Can you be a scientist and still believe in religion?

[Tema]

Please send me some sort of message, when i'm deleted account.

 

I have thought and the first basis of science is that:

 

we are system called psyche, which has individual conciousness and all we study is not facts, but network of psyches that want to understand the world.

 

Ontologically we can't understand the sciense. We as cultural beings have evolved to stage where causal knowledge has become the basis of our psyche.

 

Instead of truth, we speak philosophy, the science that verbalises the absence of ontological understanding.

 

The first postulat would be:

 

We can have engineering, but not fundamental final answer.

 

and the second:

 

religion give the stage of conciousness that moves nevereendingly to the ontological truth.

 

Religion can understand and answer. But as an independent field and with out conected unity of the same field called the science.

 

The proof:

scientithic mystics, the edge of evolution, say that religion with out the dogmas, is the other field next to science.

 

And please, give me a note, when you want to ban me.

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Tema said:

The proof:

scientithic mystics, the edge of evolution, say that religion with out the dogmas, is the other field next to science.

Well if that isn't rock-solid proof I don't know what is!!!

[MigL]

3 hours ago, Tema said:

And please, give me a note, when you want to ban me.

Our Mods are sneaky.
They like to make it come as a total surprise.

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, Tema said:

 

 

And please, give me a note, when you want to ban me.

G flat,  above middle C.   Hope that helps.  

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

G flat,  above middle C.   Hope that helps.  

I notice those two notes form the Devil’s Interval (the tritone), appropriately enough. 😁

[Arikel88]

Of course he delivers us and we are saved anyone can believe in G-d.

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, Arikel88 said:

Of course he delivers us and we are saved anyone can believe in G-d.

Anyone can believe in the tooth fairy, too, and generally for similar reasons. They can still practice science as well, but only if they leave their beliefs out of the picture entirely and pretend their personal version of god(s) don’t actually matter while engaged in that science 

[exchemist]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Anyone can believe in the tooth fairy, too, and generally for similar reasons. They can still practice science as well, but only if they leave their beliefs out of the picture entirely and pretend their personal version of god(s) don’t actually matter while engaged in that science 

This is rather an odd remark. Plenty of famous scientists in the past have been religious believers, and plenty are today too, without needing to "pretend" about anything.  

[Intoscience]

14 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This is rather an odd remark. Plenty of famous scientists in the past have been religious believers, and plenty are today too, without needing to "pretend" about anything.  

Agreed,

My understanding is that many scientists who do believe in god, believe that god sits outside science, in that science cannot be applied to god, nor should it. So to invoke god in a scientific manner is to assume the machine builder is required for the machine to operate per say, which is not the case.   

Edited October 27, 2021 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Agreed,

My understanding is that many scientists who do believe in god, believe that god sits outside science, in that science cannot be applied to god, nor should it. So to invoke god in a scientific manner is to assume the machine builder is required for the machine to operate per say, which is not the case.   

The question is, "can you be a scientist and still believe in religion?"...

The answer is, you wouldn't be much of a scientist, if you ignor all the evidence... 

[exchemist]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The question is, "can you be a scientist and still believe in religion?"...

The answer is, you wouldn't be much of a scientist, if you ignor all the evidence... 

Must admit I don't see how that is an answer. It seems to be a very ambiguous remark, raising immediately the questions of what evidence, and evidence of what, you are alluding to. 

The way I see it, for much of the history of science the uncovering of order in the physical world was seen as suggestive of the intricate work of a creator - and was celebrated as such, cf. Haydn's c.18th work Die Shöpfung (The Creation).

Latterly, though, we have reached the point at which all this intricacy of nature is seen to stem from the operation of a relatively few, fundamental, orderly features of physics (what we sometimes call the "laws" of physics). So as far as the natural world is concerned, one is left with the idea that it is just these orderly features of physics that are responsible for the rest of "creation". Einstein and Spinoza seem to have identified this basic order in nature with what is commonly called God.

But religion is not principally concerned with the creation of the physical world anyway. It is much more about providing a guide for individuals to live their lives by. This is much more to do with the subjective experiences of individuals and their interactions: the world of human feelings, harmony with nature, spirituality and so forth. The physicalist can dismiss all that as just the operation of the machinery of the body, and a resulting edifice of fantasy, but that does seem to write off a lot of what people find important.   

   

[dimreepr]

Religion's are a way of thinking, science is no different; neither leads to the truth; the best just ask questions...

[TheVat]

Saturn is farther from the sun than Earth.  So,  um, that is not a truth?  Astronomical observations didn't lead us to a truth on that?  Just asking for a friend.   

