Can you be a scientist and still believe in religion?

[beecee]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Science is about asking question's and actually listening to the answer's, without the baggage of being 100% certain of anything. 

If you ignore the ugly or frightening or distasteful answer's, you're the one with the baggage, anyone can do it. That's my point, and you're helping too proving it.

You've got arse up matey. The only so called"answers" I am not considering are the unscientific, unevidenced, myths, that some need to maintain that warm inner glow.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

You've got arse up matey. The only so called"answers" I am not considering are the unscientific, unevidenced, myths, that some need to maintain that warm inner glow.

Are you doing it on purpose?

Science is your religion and your "bible", which BTW is evidence of previous people coming to understand their world and how to live in it...

Quote

 

THE MADMAN----Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

 

Back to this again...

 

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Are you doing it on purpose?

Funny, I was going to ask you the same question.

Science by the way is not a religion, as you probably already know...it's a body of aquired knowledge and the effort/s to aquiring new knowledge.

We can't do without science...Fact: We can do without religion...Fact:

Curie is a scientist: Freddy is a Philosopher.

[beecee]

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Science is your religion and your "bible", 

Not at all and a highly faulty warped appraisal, to support your warped view.....

Edited November 6, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Science by the way is not a religion, as you probably already know...it's a body of aquired knowledge and the effort/s to aquiring new knowledge.

I didn't say it was, I said it's your religion; strict adherence to the scientific method is not equal to strict adherence to science.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

We can't do without science...Fact: We can do without religion...Fact:

Curie is a scientist: Freddy is a Philosopher.

Strange then, to you at least, that they seem too agree.

 

Don't fear the answer, understand it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi

An interesting read, the missing link in the evolution of religion/science, perhaps. Or is it Martin Luther...

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I didn't say it was, I said it's your religion; strict adherence to the scientific method is not equal to strict adherence to science.

Your obtuseness is near as obvious as your usual cryptic message, including your weird link.

And as per usual, when you start practising your form of philosophy, we start going off on a tangent.

Getting back on track, can you be a scientist and believe in religion too, yes of course, except in the case where a personal belief in religious fairy tales, conflicts with scientific results and/or answers. 

Edited November 6, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Your obtuseness is near as obvious as your usual cryptic message, including your weird link.

And as per usual, when you start practising your form of philosophy, we start going off on a tangent.

Getting back on track, can you be a scientist and believe in religion too, yes of course, except in the case where a personal belief in religious fairy tales, conflicts with scientific results and/or answers. 

TBH I don't think I'm clever enough to be obtuse, nor am I clever enough to get you to see, that being 100% certain of anything is more akin to a religious mindset than a scientific one; therefore the rational thing to do is to give up trying, besides it's not worth the abuse.

But I'll leave you with this, please read "the parable of the madman" it's really rather enlightening with honest enquiry.

[beecee]

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

TBH I don't think I'm clever enough to be obtuse, nor am I clever enough to get you to see, that being 100% certain of anything is more akin to a religious mindset than a scientific one; therefore the rational thing to do is to give up trying, besides it's not worth the abuse.

I'm not the first to comment on your obtuseness, and supporting that, I'm also not sure what I am 100% certain of. 

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

it's not worth the abuse.

But I'll leave you with this, please read "the parable of the madman" it's really rather enlightening with honest enquiry.

No thanks...I'm doing OK and leave you to your own questionable philosophy.

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

TBH I don't think I'm clever enough to be obtuse, nor am I clever enough to get you to see, that being 100% certain of anything is more akin to a religious mindset than a scientific one;

 

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

I accept that there are those that exist, that exhibit undesirable, immoral behaviour that we determine as evil. I am 100% sure of that. Fact.

Ahh, I see...this is what you have remarked on to support whatever philosophy/opinion you want to support.

It's off topic but if you would like to continue practising your philosophical stance on that little bit of 100% certainty, then go back to the relevant thread. I didn't realize I had such an affect on you. What you obviously need to do in that thread is show me that people who exhibit evil immoral behaviour don't exist...best of luck with that.

 

Investigating objectively, and arriving at an objectively orientated solution, isn't always possible when saddled with religious baggage. I can't imagine life without science.

Edited November 7, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm not the first to comment on your obtuseness

That's an excuse, not a reason.

