Jump to content

What Do Scientists Really Think About Religion?


minsocal

Recommended Posts

Kinda the same way progressives view fundamentalists.

 

Part of what I've been searching for a is a effective way to frame the issue from a progressive perspective. I found this article just before logging in here to catch up with this thread.

 

"If we change the question to science versus religion, however, people flock to either pole of the debate. Some religious fundamentalists close their eyes to the scientific laws that make our 21st century lives possible in the name of preserving the literal words of scripture written down millennia ago by men who had a different understanding of how the universe worked. On the other extreme, scientific atheists look down their noses at those who hold religious beliefs as simpletons belonging to a different age.

 

The core problem in this debate stems from both sides overstretching their perspectives. A religious worldview that denies scientific knowledge will ultimately be doomed to irrelevancy. A scientific worldview without a larger philosophical, metaphysical or religious system in which to anchor itself strands one like a shipwreck survivor adrift in an ocean of meaninglessness. Neither science nor religion, on their own, can hold all of the answers to existence, but maybe together they can complement and strengthen each other."

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-small/the-battle-between-science-and-religion_b_938045.html?ref=religion-science

 

 

A good read, IMO.

 

Myron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a great article Myron. I especially loved the very last paragraph:

 

"Atheist critiques of religion, like those from Oxford Biologist

Richard Dawkins and Cambridge Physicist Stephen Hawking, are only

valid in that they disprove a certain antiquated image of God

-- the grandfather in the sky who created the universe like a

potter or a watchmaker might and who governs it like a cosmic

chess master. If we allow our religions to evolve, we might

find that science and religion can complement each other:

each may open a different window into reality, just as art

and science do."

 

I remember that, many years ago while attending a a bible study at a rather traditional (if not downright fundamentalist) church, I heard the pastor say "Creation and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive". There was a moment of stunned silence in the discussion. And all I felt was relief, I was not a heretic after all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Atheist critiques of religion, like those from Oxford Biologist Richard Dawkins and Cambridge Physicist Stephen Hawking, are only valid in that they disprove a certain antiquated image of God -- the grandfather in the sky who created the universe like a potter or a watchmaker might and who governs it like a cosmic chess master. If we allow our religions to evolve, we might ind that science and religion can complement each other: each may open a different window into reality, just as art nd science do."

 

I hate to be nit picky, but did they really "disprove" this. It is something I can't accept and is highly implausible, but "disprove?"

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to be nit picky, but did they really "disprove" this. It is something I can't accept and is highly implausible, but "disprove?"

 

George

 

Well, they came into the game a bit late. A game that has not changed for quite a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The divide between science and religion began long ago. Perhaps it was useful at the beginning of the Enlightenment. But is it relevant today? Does the divide benefit society?

 

"

At a lunch in the crypt at St. Paul's before the Dalai Lama received the Templeton Prize today, I was seated next to Canon Mark Oakley. "We need to move beyond relevance to resonance," he said.

 

It was a call to move beyond the shallows to the depths, beyond the passing novelties of the moment to the echoes of the soul. The Canon summed up the vicious circle we too often find ourselves caught in: "We are," he said, "spending money we don't have on things we don't want in order to impress people we don't like."

 

To find the peace of mind that alone can replace this aimless search that has led to an epidemic of stress, anxiety, and drugs -- legal and illegal -- the Dalai Lama is looking to science (specifically neuroscience) to convince a skeptical increasingly-secular society of the power of contemplation and compassion to change our lives and our world."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/arianna-the-dalai-lama_b_1515059.html?ref=religion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to be nit picky, but did they really "disprove" this. It is something I can't accept and is highly implausible, but "disprove?"

 

In a very real way this is the real problem science has with religion.

 

In science there is no such thing as absolute proof at least absolute proof. There are concepts that are accepted, concepts that are highly implausable even thing like the shape of the earth where all the evidence points to round to a point where 100% of people accept it as a given. The difference is IF someone offered evidence that the earth is flat it would be considered on its own merit . Just because it doesn't fit todays understanding would have no bearing whether it is accepted or dismissed. Evidence always stands on it own merit.

 

The divide between science and religion began long ago.

 

The divide began when the scientific method began. It began when science began to follow the evidence and it lead away from accepted church truths and the church dug in its heals.

 

Perhaps it was useful at the beginning of the Enlightenment. But is it relevant today? Does the divide benefit society?

 

I am not sure I understand this comment so my comments might be way off base..... It is as relevant and necessary today as it has ever been. Without science progress stops dead in its tracks. With out religion society would have to find other ways of dealing with the social ramifications of this progress.

