Religious scientists?

[Tampitump]

I had to post this because this topic just bugs me to no end. As an atheist with no scientific training, It sometimes seems as though I understand how evidence, science, and skepticism works better than some of the most distinguished scientists do. I guess Francis Collins would be the first one that would come to most people's minds. But there are others like Mayim Bialik (from the Big Bang Theory and other TV shows), whom I would consider more of an actor than a scientist, but she nonetheless has a Phd in neuroscience from UCLA. Despite this she is still a staunch Zionist and Orthodox Jew whom, if I'm not mistaking, was not born a Jew, but converted to Judaism later in life.

 

I just don't understand how these people can have such profound cognitive dissonance. How can you be exposed to the arguments and evidence of all of this and still walk away thinking that the Torah or the Bible is the least bit credible? I just don't get it. I really don't get it. It does not take a genius to look at something like religion and notice how flawed, absurd, and unworthy of your daily attention it is. The people who are perceived as scientifically educated by the public who are also religious make religion look credible in the eyes of laypeople IMO. They think "Look, Francis Collins believes in it, and he's a genius, so therefore its valid". At that point you basically become defenseless because you have to admit that, yes, he is more educated than me, but he's still wrong about this. It makes you look like the stubborn, unreasonable one.

 

I find it a very inconvenient part of our history that religion had to infringe upon humanity. It has placed a burden upon us that we just cannot seem to work out of our system. It crops up everywhere. Even the scientific community is not entirely barren of it. I can understand why uneducated people tend to cling to it. But I just don't get how the well-educated people who should know better still hold onto erroneous, unsupported nonsense when they know full well that it does not meet the standards of evidence they have been trained to fully understand. Gosh! Its just MIND BLOGGING!

 

I just wondered what the community here thought about this?

 

Thanks.

[Raider5678]

Well, tell you what. I haven't heard of a single scientist who successfully proved that there could be no God. As in christian. Have at it. Its incredibly hard to even prove that things in the bible don't add up. Considering it WAS written over a LONG period of time, its unlikely that EVERYTHING in there would add up, but it does. Its kind of hard to understand, and I'm sure some atheist scientist on this site will claim "Russell's teacup!" or something, but that's my personal opinion. Now this is religion, but as for science, most of these guys know what they're talking about, but if its not science, then it turns the same way most debates turn. Just into an argument that doesn't get anywhere.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Raider5678

[Tampitump]

Well, tell you what. I haven't heard of a single scientist who successfully proved that there could be no God. As in christian..

This, I think, almost intentionally misses the point. The idea of skeptical thinking means not accepting claims which lack evidentiary support. It is one thing to say that you "believe in some higher power" or a "god" even, but its something else entirely to go the whole nine yards and name a specific God who has specific attributes whom you claim existed and interacted with our ancestors in history in supernatural ways.

 

It seems to me that in order to make books like the Torah/Bible compatible with science, you have to nuance and reinterpret what the books say so that they seem to fit with the evidence. When the books say something that is just demonstrably incorrect, religious people say it must be understood "metaphorically" or "not literally", but when they say things that seem correct in both scientific and moral terms, no one says it is meant to be a metaphor, they usually take it as literal. At this point the religious belief becomes elastic and useless. If you're just going to bend and stretch what it says to conform with the evidence and what we understand from science, then the belief is USELESS and is not really providing you with anything worthwhile.

[Raider5678]

It seems to me that in order to make books like the Torah/Bible compatible with science, you have to nuance and reinterpret what the books say so that they seem to fit with the evidence. When the books say something that is just demonstrably incorrect, religious people say it must be understood "metaphorically" or "not literally", but when they say things that seem correct in both scientific and moral terms, no one says it is meant to be a metaphor, they usually take it as literal. At this point the religious belief becomes elastic and useless. If you're just going to bend and stretch what it says to conform with the evidence and what we understand from science, then the belief is USELESS and is not really providing you with anything worthwhile.

Any examples?

[Tampitump]

Any examples?

The creation for example. The universe took 6 days to create according to the Torah/Bible. It doesn't just say 6 days, it is specific about what happened on each day. This includes the creation of light on Earth before the creation of the sun. This conflicts with the evidence we now have regarding the age of the universe and how things happened. So in order to keep their beliefs, religious people will claim these particular passages are not meant to be taken literally but "metaphorically".

