Can you be a scientist and still believe in religion?

[CharonY]

No. Such a discovery would be contingent on  vague definitions. And in Biology we do not prove things in the first place.

[joigus]

8 hours ago, genio said:

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

OP also specifically formulated it in terms of god/gods and supernatural beings or agencies:

On 10/1/2020 at 10:05 AM, Mnemonic said:

According to the bible Jesus Christ was a supernatural character who could walk on water, occasionally talked to Satan, and could turn water into wine, amongst many other marvels.

Can you be a scientist and still believe in this stuff?

[harlock]

On 10/1/2020 at 10:05 AM, Mnemonic said:

According to the bible Jesus Christ was a supernatural character who could walk on water, occasionally talked to Satan, and could turn water into wine, amongst many other marvels.

Can you be a scientist and still believe in this stuff? As far as I am concerned, you should not be called a scientist or be allowed anywhere near any scientific endeavour if you believe in fictitious myths.

Am I being too aggressive in my attitude? Probably, however science and the scientific approach to research application is a serious technical field that should not be sullied by ridiculous fairy tales.

 

>Please move to the Religion section..

 

Here the logic is this: I do 'impossible' things to make people believe that I come from God. It was really important because Jesus brings eternal life, that is, forgiveness from original sin. Jesus time is the last about Daniel 70 weeks to be forgiven from original sin. It's an incredible importance. I think it's logic. It's not a scientific question.  

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, harlock said:

 

Here the logic is this: I do 'impossible' things to make people believe that I come from God. It was really important because Jesus brings eternal life, that is, forgiveness from original sin. Jesus time is the last about Daniel 70 weeks to be forgiven from original sin. It's an incredible importance. I think it's logic. It's not a scientific question.  

Indeed, that's why it's not important... 😉

[Otto Kretschmer]

I think yes

Many scientists used to be religious especially in the past. Religion and science are not incompatible... well, at least most of science.

 Isaac Newton spent as much time studying the Bible as he did studying physics. 

Edited May 27 by Otto Kretschmer

[MigL]

Believe in Religion, or a use for Religion ?

I myself, don't believe in Religion.
My life has been good, and I've never suffered some thing like the death of a child, that would cause me to question the point of it all, and start believing in a higher power with a higher purpose.
Some other people, on the other hand ...

Do I believe in a purpose for Religion ?
Of course.
As explained above, it can provide a 'crutch' to support people who are suffering terribly; always a good thing.
If not taken literally ( and adjusted for the times ), it can provide people with a moral compass to guide them through life.
And, if you want to take advantage of others, there is nothing better than an easily corruptible institution, like Religion, which will allow you to prey on those who are weak and suffering.
 

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

I think yes

Many scientists used to be religious especially in the past. Religion and science are not incompatible... well, at least most of science.

 Isaac Newton spent as much time studying the Bible as he did studying physics. 

Isaac Newton kept his occult studies from the Church. He was into alchemy, and his mystic pursuits convinced him that seven was a more important number than five, so in his color theory he added orange and split purple into indigo and violet. So you might be able to be a scientist and still believe in this mystic garbage, but I think you're negatively affecting your objectivity when it comes to theory.

[dimreepr]

On 5/28/2024 at 12:07 AM, Phi for All said:

Isaac Newton kept his occult studies from the Church. He was into alchemy, and his mystic pursuits convinced him that seven was a more important number than five, so in his color theory he added orange and split purple into indigo and violet. So you might be able to be a scientist and still believe in this mystic garbage, but I think you're negatively affecting your objectivity when it comes to theory.

Indeed, but it could have set us back a few year's, if when the apple fell he said "therefore magic happens"... 🧐

On 5/27/2024 at 6:55 PM, Otto Kretschmer said:

I think yes

Many scientists used to be religious especially in the past. Religion and science are not incompatible... well, at least most of science.

 Isaac Newton spent as much time studying the Bible as he did studying physics. 