 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

No thanks...I'm doing OK and leave you to your own questionable philosophy.

But it's an answer, shouldn't you at least investigate before passing judgement? That would be the rational approach...

3 hours ago, beecee said:

we determine as evil. I am 100% sure of that. Fact.

I don't, therefore there's at least a 50% chance that your wrong. Besides evil is a religous word, not a scientific one...

And with that I bid you fairwell, I'm getting a headache. 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

It's off topic but if you would like to continue practising your philosophical stance on that little bit of 100% certainty, then go back to the relevant thread.

I wish I could, but in my prison thread, you picked up the ball and went home...

Edited November 7, 2021 by dimreepr

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's an excuse, not a reason.

It's a valid excuse and reason, based on the evidence.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But it's an answer, shouldn't you at least investigate before passing judgement? That would be the rational approach...

I know your answer is based on unrealstic faulty philosophy and my time is precious rather then wasted on such unrealastic nonsesne.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I don't, therefore there's at least a 50% chance that your wrong. Besides evil is a religous word, not a scientific one...

Not at all and again a crazy, faulty answer and your answer is obviously and certainly not 50%, more like .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the world's opinion on that despot. Evil is the opposite of good and some humans are evil...Hitler for example. You dismissing that 100% correct answer, shows the extreme measures you need to sink to, to maintain your so called philosophy.  From Merriam...

 Meaning of evil

1: morally badan evil villainevil spiritsevil deeds

2: causing harm or injury to someoneShe drank an evil potion.

3: marked by bad luck or bad eventsThe city has fallen on evil days/times.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

eg: Hitler as an evil man...Idi Amin...equally evil

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And with that I bid you fairwell, I'm getting a headache. 

I wish I could, but in my prison thread, you picked up the ball and went home...

No wrong again...I was getting a headache arguing against your "argument for argument sake" and  conclusive, philosophical nonsense and excuse making for such evil despots as Hitler. 🤮

Plus this appears to be getting off topic as usual.

Again, Investigating objectively, and arriving at an objectively orientated solution, isn't always possible when saddled with religious baggage. I can't imagine life without science. Any comment?

 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

It's a valid excuse and reason, based on the evidence.

I know your answer is based on unrealstic faulty philosophy and my time is precious rather then wasted on such unrealastic nonsesne.

Not at all and again a crazy, faulty answer and your answer is obviously and certainly not 50%, more like .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the world's opinion on that despot. Evil is the opposite of good and some humans are evil...Hitler for example. You dismissing that 100% correct answer, shows the extreme measures you need to sink to, to maintain your so called philosophy.  From Merriam...

 Meaning of evil

1: morally badan evil villainevil spiritsevil deeds

2: causing harm or injury to someoneShe drank an evil potion.

3: marked by bad luck or bad eventsThe city has fallen on evil days/times.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

eg: Hitler as an evil man...Idi Amin...equally evil

No wrong again...I was getting a headache arguing against your "argument for argument sake" and  conclusive, philosophical nonsense and excuse making for such evil despots as Hitler. 🤮

Plus this appears to be getting off topic as usual.

Again, Investigating objectively, and arriving at an objectively orientated solution, isn't always possible when saddled with religious baggage. I can't imagine life without science. Any comment?

 

 

 

There's none so blind as those that don't want to look.

Feel free to post this in my prison thread, we can discuss it there.

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There's none so blind as those that don't want to look.

Feel free to post this in my prison thread, we can discuss it there.

There is nothing to discuss, you have my far more realistic answers on that score. Prisons are a necessary evil, end of story.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There's none so blind as those that don't want to look.

Do I need to read up on Goldilocks and the three bears to know its nonsense?

Oh, and you forgot to comment on my statement thus...you know, the heart of the question posed by this thread.

On 11/8/2021 at 6:26 AM, beecee said:

 Investigating objectively, and arriving at an objectively orientated solution, isn't always possible when saddled with religious baggage. I can't imagine life without science. Any comment?

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

There is nothing to discuss, you have my far more realistic answers on that score. Prisons are a necessary evil, end of story.

Then why are you so determined to further the off topic discussion, in the wrong thread. It ended with me asking a pertinent legitimate question about the nature of evil.

Sticking your fingers in your ears, and saying "I'm right I'm right I'm right" isn't a legitimate argument.