 

The Bible also claims there was a global flood, for which not only is there not evidence, but the evidence we have negates this claim. It also claims that bats are birds and that rabbits chew their cud, both of which are false. So when these books get the answer totally wrong it becomes a "metaphor" or "not to be taken literally". Doing this ensures religious people that they can keep their beliefs and still accept science.The beliefs then become elastic and useless. When there is a conflict between what these holy books say and what science says, science always ends up being correct and the books have to have their "meaning" shifted accordingly in order to scale with science. This is how religious scientists must go about things if they are to be any kind of scientist and remain religious.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Tampitump

[Raider5678]

The creation for example. The universe took 6 days to create according to the Torah/Bible. It doesn't just say 6 days, it is specific about what happened on each day. This includes the creation of light on Earth before the creation of the sun. This conflicts with the evidence we now have regarding the age of the universe and how things happened. So in order to keep their beliefs, religious people will claim these particular passages are not meant to be taken literally but "metaphorically".

 

The Bible also claims there was a global flood, for which not only is there not evidence, but the evidence we have negates this claim. It also claims that bats are birds and that rabbits chew their cud, both of which are false. So when these books get the answer totally wrong it becomes a "metaphor" or "not to be taken literally". Doing this ensures religious people that they can keep their beliefs and still accept science.The beliefs then become elastic and useless. When there is a conflict between what these holy books say and what science says, science always ends up being correct and the books have to have their "meaning" shifted accordingly in order to scale with science. This is how religious scientists must go about things if they are to be any kind of scientist and remain religious.

Huh, I always thought fire gave off light too. I guess it conflicts with science. Oh well.

 

There also evidence of a "super tsunami" that might be the great flood.

 

And classes of things don't really count. For a LONG time people classified anything that flew and wasn't an insect a bird, so if after a while we separated everything, would the bible have to magically change too? It worked until we separate mammals and reptiles.

 

http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud

 

Yeah, you see the Hebrew language wasn't the most advanced. To them, hand ment from your finger tips to your elbow, which what, your going to claim the bible is wrong because the Hebrew language doesn't translate well?

[Tampitump]

God Bless! It deleted my entire freaking response to your post! That thing was very long and I don't feel like writing it again! Just forget it! UGGHHHH!!!

Edited May 21, 2016 by Tampitump

[Sirona]

There is a high correlation between higher education (especially postgraduate) and non religiosity, also, older generations are more religious. You'll find scientists are less religious than other professions, however, that doesn't mean that because you're a scientist you must therefore be an atheist. The younger generation of scientists, especially those under thirty will have a higher proportion of non religious identifiers. It seems that people are just more surprised when scientists are religious, rather than there being a high portion of religious scientists.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Sirona

[StringJunky]

 

 

I just don't understand how these people can have such profound cognitive dissonance.

There has been at least one physical scientist on here that was devout but he compartmentalised them separately. Science tells you how things behave, not how to live your life, which is what religion essentially does. Looked at this way, there is no dissonance.

[Memammal]

I just don't understand how these people can have such profound cognitive dissonance. How can you be exposed to the arguments and evidence of all of this and still walk away thinking that the Torah or the Bible is the least bit credible? I just don't get it.

 

I find it a very inconvenient part of our history that religion had to infringe upon humanity. It has placed a burden upon us that we just cannot seem to work out of our system.

If one is intellectually honest, - coherent and accepts "actual" science, I agree with Tampitump that it is hard to understand why there are still so many people, especially scientists, who can still cognitively embrace organised theistic religion, more so the Abrahamic religions.

 

Then I read this..:

 

Well, tell you what. I haven't heard of a single scientist who successfully proved that there could be no God. As in christian. Have at it. Its incredibly hard to even prove that things in the bible don't add up. Considering it WAS written over a LONG period of time, its unlikely that EVERYTHING in there would add up, but it does.

 

Huh, I always thought fire gave off light too. I guess it conflicts with science. Oh well.

There also evidence of a "super tsunami" that might be the great flood.

 

And this..:

http://creation.com

Yeah, you see the Hebrew language wasn't the most advanced. To them, hand ment from your finger tips to your elbow, which what, your going to claim the bible is wrong because the Hebrew language doesn't translate well?

And before I find myself in trouble again, let me say this with the utmost respect and humility - I get really confused when I read things like this.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Memammal

[Prometheus]

I am both a Buddhist and on the path to becoming a scientist (just started a PhD), so i might qualify as a religious scientist.

