Religious scientists/doctors

[ewmon]

religion and science are mutually exclusive. If you're doing one, you're not doing the other.

Let's use Francis Collins as an example. Are you claiming that he didn't do science in leading in the deciphering of the human genome? Are you saying that his science is no good or somehow faulty or invalid? Now, as Director of the NIH, is the science done under his leadership somehow faulty?

 

Here's another example from Ian Mead. I actually used his UltraEdit32 software which was bought for the company by my atheist boss, and then a coworker told me about the story behind the software. Although Mead's story is a bit over-the-top for me religiously, nonetheless it shows a mixture of religion and science and that one has nothing to do with the other.

 

I think that some atheists don't know religion or that they think of the worst-case scenario (for example, people who couldn't do science even if they weren't believers). I've known plenty of religious scientists and engineers who performed perfectly good science. They have defended this country, they have made safe and effective medicines, they have generated electric power, they have written perfectly good software, etc.

 

I don't know how moral values prevents a person from doing science.

[iNow]

Let's use Francis Collins as an example. Are you claiming that he didn't do science in leading in the deciphering of the human genome? Are you saying that his science is no good or somehow faulty or invalid? Now, as Director of the NIH, is the science done under his leadership somehow faulty?

No. This is not hard. He's saying that one can be both religious and a scientist, but when DOING science ones religion must be pushed aside, compartmentalized, and essentially disregarded. You can go pray and chant and eat special foods when you leave the lab, but within the lab your religion must be ignored.

 

There is no "Christian chemistry" or "Islamic physics," any more than there is "Jewish math" or "Buddhist geology." It's just chemistry, and physics, and math, and geology. Religion does not overlap in any way.

 

This is not difficult to understand. You're either being intentionally obtuse if you fail to recognize what is being said at this point, or you are so biased by your own belief that you're blinding yourself to a painfully simple point.

[Moontanman]

I don't know how moral values prevents a person from doing science.

 

 

Are you saying that you have to have religion to have moral values?

[ewmon]

This is not hard. He's saying that one can be both religious and a scientist, but when DOING science ones religion must be pushed aside, compartmentalized, and essentially disregarded. You can go pray and chant and eat special foods when you leave the lab, but within the lab your religion must be ignored.

 

There is no "Christian chemistry" or "Islamic physics," any more than there is "Jewish math" or "Buddhist geology." It's just chemistry, and physics, and math, and geology. Religion does not overlap in any way.

 

This is not difficult to understand. You're either being intentionally obtuse if you fail to recognize what is being said at this point, or you are so biased by your own belief that you're blinding yourself to a painfully simple point.

I'm not being any of those choices you offer. I've done chemistry and several other sciences, and I haven't had to put away my Christian faith. Wow, you people honestly believe that my faith excludes me from doing chemistry? Seriously? Then you really don't know religion.

 

Tell me then, how one's faith will interfere with doing chemistry. Tell me how my faith interferes with me putting an aliquot of sample into a tube, placing the tube into an analyzer, activating the analyzer, verifying the results on the screen, printing out the results, having my manager approve the results, and mailing the results to the customer. Please tell me what could go wrong.

 

There is no "Christian chemistry" or "Islamic physics," any more than there is "Jewish math" or "Buddhist geology." It's just chemistry, and physics, and math, and geology. Religion does not overlap in any way.

You're right that Christianity does not change chemistry, and Islam does not interfere with physics, and Judaism does not modify math, etc. So you can do both together.

 

Are you saying that you have to have religion to have moral values?

Of course not. But maybe they are saying that you must put away your moral values when doing science. If anything, one might need moral values when doing animal research, as a local lab learned, when you mistreat the animals, you're in big trouble.

Edited October 29, 2012 by ewmon

[iNow]

I'm not being any of those choices you offer. I've done chemistry and several other sciences, and I haven't had to put away my Christian faith. Wow, you people honestly believe that my faith excludes me from doing chemistry? Seriously? Then you really don't know religion.

OMG, dude... no. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that your chemistry MUST be independent of your faith. Your faith does not exclude you from doing chemistry. You just can't use it WHILE doing chemistry. Your faith is completely unrelated.

 

It might inspire you. It might motivate you. It might give you strength during difficult times, but it does NOT overlap in any way with the chemistry work itself.

 

Does this clarify, or are we still at an impasse?