 

steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both science and religion are confessional: this what we believe until we are convinced otherwise. Perhaps one is knowledge of how things are externally related and one is knowledge of how things are internally related.

 

Dutch

 

This the conclusion reached by C. G. Jung, A. N. Whitehead, Joseph Campbell, and the Dalai Lama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both science and religion are confessional: this what we believe until we are convinced otherwise.

 

Most in science would not accept being considered confessional in that for science in its purest form has no room for belief. A question is posed, ALL the data is considered. the data leads one to a conclusion. the conclusion is based only on the data. If one has a belief before or while the data is being considered the process is flawed and the conclusion is worthless whether it is correct or not.

 

steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

I used the word belief in a broad sense. That doesn't seem to work for you.

 

Scientists said they lived in an Newtonian universe until Einstein came along. -- there is a long list of changes in the scientific understanding of the world. Each position along way the is equivalent of the confessions a church makes about what it understands. Both religionist and scientist test their hypothesis and gather data. Scientists write papers for each other and journals. Religionists write confessions and give testimony as their data and participate at forums like this.

 

I think that is how humans work. They look for those understandings that best explain the world. These views change for scientists and religionists. Scientists focus on the external relations of the universe and religionists focus on the internal relations of the universe.

 

We say what we think is true today. We live according to our truths. We review our data. If needed we change our hypothesis and live another day. This is true for religionists and for scientists. There are both scientists and religionists who become fixed in their views and do not ever again entertain a new hypothesis.

 

Call it results and conclusions and new hypothesis or call it confessions, which change over the centuries. I think it is the same human process.

 

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In science there is no such thing as absolute proof at least absolute proof. There are concepts that are accepted, concepts that are highly implausable even thing like the shape of the earth where all the evidence points to round to a point where 100% of people accept it as a given. The difference is IF someone offered evidence that the earth is flat it would be considered on its own merit . Just because it doesn't fit todays understanding would have no bearing whether it is accepted or dismissed. Evidence always stands on it own merit.

Perhaps this is best practices but real science doesn't always work this way. What the scientist considers to be true will not be tested. Only what the scientist is free to consider as new possibilities will be tested. Only the visionary/prophet will consider ideas outside the known world that others felt were preposterous. Many scientific discoveries have gone unnoticed for years and decades because other scientists could not believe they could be true. Some maverick ideas found acceptance others did not.

as I understand it much of Einstein genius was thinking up thought experiments and not data gathering to arrive at his propositions. Technology was not available for decades to test some of the hypothesis that grew out of his work. The scientific world lived as if his ideas were true until they were or not true.

 

There are differences between the data gathered when studying the external relationships and studying the internal relationships.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dutch, What you say is correct, This is why may of the truly see changing discoveries are made by scientists in their early years. When their mind is unencumbered by status quo. Einstein is a perfect example virtually all of his meaningful discoveries were made in his early to mid 20's while working as a patent clerk. As he aged he lost that mental flexibility as he struggled to accept the concept of quanta-mechanics.

 

Einstein took the scientific process to another level by imagining data as opposed to collecting it. This takes a very clear and unbiased mind. Data is observation(s) whether collected or imagined.

 

steve

Edited by JosephM
----- word changed at request of steve from data to observation(s)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my quest to delve deeper into the subject I came up with an unexpected connection.

 

When asked about the relationship between science and religion, President Jimmy Carter replied:

 

"I happen to have an advantage there because I am a nuclear physicist by training and a deeply committed Christian. I don’t have any doubt in my own mind about God who created the entire universe. But I don’t adhere to passages that so and so was created 4000 years before Christ, and things of that kind. Today we have shown that the earth and the stars were created millions, even billions, of years before. We are exploring space and sub-atomic particles and learning new facts every day, facts that the Creator has known since the beginning of time."

 

(emphasis added)

 

http://www.huffingto...eligion-science

 

This I did not know.

Edited by minsocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an interesting article that shows the struggles thinking people have trying to balance science with religion. What is interesting about that article is that it shows his conflict as he is able to recognize when he is being inconsistent. He is an amazing man.

 

steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may seem to be off-topic, but I do have a point...When I read Borg's "Heart of Christianity" one particular analogy he used really stuck with me. He said that various religions or spiritual paths are like walking up a mountain. At the bottom, the paths seem to be very far apart, but the closer people got to the "top of the mountain" the closer those paths become until, at the time, they were all one.

