Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
Bingo.
The mentallity comes from peoples belief that all Physicists understand the world so well that they are all atheists. :roll: "I mean Stephen Hawkings is an atheist and he is brilliant."
Einstein was a Pantheist. The scientist who discovered the Big Bang theory was a priest. I know a few professors that are Geophysicists and Physicists that are Christians and they are leading in their field. They just don't take the Genesis story as being a totally literal depiction of creation. They view the Genesis story as a depiction of our relationship with G-d. St. Augustine even warned Christians in his time, before the theory of Evolution was discovered that the Genesis story should not be used to figure out creation but rather to show us a relationship with G-d.
Look at Francis Collins for example, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. He lead the mapping of the human genome in the 90s. You would think that he was an Atheist, but nope, he is a Christian. He finds nothing wrong with understanding that evolution and religion can coincide.
**EDIT**
BTW, I have as of yet to see what Richard Dawkins has done in scientific innovation other than writing books about the non-existance of God and such. He has been writing for quite some time, too, and I fail to understand how he has just gotten so much fanfare lately after his last book. The book is just a rehash of some of his other books.
yhelothar
Lifer
- Dec 11, 2002
- 18,409
- 39
- 91
While it's hard to use the belief in a religion as a sole benchmark for scientific compentency, I can see why scientists would tend to stay away from religion.
Science requires one to use empircal evidence, logic and reasoning to obtain knowledge. A good scientist also needs to have the understanding that any knowledge they have gained is not concrete.
Religion, does not follow these principles. It requires one to obtain knowledge through belief and authority. Religion also claims its provided knowledge is not only concrete, but undefiable.
However, in the defense of religious scientists, these two are not mutually exclusive. It's difficult to make the claim that if one believe's in religion, they are incompetent with obtaining knowledge through the scientific process. Thus one can still be religious and follow the scientific process.
But it's not difficult to see that one who heavily values the scientific process of obtaining knowledge, would find it difficult to accept religion.
Science requires one to use empircal evidence, logic and reasoning to obtain knowledge. A good scientist also needs to have the understanding that any knowledge they have gained is not concrete.
Religion, does not follow these principles. It requires one to obtain knowledge through belief and authority. Religion also claims its provided knowledge is not only concrete, but undefiable.
However, in the defense of religious scientists, these two are not mutually exclusive. It's difficult to make the claim that if one believe's in religion, they are incompetent with obtaining knowledge through the scientific process. Thus one can still be religious and follow the scientific process.
But it's not difficult to see that one who heavily values the scientific process of obtaining knowledge, would find it difficult to accept religion.
I would tend to disagree and say that christian scientists are just farther along that their counterparts as they have a theory to how all matter was created. As far as I know, the earliest a scientist has ever gone back to explain the creation of the earth is the big bang...still waiting for what created that giant blob of matter and what set into motion the events of the big bang.
A geologist who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old? Yes
An astronomer who thinks the universe is 6000 years old? Yes
Otherwise? No
- JaAG
An astronomer who thinks the universe is 6000 years old? Yes
Otherwise? No
- JaAG
This topic is about as relevant as asking if a Black biologist/physicist would be any less credible, or someone that likes Broccoli would be any less credible.
Its whether or not that person can do what they are supposed to be doing that you should worry about. Everyone has different beliefs and opinions.
Its whether or not that person can do what they are supposed to be doing that you should worry about. Everyone has different beliefs and opinions.
yhelothar
Lifer
- Dec 11, 2002
- 18,409
- 39
- 91
StatsmanD posts these inflammatory threads because he's curious as to how people can possibly responds to a view he holds so strongly. He wants to see how people can possibly refute something that makes so much sense to him. But in the back of his mind, he knows that the views that he holds is disagreeable with most. He feels frustrated that the views he sees so clearly is not shared by many. Thus, in a desperate attempt to speak out his message, he makes outlandish claims to garner the attention of many. He believes he's being audacious in doing so, he's standing up for something he believes in, regardless of what others think.
But in doing all of this, he does not realize that he's only destroying his credibility and his persona. He doesn't realize that the means he's trying to share his views, is contradicting to his objective - to have others share his views.
The above is just my own personal theory as to why statsmand behaves the way he does.
But in doing all of this, he does not realize that he's only destroying his credibility and his persona. He doesn't realize that the means he's trying to share his views, is contradicting to his objective - to have others share his views.
The above is just my own personal theory as to why statsmand behaves the way he does.
What does study/research in Biology/Physics have to do with God?
Belief in God gives most people a sense of calm, clarity and peace. Your point is?
Belief in God gives most people a sense of calm, clarity and peace. Your point is?
No, buf if someone who does poorly in their math, science, and engineering classes expressed a thought or opinion on a scientific/philosophical/religious subject, I would find it be to less credible.
Why do you ask? BTW, how are your classes going?
MmmSkyscraper
Diamond Member
- Jul 6, 2004
- 9,472
- 1
- 76
The output of their research speaks for itself. It's either valid or it's invalid. The marvelous thing about science is that something is not accepted unless it's repeatable. The person doing the experiment could be brilliant or retarded, black or white, atheist or theist, the output just doesn't care. I might not give his/her opinions on subjects that do not pertain to the output of their research much credibility, but science isn't one of those persuits that's based on "feelings" or "faith".
It seems that many of the most famous scientists have been very religious. Einstein, for example. A Catholic priest is they guy who came up with the Big Bang theory. Science and faith are not incompatible. Both sides have extreme members that see them as such, though.
AbAbber2k
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 6,474
- 1
- 0
There's no end to the inflammatory bullsh1t StatsManD is able to spew from his shprech-hole. Being religious doesn't automatically make someone a failure in scientific research. Lets assume for a moment that god is real. If that is the case, then science would simply be the pursuit of the rules governing reality that god himself created (as opposed to those that would simply exist in the absence of god). Science can't prove or disprove god no matter what, so where's the problem? Just watch out for Young Earth Creationists who throw a fit because their "tax dollars" go towards teaching evolution. THEN you can be sure you've got a crackpot on your hands.
Isn't that like saying if a GM employee liked Ford products he is less of a mechanic?
Please die.
Please die.
I would say that your credibility is in jeopardy, but since I highly doubt you are a scientist, then you never had any credibility to begin with! Btw what evidence do you speak of? Where is this evidence that disproves God or what you think God has done?
So a belief that God exists is equivalent to the idea that there are invisible squirrels and cats surrounding us mocking and laughing at us..which we cannot see, smell, touch or hear?
Actually, yes it can prove anything exists, all is needed is one example. I believe what youre trying to say is that science can not prove that something does not exist (god, pink unicorns, whatever).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter