be what it is not (in the case of ID, science).

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading Einstein, Hawkins etc I can't see anything in their mindset that conflicts with them believing in some god that created the world (although its clear they have no such belief).

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it's their knowledge and interest in the nature of 'explanation'. "Here be monsters" should seem very unsatisfactory to a inquisitive mind searching for 'how'. Although there may be no conflict with a creator god, it also adds nothing, it's like a shrug. Hawkings/Einstein types seem to even use the term in a non-spiritual 'god is the laws of the universe' placeholder way.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reading Einstein, Hawkins etc I can't see anything in their mindset that conflicts with them believing in some god that created the world (although its clear they have no such belief).

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it's their knowledge and interest in the nature of 'explanation'. "Here be monsters" should seem very unsatisfactory to a inquisitive mind searching for 'how'. Although there may be no conflict with a creator god, it also adds nothing, it's like a shrug. Hawkings/Einstein types seem to even use the term in a non-spiritual 'god is the laws of the universe' placeholder way.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, I like 'just a shrug'.

I'm just trying to make the point that all these anti-evidence literal religons shouldn't be used to condemn all religon. (the other way round works fine).

chez

[hmkpoker]

You're an imbecile. Stop posting.

[hashi92]

i just find it hard to believe that men of science who are accustomed to asking why and how can be content with leaving everything to faith when all else fails.

[hmkpoker]

I find it hard to believe that you wrote not one but TWO posts that bash religion with no substance whatsoever to your argument, and furthermore still fail to spell the word "you" correctly.

[hashi92]

im not bashing religon im debating it. if someone brings up a valid point that i agree with about religon i will concede. i actually think religon is a good thing for certain people. i just thought that this was a place where i could openly discuss my opinions without any harm to anybody. why are you so angry all the time hmpoker. maybe you to need to turn to some sort of religon so that you wont be so angry. are u the grammer moderator. if u dont like my ideas ignore them.

[ QUOTE ]
That sounded pretty impressive until the magazine then came up with its own list of 100 scientists who vehemently denied ID as a scientific theory. The kick was, the 100 scienists the magazine listed, all had a last name beginning with the letter "A"!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are referring to Project Steve

So far, there are 684 "Steves" (scientists, mostly in biology), that agree with the statement:

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

[/ QUOTE ]