Can you be a scientist and still believe in religion?

[MigL]

I don't fear Religion.
There is no thought police, and people will think and believe whatever they wish.

I fear people who use Religion to instill fear in others for their own ends.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I fear people who use Religion to instill fear in others for their own ends.

Indeed. There are plenty of examples where folks used bad science to justify their actions and policies. In either case unquestioning adherence can become a bit issue. Of course, most would say that science is about questioning things, which in principle is true. However, the reality is that many do not put in the time and effort, especially if what is being said conforms with their preconceived notions.

[joigus]

6 hours ago, jajrussel said:

and it is based on my belief of religious freedom,

First of all, you don't strike me as someone particularly worried about freedom of thought, as my main argument that from a very early age children are force-fed a system of belief seems to have gone through your conscience like neutrinos through a sheet of paper. Yes, I embolden certain words because they seem to be transparent to you. Is the etching of false beliefs and remorseful and hostile feelings in indelible words and concepts on the blank slate of a child's mind within your concept of freedom? Whose freedom? The kids'? The parents', who have in turn, more than likely, been brain-washed? Can that (and not mine) be considered an innocent way of emboldening (using your phrasing as an analogy) words and concepts?

6 hours ago, jajrussel said:

Where you say please don't be, then embolden the word scared. Though it is annoying that you would imply that my being afraid was inspired by your desire to help certain people. My actual fear is that you might be in a position to teach, and it is based on my belief of religious freedom, and the realities that wrote it into the Constitution.

You seem to be very easily annoyed and very easily scared. Apparently the fact that millions upon millions of children have been taught (and still are in some parts of the world) that they will have to fight to the death what other people believe does not bother you at all. What scares you is that a teacher of science and maths like me can think this way, and make suggestions in a mature and intellectual context where I can be rebutted by adults like myself. Religion teachers, on the contrary, claim the right not to be rebutted. What scares you is what I think, not what I'm saying here; as I wouldn't dream of saying any of this to my class. You don't know me at all. How easily you assume that I, as a matter of course, do what only the people you seem to defend do (as a matter of course.)

I've chosen the path of expressing my thinking and trying to argue, to explain to others what I think and why. You seem to have chosen the path of saying what you think of me. Well done.

And please, stop soiling the word "freedom." It's too precious to me.

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

my main argument that from a very early age children are force-fed a system of belief

You mean manners? Western education? Eastern medicine?  Culture? Family first? Respect for elders? Respect for authority? Fear of authority? Just have fun. Excel at all costs.

We are "force-fed" a multitude of belief systems. You keep focusing on religion as if it is somehow unique.

[joigus]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

A similar thought crossed my mind, but mine was focused more on the most religious survivors of the person who died. In my life, it’s extremely common that the death hits the theists hardest and is often for some reason more difficult for them to accept.

One would think that they’d be happy their dad/mom/sibling/cousin/friend is now surfing along the clouds with Jesus, but alas... that’s not what I see. The sadness and hurt and pain seems in my anecdotal experiences to be far greater in the theistic survivors than in the non believing ones. 

I've also noticed the same pattern. Although I must confess there are exceptions. One of my best friends was very religious (Catholic Christian). He suffered from multiple sclerosis, was younger than me by five years, and died last May. He was always happy, very optimistic. I attended the requiem mass and I saw her widow. She looked quite upbeat too. They were more committed than average, I have to say.

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

We are "force-fed" a multitude of belief systems. You keep focusing on religion as if it is somehow unique.

Yes, but in other thinking systems there are loopholes, you can argue your way out of them. And nobody's taught political thinking at 5. Come on.

I suppose you mean things like politics, the "be a winner" ethos, I don't know. Is something like that what you mean?

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You mean manners? Western education? Eastern medicine?  Culture? Family first? Respect for elders? Respect for authority? Fear of authority? Just have fun. Excel at all costs.

Ok. I see. Well. It's not the same. It should be obvious.

Edit: Some of these things you mention are skin-deep. Others have powerful underlying reasons based on common sense. Others still are arguable, but not presented as mandatory.

Edited October 5, 2020 by joigus
Addition

[zapatos]

27 minutes ago, joigus said:

Ok. I see. Well. It's not the same. It should be obvious.

 

Yes, only you see the light. Those with opposing views are somehow flawed in how they view the world.

[noquacks]

23 hours ago, zapatos said:

Do scientists normally put their religious beliefs on their CV? Or are their asked their beliefs once they publish? Does Darwin have a poor reputation due to his beliefs?

