discussing philosophy in a physics textbook

[Itoero]

Most forum members get their backs up at the merest implication of intelligent design.

But people are allowed personal beliefs. Even scientists !

So I don't have a problem with Newton, or Einstein, or any other scientist who has 'faith'.

Even ones that write books !

 

That being said, most scientists recognize that the anthropic principle is a consequence of the way the universe is, not a cause.

This is your own choice/opinion of course but religious beliefs and being a scientist imo don't fit together.

Beliefs should be subject to the scientific method.

Newton lived nearly 400 years ago...well before Darwin. I don't think his faith really matters.

 

Einstein liked the work of Spinoza (a pantheist) but was he really religious?

[MigL]

It is not my opinion or choice.

 

By definition faith and belief do not require confirmation or evidence.

And, by definition, science does.

 

Don't apply the requirements of one to the other.

[StringJunky]

This is your own choice/opinion of course but religious beliefs and being a scientist imo don't fit together.

Beliefs should be subject to the scientific method.

Newton lived nearly 400 years ago...well before Darwin. I don't think his faith really matters.

 

Einstein liked the work of Spinoza (a pantheist) but was he really religious?

But nature could be the inner workings of whatever deity a faith-based scientist believes in and can study them without compromise to their scientific ability or create any inner conflict, if they choose.

[Raider5678]

Perhaps, but the fact that this argument regularly shows up in religious arguments annoys me.

 

Perhaps he wanted to put in a wink towards colleges in the largely religious US, as a selling point? (The book is translated from English )

Perhaps he just wanted to put a statement inside that promotes humans exploring the universe?

 

Honestly, I don't see why you're getting your knickers in a twist over this.

Who cares if it's religious?

Did you write the book?

And does it really change all that much? I kinda doubt you're gonna suddenly start questioning everything you learned because there was a quote in the back that may/may not be religious.

Just my opinion man.

[KipIngram]

Do we have any sort of believable metric about precisely how religious the US is? I chat on an IRC channel with a small group of guys spread out over the world, and it's clear that the European members think of the US as religious to the point of it causing problems. And I guess my own general sense is that the US is more religious than a lot of European countries, but that sense is based mostly on the media and other "observer inputs" like that IRC channel. And yet as I go about my day-to-day life I rarely encounter religion as the driving factor in events unfolding around me.

 

So while I recognize that we're probably more religious than Europe in some measurable way, I question whether we are "massively religious" in the way some people seem to think. I've had the sense that religion is on the decline in the US - it's certainly a lot more "acceptable" not to be religious than it was when I was a small child. If you regard it as a problem, I think it's a problem that is largely taking care of itself.

 

I'm speaking of mainstream US citizens here, not the nuts that make the news (Westboro Baptist Church, etc.) And this post is a query more than a claim - I'm inviting quantitative input.

[Itoero]

It is not my opinion or choice.

 

By definition faith and belief do not require confirmation or evidence.

And, by definition, science does.

 

Don't apply the requirements of one to the other.

Faith does not require evidence but many faith-ers think there is evidence...that can cause religious beliefs and can hinder science-evolution.

It's my opinion that the beliefs of a scientist should be subject to the scientific method.

 

People are of course free to believe what they want and we are free to condemn it.

[Bender]

Perhaps he just wanted to put a statement inside that promotes humans exploring the universe?

 

Honestly, I don't see why you're getting your knickers in a twist over this.

Who cares if it's religious?

Did you write the book?

And does it really change all that much? I kinda doubt you're gonna suddenly start questioning everything you learned because there was a quote in the back that may/may not be religious.

Just my opinion man.

I care because it is an educational textbook which is otherwise void of opinion. When I read a paperback about physics, I know I'll encounter the personal opinion of the author. In a book aimed specifically at education, if there is topic discussed which is open to opinion, I would expect different sides of the discussion to be represented.