 

Tell me then, how one's faith will interfere with doing chemistry. Tell me how my faith interferes with me putting an aliquot of sample into a tube, placing the tube into an analyzer, activating the analyzer, verifying the results on the screen, printing out the results, having my manager approve the results, and mailing the results to the customer. Please tell me what could go wrong.

See above. You seem to be working from a complete misunderstanding of the point being made here by others.

 

To remind everyone, ydoaps said this:

 

religion and science are mutually exclusive. If you're doing one, you're not doing the other.

 

You seem to have consequently stipulated that point despite your earlier protestations against it, correct?

[ewmon]

I think we're okay.

 

I'm saying that your chemistry MUST be independent of your faith.

Sure, of course it's independent, why wouldn't it be.

 

You just can't use it WHILE doing chemistry.

You gave an example of not "using" one's religion while doing science, such as praying, chanting, and dietary restrictions. These are religious activities, not religion. We also probably shouldn't be break dancing or reciting the Gettysburg Address while doing science.

 

I knew a young female chemist who couldn't concentrate on her work if there were people nearby engaged in conversation because her mind would wander into the conversation. And all she had to do was pour the correct chemical reagents into the correct on-board reservoirs. (And, yes, she was blonde.) Her errors cost our lab thousands of dollars of spoiled reagents. Hopefully, she's outgrown her mental wanderings or she's not working in the field of chemistry!

[John Cuthber]

Well John ( and randomc ), I can think of one instance of religion stopping a war right off the top of my head...

 

In the year 450 BC, after having ransacked most of eastern and western Europe, the forces of the Hunnish empire, led by Attila the Hun, were poised to sack Rome.

The pope of the period ( actually known as the 'bishop' of Rome at the time ), Leo the 1st, met with Attila and convinced him to withdraw from Italy and make peace with the Emperor of the western Roman empire.

 

Attila the Hun left Italy for his home of the eastern steppes, and died shortly after, leaving his empire in disarray, and they never again threatened the west.

 

Like I said, I'm not religious, but I am tolerant, and if some people need to believe in a higher power, who am I to deny them that option.

Besides, the two are apples and oranges, one is a belief ( requires no proof ) the other is a science and is solely based on proof.

I leave it to you to decide which is which.

 

According to the Wiki page "After Attila left Italy and returned to his palace across the Danube, he planned to strike at Constantinople" so, at best, the Pope persuaded him to move the war somewhere else.

Together with the fact that there are other equally plausible reasons for Attila's change of plan (based on practical reality) and the fact that, even the Christian version concedes that "Priscus reports that superstitious fear of the fate of Alaric—who died shortly after sacking Rome in 410—gave him pause.".

So it wasn't Christianity, but a different superstition that got him to change his plans.

 

Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

Is there actually any evidence of a war being prevented by religion?

 

As for the fact that religion and science are different yes: clearly.

It would be much better if religion stuck to it's strengths and left science to do the things which it does well, like establishing the age and nature of the universe. Providing an understanding of love (in terms of evolutionary biology and brain chemistry).

Explaining the origin of life.

explaining the origin of mankind.

Pointing out that world wide floods are impossible.

And so on.

Clearly religion should play to it's strengths.

For example, maintaining old superstitions for nor reason other than self interest; wearing silly clothes and sitting on gold thrones while preaching about the importance of giving to the poor.

[ydoaPs]

Let's use Francis Collins as an example. Are you claiming that he didn't do science in leading in the deciphering of the human genome? Are you saying that his science is no good or somehow faulty or invalid? Now, as Director of the NIH, is the science done under his leadership somehow faulty?

 

Oh, straw man it is. Let me know when you're interested in an actual conversation.

[ewmon]

Oh, straw man it is. Let me know when you're interested in an actual conversation.

This has been an actual conversation. If I give an example that proves you wrong, you simply can't dismiss it by calling it a "straw man". You're better than that.

 

I've done lots of science, and I'm religious. I haven't had to "put aside" my religion or stopped "doing" my religion in order to do science. I don't know what it means to "put aside" or to stop "doing" religion.

 

You said that someone can "do" religion or science, but they can't "do" both. For someone who is apparently not religious, please explain to me what you think "doing" religion means.

 

In one of my previous posts, I mentioned testing a chemical sample as part of scientific work. What must a religious person stop "doing" in order to perform that chemical analysis?

[MigL]

You asked for oe example and I gave one, John. And yes, I meant AD. You must also realise how hard it is to show that a cause DIDN'T result in a specific effect, since you can't isolate variables after the fact.

 

I stand by my statement that religion is a belief and as such, unproveable, while any science has to be proven by definition. Inow is absolutely right, the two should have no bearing on each other ( although unfortunately, they do for some creationists ).

 

There are other 'beliefs' which have caused way more death and suffering than religion, and though I'm going off topic I'll mention them...

Consider communisim, the belief that the needs of the state outweigh individual needs, used by Stalin to finance his 5 yr modernization plans of the 30s, wher he starved 28 million Ukranians to death. Or Mao in China in the 50s and 60s, or Pol Pot in Cambodia's killing fields. How many millions were killed there for a belief.

Consider nationalism ( pride ) and the belief that your nation is better than others, which can be directly linked to most major wars of the 19th century, like the Franco-Prussian war and the Italian unification war against the Hapsburg empire. It is also a direct cause of the 1st World War and as a consequence, the 2nd World War. That accounts for almost 60 million deaths for just the two World wars.

Consider capitalism ( greed ), the belief in wealth at any cost. I won't even discuss the gluttony of western societies and their colonial ambitions. But consider China, home nation to the largest number of billionaires and where more than a billion people live on a handful of rice per day.

 

How much suffering and death have these beliefs caused ? And do people that have these beliefs have their scientific acconplishments questioned ?

[ydoaPs]

This has been an actual conversation. If I give an example that proves you wrong, you simply can't dismiss it by calling it a "straw man". You're better than that.

 

No, even after being corrected, you build a straw man, and gave an example to prove that wrong. I never said what you imply I did. Yes, I am better than that, because I'm not the one building a straw man.

[Moontanman]

This entire thread is based on a question that is nothing more than emotional trolling. The only people who say that religion cannot be practiced by people who "practice" science are the religious fundamentalists who are threatened by the pursuit of the understanding of reality, the people who require that reality be defined by their belief of the supernatural.

 

I am not a believer and if anyone wants to assert the supernatural over reality I am perfectly willing to debate the issue but to assert that someone cannot believe in God and still pursue reality is a dishonest question posed only to sow contention between people.

 

There is no reason to assume or assert that a religious person cannot "do" science or that a scientist (or layman interested in science) cannot hold a religious belief.

 

Not everyone who holds a belief in a god or gods also holds a total commitment to the idea that they are absolutely correct and reality is wrong... Some people actually believe that god wants us to explore and find out how reality really works. The people who define reality by the writings of bronze age sheep shaggers should not be used to define religion or god...

Edited October 30, 2012 by Moontanman

[Ringer]

I think we're okay.

 

 

Sure, of course it's independent, why wouldn't it be.

 

 

You gave an example of not "using" one's religion while doing science, such as praying, chanting, and dietary restrictions. These are religious activities, not religion. We also probably shouldn't be break dancing or reciting the Gettysburg Address while doing science.

 

The thing is I could just as easily say that about everything you listed as doing science. It's a way of going about things and a way of thinking, not actions in themselves. In a religious setting the way of going about things is suspending disbelieve in miracles, magic, supernatural, etc. It is also about an uncritical subservience towards a higher power. Scientific methodology cannot have these things. There can be no suspension of disbelief, there is either evidence or there isn't. All ideas and evidence must be held under high scrutiny no matter the source, authority should mean nothing.

 

The argument seems to be analogous to a situation such as this:

1: You can't play both football and baseball, they're mutually exclusive sports

2: Yes you can, I played football yesterday and baseball last week. It's easy to do both

1: No, I mean when you are playing football you are not playing baseball. They're different sports

2: But I just explained I, personally, have played both

1: You can do both, but the argument is you can't do both at the same time

ad nauseum

 

 

 

[ewmon]

I can say that I and plenty of other religious scientists can do science without having to stop "doing religion", whatever that means. I agree with most of what Moontanman just said ... "threatened by the pursuit of the understanding of reality" and "to assert the supernatural over reality", except that I would say "to assert the supernatural over science". Anyone who has studied the history of science should know not to expect that our current knowledge of reality through science to be absolutely correct. Perhaps "doing religion" means "asserting the supernatural", which Francis Collins and plenty of other religious scientists certainly do not do and do not need to do. Francis Collins mapping the human genome and I performing chemical assays do not require us to stop "doing religion". As I think I said before, there seems to be plenty of atheists who have an unrealistic understanding of religion.