 

To my mind they can compliment each other wonderfully, as long as one is willing not to cling to any beliefs. Science can then be used as a tool to eliminate all the crap accumulated in a religion, and leave only what is important.

 

For example Buddhism teaches a concept of rebirth very similar to reincarnation. Science, however, finds no evidence for this. Therefore i do not believe in rebirth. There are a great number of concepts that can thus be eliminated from Buddhism - excellent. This allows me to focus on the important stuff, like how best to relate to the world i find myself in to the benefit of myself and any sentient beings i share it with.

[Memammal]

Buddhism is hardly a religion, Prometheus, don't you think? It is a spiritual way of living and personally I don't have an issue with it especially in the way that you are approaching it.

[StringJunky]

Buddhism is hardly a religion, Prometheus, don't you think? It is a spiritual way of living and personally I don't have an issue with it especially in the way that you are approaching it.

Although Buddhism is less religion and more philosophy it is still metaphysical in spirit. One can strip away the religiosity from the other religions, leaving just the bare philosophy for approaching ones life and interacting with people..

Edited May 21, 2016 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Have at it. Its incredibly hard to even prove that things in the bible don't add up. Considering it WAS written over a LONG period of time, its unlikely that EVERYTHING in there would add up, but it does.

Um, no.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible#Internal_consistency

http://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

[mp][/mp]

 

I just wondered what the community here thought about this?

Science certainly helps us to guard against and even minimize our various cognitive biases, but it unfortunately doesn't eliminate them. We're still just hairless apes that have evolved to make decisions with our guts, take shortcuts where possible, and we tend to prefer and have an almost unconscious predisposition toward accepting simple narratives over the more recent enlightenment values of empiricism and skepticism.

[John Cuthber]

Well, tell you what. I haven't heard of a single scientist who successfully proved that there could be no God. As in christian. Have at it. Its incredibly hard to even prove that things in the bible don't add up. Considering it WAS written over a LONG period of time, its unlikely that EVERYTHING in there would add up, but it does.

"Well, tell you what. I haven't heard of a single scientist who successfully proved that there could be no God."

That's because we have more sense than to try to prove a negative. It rather misses the point that it's the God squad making the extraordinary claim- that there's a God- so it their job to prove that He does exist.

 

Did you think you had made a point there?

"Its incredibly hard to even prove that things in the bible don't add up. Considering it WAS written over a LONG period of time, its unlikely that EVERYTHING in there would add up, but it does. "

Nope, it does not add up.

http://bibviz.com/

[Memammal]

One can strip away the religiosity from the other religions, leaving just the bare philosophy for approaching ones life and interacting with people..

Yeah, I am fine with that although curious as to what would be the bare philosophy of, for example, Christianity? And also why one would specifically have to rely on it in order to manage your life and to interact with people..?

Edited May 21, 2016 by Memammal

[Strange]

I just don't understand how these people can have such profound cognitive dissonance.

 

 

Why pick on religion. Do you think that all opinions, preferences and beliefs should be entirely rational and evidence based?

 

So we must develop some sort of formalised ranking system for op music so that scientists know what music they should listen to? And we should have a science of politics and then scientists will all vote the same way because it is obviously "right"?

 

Everyone has opinions and beliefs that are, to some extent, irrational. The fact that there are (and always have been) a large number of religious scientists who are very successful at their work shows that this is not a problem. Claiming that it is a problem is irrational and contradicted by evidence.

[StringJunky]

Yeah, I am fine with that although curious as to what would be the bare philosophy of, for example, Christianity? And also why one would specifically have to rely on it in order to manage your life and to interact with people..?

No idea offhand on that one specifically but there is the moral codes as well which people choose to live by; the reason is either by cultural exposure or for personal reasons.

[Strange]

Yeah, I am fine with that although curious as to what would be the bare philosophy of, for example, Christianity? And also why one would specifically have to rely on it in order to manage your life and to interact with people..?

 

 

But, presumably, you have certain moral beliefs and ethical standards. These are a result of beliefs and opinions that you have picked up over your life. They are not a result of science. Some people get their moral beliefs from religion (or claim to) and others don't (or claim not to). Shrug.

[dimreepr]

Yeah, I am fine with that although curious as to what would be the bare philosophy of, for example, Christianity?

