Can a religious person be a good scientist?

[Yaseen1]

Muslim scientists in early days of Islam when Muslims ruled the world of science were more close to religion than today Muslims

 

[nang2]

anyone who uses his brain can be a good scientist, religious or not.

 

[The SC]

Most scientists, will tell you:"God does not play dice"
Or they would at least agree wit it.. so they might be atheist or agnostic on the objective level, but deep down their subconscious they recognise that God is above science and the one behind it..

 

[Nilgiri]

But then one would cease to be a religious scientist, wouldn't one?

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?

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.

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?

But how does atheism limit the scientific thought?

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.

 

[hassamun]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ossibility-of-god_us_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5

Also...

It's a big, fat myth that all scientists are religion-hating atheists
Whether or not you think science is wonderful, the stereotype of all scientists being atheists is unrealistic. There is, however, a special dance.

Sylvia McLain

Monday 4 March 2013 15.59 GMTFirst published on Monday 4 March 2013 15.59 GMT

Scientists used to be white guys in white lab coats with crazy hair, spectacles and an autistic inability to relate to other people. Now scientists are (mostly) white guys who are obsessed about the wonder of science and hate religion; and I think they all like Star Trek quite a bit too. This new religion-hating, super-awed scientist stereotype seems to based on some very strange amalgamation between Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins. And this cartoon-version of "what a scientist looks like" is all sort of tangled up in religion; where science pundits are either vilified because they are seen to all hate religion or almost worshiped like gods they supposedly detest.

Ignoring that science and religion are really not the same thing, on the love side Cox has been said to resemble what God would have probably looked like "with hair that falls around his face like a helix".
On the flip-side, popular scientists have been attacked for using the misty-eyed language of religion – because apparently using the word "wonder" ain't allowed if you are an atheist or a scientist. As Eliane Glaser put it last week: "It's ironic that the public engagement with the science crowd is so pro-wonder, because they're so anti-religion."

All scientists; religion haters. Also it is a little known fact but now when you get a physics PhD in the UK, you are given a job-lot of Wonders wallpaper for your new office and complementary D:Ream CD; which must be played on high days and holidays. We also learn a special dance but I am not allowed to talk about this.

I really hate to be the one to break the news, but scientist is not synonymous with atheist. Scientists also don't all have the same gender, race, sexual orientation or political ideology, much less religion or lack thereof. Whether or not a person is religious, with respect to their vocation as a scientist, is completely irrelevant. Just like sexual orientation, race and gender should be irrelevant to being a scientist. Reinforcing the scientist = atheist stereotype, whether you are for it or against it, necessarily excludes people. No one should be excluded from science if they want to do it, be excited about it or read about it.

Richard Dawkins aside, the view that all scientists – even if they be atheists or famous people – hate religion is not really true. Peter Higgs has very sanguinely criticised Dawkins for his anti-religious stance, and goes on to say that he doesn't think science and religion are incompatible. Brian Cox himself echoes the same sentiment. There are, moreover, a number of prominent openly religious scientists, such as Frances Collins, currently the head of the US National Institutes of Health; Gerhard Etrl who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry (2007) and William D Phillips who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. And this is just naming a few. Most scientists in the media don't make a stand one way or another, perhaps because they too think it is irrelevant. Maybe this is a crazy idea but I am guessing a fair few scientists don't like Star Trek either.

The cartoon stereotype that all scientists are religion-hating atheists isn't just annoying; it is harmful. It is divisive and does nothing to encourage people into scientific discovery. In fact, it reinforces the idea that only a certain type of person can do science. This is not true. Professional science has enough diversity problems as it is, with women and minorities still grossly under-represented, without throwing religious-typing in there too. Public scientists and critics alike need to take a bit more care in lumping all scientists into the same stereotypical category. The world is much more complex than that.

• Dr Sylvia McLain runs a biophysics research group at Oxford. She is on Twitter – @girlinterruptin

https://www.theguardian.com/science...r/04/myth-scientists-religion-hating-atheists

 

[Nilgiri]

But what about the more mundane - like creation stories - does that sit well with the spirit of scientific enquiry and evidence based conclusions?

Read my recent post. Creation stories can be interpreted imo on personal level without becoming non-religious....but it depends how you define religious. My definition is likely different from yours.

 

[Sky lord]

@Hamartia Antidote interested?

 

[LimitedCivility]

Science advocate religion for many as well.

And no that's not what Scientology is lol

Scientology is a different beast altogether. It transforms you into a superman. Don't trust me? Ask Tom.

 

[RAMPAGE]

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.

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.

@Nilgiri

A rather unrelated question; Is being limited one of your biggest fears?

 

[Nilgiri]

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?

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.

A rather unrelated question; Is being limited one of your biggest fears?

Nope not really. Coming to think of it I don't have much fears to begin with. I lean towards fatalism these days. Reality is what it is in the end....if total understanding of it can be achieved (in some way that connects me to what I am then when such is done - if thats even relevant)...which is really what potentially unlimited would be defined as imo, so be it....if it cant, so be it.

 

[RAMPAGE]

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.

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.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

some very strange amalgamation between Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins.

Lol! I read that as Richard Dawson. That was certainly a strange amalgamation.

@Hamartia Antidote interested?

As long as they are not SUPER religious I don't think it would be a problem.

 

[Nilgiri]

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.

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.

 

[RAMPAGE]

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.

LOL! Nilgiri, lay off the beer man.

You presented a rationale for the Adam-Eve thingy and then you say God's actions can't be rationalised.

The point I was trying to make was a very simple one, an evolutionary biologist cannot believe in evolution and at the same time say that God explained the human origin allegorically with the concept of Adam and Eve when he knows that a 2000-year-old brain was certainly evolved enough to grasp the concept of evolution the way it is taught to today's students.

Hence, to say that a scientist can be good at what he does and still believe in an allegorical interpretation of religious doctrine is certainly a fallacy.

 

[gslv]

People believe that a cow is sacred while having no second thought eating it when outside of India.

Can you see the pattern?

That is also same kind of bullcrap.