[iNow]

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

This is rather an odd remark. 

There's nothing odd in what I said, and I said the same thing as you did here myself throughout this thread. To clarify this latest comment, I will revert to you with a question:

Where exactly in the Methods section of your research paper will you be putting God? In what part of the analysis will God be used to explain the results and outcome?

No where, that's where, hence my point. 

A belief in God may motivate you. It may drive you to undertake science so you may better know the mind of god(s), but god will have nothing whatsoever to do with the methods or processes of science itself, nor will god(s) ever be a valid scientific explanation or model of how the universe functions. 

Or, precisely as I said yesterday, individuals must: "leave their beliefs out of the picture entirely and pretend their personal version of god(s) don’t actually matter while engaged in that science."

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Plenty of famous scientists in the past have been religious believers, and plenty are today too

And not once have I suggested otherwise, neither in this thread nor in any of the countless others where this same question has been asked through the years

4 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Saturn is farther from the sun than Earth.  So,  um, that is not a truth?

Consider treating it as a fact within a given framework instead of treating it as a truth. That will help alleviate these silly issues with words having different meanings depending on who you ask and when you ask them. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by iNow

[MigL]

Science and religion are based on differing paradigms.
The former is based on evidence, the latter is a 'faith', which you either have or don't have ( no evidence required ).

A good scientist can separate the two, and does not use one to validate aspects of the other ( as they are not compatible ).
Or, a good scientist may not require religion, and choose not to have faith, in which case he has no issues.

A bad scientist cannot separate religion ( faith and beliefs ) from science, and fills in the gaps in his knowledge with a deity/creator.

No 'truth' or questions required, Dim.

Edited October 27, 2021 by MigL

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

No 'truth' or questions required, Dim.

but a different way of thinking???

[zapatos]

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Religion's are a way of thinking, science is no different;

That's a rather limited view of religion. Telling you what to believe, who to believe, to ignore the evidence in front of your eyes, how to act, when to eat meat, what type of cloth you can put on your body, and what you can and cannot do with your wanker, is much more than "a way of thinking".

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

That's a rather limited view of religion. 

it's rather a limited view of people... 

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

it's rather a limited view of people... 

You may have that also, but certainly your view of religion is limited.

[mistermack]

The word is compartmentalism. That's what religious scientists do. 

They keep one brain compartment for science, and in that compartment they question everything and demand evidence. 

In another compartment, they keep religion, in which they take the most unlikely things on faith, and believe what they are told, over and over from childhood.

Climate science comes somewhere in the middle. There doesn't seem to be much questioning or demanding of evidence. But plenty of warnings of the coming Apocalypse.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Climate science comes somewhere in the middle. There doesn't seem to be much questioning or demanding of evidence.

Yeah, you know... except for that 5 decades of demanding and questioning evidence. Hard to believe it's nearly 2022 and comments as profoundly ignorant as this one still continue being made. 

It's off-topic, anyway. Climate science isn't a religion, nor does it have bearing on the actual question of whether scientists can themselves be religious (which has the laughably simple answer of yes)

[Markus Hanke]

May I just throw in here that religion does not necessarily equal theism. Not everyone who identifies with a religion believes in a creator deity. 

[Intoscience]

32 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

May I just throw in here that religion does not necessarily equal theism. Not everyone who identifies with a religion believes in a creator deity. 

This is a good point, religion can serve many purposes, some that don't focus around a "creator". 

Personally I like to consider my self as an amateur scientist, I don't believe in god, but I do appreciate some of the principles in most religions.   

[Markus Hanke]

4 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

This is a good point, religion can serve many purposes, some that don't focus around a "creator". 

Yes, and some religions do not have any concept of God, in the theistic sense.

[mistermack]

I don't have any problem with religious people doing science, or scientific people doing religion. So long as they keep the two in their seperate mental compartments. We're all human, and a lot of people need, or like to have, a mental crutch when it comes to contemplating the reality of death. What I don't like is when people expect me to respect their beliefs. I respect the people and their right to believe whatever they want. But not the belief itself. And I thoroughly hate the way that they indoctrinate their children in the same garbage. I view it as abuse. Abuse of a privileged position of authority. Some say that when the child grows up, they are free to believe whatever they like. But in truth, once you recieve religious indoctrination as a child, you are never free of it, not even the ones who reject it. 

Many scientists are in that position. They were indoctrinated as kids, and can't or don't want to kick it, and who can blame them for that?

So yes, of course you can be a scientist and a believer. So long as you keep them seperate, and don't actually believe that you have found the god particle.