If Any Scientists Believes In God?

Eyeron · 24th November 2009, 07:00 PM

If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God?

Hokulele · 24th November 2009, 07:08 PM

Only if his/her beliefs inform his/her science as opposed to the other way around.

fromdownunder · 24th November 2009, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God?

Yes he/she should still be allowed to teach Science in a Science classroom. Just as if he/she also should be allowed to be a lay preacher in a Church.

The important bit is that they do dot not mix up the two different subjects. Some (many?) scientists do believe in God, and to their credit(?) manage to compartmentalise these two separate, and not necesarilly inconsistant worlds.

The simplest example is of the Christian who also happens to be a Biologist, and accepts that the Bible is myth, allegory, poetry, with a little history thrown into the mix, but still accepts the underlying message of a personal God, and a Jesus who sacrificed himself to save man. It can be done pretty easily for those who want to do it that way.

Norm

drkitten · 24th November 2009, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

Yes he/she should still be allowed to teach Science in a Science classroom. Just as if he/she also should be allowed to be a lay preacher in a Church.

The important bit is that they do dot not mix up the two different subjects. Some (many?) scientists do believe in God, and to their credit(?) manage to compartmentalise these two separate, and not necesarilly inconsistant worlds.

The simplest example is of the Christian who also happens to be a Biologist, and accepts that the Bible is myth, allegory, poetry, with a little history thrown into the mix, but still accepts the underlying message of a personal God, and a Jesus who sacrificed himself to save man. It can be done pretty easily for those who want to do it that way.

Case in point : Ken Miller, expert biologist, lead witness for the plaintiffs in Dover, author of one of the top high school biology textbooks, and also a major writer on the relationship between science and religion.

I recommend his book Finding Darwin's God. If you think science and religion are incompatible, this book may answer you.

Hokulele · 24th November 2009, 08:21 PM

Ack, I got things completely backwards in my previous post. Bah.

Bikewer · 24th November 2009, 08:39 PM

I recall Isaac Asimov saying he knew numbers of folks in the sciences who were believers of one sort or another. He said that they tended to keep their religion separate from their science....A uniquely human ability, I imagine.

Tricky · 24th November 2009, 08:51 PM

We've discussed before whether humans are "hardwired" for religion or not. I am not firmly on either side in that debate, but whether we are hardwired or socially programmed, religion is still a big part of many people's lives, and that includes scientists.

I work with a large number of scientists, especially earth scientists who know beyond reasonable question that the whole Genesis stuff is total BS. Yet many go to church every Sunday and even talk about their church at work. One micropaleontologist puts up flyers for her church activities in the morning then settles down to spend the rest of the day seeing where the nannofossils fall in the evolutionary sequence.

It's arena separation. It's cognitive dissonance. It's different needs being satisfied. But the vast majority of people like this want religion because they think it teaches morality and science because it works. Few are bible-thumpers or creationists.

Skeptic Ginger · 24th November 2009, 09:21 PM

So some scientists have skeptic blind spots when it comes to god beliefs. Meh, who cares unless their religious beliefs lead to bad science in whatever field they are in. It's an unfortunate fact of life the current human species has yet to leave this kind of primitive thinking behind.

bef · 25th November 2009, 03:20 AM

There are a great deal of believers who have contributed a lot to science, even to evolutionary biology. The issue is when scientists try to involve their religious views in their science. That's not to say that said scientist is not severely mistaken when it comes to their religious beliefs, it's just that if they keep the two separate, it's a non-issue and would be comparable to asking if the scientists political views should stop them from teaching science.

Sideroxylon · 25th November 2009, 03:39 AM

As long as the hypothesis is rigorously tested I don't think it matters what kind of belief inspired it.

I've read some great examples of wrong-headed ideas leading to important scientific discoveries, though memory fails me for the details.

Cainkane1 · 25th November 2009, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God?

It depends. Many Christians incorporate evolution into their belief system. I can't see a problem if for instance a believer teaches chemistry or physics. If the teacher teaches biology he or she should keep her beliefs to themselves.

drkitten · 25th November 2009, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

As long as the hypothesis is rigorously tested I don't think it matters what kind of belief inspired it.