 

In my mind, this boils down to the "supernatural" versus "science". Whoever said that believers didn't want to know how the so-called "supernatural" works? Certainly, as I said before, there are believers who, even without their religion, couldn't do science. So, yeah, there are some whose eyes roll back in their sockets, their eye lids flutter, and they pronounce something to be a miracle or the supernatural ... that will never be known. They are a small number of believers, and unfortunately, they tend to be the most vocal. There are also the moon-landing-hoax people who don't want to believe in our scientific achievements — and they aren't necessarily religious. On the other end of the spectrum, I see the crop circles and the Area 51 people who automatically attribute crop circles and high-tech aircraft to a more highly-scientific race of beings. Between the two extremes are the commonsense and scientific people.

 

It's easy to paint all believers with a broad brush, but in doing so, it conveniently oversimplifies reality.

[CirclesAndDots]

Francis Collins occupies a busy place in the imagination of the religious. At once he has this grandfather appeal, possessing a gentle wisdom and an ancient memory, he has too a desperate relevancy in an age driven by the scientific enterprise where biblical explanations of the natural world are increasingly challenged and outright falsified. He inherits an odd role by being both 'religious' and 'scientific'; often contending with suspicion from the scientific community (NAS) who may interpret him as a kind of 'double agent' and regulating the expectations from the church who may interpret him as a kind of saboteur. The church entertains the idea that 'one of their own' will turn scientific realism on its head making God obvious and unavoidable, restoring confidence in the gospels and giving the doomsday prophecies a perceptible, deafening clock. A capable anecdote expressed here:

 

 

 

When confronted with the 'exhaustion' of reason, when probability is bent up like a contortionist, religion will always say God. There is no chaos, there is code. In this sense, religion has already answered its most crucial question, Who and/or Why? , any science it does is more admiration than exploration. Collins hijacked evolution and is steering it to support dogma. This is the threshold. This is the point when science and religion collide. This is Collins abandoning his objectivity and muscling in the will to express conviction over the ability to express rational conclusion. Imagine playing a rousing game of Clue (if a game of Clue could ever be called rousing) with someone like Collins. I say "Miss White with the candle stick in the kitchen"; Collins mumbles "Because God willed it". We agree that there's a body, some suspects, a murder weapon and a search for truth. We diverge on the addition of the God card, the motive. Collins agrees with evolution, he might dabble with accepting the Big Bang. He diverges from being scientific when he posits an unscientific impetus and decorates the thing with an emotional, human appeal to 'motivation' or purpose.

 

Science and religion function best when they are asking the right questions. Science isn't concerned with the trajectories of prayer and religion shouldn't be concerned with propping up dogma with scientific discovery or worse constructing biblical certainty out of scientific doubt.

 

 

 

[ewmon]

There are the believers who will attribute just about anything to God that pleases them (he got them a home, a wife, a job, a pickup, a guitar and a dog — just like a country song in reverse), but there's also plenty of believers — especially the scientifically-minded ones — who believe that God doesn't dabble in people's lives most of the time ... if at all. I would guess that they also tend to believe the supernatural is merely the not-yet-known natural, and this idea doesn't conflict with their beliefs. Christ performed some "miracles", and he told his followers that they had failed in their attempt simply because they didn't know how to do it — nothing supernatural.

 

Religion always turns to God? I wouldn't say so. Chaos? I feel certain that there is no chaos, and most/all scientists would agree. The idea that something happens for no reason does not appeal to either the believer or the scientist. Not to say that everything is predetermined, but that there is cause-and-effect to everything (although the "will" of even one human is a highly complex system). The Butterfly Effect is not new, so I don't know why people have marveled at it. We find the same cause-and-effect in the For-want-of-a-nail proverb (no, it's not Biblical) that is at least 600 years old. The kingdom was lost ... all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

 

I don't think the church entertains much of anything regarding science. The church knew/suspected what Galileo had discovered, and it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang Theory — and the church apparently allowed him to publicize it.

 

I never heard that Francis Collins ever posited any unscientific impetus and decorated the thing with an emotional, human appeal to 'motivation' or purpose. Should I just "believe" you, or is there "evidence" of this?