So if I tell you I believe in God I am obligated to prove his existence to you and all the cute children? Give me a break. My beliefs are my business. I'm under no obligation to explain myself to you or anyone else.

1) Anyone who has as their signature (quote??) , which is an opportunity  , in a sentence or 2, to portray just a bit of your identity , a quote from the Bible, a book which has no credibility, is telling. 

2) Whats a CV? Dont expect all of us to be familiar with your code. 

3) Reputation goes far beyond publishing- you earn it over time, and it is not earned (in Biology, at least) if one goes around embracing Bible bunk, and (again) teaching it to "cute" children. In my opinion, all kids are cute, by the way. Dont take advantage of them, unless you wish to be in the company of so many wicked vile Bible hugging priests. 

4) Darwin?? Really? Have you truly studies Darwin's life (not to mention the life of his wife)? ( You) give me (and the rest of us here) a break.  While his wife, which he adored so very much despite her strong religious beliefs, was a God believer, he was not. And he had to tread very carefully within the scientific community, and not to offend anyone with his monumental discoveries.  That does in no way make him complicit by default that he believed in any Gods. Leave Darwin out of this. This is in part,  about the credibility of the bogus Bible, and any such God, and Religious cults, and to the original question about science and religion.  The Bible's credibility did not have to wait for Darwin- Galileo and others took care of that a few centuries earlier. 

5) You dont have to be obligated to us here in this forum to prove anything, as I said, you make your own bed, and if you wish to keep on being a scientist hugging a Bible, clinging onto , and defending the untenable status of one or more of the 3 major religious cults,  you are free to do so. But dont expect the highest degree of respect from peers in the scientific community.  

6) YES, you are obligated to prove the existence of God if you state a claim of such a belief, or join the company of Charlatans, Healers, Priests, Popes, Pastors, Politicians, Shamans, Rabbis, Imams, etc.  In science, you make a claim, prove it. Am I the only one who ever heard of this concept?

Edited October 5, 2020 by noquacks

[MigL]

Neither is Religion mandatory, Joigus.
Most of us on this forum chose to abandon Religion.

I grew up Roman Catholic, and received the sacraments of Baptism, First Communion and Confirmation; I've managed to avoid Matrimony and I'm hoping to put off Last Rites as long as possible.
My parents were not very religious, and I soon found that I didn't need Religion; I had a strong family for a support system whenever I was troubled.
The fact that I personally don't need the support that Religion gives some people, does not give me the right to deprive them of whatever support the Church may give them.

Live and let live, seems to be a fitting motto in quite a few situations.

 

11 minutes ago, noquacks said:

Anyone who has as their signature (quote??) , which is an opportunity  , in a sentence or 2, to portray just a bit of your identity , a quote from the Bible, a book which has no credibility, is telling. 

Mine is Dirty Harry getting ready to shoot someone.
Does that make me a murderer ???

( the rest of your post is nonsense also )

Edited October 5, 2020 by MigL

[noquacks]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Neither is Religion mandatory.
Most of us on this forum chose to abandon Religion.

I grew up Roman Catholic, and received the sacraments of Baptism, First Communion and Confirmation; I've managed to avoid Matrimony and I'm hoping to put off Last Rites as long as possible.
My parents were not very religious, and I soon found that I didn't need Religion; I had a strong family for a support system whenever I was troubled.
The fact that I personally don't need the support that Religion gives some people, does not give me the right to deprive them of whatever support the Church may give them.

Live and let live, seems to be a fitting motto in quite a few situations.

I agree, Mig. to 99% of what you say. But as far as "support the Church may give them", that can be achieved by non "Church" institutions. Churches do not have a monopoly on charity. They would seem to want to aggressively protect that image, but we do not need "Churches". A Church's primary purpose if to worship some type of God from some type of religion. 

[MigL]

Sorry, edited my post to add content.

I most certainly did not mean support as in charity.
I have given examples of emotional support that Religion gives the believer in previous posts.
But then you'd have to actually read the whole thread to find out where people like Zapatos and I stand on the issue.

Incidentally

CV is Latin fo Curriculum Vitae, or 'course of life' literal translation.
Otherwise known as an elaborate Resume, which typically means 'Summary' of relevant education and work history.

[joigus]

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

I grew up Roman Catholic, and received the sacraments of Baptism, First Communion and Confirmation; I've managed to avoid Matrimony and I'm hoping to put off Last Rites as long as possible.

Confirmation... I dodged that bullet. As well as matrimony.

Last Rites don't seem likely.