I've read some great examples of wrong-headed ideas leading to important scientific discoveries, though memory fails me for the details.

William Paley and the Divine Watchmaker is an obvious example.

He posed a very, very important question. Can there be a watch without a watchmaker, or less metaphorically, can there be any other way that various forms of life could have occurred other than via divine fiat?

Darwin studied Paley, and his theories, deeply in his youth. It took several decades before he found an answer. He answered it in a way that Paley would have found unexpected, but that negates neither the significance of the question or of the answer.

Einstein is supposed to have stumbled across the basics of special relativity by wondering what it would be like to ride on a beam of light. He realized that there were a number of contradictions involved and developed SR as an attempt to address those contradictions. Again, a completely wrong-headed idea (a massive body moving at the speed of light) led to a fundamental breakthrough.

Dirac's "prediction" of the positron is another one; he didn't so much predict the positron as had it fall into his lap from his mathematics, which he rejected as a trivial mathematical blurb, with no relation to actual physical reality. If you took seriously (as Dirac didn't) the idea that pure math might be predictive, you'd look for a positron and find it, as Anderson did in 1933.

Of course, only one of these is truly a "religious" example -- but they clearly show how incorrect ideas, taken seriously, can nevertheless lead to compelling evidence for a major discovery.

drkitten · 25th November 2009, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

It depends. Many Christians incorporate evolution into their belief system. I can't see a problem if for instance a believer teaches chemistry or physics. If the teacher teaches biology he or she should keep her beliefs to themselves.

I'm not sure I would even go that far.

One of the best psychology instructors I had was a closet dualist. I supposed more correctly, he was a semi-closeted dualist. He was also one of the best neuro-modelers around. His disbelief that the models actually reflected how human minds work didn't keep him from being one of the world's best at modelling "brains."

His basic argument, which he would cheerfully share with students -- is that these theories didn't match his intuitions about how "meat" behaved. But he also recognized that neither his intuitions nor other people's theories were the final word, and the actual final word was the empirical data.

One of the things that made him good was this type of reflexive scepticism. Since he didn't trust any theories that went beyond the data, he was astonishingly good at spotting theories with unstated and unsupported premises, and he'd happily knock down all these castles-in-the-air conjectures by asking whether or not such-and-such had been actually demonstrated.

And then he'd get to work designing an experiment to demonstrate it (or not).

I'd have a lot more respect for the ID folks if they did anything similar. One of their claims, for example, is that there is no such thing as a mutation that increases information. This is clearly false according to any of the standard definitions of information (e.g. Chaitin complexity). But the standard definitions of information are almost misleadingly incomplete, as any of the chaos theorists at the Santa Fe institute can tell you. They've been working for decades on trying to find a definition of information that is based on semantics instead of probability -- and failing.

If Dembski were an honest scientist instead of a charlatan, he'd be living out of a broom closet at Santa Fe looking for such a definition, precisely because such a definition, if it existed, might put his biological theories on solid ground. Instead he's writing and selling books that he knows are wrong.

Just because your beliefs don't match the current evidence doesn't mean that the beliefs are wrong. It just means you need to look very carefully at the current evidence and see what further work needs to be done and what new types of evidence would need to be developed.

drkitten · 25th November 2009, 08:17 AM

Forum wierdness created double posting.

Darth Rotor · 25th November 2009, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God?

No. Your all or nothing position has no merit.

Beerina · 25th November 2009, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

As long as the hypothesis is rigorously tested

Would that this be done in the other arena besides religion where logic and skepticism often fall by the wayside.

bruto · 25th November 2009, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God?

I am not sure why religious belief should be any greater cause for disqualification than the belief that the only possible notion of God is "an invisible man in the sky."

arthwollipot · 25th November 2009, 07:31 PM

Stephen Jay Gould referred to the separation of science and religion as NOMA - non-overlapping magisteria.

Basically, science talks about things that can be measured and enumerated. Religion talks about things of the soul and afterlife. There's no reason why these things should overlap.

lightfire22000 · 25th November 2009, 07:42 PM

Would anyone seriously consider barring Max Planck from teaching science?

linusrichard · 25th November 2009, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by lightfire22000

Would anyone seriously consider barring Max Planck from teaching science?

If he's so smart, how come he's dead?

Ron_Tomkins · 25th November 2009, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God?

Yes.

KingMerv00 · 25th November 2009, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him...

Of course not.

Skeptic Ginger · 25th November 2009, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Stephen Jay Gould referred to the separation of science and religion as NOMA - non-overlapping magisteria.

Basically, science talks about things that can be measured and enumerated. Religion talks about things of the soul and afterlife. There's no reason why these things should overlap.

Translation: Made up woo involving god beliefs are excused with this tripe. All other woo are allowed to be challenged.

arthwollipot · 26th November 2009, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Translation: Made up woo involving god beliefs are excused with this tripe. All other woo are allowed to be challenged.

That's a valid opinion.

A.A.Alfie · 26th November 2009, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God?

Frankly I don't even understand how or why the question is valid. Is the suggestion is that they shouldn't teach? I assume so. If a teacher teaches biology, should they keep their political affiliations to themselves? Or the sports team they follow? Or what they think of global warming?

If we answer that: "No, this teacher shouldn't be discussing personal beliefs", then surely it must be ALL personal beliefs. Will we then only allow the to teach their chosen discipline and nothing else?

Hux · 26th November 2009, 04:43 AM

I have always had this enquiry about scientists who hold a religious faith and I confess it puzzles me. Ken Miller, as someone also pointed out, is a case in point. Brilliant biologist, tremendous scientist, believes in the Virgin Birth. Committed catholic.

How does this occur? Is this what they refer to as partitioning? Do they believe one thing on Saturday another on Sunday? I have no problem with the likes of Ken Miller teaching science (he is a great educator also) but at a particular level, how can he, in the name of all that is holy to scientific pursuit, deny that very process and take religious stories at face value without evidence or observation?

It seems as if his religion is the very antithesis of everything he stands for in science and reason and I don't understand how people can turn it on and off. How does he care so passionately for scientific truth and shun it for the sake of faith? How can he indeed hold onto such a faith when his own methodology yields absolutely nothing for him to believe in?

S.J.Gould was wrong. His was a cop out. It is overlapping 'magesterium' because they both try to answer the same questions. History has demonstrated that the scientific process has been far more succesful than the 'off pat' answers offered by religion. It has at least driven us towards the right questions. But for a man, completely immersed in the process of scientific discovery to finally admit Goddidit is beyond me. Its a cop out and a failure to follow the scientific process. It is just settling for an unsatisfying answer.

I can only imagine that such people have a little switch that they turn on and off between reason and gullibility. How does Miller, for instance, accept actual raw flesh and blood in his mouth as he prepares his attacks against creationists, demonstrating that all is a natural (and therefore not supernatural) process? Surely he isn't so dumb as to fall for the proposition that 'all faith is stupid except mine'?

I wish someone could explain it to me.

arthwollipot · 26th November 2009, 04:47 AM

Well, I can't exactly explain it to you, but I do agree that there is an area where religion and science overlap. And that's where religion makes testable claims. As soon as you start making testable claims, you are open to scientific verification. Religion can (but rarely does) avoid making testable claims.

Hux · 26th November 2009, 04:59 AM

That point certainly enunciates my feelings on the matter. Miller spend most of his waking hours dealing with testable, observable, experimentational claims. How can a part of him accept anything as valid that does not follow that very same criteria?

Sideroxylon · 26th November 2009, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by Hux

That point certainly enunciates my feelings on the matter. Miller spend most of his waking hours dealing with testable, observable, experimentational claims. How can a part of him accept anything as valid that does not follow that very same criteria?

Scientists sometimes hold ideas that are untestable (some of which later become testable due to new technology) though I reckon this kind of speculative activity is best filed under philosophy rather than science. For example, how much if any of superstring theory with its additional dimensions is testable? I think the history of science has shown exploring ideas in such a way is still a useful and reasonable activity.

