Can you be a scientist and still believe in religion?

[Mnemonic]

Aww...is that why you gave me a minus point...poo poo...

🙃

[noquacks]

39 minutes ago, Mnemonic said:

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

 

Right- and while charity can be construed as a good thing, it does not prove the existence of any God. And the fact that some destitute people depend on charity is an abomination to the idea that God created man in his image. Guess he is watching all this play out, his hobby, creation of man......being God can be boring. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Mnemonic said:

My concern is with organised religion, especially Christianity, which people do take literally and not metaphorically

This is a faulty generalization fallacy. Some Christians take the teachings literally, but not all, yet through poor reasoning or sloppy language (or both) you suggest otherwise.

 

2 hours ago, Mnemonic said:

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.

Unfortunately here again you show the errors in your own thinking, this time by introducing the No True Scotsman fallacy. One can, in fact, be a “real scientist” while also believing in ridiculous fairy tales, so long as those beliefs and fairy tales are not part of their processes or methods. 
 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Mnemonic said:

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.

Alms for an old ex leper...

[iNow]

59 minutes ago, Mnemonic said:

It seems you have a corn cob firmly jabbed up your rectum.

1 hour 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.

 

39 minutes ago, Mnemonic said:

Aww...is that why you gave me a minus point...poo poo...

🙃

And it seems you’re more interested in being an emotionally volatile, childish, entitled little twat waffle and acting superior to others than in putting forth a legitimate argument that may change minds

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Mnemonic said:

Aww...is that why you gave me a minus point...poo poo...

🙃

!

Moderator Note

This is neither helpful nor on-topic

 

1 hour ago, Mnemonic said:

It seems you have a corn cob firmly jabbed up your rectum......calm down sir..it's not that important........

!

Moderator Note

And also this. Keep such observations to yourself.

Also, if it wasn’t important, perhaps not mentioning it would be the best option, lest the discussion get sidetracked.

 

[noquacks]

41 minutes ago, iNow said:

One can, in fact, be a “real scientist” while also believing in ridiculous fairy tales, so long as those beliefs and fairy tales are not part of their processes or methods. 
 

How can that be possible, inow?  Can an evolutionary biologist then also believe in these "fairy tales", as you say, while still carrying on with his life and live it thus so? This idea is so bizarre to me. A scientist believes in the scientific method and at the same time believes that there may be Sasquatches in Oregon, or Trolls living in the woods in Norway.........And let's not forget the mexican cubachabra that roams the southwest. All fairy tales. How is this possible?  

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, noquacks said:

All fairy tales. How is this possible?  

Yes, it is much better to ask how it is possible (since it obviously is) than to suggest it cannot be due to your personal incredulity. Now you are on the road to being scientific.

[MigL]

When did the Bible become 'the word of God' ?
It is simply an imperfect interpretation by men, sometimes centuries later, of events.
Religions ( most ) have constantly changed through the ages; so has the interpretation.

I am not a believer, myself, but don't look down on believers.
Science is based on facts and observations.
Religion relies on an entirely different thought process; it does not require explanations or experimental observations.
It relies on FAITH. Science does NOT.
 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, noquacks said:

How can that be possible, inow? 

Your inability to conceive of it is not a valid argument against it as a possibility. My previous point was rather clear. 

 

2 hours ago, noquacks said:

Can an evolutionary biologist then also believe in these "fairy tales", as you say, while still carrying on with his life and live it thus so?

Of course. 

 

2 hours ago, noquacks said:

A scientist believes in the scientific method and at the same time believes that there may be Sasquatches in Oregon, or Trolls living in the woods in Norway.........And let's not forget the mexican cubachabra that roams the southwest. All fairy tales. How is this possible?  

I covered this already in my very first post to this thread: 

On 10/1/2020 at 11:05 AM, iNow said:

The human capacity for compartmentalization of thought is tremendous.

 

[Charles 3781]

Science and Religion are both attempts to make sense of the world.  For that, they both deserve praise and credit.  Humans like to make sense of things. 

But isn't the essential difference between Science and Religion this  -  Science employs mathematics.  This is seen In any book of Science.  Whether the book is about Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Sociology,  or any other scientific study.  Always,  in the book,  you will find maths.  In the form of precise numerical data, detailed tables of figures, . Which prove, or at least lend substantial credibility to,  the assertions made in the book.