 

 

When one gets to the bare bones of most religions the philosophies are essentially identical; treat others as you’d want to be treated, forgive those that don’t and accept everything you can’t change or avoid, it’s a path to contentment.

And also why one would specifically have to rely on it in order to manage your life and to interact with people..?

 

 

There are many paths to a contented life; some can find inner peace alone, some need guidance and some need to be told it exists.

Edited May 21, 2016 by dimreepr

[Memammal]

Why pick on religion. Do you think that all opinions, preferences and beliefs should be entirely rational and evidence based?

Let me start by saying that I have no problem with personal spirituality, but I find it hard to buy into- or to condone a belief or religion that requires ignorance and faith to suppress knowledge. Why pick on religion? Because the remnants of toxic monotheism continue to poison millions of young minds along cultural divides.

 

Everyone has opinions and beliefs that are, to some extent, irrational. The fact that there are (and always have been) a large number of religious scientists who are very successful at their work shows that this is not a problem. Claiming that it is a problem is irrational and contradicted by evidence.

I am not sure if he (or I) claimed that it is a problem per se, just that we find it hard to understand ("If one is intellectually honest, - coherent and accepts "actual" science"). Your reference to "a large number of religious scientists" perhaps conveys a wrong impression...that most of them are religious?

 

But, presumably, you have certain moral beliefs and ethical standards. These are a result of beliefs and opinions that you have picked up over your life. They are not a result of science. Some people get their moral beliefs from religion (or claim to) and others don't (or claim not to). Shrug.

The truth is that morality and/or ethics do not require religion. Morality is part of nature, part of our evolutionary make-up. Both morality and ethics pre-date religion and both morality and ethics thrive in secular societies.

 

PS. In fact, some religious teachings and divine behaviour can be regarded as immoral.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Memammal

[Strange]

Your reference to "a large number of religious scientists" perhaps conveys a wrong impression...that most of them are religious?

 

 

If I had meant most I would have said most. I haven't seen any statistics but I doubt a majority of scientists are religious (in a formal sense). Although it is quite possible a majority have beliefs of some generally "spiritual" sort. But I really don't know. But there are enough scientists who write about their religious beliefs to make it clear that there are a lot who are religious.

 

The truth is that morality and/or ethics do not require religion.

Not really they point. Wherever they come from they are arbitrary and, in some ways, irrational. So there is nothing special about religion, in this sense.

[Raider5678]

Um, no.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible#Internal_consistency

http://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

[mp][/mp]

 

Science certainly helps us to guard against and even minimize our various cognitive biases, but it unfortunately doesn't eliminate them. We're still just hairless apes that have evolved to make decisions with our guts, take shortcuts where possible, and we tend to prefer and have an almost unconscious predisposition toward accepting simple narratives over the more recent enlightenment values of empiricism and skepticism.

 

I was looking at the site until I saw THIS at the top.

 

These lists are meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation. Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations--after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations--but it is the reader's obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes

appropriate sense to do this.

 

 

 

"Well, tell you what. I haven't heard of a single scientist who successfully proved that there could be no God."

That's because we have more sense than to try to prove a negative. It rather misses the point that it's the God squad making the extraordinary claim- that there's a God- so it their job to prove that He does exist.

 

Did you think you had made a point there?

"Its incredibly hard to even prove that things in the bible don't add up. Considering it WAS written over a LONG period of time, its unlikely that EVERYTHING in there would add up, but it does. "

Nope, it does not add up.

http://bibviz.com/

That's an advertisement site that's selling anti bible posters.... They make money searching for ANYTHING that could even come CLOSE to a contradiction, or something that didn't line up to modern morals. To be honest, a lot of past laws don't line up with modern morals, like SLAVERY for example. Are you going to say that ALL past countries up until modern times were evil because they had slaves?

[iNow]

Instead of dismissing the sites or the intro paragraphs out of hand and completely evading the core points being made, perhaps you'd like to comment on the long list of contradictions, inconsistencies, and other parts of the bible that don't "add up?"

[CroMagnon]

I'm probably putting my neck on the guillotine right now, my beliefs aren't usually well-received, but both science and religions are windows through which I view life.

 

What is science? People will define it many ways, but my preferred summary is "a system of studying the natural world through gathering evidence, performing experiments, and investigating patterns and anomalies". I'm sure others will disagree. The scientific method is a means of understanding the inner workings of the universe, of how we got here, how we function, how we fit into the great scheme of things. Science is the study of what God is: atoms, cells, light, crystals, gravity, etc.

