Is 'religious scientist' an oxymoron?

[Narmer]

I think this is true for certain religions but not of others. Judaism seems to be pretty comfortable with science. At least that's the perception I get (because I don't see riots in Israel, Europe, or America over scientific discoveries). Islam is the polar opposite. I've never met a secular muslim in my life. Also, I do see riots in the muslim world over science. Christianity seems to be a mixed bag. You see mild condemnations but no riots. However, there are large swathes of America that want to have nothing to do with progress, except when it comes to the latest heart-killing creation from KFC or Burger King.

So, is my perception wrong that it is not always an oxymoron or are these religious scientists just nominally so?

 

[meltdown75]

yawn

 

[Syringer]

Throwing the word science into anything eliminates any sort of "real" science behind it..see political science, social science, scientology, etc.

It's similar to countries with the words "democratic", "republic" etc..see: "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", "People's Republic of China", Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, etc.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I'm not even mad at this point. More upset than anything.

 

[Crono]

The scientific method can be applied regardless of whether you are non-religious or religious.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

The scientific method can be applied regardless of whether you are non-religious or religious.

Maybe it *can* be applied, but in most religions it won't be applied.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Despite what militant atheists like Richard Dawkins say, I think it's perfectly reasonable for a person to be both a professional scientist and personally religious. I know many people like that. I also know many people who are deeply religious but also accept science as a useful way of knowing.

I think Gould's essay Nonoverlapping Magisteria should be a must-read in every high school biology class. (Well, at least those that actually teach evolution, haha.)

 

[Jeff7]

Two very different processes are at work.

 

[AreaCode707]

Most scientists specialize in an area of study, right? As long as they are rigorous of their application of proper scientific process in that area of study, what does it matter what they believe in other areas? Somebody who studies quantum physics can still have a set of beliefs about the afterlife that do not at all affect or interact with his work.

 

[irishScott]

Given that there are many things which humans are physiologically incapable of understanding, let alone through the even more limited human lens of science, no it is not an oxymoron.

 

[nageov3t]

Also, I do see riots in the muslim world over science.

where?

You see mild condemnations but no riots.

where?

However, there are large swathes of America that want to have nothing to do with progress, except when it comes to the latest heart-killing creation from KFC or Burger King.

the overwhelming majority of Christians both in the United States and the world at large in the modern age reconcile science and faith without issue. I'm pretty sure that people who read the bible as a literal document make up an extremely small percentage of the overall population.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

OP is among the top 5 dumbest things I have read this week.

 

[Sclamoz]

Despite what militant atheists like Richard Dawkins say, I think it's perfectly reasonable for a person to be both a professional scientist and personally religious. I know many people like that. I also know many people who are deeply religious but also accept science as a useful way of knowing.

I like how atheists who are outspoken about their atheist viewpoints are described as militants to make it sound like they're terrorists.

 

[IAteYourMother]

I like how atheists who are outspoken about their atheist viewpoints are described as militants to make it sound like they're terrorists.

it goes both ways

 

[RapidSnail]

It depends on what you mean by religion. To some people, religion is the direct antithesis to science. That is, religion is an alternative to science that employs "blind faith" and superstition rather than empiricism and material reasoning. However, religion can simply refer to any spiritual method of enlightening. This is what I would venture most reasonable religious people subscribe to. In this case, religion is only a means to understand the ethical and moral issues that humanity faces. It isn't to say that those without religion are specifically immoral or unethical, but that it is an attempt at a deeper understanding of self and the conflict between ill intent and good reason.

 

[Jeff7]

It depends on what you mean by religion. To some people, religion is the direct antithesis to science. That is, religion is an alternative to science that employs "blind faith" and superstition rather than empiricism and material reasoning. However, religion can simply refer to any spiritual method of enlightening. This is what I would venture most reasonable religious people subscribe to. In this case, religion is only a means to understand the ethical and moral issues that humanity faces. It isn't to say that those without religion are specifically immoral or unethical, but that it is an attempt at a deeper understanding of self and the conflict between ill intent and good reason.

That definition sounds more like simple philosophy than religion.

 

[RapidSnail]

That definition sounds more like simple philosophy than religion.

Except that religion generally draws on deity in some fashion. That is what sets it apart from pure philosophy.

 

[Jeff7]

Except that religion generally draws on deity in some fashion. That is what sets it apart from pure philosophy.

Quite true, but you didn't specifically mention any deity in your post.

Though I guess you did mention "spiritual," which seems to have a broad range of definitions, but it does generally seem to deal with supernatural things.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I like how atheists who are outspoken about their atheist viewpoints are described as militants to make it sound like they're terrorists.

I call their religious analogs militant, too. I assure you as a professional evolutionist that Richard Dawkins does more to hurt the acceptance of evolution as a useful science in this country than he helps it.

 

[theflyingpig]

By definition, people who believe in religion are fools. If an adult believed in Santa Claus he would be laughed at and ridiculed. The same standard should be applied to fools who believe in a guy who can walk on water and come back from the dead. So, no, OP, religion and real science cannot mix. Only fools believe in fairy tails. Everyone knows this.

 

[Fayd]

I think this is true for certain religions but not of others. Judaism seems to be pretty comfortable with science. At least that's the perception I get (because I don't see riots in Israel, Europe, or America over scientific discoveries). Islam is the polar opposite. I've never met a secular muslim in my life. Also, I do see riots in the muslim world over science. Christianity seems to be a mixed bag. You see mild condemnations but no riots. However, there are large swathes of America that want to have nothing to do with progress, except when it comes to the latest heart-killing creation from KFC or Burger King.

So, is my perception wrong that it is not always an oxymoron or are these religious scientists just nominally so?

the anti-science muslims are actually more of a recent thing. muslims prompted a LOT of scientific development during the dark ages in europe. there's quite a few texts describing upper mathematics originating from muslim scientists.

 

[Fayd]

the overwhelming majority of Christians both in the United States and the world at large in the modern age reconcile science and faith without issue. I'm pretty sure that people who read the bible as a literal document make up an extremely small percentage of the overall population.

i'm inclined to believe this.

 

[Triumph]

(note i'm not really very religious)

This sounds obvious, but I'm still waiting to see a scientific explanation of where the universe truly comes from. What I mean is, scientists seem to have accepted the big bang and are feverishly looking for explanations for what created the big bang, but they routinely avoid the question of where these "big bang inputs" came from. There's the theory that the universe is an ever expanding/contracting cycle of big bang/big crunch, but this doesn't explain how the cycle ever got started. There's the theory that the universe resulted from planes of existence in other dimensions that function like waves, with the planes eventually colliding and "creating" a universe. I can't remember the name of this theory, but the physicists who created this theory exalted it as if, "Ah, here it is! We've solved the question of where our universe came from! All the math works out!" with no explanation of where these multidimensional waves came from. So we really are no closer to a theory of the origins of the singularity than someone who reads the bible. I think that no matter what explanation you come up with, it never answers the question, "Well where did "that" come from?[/i] And most of it will be impossible to ever prove. So really, investigate scientifically, but why not at least be open to the idea of a creator?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Only fools believe in fairy tails. Everyone knows this.

Wait, what? Fairies don't have tails?

 

[Albatross]

This recent science-religion debate is mostly a very American thing.
Of course ,Christianity in USA has some bizarre twistsrosperity gospel,mega churches,christian rock(wtf),God seen as some sort of an army general(American of course)...
Christianity is not to be made an annex of a particular nation or state,and i doubt any god who has our likes and dislikes("God hates fags'') is worth following.