[CirclesAndDots]

It is evident there's a guided, fevered attempt to preserve the mysticism of your faith rather than promote any real talking points. This is a common tactic among apologists. There is a grave disconnect (and a potential epistemological hurdle) between your idyllic vision of God and the socially functional construct of God, the God that exerts his will through the medium of the church, the church that tinkers with relationships between mankind. THIS is the faith people recognize and rally to. Your God seems restricted to the minds of certain ingenutive philosophies and this is what I hope to address. Apologists continually redefine God so God can still fit comfortably within the always revealing scientific drama. ( God of the Gaps) God is mystified to a point of being indefinable but yet is defined every Sunday; is stowed up in human passions and human interests. What God do you believe in ewmon? Is it this personal savior? Is it the God of discredited natural phenomenon? Or is it this convenient, yet to be disclosed, and uniformly unfalsifiable entity that may or may not have any semblance to the consciousness purported by bronze age philosophy?

 

There seems to be lurking within your response blatant appeals to "authority" (And I don't mean just the cloud surfer). You provided as sterling, sturdy, evidence an illustrious man of science who is also a man of religion. I replied with an examination of the religious and professional "roles", citing the "perceived" antagonisms and expectations between the two. Is there a palatable suspicion from the scientific community regarding Collins? There was some schoolboy concern over whether he would 'flex' religious "motives" within an influential position. And this is justified. One look at the religious establishment's (I talk specifically here of the religious right) history with scientific knowledge would raise even the heaviest eyebrow. There is a continued assault by the religious (and certain corporate interests) to exploit scientific doubt. Evidence here is plentiful. [The persistence of creationism in our education system as a "science". The denial of climate change. The outrageous claims made about sex education and contraceptive usage]. Science does not make guarantees, it quantifies likelihoods. The religious take this lack of total conviction and use it to prop up vague biblical language because 'knowing' is better than not knowing. Certainty trumps doubt. This is antithetical to the scientific experience.

 

Religion (and I will further reinforce this concept) will always say God. Collins accepts evolution but it is an evolution with an unscientific attachment. He calls it "Biologos", rational people might call it "theistic evolution". Evolution in this perspective is just a mechanism by which the supernatural creates the natural. The unreal birthing the real. Grab at that word there, you know what that word says to scientists? It says "Can't Touch This". You interpret supernatural as a process by which the ignorant become a little less so and God must always just be a bit beyond the grip of explanation. What is deeply troubling about this notion is somehow, by some contortion of logic, people are ignorant enough to never know the natural impetus for God (that is the world that scientists study and seek to explain) but not quite ignorant enough to not realize that God created because he could or because he wanted a stage for his favorite creation to run around and experiment with life. In other words, we are too ignorant to prove God exists but not too ignorant to understand his motives for existence (?) While I hate to entertain your hasty appeals to authority, What scientist thinks the universe as 'intentional'? There is chaos and there is intention. I don't mean chaos in any mathematical sense and I am not denying the 'intricate' configurations of the real; I ask but where you make the jump, the proverbial leap, from revealing the world by experiment and partitioning doubt to knowing the world by prophecy? At what point is the world science illuminates not an addendum to your faith? Finally, whether something is appealing to the emotional epicenters is independent of truth. You may find the universe more habitable with the construct of God, but that says nothing about the evidence for the existence of God, it says rather more about the character of man than the character of God.

Alas, there is much to be said and my participation in this discussion rests now on some clarification of your position. The commentary seems to have shifted to a broader evaluation of some of the fundamental idiosyncrasies of science and religion, faith and doubt. It is a tired argument but one worth resurrecting.

 

This last link should provide the insight into Collins' version of evolution. You don't have to take my claim on faith bud. Please tell me how theistic evolution doesn't ultimately translate into creationism? I'm sure many users of this forum would gladly discuss the validity of creationism (of any wording...be it intelligent design or this needless marriage of science and religion) as something functionally scientific. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioLogos_Foundation. Visit the website. Explore. Ponder. Report back here.

[Ophiolite]

Over many years of conversation, reading, debating, thinking, contemplating and other active and passive thought processes I have arrived at a world view. As a devout agnostic this is not a religious view, but it would not be out of place to call it a spiritual view. I suspect (very strongly suspect) that the importance of this worldview to how I conduct my life is directly comparable with the importance of their belief system to religious believers.

 

I am quite certain that this worldview informs everything that I do, so that when I am practicing engineering analysis (which is as close as I get to doing science) I am at the same time doing (employing) my worldview. I see no reason that one could not, therefore, do science and religion at the same time. Indeed, I find it difficult to see how this could be avoided.

 

As a former Christian I can see nothing in the protestant version of Christianity that would contradictory to doing good science. Indeed, the reverse is true. My former Christian viewpoint and my current worldview would both promote effective scientific investigation. I am puzzled by those who see this as a problem.