I think you're thinking of Neitzche... 😉

[Night FM]

This is my summary of the thread so far.

1. The OP is erroneously conflating "mythology" with "religion". "Mythology" is only a part of religion, and not exclusive to religion. And often the word "myth" is erroneously used simply to mean "not true", when that's not what mythology actually is. This is similar to how people conflate "religion" with "moral codes" (which, of course, aren't exclusive to "religion" either. The law's of one's nation or state are "moral codes".

2. The idea that religion served a cultural purpose "prior to science" is something of a cultural myth in and of itself. Science in the modern sense is simply an institutionalized system for gathering information, and such institutionalized systems pre-existed modern science and often existed in conjunction with established religions. Science is only one of many such systems or hypothetical systems and is predicated on certain philosophical axioms (e.x. materialism).

3. It is, likewise, something of a myth that evolution "came along" and made it unnecessary to invoke God as an explanation for the creation of life. The idea that mankind has purely natural origins has always existed (e.x. materialism as a philosophical axiom has been around since the ancient Greeks, and Anaximander of Miletus was one of the first known philosophers to propose that mankind descended from animals. Darwin's theory of evolution was essentially just a revival of ancient thought which had presumably declined in popularity up until then. The rise of Christianity after the fall of Rome may have had something to do with why ancient evolutionary thought didn't become popular).

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

Likewise, the argument that evolution or purely material origins of humanity isn't a sufficient explanation would be just as valid an argument today as it would have been in ancient times, since this would be debating the materialist philosophical axioms which said explanation is based on.

Edited September 17 by Night FM

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, Night FM said:

This is my summary of the thread so far.

1. The OP is erroneously conflating "mythology" with "religion". "Mythology" is only a part of religion, and not exclusive to religion. And often the word "myth" is erroneously used simply to mean "not true", when that's not what mythology actually is. This is similar to how people conflate "religion" with "moral codes" (which, of course, aren't exclusive to "religion" either. The law's of one's nation or state are "moral codes".

2. The idea that religion served a cultural purpose "prior to science" is something of a cultural myth in and of itself. Science in the modern sense is simply an institutionalized system for gathering information, and such institutionalized systems pre-existed modern science and often existed in conjunction with established religions. Science is only one of many such systems or hypothetical systems and is predicated on certain philosophical axioms (e.x. materialism).

3. It is, likewise, something of a myth that evolution "came along" and made it unnecessary to invoke God as an explanation for the creation of life. The idea that mankind has purely natural origins has always existed (e.x. materialism as a philosophical axiom has been around since the ancient Greeks, and Anaximander of Miletus was one of the first known philosophers to propose that mankind descended from animals. Darwin's theory of evolution was essentially just a revival of ancient thought which had presumably declined in popularity up until then. The rise of Christianity after the fall of Rome may have had something to do with why ancient evolutionary thought didn't become popular).

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

Likewise, the argument that evolution or purely material origins of humanity isn't a sufficient explanation would be just as valid an argument today as it would have been in ancient times, since this would be debating the materialist philosophical axioms which said explanation is based on.

That's not a very good summary, materialism for instance, is that really any part of an axiom in this context?

[zapatos]

13 hours ago, Night FM said:

The law's of one's nation or state are "moral codes".

We have laws here that dictate the maximum distance allowed between joists in floors, and how much tax I have to pay on my trailer.

How are these "moral codes"?

Edited September 17 by zapatos

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Night FM said:

The law's of one's nation or state are "moral codes".

What’s the morality of driving on the left vs right side of the road?

[Night FM]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

We have laws here that dictate the maximum distance allowed between joists in floors, and how much tax I have to pay on my trailer.

How are these "moral codes"?

Whoever invented the laws obviously thought there was a good reason for having them, even if that's entirely debatable.

[zapatos]

38 minutes ago, Night FM said:

Whoever invented the laws obviously thought there was a good reason for having them, even if that's entirely debatable.

I see your problem here. "Good reason" is not the same as "moral".