 

Do we have any sort of believable metric about precisely how religious the US is? I chat on an IRC channel with a small group of guys spread out over the world, and it's clear that the European members think of the US as religious to the point of it causing problems. And I guess my own general sense is that the US is more religious than a lot of European countries, but that sense is based mostly on the media and other "observer inputs" like that IRC channel. And yet as I go about my day-to-day life I rarely encounter religion as the driving factor in events unfolding around me.

 

So while I recognize that we're probably more religious than Europe in some measurable way, I question whether we are "massively religious" in the way some people seem to think. I've had the sense that religion is on the decline in the US - it's certainly a lot more "acceptable" not to be religious than it was when I was a small child. If you regard it as a problem, I think it's a problem that is largely taking care of itself.

 

I'm speaking of mainstream US citizens here, not the nuts that make the news (Westboro Baptist Church, etc.) And this post is a query more than a claim - I'm inviting quantitative input.

The fact that the president can speak the words "God bless America" without getting impeached, is a hint. I thought it is even possible for a religious leader to perform a legal marriage, which, if correct, is a violation of the separation of church and state.

 

Otherwise creationism seems to be a much bigger problem in the US, but there are definitely regions in Europe where that is an issue as well.

 

Personally, I hardly know anyone who attends church, but I'm from Belgium, where only 33% says their religion is important vs 69% in the US.

This list provides some actual data. The top of the list (religion not important) is definitely dominated by European countries, with Australia, Cuba and some Asian countries mixed in. There are definitely European countries that are more religious than the US. They seem to be concentrated in the south and southeast of Europe.

I found it interesting that in Israel only 51% of the population says their religion is important.

[Raider5678]

I care because it is an educational textbook which is otherwise void of opinion. When I read a paperback about physics, I know I'll encounter the personal opinion of the author. In a book aimed specifically at education, if there is topic discussed which is open to opinion, I would expect different sides of the discussion to be represented.

It's a quote.

He wasn't making an argument about anything.

Most likely he just look up random quotes until he found one he liked, and then he put it in.

When putting a quote into the back of a book, that the author likes, even if the intention of said quote is QUESTIONABLE, as well as the MEANING, gets a bunch of people upset that it's "religious" or "unfairly representing one side of the argument", it seems pathetic.

I'm being honest there buddy.

The fact that the president can speak the words "God bless America" without getting impeached, is a hint. I thought it is even possible for a religious leader to perform a legal marriage, which, if correct, is a violation of the separation of church and state.

You mean we should impeach our president for saying something good to America?

Alright.

Maybe we should elect one that says "America is full of a bunch of idiots who will vote for an orange monkey!"

Oh wait.

We did.

 

It is possible for religious leaders to perform a legal marriage.

But it is NOT a violation of the separation of church and state, because the state already REQUIRES religious leaders to have a licence to teach their religion.

Which, by the way, is a violation of the separation of church and state.

Now personally, I don't agree with separation of church and state.

But if you're gonna say religious people shouldn't be allowed to do a marriage because of that law, then they should also not need a licence to practice their religion.

 

I do believe in the impartiality of the state(favors no religion) though.

I see no reason why a kid reading a bible in class has to be screamed at by the teacher for forcing his religion down every bodies throats.(It happens in schools. Although, I have yet to find a rule saying we can't read a bible in class.)

[Bender]

It's a quote.

He wasn't making an argument about anything.

Most likely he just look up random quotes until he found one he liked, and then he put it in.

When putting a quote into the back of a book, that the author likes, even if the intention of said quote is QUESTIONABLE, as well as the MEANING, gets a bunch of people upset that it's "religious" or "unfairly representing one side of the argument", it seems pathetic.

I'm being honest there buddy.

I quoted the book. It isn't a quote in the book.

You mean we should impeach our president for saying something good to America?

Alright.

Maybe we should elect one that says "America is full of a bunch of idiots who will vote for an orange monkey!"

Oh wait.

We did.

In the US it is required to be biased towards religion to get elected. That is a clear example of how religion plays a much bigger role in the US than in a lot of European countries where it would be unthinkable for someone to get elected after publicly speaking about God.