[ewmon]

It is evident there's a guided, fevered attempt to preserve the mysticism of your faith rather than promote any real talking points. This is a common tactic among apologists. There is a grave disconnect (and a potential epistemological hurdle) between your idyllic vision of God and the socially functional construct of God, the God that exerts his will through the medium of the church, the church that tinkers with relationships between mankind. THIS is the faith people recognize and rally to. Your God seems restricted to the minds of certain ingenutive philosophies and this is what I hope to address. Apologists continually redefine God so God can still fit comfortably within the always revealing scientific drama. ( God of the Gaps) God is mystified to a point of being indefinable but yet is defined every Sunday; is stowed up in human passions and human interests. What God do you believe in ewmon? Is it this personal savior? Is it the God of discredited natural phenomenon? Or is it this convenient, yet to be disclosed, and uniformly unfalsifiable entity that may or may not have any semblance to the consciousness purported by bronze age philosophy?

 

There seems to be lurking within your response blatant appeals to "authority" (And I don't mean just the cloud surfer). You provided as sterling, sturdy, evidence an illustrious man of science who is also a man of religion. I replied with an examination of the religious and professional "roles", citing the "perceived" antagonisms and expectations between the two. Is there a palatable suspicion from the scientific community regarding Collins? There was some schoolboy concern over whether he would 'flex' religious "motives" within an influential position. And this is justified. One look at the religious establishment's (I talk specifically here of the religious right) history with scientific knowledge would raise even the heaviest eyebrow. There is a continued assault by the religious (and certain corporate interests) to exploit scientific doubt. Evidence here is plentiful. [The persistence of creationism in our education system as a "science". The denial of climate change. The outrageous claims made about sex education and contraceptive usage]. Science does not make guarantees, it quantifies likelihoods. The religious take this lack of total conviction and use it to prop up vague biblical language because 'knowing' is better than not knowing. Certainty trumps doubt. This is antithetical to the scientific experience.

 

Religion (and I will further reinforce this concept) will always say God. Collins accepts evolution but it is an evolution with an unscientific attachment. He calls it "Biologos", rational people might call it "theistic evolution". Evolution in this perspective is just a mechanism by which the supernatural creates the natural. The unreal birthing the real. Grab at that word there, you know what that word says to scientists? It says "Can't Touch This". You interpret supernatural as a process by which the ignorant become a little less so and God must always just be a bit beyond the grip of explanation. What is deeply troubling about this notion is somehow, by some contortion of logic, people are ignorant enough to never know the natural impetus for God (that is the world that scientists study and seek to explain) but not quite ignorant enough to not realize that God created because he could or because he wanted a stage for his favorite creation to run around and experiment with life. In other words, we are too ignorant to prove God exists but not too ignorant to understand his motives for existence (?) While I hate to entertain your hasty appeals to authority, What scientist thinks the universe as 'intentional'? There is chaos and there is intention. I don't mean chaos in any mathematical sense and I am not denying the 'intricate' configurations of the real; I ask but where you make the jump, the proverbial leap, from revealing the world by experiment and partitioning doubt to knowing the world by prophecy? At what point is the world science illuminates not an addendum to your faith? Finally, whether something is appealing to the emotional epicenters is independent of truth. You may find the universe more habitable with the construct of God, but that says nothing about the evidence for the existence of God, it says rather more about the character of man than the character of God.

Alas, there is much to be said and my participation in this discussion rests now on some clarification of your position. The commentary seems to have shifted to a broader evaluation of some of the fundamental idiosyncrasies of science and religion, faith and doubt. It is a tired argument but one worth resurrecting.

 

This last link should provide the insight into Collins' version of evolution. You don't have to take my claim on faith bud. Please tell me how theistic evolution doesn't ultimately translate into creationism? I'm sure many users of this forum would gladly discuss the validity of creationism (of any wording...be it intelligent design or this needless marriage of science and religion) as something functionally scientific. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioLogos_Foundation. Visit the website. Explore. Ponder. Report back here.

Your many statements and your awkward sentence construction results in ambiguities and unsubstantiated facts. For example, does "a guided, fevered attempt to preserve the mysticism of your faith" refer to my supposed guided,fevered attempt and to my personal faith or is it a fancy way of saying Christianity? Sorry to pop your balloons, but I'm not here to discuss the validity of creationism, and I never said I was.

