• In total there are 30 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 30 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

Unread post

We find that the more scientifically inclined you are in this age, the less religious you are. Much is made of the fact that famous scientists of the past were religious.

This thread may help to take a look at that fact, and what it means.

philhellenes is one of my favorite youtube producers. Here's a video he made some time back that tackles the topic of religiously inclined scientists.



"God does not play dice" Einstein, and what he feels about "God".
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/wo ... kness.html

And here's Neil DeGrasse Tyson speaking on religiosity, and the limits of our knowledge.



Donexodus chases down the discovery institute's list of 101 "scientists" who doubt evolution.

In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

Unread post

I understand the anxiety people experienced, post 911, particularly atheists.
It is a resurgence in the atheistic mentality, rooted in fear, to proclaim it is they that have the answers, and not religion.

It's a curious thing that atheists mostly see themselves in zero sum relationships, so they resonate with the intolerance side of scripture. Militant atheists become what they fear and loathe most about religion. They are fearful AND angry people.

The opposite end of this spectrum are people, although not religious per se, who have non zero sum relationships and a "we all are in this together to make a win-win situation come about" attitude. They have attitudes about life that are confident.These people resonate with scriptures of tolerance and love.
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

Unread post

ant wrote:I understand the anxiety people experienced, post 911, particularly atheists.
It is a resurgence in the atheistic mentality, rooted in fear, to proclaim it is they that have the answers, and not religion.

It's a curious thing that atheists mostly see themselves in zero sum relationships, so they resonate with the intolerance side of scripture. Militant atheists become what they fear and loathe most about religion. They are fearful AND angry people.

The opposite end of this spectrum are people, although not religious per se, who have non zero sum relationships and a "we all are in this together to make a win-win situation come about" attitude. They have attitudes about life that are confident.These people resonate with scriptures of tolerance and love.
Hmmm, intolerance, fearful, angry? Who is making it their business what gay people do with their lives?

Religious nutjobs, that's who! And not just literalist nutjobs. Because they really, really care about their eternal souls. You can see the compassion so clearly.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

Unread post

ant wrote:I understand the anxiety people experienced, post 911, particularly atheists.
It is a resurgence in the atheistic mentality, rooted in fear, to proclaim it is they that have the answers, and not religion.

It's a curious thing that atheists mostly see themselves in zero sum relationships, so they resonate with the intolerance side of scripture. Militant atheists become what they fear and loathe most about religion. They are fearful AND angry people.

The opposite end of this spectrum are people, although not religious per se, who have non zero sum relationships and a "we all are in this together to make a win-win situation come about" attitude. They have attitudes about life that are confident.These people resonate with scriptures of tolerance and love.
Once again, these broad generalities and assumptions make very little sense (to me at least). The varying perception of atheist is very interesting.

For instance:

Atheists have more anxiety than theists post 911?

Atheists mostly see themselves in zero sum relationships?

Also, who are these militant atheists to which you refer? I'm quite curious.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

Unread post

It's a curious thing that atheists mostly see themselves in zero sum relationships, so they resonate with the intolerance side of scripture. Militant atheists become what they fear and loathe most about religion. They are fearful AND angry people.
When we consider the militant theists like WBC or Al-quaeda, I think there is plenty of reason have fear. There is also plenty of reason to be angry about it. Do you disagree? Should we accept these radical groups ant? Should we tolerate the extremists, or should we inform them that such radical behavior won't be tolerated? Let me know when Dawkins kills 10,000 people in a single swipe, then you'll have a point.
It is a resurgence in the atheistic mentality, rooted in fear, to proclaim it is they that have the answers, and not religion.
I would claim that religion does not have the answers. There is the camaraderie that comes from communal worship, but that is collateral, rather than a direct result of the belief system. It is also a good source of wisdom by which to live, but that requires extensive interpretation.

Using our brains and learning about the world is how we gain answers. Not by reading a book written before we knew how the world worked. That isn't an answer driven by fear, ant, it's driven by understanding.


You're starting to polarize and get radically off-base in your comments ant. Slow down and be objective. You're making many of the same mistakes that you're calling others out on.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

Unread post

I've noticed this as wel, Ant.

Your comments have been veering lately.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

Unread post

I think militant atheists like Dawkins, Atkins, Hutch, etc are emotionally feeble minded with their "it's either this or that" preaching. They are no better than any of the evangelical, beat you over the head with a bible preachers, or militant muslims that would like to fly more planes into buildings.