But is this case with religious books, such as the Bible.  Are there any mathematical  data contained in the Bible, which enhance its credibility?

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

Science and Religion are both attempts to make sense of the world.  For that, they both deserve praise and credit.  Humans like to make sense of things. 

Racism and misogyny and jingoism are also attempts to make sense of the world, and they're all garbage unworthy of either praise or credit. Your position is pretty weak since it doesn't ask that the sense they make be accurate or helpful toward advancement. 

 

23 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

isn't the essential difference between Science and Religion this  -  Science employs mathematics.

No. Science makes hypotheses then puts those hypotheses to the test and discards ones that are wrong. It uses experiment in search of conclusions. Religion, however, makes up whatever it wants then goes searching for evidence that seems to support those already made conclusions and ignores the rest. 

 

25 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

Are there any mathematical  data contained in the Bible, which enhance its credibility?

No. You might find some numerology there, but not mathematics. 

[zapatos]

54 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

Are there any mathematical  data contained in the Bible, which enhance its credibility?

No.

Are there any parables in science books that try to teach people to be humble and look out for their fellow man?

Of course not.

Complaining that shoe factories don't follow the rules used in rugby matches is a waste of time.

[Trurl]

On 10/4/2020 at 8:40 PM, iNow said:

That would mean he was wearing kayaks on his feet, not sandals

What if the science existed to control the displacement of water? The shape of Jesus sole to a depth of water to support his weight. If you could control how a force is displaced you need less force to move. A rocket ship wastes so much energy to release pressure to lift. I’m not saying such technology exists. It would probably involve controlling atoms. I’m just saying: Jesus does it it’s a fairy tale; Luke Skywalker does it it’s the force.

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, Trurl said:

What if the science existed to control the displacement of water?

But it didn't so what's the point?

[Trurl]

22 hours ago, zapatos said:

But it didn't so what's the point?

To me we could debate this forever without one convincing the other. But you are a scientist, isn’t what isn’t proven, not understood, the unknown the unexplainable what drives the scientist. He wants to cure illness, understand the physical world, and improve his knowledge.

i don’t see where religion would hinder those things. It may actually augment it.

i just think into the future when someone scientist walks on water, he will say look I am the first to walk on water. And peers will say, Uh Oh.

My question to you is why does your science rely only what we know presently. Man relying only on his own knowledge is foolish.I don’t mean not making informed or best decisions. I mean to you it makes sense but you have incomplete knowledge. This is everybody. If the science is limited by us it will never give answers.

Technology does not always improve the world. Science still needs righteousness.

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Trurl said:

My question to you is why does your science rely only what we know presently.

To do otherwise would be risky and a waste of time and resources. To rely on unknown medicines, aircraft, etc. is never a good idea.

My question back to you is why would you depend on with full trust or confidence something which could kill you?

 

re·ly

/rəˈlī/

 

verb

 

1. depend on with full trust or confidence.

    

    

[Area54]

31 minutes ago, Trurl said:

My question to you is why does your science rely only what we know presently.

I don't understand you. Science does not rely upon what we know presently. As Zapatos has noted we rely upon the findings of science and their application in technology because they are proven, at least to a greater extent than untried and untested ideas. However, Science - the scientific method - continually revisits data and hypotheses and theories, probing and questioning them, doubting the current findings. Building on them and advancing our knowledge, certainly, but relying to them only to the extent that they are continually tested.

35 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Man relying only on his own knowledge is foolish.

Whose knowledge should he rely on then? God's? If so, which God? There are several thousands to choose from. Now I readily concede that Christianity, for example, may offer some sound knowledge in regard to moral issues (though I shake my head in sadness and oftimes disgust at some of the misinterpretations made by some denominations), but the Bible offers very little of value on aerodynamics, chemical processing, or solid state circuitry.

 

39 minutes ago, Trurl said:

If the science is limited by us it will never give answers.

Again, I don't understand what you mean by this. Science is limited to the extent that its methodology has an area of application and using it ouside that area will not provide answers. So?

41 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Technology does not always improve the world. Science still needs righteousness.

If you mean that inventions are ethically neutral and it requires human judgement to decide whether it is good to employ them at all, and if so, how they should be employed, then I suspect everyone here would agree. So?