Anyway. I see I have more work than usual in this thread. @MigL, I promise to give due answer to your comments, and zaps' too. You guys deserve a good, respectful, intelligent answer. Maybe tomorrow.

I'm tired today. As I tell my students: First think, then talk. Not the other way around.

 

 

[MigL]

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

You guys deserve a good, respectful, intelligent answer.

And you have never disappointed.
Looking forward to continuing the discussion.

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, noquacks said:

Anyone who has as their signature (quote??) , which is an opportunity  , in a sentence or 2, to portray just a bit of your identity , a quote from the Bible, a book which has no credibility, is telling. 

It's a quote from Monty Python (MP) and the Holy Grail, not the Bible. 

The other is a quote from a past member who went by the name "Peter BE cimp".  I'm pretty sure he wasn't in the Bible either.

2 hours ago, noquacks said:

Whats a CV? Dont expect all of us to be familiar with your code. 

Sorry. It's a code I invented to represent a Latin term; Curriculum Vitae.

2 hours ago, noquacks said:

Reputation goes far beyond publishing- you earn it over time, and it is not earned (in Biology, at least) if one goes around embracing Bible bunk

Agreed. No one who ever believed in God earned a good reputation. Especially in Biology. My wife included I guess. But again, how do you know if someone in science believes in God? Can you tell by looking at them? Do they have a secret handshake?

2 hours ago, noquacks said:

Darwin?? Really?

Yes, Darwin.

"Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality:" -Charles Darwin

Darwin's views changed over time (like for most of us) but he was never an atheist. According to himself anyway.

2 hours ago, noquacks said:

But dont expect the highest degree of respect from peers in the scientific community.  

Just curious, but exactly what is your role in the scientific community? Are you their spokesperson?

2 hours ago, noquacks said:

YES, you are obligated to prove the existence of God if you state a claim of such a belief

LOL!

2 hours ago, noquacks said:

But as far as "support the Church may give them", that can be achieved by non "Church" institutions.

So what? I don't have to go to the movie theater either as I have a Netflix account. Different strokes for different folks.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And you have never disappointed.
Looking forward to continuing the discussion.

Ditto!

[Mnemonic]

Agreed, utilising a single example to exemplify the vast chasm of religion is not scientific. However, I was not approaching the subject as a scientific study, merely as a forum topic, which is limited.

My concern is with organised religion, especially Christianity, which people do take literally and not metaphorically. For example, if you live in America you can go and visit the Ark, and also visit the Garden of Eden replete with dinosaurs. 

The Christian church mercilessly punished scientists for centuries, and their sects claim to have their own scientists, but not in a convincing manner.

Believe the words of bible without question, and you will go to heaven, is the hereditary mantra passed down through the generations. 

Not believing in organised religion however does not mean a scientist cannot be spiritual in some capacity, due to being aware of universal energy and little that we as humans really know about the vast blackness of space. 

How did the flightless cormorant fly to the Middle East from the Galápagos Islands to join the other animals during the great flood, or the kangaroo from Australia. If God is all seeing and spoke through the Christian bible, how come he did not know about America, Australia or dinosaurs? The Epic of Gilgamesh written approximately 1500 years before the bible, described a great flood, and no doubt those who wrote the Christian bible adopted the story for themselves.

Christianity is thus a charlatan religion fabricated over the centuries to bring in a form of control over humans to supersede the dying embers of the Roman Emperors. If a scientist wants to call themselves a scientist and believes in the bible, that is their prerogative but real scientists stand apart from these people because they do not believe in nonsense like the bible.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Mnemonic said:

Believe the words of bible without question, and you will go to heaven, is the hereditary mantra passed down through the generations. 

Did you ever play "Chinese whisper's"?

9 minutes ago, Mnemonic said:

My concern is with organised religion

How else do they become a religion or movement, how else do they know when to meet?

11 minutes ago, Mnemonic said:

especially Christianity, which people do take literally and not metaphorically. For example, if you live in America you can go and visit the Ark, and also visit the Garden of Eden replete with dinosaurs.

Is that Jesus' fault? I very much doubt Mohammed wanted to inspire ISIS etc...

16 minutes ago, Mnemonic said:

Not believing in organised religion however does not mean a scientist cannot be spiritual in some capacity, due to being aware of universal energy and little that we as humans really know about the vast blackness of space. 

You don't believe buddhist's were organised?

 

[Mnemonic]

Jesus did not exist. There is no record of this fictitious person ever existing, especially in the capacity of a supernatural being that could come back from the dead and walk on the water.