There are many avenues that lead us to knowledge. Science attempts to help us understand the environment that we live in. It investigates, measures, and ultimately attempts to explain the cause of things. When questions of value/meaning related to our cosmos and individual lives are asked, science has no competence in this area. People since the dawn of time have turned to religion for these questions. Intellectual giants of the past have shown us that the 2 areas compliment one another. It's laughable to see our new secularists beating their chests while attempting to outsmart religious fundamentalists who are no better than they are.

Humble scientists like Francis Collins experienced a deepening of his faith when heading the Human Genome Project. His scientific humility is a pleasure to experience. There are many brilliant scientists like him. It's silly to shout that atheists have more scientists than theists have. This is not some football game where the blue team fans are being counted to see if they out number the red team's gang of thugs.

Here is paleontologist, evolutionary biologist Stephen J Gould's take:
I'm not a believer. I am an agnostic in the wise sense of T.H. Huxley, who coined the word in identifying such open-minded skepticism as the only rational position because, truly, one cannot know. Nonetheless … I have a great respect for religion. The subject has always fascinated me, beyond almost all others (with a few exceptions, like evolution, paleontology, and baseball). Much of this fascination lies in the stunning historical paradox that organized religion has fostered throughout Western history, both the most unspeakable horrors and the most heartrending examples of human goodness in the face of personal danger.

I believe with all my heart in a respectful, even loving, concordat between the magisteria of science and religion … on moral and intellectual grounds, not a merely diplomatic solution. [This] also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly within the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution. This mutual humility leads to important practical consequences in a world of such diverse passions. We would do well to embrace the principle and enjoy the consequences.

We become intellectual midgets when we start saying things that are strictly to one-up someone with different views, values, and beliefs. I do not believe anyone is intellectually justified to give or not give another human being "a pass" for believing something different than he.
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

Unread post

ant wrote:I think militant atheists like Dawkins, Atkins, Hutch, etc are emotionally feeble minded with their "it's either this or that" preaching. They are no better than any of the evangelical, beat you over the head with a bible preachers, or militant muslims that would like to fly more planes into buildings.
You've now gone over into pure absurdity.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

Unread post

ant wrote: It's silly to shout that atheists have more scientists than theists have. This is not some football game where the blue team fans are being counted to see if they out number the red team's gang of thugs. .
Agreed. But this was your argument, wasn't it? And it's ultimately a losing argument because scientists tend to be areligious.

The way I see it is that Dawkins and co. are not dictating what people believe, they are pointing out the inconsistencies and sheer absurdity of certain claims made especially by religious fundamentalists. It's amazing that you can compare those who make arguments (with words) to those who are so wedded to extremist beliefs that they are willing to murder those who don't believe as they do.

What's changed in the last couple of decades is that atheists are more willing to publicly point out such absurdities in claims (and actions) made by fundamentalists. Why should religious claims be given a free pass? Shouldn't they be subject to the same scrutiny we give to any other claim?

We have discussed Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria here several times. I absolutely do think that Gould was right that religion and science address completely different domains. Unfortunately the fundamentalists themselves don't see things this way. They reject evolution because it conflicts with their literal interpretation of the Bible. Other religious fanatics justify using violence to condemn those who don't believe as they do. That's ultimately the problem with Gould's concept of nonoverlapping magisteria. Only reasonable people are on board with it.

I think Gould argued that morality falls under the domain of religion, but the question arises: what special qualifications do religious folks have to legislate our morality? The subject of same-sex marriage has come up another threads. There are many ministers who have come out so to speak against same-sex marriage and they justify their position with the Bible. Is this good enough for you, ant? Do you at least recognize this is not good enough for many of us and that we have the right to speak freely against it?
Last edited by geo on Mon May 14, 2012 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

Unread post

I'm not a believer. I am an agnostic in the wise sense of T.H. Huxley, who coined the word in identifying such open-minded skepticism as the only rational position because, truly, one cannot know. Nonetheless … I have a great respect for religion. The subject has always fascinated me, beyond almost all others (with a few exceptions, like evolution, paleontology, and baseball). Much of this fascination lies in the stunning historical paradox that organized religion has fostered throughout Western history, both the most unspeakable horrors and the most heartrending examples of human goodness in the face of personal danger.

I believe with all my heart in a respectful, even loving, concordat between the magisteria of science and religion … on moral and intellectual grounds, not a merely diplomatic solution. [This] also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly within the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution. This mutual humility leads to important practical consequences in a world of such diverse passions. We would do well to embrace the principle and enjoy the consequences.
Thanks to ant for posting this. It seems that if we were to consent that Gould has made a golden statement here, we'd be in substantial agreement and continued argument would be in matters on the periphery.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”