Edited November 9, 2021 by dimreepr

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then why are you so determined to further the off topic discussion, in the wrong thread. It ended with me asking a pertinent legitimate question about the nature of evil.

Sticking your fingers in your ears, and saying "I'm right I'm right I'm right" isn't a legitimate argument.

You have my aanswer many times over. Hitler was an evil man, as was Idi Amin. 100% factual.

Now answer the topic question or comment on mine instead of prancing around with [to take a line from you] your fingers in your ears...

this one....Investigating objectively, and arriving at an objectively orientated solution, isn't always possible when saddled with religious baggage. I can't imagine life without science. Any comment?

[PurplePuppy]

Yes!  For example, Christian science exists.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, PurplePuppy said:

Yes!  For example, Christian science exists.

This made me chuckle. There are scientists who are Christians, but what exactly is the area of study under the specific purview of “christian science?”

[amieparson]

Many famous scientists have been deeply religious, from Isaac Newton to Francis Collins. For some people, religion and science can even complement each other, with scientific discoveries deepening their understanding of God and the world around us.

[madhossion]

As someone familiar with the Portland Oregon churches, I know many churches there are very welcoming to people with all sorts of backgrounds and beliefs.

[Lorentz Jr]

Blaise Pascal rejected math and physics in favor of religion later in his career.

Georges Lemaître was a physicist and a Catholic priest.

John Polkinghorne was a physicist and an Anglican priest.

[Markus Hanke]

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Blaise Pascal rejected math and physics in favor of religion later in his career.

Georges Lemaître was a physicist and a Catholic priest.

John Polkinghorne was a physicist and an Anglican priest.

I myself am an ordained monastic in a Buddhist tradition of contemplative forest monks and nuns.

The impulse to follow a contemplative and spiritual life - irrespective of what specific form this may take - need not at all run counter to science, as many who were simultaneously scientists and spiritual seekers have shown throughout history.

[Intoscience]

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

The impulse to follow a contemplative and spiritual life - irrespective of what specific form this may take - need not at all run counter to science, as many who were simultaneously scientists and spiritual seekers have shown throughout history

It only runs counter when people dismiss verified scientific data for pseudo science mythology or religious beliefs without evidence to back up their claims. For example in the story of how the Earth was made by God in 6 days, or the Adam & Eve story, Jesus walking on water etc...

As you pointed out. One can be religious, have faith and follow spiritualism and/or believe in gods etc... and still do science.  

[Markus Hanke]

16 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

It only runs counter when people dismiss verified scientific data for pseudo science mythology or religious beliefs without evidence to back up their claims.

Yes - this often happens when people (consciously or unconsciously) adopt scriptural literalism as their mode of engagement with their chosen tradition, ie when they fail to distinguish the word from the message. When you allow this to happen, you essentially make it impossible for yourself to meaningfully consider other sources of information or modes of enquiry, resulting in a more or less filtered/distorted/one-sided view of the world.

[Genady]

The OP question sounds to me akin asking, Can you be a football player and still like ballet?

Regarding the OP question as it is, the answer depends on what kind of scientist and what kind of belief. For example, I don't see a problem with a Jewish crystallographer observing Sabbath. OTOH, I see a problem with a geologist believing that Earth is 5 thousand years old. 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

The OP question sounds to me akin asking, Can you be a football player and still like ballet?

Regarding the OP question as it is, the answer depends on what kind of scientist and what kind of belief. For example, I don't see a problem with a Jewish crystallographer observing Sabbath. OTOH, I see a problem with a geologist believing that Earth is 5 thousand years old. 

I disagree, why would a geologist believe the Earth is 5 thousand years old?

You don't need to believe in anything specifically, to believe in an idea...

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes - this often happens when people (consciously or unconsciously) adopt scriptural literalism as their mode of engagement with their chosen tradition, ie when they fail to distinguish the word from the message. When you allow this to happen, you essentially make it impossible for yourself to meaningfully consider other sources of information or modes of enquiry, resulting in a more or less filtered/distorted/one-sided view of the world.

+1, please teach me your eloquence.

Edited February 24, 2023 by dimreepr

[Genady]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I disagree

What exactly do you disagree with in what I said there?

 

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You don't need to believe in anything specifically, to believe in an idea...

You don't need to, but you can.