 

I think knowledge - strike that, WISDOM in its many forms is exactly like that. Science and religion in all their many forms all start out at the base of the mountain seemingly incompatible, but the more its followers move up the path towards the top, the closer the paths get. I think a lot of people get comfortable at a certian point along the path and just decide they've gone far enough - so they can never reach the point where they can "see" the other path with any clarity.

 

So, IMO, the more open to knowledge and wisdom and growth a scientist or religionist is, the more likely it is their paths will meet. Just my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may seem to be off-topic, but I do have a point...When I read Borg's "Heart of Christianity" one particular analogy he used really stuck with me. He said that various religions or spiritual paths are like walking up a mountain. At the bottom, the paths seem to be very far apart, but the closer people got to the "top of the mountain" the closer those paths become until, at the time, they were all one.

 

I think knowledge - strike that, WISDOM in its many forms is exactly like that. Science and religion in all their many forms all start out at the base of the mountain seemingly incompatible, but the more its followers move up the path towards the top, the closer the paths get. I think a lot of people get comfortable at a certian point along the path and just decide they've gone far enough - so they can never reach the point where they can "see" the other path with any clarity.

 

So, IMO, the more open to knowledge and wisdom and growth a scientist or religionist is, the more likely it is their paths will meet. Just my thoughts.

 

Yvonne,

 

Not off topic at all. In the last ten years the notion of "convergance" had found its way into the work of a number of prominent thinkers. It is an old theme finding its way back into consciousness after having been split apart long ago. As Jung put it, the psyche will always seek wholism, whether we like it or not.

 

Myron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used the word belief in a broad sense. That doesn't seem to work for you.

 

It doesn't. The word belief has a very negative connotation and a very narrow definition for those in science.

My definition of belief is an unquestioned idea or view of reality without basis.

 

Perhaps this may in part explain the problems in communication between science and religion.All should agree on a dictionary before the discussion begins.

 

steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have talked to a scienist about this. He replied something to the tune of The more science you know the more you believe in God. Sometimes it makes sense that there is an intelligent design to the universe and others not. Like with any other profession YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yvonne, I agree and I think it is happening. My only comment is that often especially conservative Christianity refuses to climb the mountain. That is a frustration of science. Religion on the other hand gets frustrated because science refuses to look sideways and also has a habit of belittling those who are behind and on a different path.

 

I am close to running out of my allotment of posts for the day so I bid you adew . Apparently it is assumed after 10 or 12 posts I might offend someone.

 

steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yvonne, I agree and I think it is happening. My only comment is that often especially conservative Christianity refuses to climb the mountain. That is a frustration of science. Religion on the other hand gets frustrated because science refuses to look sideways and also has a habit of belittling those who are behind and on a different path.

 

I am close to running out of my allotment of posts for the day so I bid you adew . Apparently it is assumed after 10 or 12 posts I might offend someone.

 

steve

 

JosephM can change the settings, and I made a request for this. Don't be discouraged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve said

Einstein took the scientific process to another level by imagining data as opposed to collecting it. This takes a very clear and unbiased mind. Data is observation(s) whether collected or imagined.

 

It is in Einstein's thought experiments that data about the external world and observations of our internal world interact. Here he says

 

"From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how should the first observer know or be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion? One sees in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained."

http://www.pitt.edu/...sing_the_light/

 

The intuition came first and then was followed by Einstein's seeking the words to explain the intuition and then working to find all the implications. Then others came to test the these implications as hypotheses. The intuition is part of the fabric by which all entities, actualities are internally related. We call it consciousness or mind, and associate soul and spirit with these internal experiences.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intuition came first and then was followed by Einstein's seeking the words to explain the intuition and then working to find all the implications. Then others came to test the these implications as hypotheses. The intuition is part of the fabric by which all entities, actualities are internally related. We call it consciousness or mind, and associate soul and spirit with these internal experiences.

 

intuition is what drives the scientific process , really it drives all intelectual progress.

 

steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thought this was appropriate....

 

I follow a fantastic website called 'letters of note'. today's letter was one from Einstein, replying to a girl who asked, 'do scientists pray?'

 

http://networkedblogs.com/xNE2w

 

I think there are scientist today who could have written that reply. I am fascinated by cosmology, physics, and quantum mechanics. The more I learn about the natural world the deeper my spirituality becomes. In Einstein's reply, he writes:

 

In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

 

...just as my "religious feeling" is surely quite different from the religious far right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service