Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But then one would cease to be a religious scientist, wouldn't one?
And thus one will always have grounds to argue the possibility of the existence of a Deity. But the question is not whether or not a scientist can be amenable to entertain such a possibility, the question is whether he can be an evolutionary biologist and believe that he is a descendant of Adam and Eve, whom the Abrahamic God created in his own image, or if one can be a Geologist/Chemist and believe that the earth is ten thousand years old.
But how does atheism limit the scientific thought?
But what about the more mundane - like creation stories - does that sit well with the spirit of scientific enquiry and evidence based conclusions?
New Recruit
Science advocate religion for many as well.
And no that's not what Scientology is lol
I assure you that the general perception is that a religious scientist has faith in the literal interpretations of religious doctrines. But do you actually think that the two-thousand-year-old human brain was, compared to the modern brain, primitive to a degree that it couldn't grasp the concept of evolution were it to be explained in its literal sense by the creator himself? I find that very hard to believe.Depends how you define religious. They can contextualise, worship etc however they personally feel like within the inherited framework. Thats what many non-science based people do as well (i.e interpretations or interpretations handed to them by others - hence why within particular religions there are often many streams/sects). But I don't think it means we can define them per se as religious or not....because what is being religious in the first place?
Well he wouldn't be able to literally believe that as ordained/interpreted by specific commentators/intermediaries/theologians. Does one become less religious if one contextualises/interprets more liberally/differently at personal level? Fundamentally its still recognising there is a vast unknown and having faith in a larger self-aware, omni-present cosmos/reality that is vested in your own personal existence at some level and/or vice versa (specifics/degrees vary depending on the religion and specific stream)....as opposed to rejecting such as impossible entirely to make things easier and fully relative.
I can for example believe in Adam and Eve (that say the Genesis was largely allegorical, that god described the process to humans in the simplest ways possible, or like in the Vedas...early humans simply intuited it in an earlier divine connection long since lost etc) while still affirming evolution for example (there are multitude other ways). I mean specifics like days (god made the world in 7 days etc)....are those specifically earth days...or some other unit of time? Was the making micromanaged or was only the big bang the only active "god-event" and there is some other level of interaction going on subsequently? These are all things that can be interpreted differently and quite vividly, but still remain fundamentally religious.
As long as you assign some quality to that which is unknown without strict absolute evidence...you are essentially religious in my opinion (I define such being greater than 0%, others may define it as more than 50%...but how do you measure that?) After all can one really absolutely prove one's emotions to anyone else? Does absolute evidence on anything even exist in the first place? Can that even be proven...ever? Are Atheists really logically atheists in the end?...given in most cases the rejection is selected only for specific issues that compromise reality?
It doesn't. You are just not logically sound (as others that keep more possibilities open in light of insufficient evidence). But you dont need excellent, robust logic (at an existential level) to be a good scientist (you can bound you relativism envelope as big or small as you personally want, apply scientific logic within it... and still find/expand significant truths/discoveries). This comes back to being able to segregate internally again.
But being macro-logically unsound (or not caring about the subject in the first place) is a truly deeper problem for society the way I see it...from the impulsive dissonance it creates among the majority that it is often thrust upon....purely seeing what kind of species we are as a whole. But that's another subject.
But do you actually think that the two-thousand-year-old human brain was, compared to the modern brain, primitive to a degree that it couldn't grasp the concept of evolution were it to be explained in its literal sense by the creator himself?
A rather unrelated question; Is being limited one of your biggest fears?
I am glad we agree. However, we are not talking about how a two-thousand-year-old human brain perceives the concept of God, the question was why God had to use allegories to explain Human origins to a very smart two-thousand-year-old human.No I don't believe that. We probably reached our current anatomic definition of homo sapiens sapiens about 150,000 years ago...and mentally around 50,000 years ago (by evolution model and studies). But our mental capacity compared to what and how and why we as individuals may perceive "god" revealed whatever at which time through whatever method are different subjects from that.
Again if we are talking about pure literal definition of religious dogma/texts by scientists, well that can definitely be a conflict/limitation....but its the same conflict/limitation that exists anyway whatever combination of truth seeker you may be...given there is no way for us to judge absolutely on such (as to importance assigned to truth paths).
In relative terms, it all depends. Say a Scientist believes to the word that the Earth is just 4000 years old (common earth year as we know it today)....well he would be compromised researching anything related to historical geology, biology etc....and he would be poorly structured in such an area in the first place (unless he has near godly levels of internal mental segregation). But he could be a great scientist in a completely different unrelated field....where human/earth history bears no relevance.
some very strange amalgamation between Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins.
@Hamartia Antidote interested?
I am glad we agree. However, we are not talking about how a two-thousand-year-old human brain perceives the concept of God, the question was why God had to use allegories to explain Human origins to a very smart two-thousand-year-old human.
LOL! Nilgiri, lay off the beer man.Well questioning a rationale behind God's actions (if the concept of rationality even applies to God as far as we can grasp it) is in itself unanswerable given God is fundamentally defined by our 0 knowledge ratio....because God is defined (imo) as the absolute reality. An absolute reality fundamentally is, there is no why....otherwise it wouldn't be absolute.
But of course if one defines God differently from me (while accepting existence or at least potential to exist like me too), as something that can be analysed, introspected, investigated as possible on the same relative morality we somehow concoct over time...then you would have to find and ask someone having that definition (and about something they specifically believe about God - human interaction).
Of course its much easier if one is an Atheist and asks say why does pain/suffering exist in order to disprove existence of a moral, interventionist god. But unfortunately logically you have already defined God differently from a pure absolute (that others have) and added relative qualities....so that specifically is an invalid argument w.r.t an absolute God/reality.
That is also same kind of bullcrap.People believe that a cow is sacred while having no second thought eating it when outside of India.
Can you see the pattern?