Can you be a scientist and still believe in religion?

[AIkonoklazt]

Of course you can, unless you try to mix those two separate and mutually exclusive spheres.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Of course you can, unless you try to mix those two separate and mutually exclusive spheres.

They’re not mutually exclusive, though. Religion makes claims about how things function in the natural world ALL the time, falsifiable claims.

[AIkonoklazt]

On 1/5/2024 at 7:03 PM, iNow said:

They’re not mutually exclusive, though. Religion makes claims about how things function in the natural world ALL the time, falsifiable claims.

I don't think those are scientific claims.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I don't think those are scientific claims.

Which?

I said falsifiable. Many ARE falsifiable.

“Scientific” simply moves the goalposts, but still applies to MANY religious claims so is likely moot.

 

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Which?

I said falsifiable. Many ARE falsifiable.

“Scientific” simply moves the goalposts, but still applies to MANY religious claims so is likely moot.

 

None of them are scientific claims

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

None of them are scientific claims

Do you agree that if I find even a single one then your comment is false?

[AIkonoklazt]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Do you agree that if I find even a single one then your comment is false?

I'm not aware of any.

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I'm not aware of any.

Irrelevant 

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, iNow said:

Irrelevant 

You expect me to know every detail of every claim that as ever been made.

oooook

[iNow]

1 minute ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You expect me to know every detail of every claim that as ever been made.

I expect you, the person above confidently asserting that ZERO religious claims are scientific ones, to acknowledge how sharing even a single one that is would confirm your statement is false.

 

[AIkonoklazt]

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

I expect you, the person above confidently asserting that ZERO religious claims are scientific ones, to acknowledge how sharing even a single one that is would confirm your statement is false.

 

I don't acknowledge every claim there is, including ones made by those "scientologists."

Again, none that I'm aware of.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

None of them are scientific claims

31 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You expect me to know every detail of every claim that as ever been made.

You made a mistake here. Can you acknowledge it and move on?

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

You made a mistake here. Can you acknowledge it and move on?

I don't think scientologist claims count. Otherwise, I'd have to count absolutely everything any random person made.

I was waiting for iNow to ask for an example, but since he's not asking for one, I'll ask him for one instead.

Uhhh ok got the "no sir I don't like it" Mr. Horse minus one, I mean heck he could've at least given one example

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I don't think scientologist claims count. Otherwise, I'd have to count absolutely everything any random person made.

You claimed religion doesn't make scientific claims about how things function in the natural world, that "none of them are scientific claims". iNow pointed out it just takes ONE example to make your statement false. Then you started to waffle about it.

Look, attempts at Intelligent Design being taught in US schools are chock full of examples of religion rewriting science and making scientific claims. Can you please admit it's wrong to generalize and just move on with this discussion?

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, Phi for All said:

You claimed religion doesn't make scientific claims about how things function in the natural world, that "none of them are scientific claims". iNow pointed out it just takes ONE example to make your statement false. Then you started to waffle about it.

Look, attempts at Intelligent Design being taught in US schools are chock full of examples of religion rewriting science and making scientific claims. Can you please admit it's wrong to generalize and just move on with this discussion?

They screwed up, and making supernatural claims. Calling it "scientific claim" doesn't make it one.

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

They screwed up, and making supernatural claims. Calling it "scientific claim" doesn't make it one.

Nice to know it was a mistake trying to discuss this with you. Enjoy always being right.

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, Phi for All said:

Nice to know it was a mistake trying to discuss this with you. Enjoy always being right.

I don't get how Creationists are making scientific claims instead of supernatural ones while passing those claims off by sticking a giant PostIt with "SCIENCE" written on them. Guess I'll have to have someone else explain it to me.

Is iNow going to ask me for examples?

(ohhh no I wasn't always right. I remember claiming Hilary was gonna win the election some years ago. OH BOY WAS I TERRIBLY WRONG)

[TheVat]

If I'm following this, I think iNow was just pointing out the black swan effect, as it impacts inductive reasoning.  

[AIkonoklazt]

Cults, Creationists, Scientologists, random crazy homeless people wondering onto people's front yards...

I think some boundary conditioning is in order.

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Cults, Creationists, Scientologists, random crazy homeless people wondering onto people's front yards...

I think some boundary conditioning is in order.

Of course you do, bc you're blinded by your prejudice; a good scientist would turn the other cheek...

 

[Zakher]

I believe that blindly adhering to a religion is generally a bad idea; you can't wholeheartedly believe in something on such a massive scale. However, believing in the existence of GOD resonates with me. I THINK THERE MUST BE something higher beyond all of this.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Zakher said:

I THINK THERE MUST BE something higher beyond all of this.

And this is why science and religion conflict. Science requires more than your incredulity and insistence. Evidence we can observe would be helpful.

[Robin Wilding]

I believe the evidence is not to be found  on some higher plane but on a more fundamental one. Science is based on a belief in a unversal order, a legacy of monotheistic belief but nothing to do with the scriptures.  We find evidence for this universal order in the reliability of the laws science and the specificity of some fundamental constants.

The scriptures are irrelevant, and the evidence for this statement, is the remarkable discoveries made by Islamic scholars in the middle ages. Mathematics and astronomy,  not to mention the discovery that the world revolved around the sun, were discoveries made in a civilisation founded on Islamic scriptures. But clealry scripture played no part in these discoveries. However what the Islamic scientists chared with their later Christian colleagues, was a deep conviction that  the universe was subject to some sort of order, perhaps  intelligence. Even Feyman joked that God must have been a hellover mathematician.

So Copernicus and Galileo and Kepler got there a few hundred years after the Arabs, not influenced by the Scripture of thier times,  but a fundamental belief in some universal authority.

I think that the reason  universal laws were never discovered in Eastern civilisations is because they do not believe that there is any universal authority. For the Buddhist believer the very nature of separate existence, as we know it, is challenged. All is inter-connected and there is no place for certainty is Buddhism, which is why it is quite happy to adopt Western theories of quantum mechanics.

To return to the orignal question, religion, as in the sciptures ( neither Christian nor Islamic) have no relevance to science. However, belief in an ordered universe is fundamental to it.

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Robin Wilding said:

The scriptures are irrelevant

No, they are all that's relevant to the question, a scientist knows that it's God that's irrelevant; we all know that God didn't actually write things down, even if we believe that he/she/it dictated it to a human.

Like in the book of Mormon:

Science doesn't teach us how to be happy, it teaches us how to look at these things critically and make up our minds based on what is actually written, not who wrote it... 

[genio]

On 10/1/2020 at 5:56 AM, joigus said:

My opinion is that you cannot seriously believe in god if you've studied science in any length. Specially biology.

But many scientists believe in believing in god. That is, they decide that it's a good social deal to keep saying they believe in god and, if pressed, talk about an abstract god, as in "god is the order in the cosmos" or something like that. Just to escape hostility from believers.

Scientists discuss science even when the gathering has finished and the discussions keep going while they go back home, or to their respective hotel rooms.

But I've never seen anybody discuss theology when they go back home from the church, the synagogue or the mosque. Religious people will leave you alone if you just say you're a believer. For all they care your "god" could be a telepathic giant cat living in another planet and handling the universe from there. As long as you say "I believe."

Unless the biology science we study leads to a complex discovery that proves intent by a creator.

Why do you equate religion with god(s)? OP specifically said religion.

Edited February 29 by genio