If you call yourself a scientist and believe in Jesus, you should book yourself into a mental institution, because the things 'Jesus' did in the bible are physically and scientifically impossible.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Mnemonic

[noquacks]

Clearly, this can go on forever, entertaining all of us members, but back to the original title of the thread, one can not believe both tenets, Bible(Religion) AND Science. You can not cherry pick Bible/religion, say, how man was created by God 5000 years ago and at the same time support evolution of man, for example. Numerous other examples. 

You have to make a choice. 

[Mnemonic]

"WARNING ...Participation in topics I start can seriously affect you’re grades... WARNING"

If you're such a 'genius' at least utilise the correct grammar..it is 'your grades' not 'you're grades'.

[noquacks]

17 minutes ago, Mnemonic said:

Jesus did not exist. There is no record of this fictitious person ever existing, especially in the capacity of a supernatural being that could come back from the dead and walk on the water.

If you call yourself a scientist and believe in Jesus, you should book yourself into a mental institution, because the things 'Jesus' did in the bible are physically and scientifically impossible.

Mnem,

 

I tend to agree with you except that perhaps some guy named Jesus existed, but not as we now recognize him. There are records, but huge gaps in the Bible about him- thats what seems so fishy about his story. Crazy as it sounds, I actually know a medical doctor who believes jesus walked on water. People believe this silliness.  

[Kartazion]

22 minutes ago, Mnemonic said:

Jesus did not exist.

Jesus at least existed as a prophet.

Moreover the mashia'h should already be among us.

Strangely, there are more people who wait for the Mashiah or who believe in Jesus, than there are scientists in the world.

After all, religion is the belief in a creator God, and not a solution to lost minds that could be influenced. To believe is not a weakness

[Phi for All]

41 minutes ago, Mnemonic said:

"WARNING ...Participation in topics I start can seriously affect you’re grades... WARNING"

If you're such a 'genius' at least utilise the correct grammar..it is 'your grades' not 'you're grades'.

Beware Skitt's Law. An ellipsis is three dots, not two. Also, there should be commas before "at" and "not", and you should be using double quote marks, not single.

[Mnemonic]

The Romans were meticulous record keepers, especially when it came to taxes in the provinces. There has never been any record of any Jesus character who called himself the 'Messiah' existing in any capacity until hundreds of years later when this character appeared in a fictitious book called the bible. He exists in the bible certainly, and he exists in the minds of people who believe without question any old tales told to them generationally. We are talking about generational mind control, that these people cannot get out of, it is engrained in their minds so much that their insanity would increase ten-fold if they are told otherwise. It is best to leave these people alone, because they are dangerous, in the sense that they believe without question, and are irrational unstable pitiful lemmings.

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Beware Skitt's Law. An ellipsis is three dots, not two. Also, there should be commas before "at" and "not", and you should be using double quote marks, not single.

Not writing a dissertation here, only distinguishing between 'your' and 'you're'. It seems you have a corn cob firmly jabbed up your rectum......calm down sir..it's not that important........

[Curious layman]

3 minutes ago, Mnemonic said:

It is best to leave these people alone, because they are dangerous, in the sense that they believe without question, and are irrational unstable pitiful lemmings.

Thankfully for many people, not everybody has the same view as you do.

Quote

The Salvation Army (TSA) is a Christian church and an international charitable organisation. The organisation reports a worldwide membership of over 1.7 million,^[3]consisting of soldiers, officers and adherents collectively known as Salvationists. Its founders sought to bring salvation to the poor, destitute, and hungry by meeting both their "physical and spiritual needs". It is present in 131 countries,^[4] running charity shops, operating shelters for the homeless and disaster relief, and humanitarian aid to developing countries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army

[Mnemonic]

Charity is not exclusive to the church.

The Salvation Army are opportunists, they recruit people, by helping the destitute when they are at their lowest point in life. If you have not eaten for six days and someone throws a hot meal in front of you, you will say and believe anything to get that meal. These charities all utilise human misery to increase their ranks and virtue signal that they are doing 'god's' work. God has nothing to do with this, it is mere exploitation to fill empty church pews.

 

An interesting story about your beloved Salvation Army....

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2017/04/26/salvation-army-executive-guilty-of-massive-toy-for-profit-fraud.html

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Mnemonic

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, Mnemonic said:

Not writing a dissertation here, only distinguishing between 'your' and 'you're'. It seems you have a corn cob firmly jabbed up your rectum......calm down sir..it's not that important........

This statement is extremely hypocritical, uncivil, and reflects poorly on your reasoning skills, imo.