Can you be a scientist and still believe in religion?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

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

The next bit, you know, the context you ignored "why would a geologist believe the Earth is 5 thousand years old?", for a working geologist to believe the world is 5 thousand year's old, would require some serious weed.

But for a geologist to believe in karma, would just require a little thinking...

[Lorentz Jr]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

I see a problem with a geologist believing that Earth is 5 thousand years old. 

27 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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

14 minutes ago, Genady said:

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

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The next bit, you know, the context you ignored "why would a geologist believe the Earth is 5 thousand years old?", for a working geologist to believe the world is 5 thousand year's old, would require some serious weed.

I'm sorry, could you please explain the logic behind your comments here? I'm having trouble following it.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I'm sorry, could you please explain the logic behind your comments here? I'm having trouble following it.

I thought I did...

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But for a geologist to believe in karma, would just require a little thinking...

What about the idea of karma, do you disagree with?

[Genady]

8 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I'm sorry, could you please explain the logic behind your comments here? I'm having trouble following it.

Logic? Who needs logic?

[Lorentz Jr]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I thought I did...

I don't think Genady can time travel. You posted your comment "why would a geologist believe the Earth is 5 thousand years old?" after his comment, so it doesn't count as context.

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What about the idea of karma, do you disagree with?

There's also the problem that "why would a geologist believe the Earth is 5 thousand years old?" doesn't count as disagreement with the comment "I see a problem with a geologist believing that Earth is 5 thousand years old."

Edited February 24, 2023 by Lorentz Jr

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Lorentz Jr said:

There's also the problem that "I disagree, why would a geologist believe the Earth is 5 thousand years old?" doesn't count as disagreement with the comment "I see a problem with a geologist believing that Earth is 5 thousand years old."

You're scraping the barrel, with that argument in the context of this thread.

[Lorentz Jr]

Just now, dimreepr said:

You're scraping the barrel, with that argument in the context of this thread.

I feel like I'm scraping the barrel just by getting into this conversation.

[dimreepr]

Just now, Lorentz Jr said:

I feel like I'm scraping the barrel just by getting into this conversation.

And that just begs the question... 🤔

[Lorentz Jr]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

And that just begs the question... 🤔

Okay. So you're another one of those senior posters I need to avoid getting into arguments with or I'll get into trouble. Thanks for clearing that up. 🙂

[Genady]

Just now, Lorentz Jr said:

Okay. So you're another one of those senior posters I need to avoid getting into arguments with or I'll get into trouble. Thanks for clearing that up. 🙂

Good for you. It took me longer.

[Lorentz Jr]

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

Good for you. It took me longer.

I learned my lesson the hard way! 😶

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Okay. So you're another one of those senior posters I need to avoid getting into arguments with or I'll get into trouble. Thanks for clearing that up. 🙂

Don't worry, you'll only get into trouble, here, if you use bad faith arguments 😉 or insult's (in this context).

23 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I don't think Genady can time travel. You posted your comment "why would a geologist believe the Earth is 5 thousand years old?" after his comment, so it doesn't count as context.

 It does in the context of the thread, assuming we consider a geologist is a scientist and therefor is considered rational in their beliefs; scientifically it's not rational to believe the earth that old.

So @Genady suggesting that, is conflating that one belief with religion; it's like saying science isn't rational because of phlogiston.

Edited February 25, 2023 by dimreepr

[Alex_Krycek]

Some of the greatest scientists in history were religious.

Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Claude Shannon...

Before it became taboo for scientists to hold religious beliefs, it was the norm.

"There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls."

- Max Planck

[Lorentz Jr]

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

assuming we consider a geologist is a scientist and therefor is considered rational in their beliefs; scientifically it's not rational to believe the earth that old.

So @Genady suggesting that, is conflating that one belief with religion

Okay, that's great. Except Genady suggested the exact opposite of that:

On 2/24/2023 at 5:07 AM, Genady said:

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. 

Get it? He sees a problem with a geologist believing that Earth is 5 thousand years old. That means he agrees with you: scientifically, it's not rational for a geologist to believe the earth that old.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Lorentz Jr

[Genady]

35 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Albert Einstein

I don't know about others but have read several biography books about Einstein. I understood that he was not religious.

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't know about others but have read several biography books about Einstein. I understood that he was not religious.

More of a deist than a theist. “The universe” full of awe and wonder was to him a type of god, much like the one described by Spinoza. A simple word to describe the vastness and structure of it all, not a boring bearded cloud surfer who cares if I ate fish on Friday or had butt sex.

God as poetry, not entity... basically. 

Edited February 25, 2023 by iNow

[dimreepr]

44 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Get it? He sees a problem with a geologist believing that Earth is 5 thousand years old. That means he agrees with you: scientifically, it's not rational for a geologist to believe the earth that old.