 

What is religion? I'll define it separate from spirituality, which I find mostly synonymous with philosophy. Religion starts with the same intention as science: to understand the world we live in. We notice something in nature, ponder why it happens, gather evidence, and come up with some kind of explanation that makes sense to us. Unfortunately, we lacked the tools and cumulative knowledge we have now back when most religions began to sprout. That leads to stupid theories like buttsex causing fire to fall from the sky and turn people to salt.

 

As we didn't know such things as the underlying biology behind plagues 4000 years ago, we had to blame someone or something for or woes, usually someone that the tribe or priest didn't like. This led to inaccurate perceptions of natural processes being a basis for law and order. Eating pork made people sick, so it was a crime for bringing God's wrath upon the tribe. It might rain if you do kill the right animal though, and if it doesn't, that must be because you messed up the ritual in one of fifty possible ways. Religion is science when the scientists eat too many shrooms. A lot is also lost in translation, though I'm sure the original versions still didn't make much sense.

 

I was brought up Christian, nondenominational on my mom's side and Catholic on my dad's; never really went to church because I hated it. Ever since preschool though, I've been a lifelong learner and bookworm, my passions being astronomy, geology, biology, and history. Of course when I was younger, I didn't fully grasp those things. I just thought space, volcanoes, dinosaurs, guts, castles, and Ancient Egypt were neat shit. Hell, my interest in Egypt just sprung up from my kindergarten-to-current love of classic Yu-Gi-Oh. But as I got older, around 8 or so, I started to understand the larger areas of science my childhood interests fit into. That's when I began to question the Christian fables I've been taught to believe.

 

Humans were not made of earth, women were not made of ribs, snakes do not speak. Religious texts give no evidence of such things, but scientific studies and piles of evidence show humans are apes; I'm going with the piles of evidence. For a few of my tween years, I considered myself atheist or at least agnostic because I could find no proof of God. Until I realized God was still all around me. Now in all my love of ancient cultures, I've never much cared for the study of their myths or religions. I've always been much more interested in their daily lives, what foods they ate, how they interacted with their environment. There's always been a lingering interest in the occult and supernatural from my love of fantasy media, but it was just that: fantasy. I'm more concerned with understanding stars, stone, flesh-and-bone. I failed to realize how much of that could be gleaned from religious texts.

 

Around the time I started high school, I came to the conclusion that you can't find God in a book. God is nature, physics, the binding forces that hold our universe together, the force that set time in motion, the ruthless but remarkable mind behind natural selection, whatever mechanisms that may be. Who am I as a tiny primate to define what counts as God? There is no one up in the sky dictating what happens on earth, no one said let there be light; God is the light itself. The unlikely miracles of nerves, thought, vision, the complex processes behind it all, are more spiritual to me than any organized system of rituals. Spirit is just life, your spirituality or philosophy are how you perceive and live your life. The Bible says God can't be understood, there's no way our little human brains will ever fully understand the complexity of the universe, thus God is the universe.

 

So if my "religion" is "science", ie the evidence-based belief in and deep appreciation of the miracles of physics and nature, what is the role of religious texts? The same as any other literature: to give insight into the minds of the author and the world as they perceive it. While the Bible, Vedas, Book Of The Dead, etc are no scientific textbook, they're a treasure trove of cultural and psychological information. What people feared, what traits were admired, what foods were eaten, what animals known, all can be learned through studying prayers, rituals, myths, and monsters. I look to science for understanding of the cosmos, religion guides me in how to interact with the cosmos; all art and literature is a resource in that respect. Any insight into culture and psychology will allow us to better understand our own.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that things such as ghosts, demons, or angels may exist. Like I said, I'm sure there's a lot even our collective brains couldn't physically process about the universe. But I refuse to accept a faith-base belief when evidence clearly proves otherwise, such as with creationism vs natural selection, and I must always delve deeper into the truth. God is that knowledge, the beauty of it, the force behind it. Far out in space, deep within our DNA, within our subconscious, whatever is true or false about any one belief, God is what is and what we perceive. History, cosmology, physics, chemistry, geology, biology, botany, zoology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, theology, those are all my religion. It's hard for me to understand why people can't just worship life itself.

 

Just my two cents.