[iNow]

Q: “Why does science rely on <insert random strawman or obvious misunderstanding here>?”

A: It doesn’t. 

[Markus Hanke]

I do not really wish to get involved in this discussion, as I believe that understanding the human condition should not become a partisan issue. But I do wish to offer two observations:

1. It seems that almost everyone here equates religion with theism, or (even more narrowly) with Christianity. This is misguided - all theistic world views are to some degree religious, but not all religions are theistic, or even supernatural. There are religious systems that are expressly empirical, right here and now in this lifetime. I think it is important to clarify what you all actually mean by 'religion', in the context of this debate.

2. For those of you who know me from here and other forums, you will probably agree that I am all about science - it's a huge part of my life, and I spend a lot of time researching and teaching myself physics, and that's not likely to ever change. Nonetheless, there is also a religious dimension to me - in fact, I live full-time in a monastery, and have plans to ordain as a monk in a contemplative order next year. This dimension is equally as important to me as is science. For me personally, there has never been a conflict between the scientific and the religious/spiritual sides of me. I understand them as complementary domains of enquiry, that ask different questions about the same human condition. My scientific enquiries have helped me gain insights on my spiritual path, and the spiritual practice has helped me gain new angles on scientific issues. So, for both the religionists who reject science, and the scientists who reject anything religious, you need to ask yourselves the question - why does this need to become/continue to be a partisan issue? The "us vs you" mentality isn't helpful, and can - if taken to the extreme - frequently be dangerous. But when approached with wisdom, the two sides have the potential to coexist harmoniously, and inform each other constructively. Just my humble opinion and experience  

[joigus]

21 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

I do not really wish to get involved in this discussion, [...]

I could hardly agree more. The only religious elements I've meant to reject here are faith, any concept of god, and any concept of permanent ethics.

Rituals are alien to me, but I have nothing against them, and I recognize some value to them, for some people.

I practice zen meditation and listen to dharma talks myself, and they're both of great value to me. If that's what religion boils down to, I have no problem with it.

[geordief]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

I understand them as complementary domains of enquiry, that ask different questions about the same human condition. 

Any particular example? (sorry to drag you into the debate  if I am doing that)

[dimreepr]

46 minutes ago, joigus said:

I practice zen meditation and listen to dharma talks myself, and they're both of great value to me. If that's what religion boils down to, I have no problem with it.

I think the theistic element of some religion's was intended as a tool that in non-theistic religion's is replaced by something like karma.

Peace in oneself and with world, unless you're lucky, is aided by the thought of retribution; imagine a world in which revenge, on evil-doers', is guaranteed but completely out our hand's; in such a world forgiveness is automatic and if we're lucky, that even extends to us.

For me, being at peace with oneself is the one thing science doesn't address (if it does, it's very quiet about it) and religions only real concern.

I'm neither a scientist or religious, but I do see the value of both and in the right context, whatever the religion/faith, I can't image a stronger combination.

Edited October 8, 2020 by dimreepr

[joigus]

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I think the theistic element of some religion's was intended as a tool that in non-theistic religion's is replaced by something like karma.

That's historically (almost)* true, I think --the monotheistic concept of justice dispensing is probably later than the idea of karma. But karma is law of cause and effect (more akin to science's view of events.) So karma is more of an "ultimate" kind of idea, for me at least. Substituting the law of cause and effect for a conscious being that handles justice is the mistake humanity lapses into again and again.

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

For me, being at peace with oneself is the one thing science doesn't address (if it does, it's very quiet about it) and religions only real concern.

True --AFAIK. Science doesn't have a handle for that yet. But maybe some day. The scope of science excludes nothing.

The Buddhist and Taoist traditions have a very good answer for that. Paraphrasing Bodhidharma:

"My mind is troubled"

"Bring me your mind and I will put it at ease"

(something like that)

* If we're talking about monotheism. Taoism and Buddhism are probably older.

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

That's historically (almost)* true, I think --the monotheistic concept of justice dispensing is probably later than the idea of karma. But karma is law of cause and effect (more akin to science's view of events.) So karma is more of an "ultimate" kind of idea, for me at least. Substituting the law of cause and effect for a conscious being that handles justice is the mistake humanity lapses into again and again.

It doesn't matter who dispenses justice, if one has faith in justice.

My point is, if being content/at peace is the goal, why does it matter what path you take to get there?