Yup fair enough +1, I read his post through the lense of my bias, sorry @Genady...

Edited February 25, 2023 by dimreepr

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

More of a deist than a theist. “The universe” full of awe and wonder was to him a type of god, much like the one described by Spinoza. A simple word to describe the vastness and structure of it all, not a boring bearded cloud surfer who cares if I ate fish on Friday or had butt sex.

God as poetry, not entity... basically. 

Yes. I saw that quote about "science without religion..." used by religious zealots out of this context too many times. 🤮

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yup fair enough +1, I read his post through the lense of my bias, sorry @Genady...

OK.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

More of a deist than a theist. “The universe” full of awe and wonder was to him a type of god, much like the one described by Spinoza. A simple word to describe the vastness and structure of it all, not a boring bearded cloud surfer who cares if I ate fish on Friday or had butt sex.

God as poetry, not entity... basically. 

I find it interesting that even great spiritual figures who were formally associated with theism, like the Trappist monk Thomas Merton, seem to avoid the bearded rainmaker.  Merton (a truly spiritual person I've long admired) said something like: God is not a being, but rather the process of being.  And becoming.  There are passages in Merton's books that sound rather Buddhist to me.  I have no problem with seeing God in this way, as a sort of foundational essence of conscious being rather than some personal entity, and see no reason it would interfere with doing science.  And yes, Einstein seemed Spinozist in his views.  

There will always be an ontological puzzle at the heart of the universe, something our minds cannot access through science, which in no way diminishes or demeans science.  Many scientists I know have this mystical feeling, ranging from deism to panpsychism.

 

[iNow]

The numinous 

[mistermack]

I think Albert Einstein didn't want to be known as an atheist, in a country that despised the label. And with his Jewish heritage, he didn't want to upset that apple cart either. I'm pretty sure his comments on religion were just a tactic of keeping his head down, out of the firing line. And it worked very well for him. 

Anyway, what would it matter if he believed in a Jehova with a white beard? It wouldn't affect the value of his work in the slightest. 

People can compartmentalise their beliefs and keep them seperate from their scientific work. If they try to combine the two, they open themselves up to ridicule. 

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

I think Albert Einstein didn't want to be known as an atheist, in a country that despised the label. And with his Jewish heritage, he didn't want to upset that apple cart either. I'm pretty sure his comments on religion were just a tactic of keeping his head down, out of the firing line. And it worked very well for him. 

Interesting speculation.  There was a letter he wrote late in life that seemed to clarify his view of religion, which letter was auctioned in London in 2008 after being in a private collection for over fifty years.

(from The Guardian)

Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt.

In the letter, he states: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel’s second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God’s favoured people.

“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people...."

 

[geordief]

27 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Interesting speculation.  There was a letter he wrote late in life that seemed to clarify his view of religion, which letter was auctioned in London in 2008 after being in a private collection for over fifty years.

(from The Guardian)

Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt.

In the letter, he states: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel’s second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God’s favoured people.

“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people...."

 

Not much spare flesh on that. No wonder  he enjoyed celebrity.

Shame he wasn't a jazz  maestro  to top it all off.

[Robin Wilding]

This topic may have run out of steam but it will always remain fresh to me. A good place to start is the history of science. It flourished in times when every famous scientist believed in god. Copernicus, Galileo, Keppler, Newton all believed, not necessarily in the scriptures but in a universe which was ordered, obeyed authoritative laws, enacted via a linear hierarchy of cause and effect. So we got, in the West, an unprecedented period of scientific discoveries. The Eastern view, not trivial, did no science because they did not believe in an authoritative creator or in certainty or in the separate existence of anything.

When scientists were forced to allow the uncertainty and interconnectedness of quantum mechanics, some, like Einstein, were uncomfortable. "God doesn't play dice" . This reluctance to include uncertainty and deal with non linear dynamics limits all sciences, particularly biology where we still hope the well tried reductionist methods will allow us to breakthrough the tough problems like consciousness and ecosystems.

We have progressed well on the legacy of all monotheistic religions. (We tend to forget the hugely productive centuries of Islamic science leaving us numbers and algebra. ) But progress in complex stuff will elude us till we move on from God inspired science.

[CharonY]

21 minutes ago, Robin Wilding said:

The Eastern view, not trivial, did no science because they did not believe in an authoritative creator or in certainty or in the separate existence of anything.

I'll contest that. There have been different approaches to creating knowledge and the issue here is that Western science has trouble recognizing other school of thoughts. In fact, quite a few of the early Western science approaches loaned concepts from elsewhere but only over time did it become so successful. One important bit is that it actually did away with the spiritual aspects and became increasingly materialistic. 

In addition, there are many non-Western religious systems believing in some form of creator, so it really seems like cherry-picking the arguments a bit.