 

CirclesAndDots, all I'm saying about Collins is that whatever he believes as his religion does not interfere with decoding the human genome, just as my religion does not interfere with the bench chemistry that I perform. Christians are not monolithic in their beliefs, so it's not fair to lump us all together. As I said, there are some Christians that, even if they weren't Christians, couldn't do science.

 

You mentioned "apologetics" (the branch of theology regarding the defense and proofs of Christianity), yet I'm not here to defend or prove anything. I'm saying here that the idea that one must stop "doing" religion in order to "do" science is not true. That's like claiming that one must stop "doing" religion (or philosophy) in order to drive a car (which is all about science — physics, mechanics, aerodynamics, electronics, chemistry, computers, tribology, etc), or to repair it, or to modify it, etc.

 

Please point out what seems to be appeals to authority lurking in my response. Someone mentioned to stop "doing" religion in order to "do" science, so I gave Francis Collins as an example, wondering what he had to stop "doing" so as not to interfere with him "doing" science. If there antagonisms and expectations between the two, then I don't find them.

 

 

To begin with, I've already asked people to define what's meant by "doing" religion, and I don't remember seeing any replies. Quite frankly, I don't know what I must stop "doing" in order to "do" science. Do you?

[Moontanman]

Your many statements and your awkward sentence construction results in ambiguities and unsubstantiated facts. For example, does "a guided, fevered attempt to preserve the mysticism of your faith" refer to my supposed guided,fevered attempt and to my personal faith or is it a fancy way of saying Christianity? Sorry to pop your balloons, but I'm not here to discuss the validity of creationism, and I never said I was.

 

CirclesAndDots, all I'm saying about Collins is that whatever he believes as his religion does not interfere with decoding the human genome, just as my religion does not interfere with the bench chemistry that I perform. Christians are not monolithic in their beliefs, so it's not fair to lump us all together. As I said, there are some Christians that, even if they weren't Christians, couldn't do science.

 

You mentioned "apologetics" (the branch of theology regarding the defense and proofs of Christianity), yet I'm not here to defend or prove anything. I'm saying here that the idea that one must stop "doing" religion in order to "do" science is not true. That's like claiming that one must stop "doing" religion (or philosophy) in order to drive a car (which is all about science — physics, mechanics, aerodynamics, electronics, chemistry, computers, tribology, etc), or to repair it, or to modify it, etc.

 

Please point out what seems to be appeals to authority lurking in my response. Someone mentioned to stop "doing" religion in order to "do" science, so I gave Francis Collins as an example, wondering what he had to stop "doing" so as not to interfere with him "doing" science. If there antagonisms and expectations between the two, then I don't find them.

 

 

To begin with, I've already asked people to define what's meant by "doing" religion, and I don't remember seeing any replies. Quite frankly, I don't know what I must stop "doing" in order to "do" science. Do you?

 

 

I don't know about the driving and religion thing ewmon, I know some christians that become down right satanic when they are driving...

 

I will suggest that when you are doing science you are not doing religion (I'm not real clear about what that means "doing religion" either), at least not actively. I used to work in a lab and we handled some semi nasty stuff and a couple of the people would make me want to pray when they started handing bulk chemicals...

 

I do know people who practically have to cut a chickens head off and sprinkle it's blood around the floor before answering the phone... But I do not see any reason why being religious would necessarily interfere with being a scientist, now certain subsets of religion might interfere but as long as you don't ask god for the results or deny the results due to your religion i see no conflict...

 

I remember being in the car with one family member who is a fundamentalist creationist when someone cut him off in traffic, the words out of his mouth could have sterilized a rotted corpse, when i asked him how he could talk like that considering his beliefs his reply was that god understood driving was too much for him to handle without blowing off steam, the middle finger thing was always active when he was driving...

[Ringer]

 

To begin with, I've already asked people to define what's meant by "doing" religion, and I don't remember seeing any replies. Quite frankly, I don't know what I must stop "doing" in order to "do" science. Do you?

 

I thought I did. It's about the mindset of being consistently critical that you have when doing scientific investigation must be left at the door when partaking in a faith based meeting. It's not that you can't be religious and scientific, but the thought processes of are different when actively pursuing on or the other. I can't submit a paper to a journal with the results section just reading, "trust me," and be expected to be taken seriously just because I know the field. Likewise I couldn't expect to walk into a church and require the preacher to give me the methodology he used to connect with god to see if I could replicate his results.