Hux · 26th November 2009, 05:34 AM

I wouldn't expect Miller to have an opinion on a theory like superstrings one way or the other. But in his case he is practised and studied in Biological sciences. I expect him to know that virgin birth does not occur in humans. I expect he knows that dead tissue does not reanimate. Yet he forgoes all the things he understands for these things on Sundays.

How does he manage to be 50 - 50 on these issues?

I take your point about theoretical issues but to me its like saying OK we have a Big Bang but Goddidit and thats all there is to it. When such people know perfectly well all we can do is describe the Big Bang as a real event and make no supernatural suppositions before it.

Beth · 26th November 2009, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by Hux

I wouldn't expect Miller to have an opinion on a theory like superstrings one way or the other. But in his case he is practised and studied in Biological sciences. I expect him to know that virgin birth does not occur in humans. I expect he knows that dead tissue does not reanimate. Yet he forgoes all the things he understands for these things on Sundays.

Are you sure he believes in those things? Just because someone is catholic doesn't mean they automatically believe in all the teachings of the catholic church.

Mr Clingford · 26th November 2009, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by Hux

I wouldn't expect Miller to have an opinion on a theory like superstrings one way or the other. But in his case he is practised and studied in Biological sciences. I expect him to know that virgin birth does not occur in humans. I expect he knows that dead tissue does not reanimate. Yet he forgoes all the things he understands for these things on Sundays.

How does he manage to be 50 - 50 on these issues?

The fact that Virgin Birth and Resurrection (not reanimation) are known as miraculous tells you that they are considered to be far from the norm. Scientific laws are descriptive not prescriptive. Orthodox Xtianity believes that there is a God who has entered space-time in a unique event with Jesus Christ. That aspect is falsifiable. These scientists probably believe that God created the general rules of the cosmos and we are in the process of uncovering them.

Dave Rogers · 26th November 2009, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God?

If science were a matter of appeal to authority, that might have some merit. As it is, the work of a scientist is best judged on content, rather than the opinions of its originator in an unrelated area. I feel that those who teach science selectively on the basis of religious belief should not be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school, but again that's a matter of content.

Dave

metzomagic · 26th November 2009, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Religion can (but rarely does) avoid making testable claims.

Religion can (but rarely does) ~~avoid making~~make testable claims.

FTFY

Father Dagon · 26th November 2009, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

Yes he/she should still be allowed to teach Science in a Science classroom. Just as if he/she also should be allowed to be a lay preacher in a Church.

The important bit is that they do dot not mix up the two different subjects. Some (many?) scientists do believe in God, and to their credit(?) manage to compartmentalise these two separate, and not necesarilly inconsistant worlds.

The simplest example is of the Christian who also happens to be a Biologist, and accepts that the Bible is myth, allegory, poetry, with a little history thrown into the mix, but still accepts the underlying message of a personal God, and a Jesus who sacrificed himself to save man. It can be done pretty easily for those who want to do it that way.

Norm

But a biologist could believe in the literal truth of the bible, and study frogs and still be a good scientist - i.e. the biologist is simply focusing on how the frogs behave here and now.

However, that scientist is simply handicapping himself. Compare with the discovery of post-glacial rebound. At first they discussed why the water was receding (vattuminskning). Then they realized that there must've been ice ages and that the Earth must be far older than 6000 years. Maybe 100 000!

WhiteLion · 26th November 2009, 08:58 AM

Of course a science teacher can continue to teach, and potentially be very good at it, without it conflicting in public or in the class room with the science he teaches.

westprog · 26th November 2009, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by linusrichard

If he's so smart, how come he's dead?

Are you sure he's dead? He's in that box, after all.

westprog · 26th November 2009, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

The fact that Virgin Birth and Resurrection (not reanimation) are known as miraculous tells you that they are considered to be far from the norm.

If a science teacher said that a (human) virgin birth was possible according to the laws of nature, then he'd have an issue. The whole point of miracles is that they are things that are scientifically impossible. If they were scientifically possible, they wouldn't be miraculous. There's nothing in science that precludes miracles, per se.

Of course, a science teacher simply should not be talking about miracles except to say that they have nothing to do with science. It's just as much out of bounds for a science teacher to pause in the middle of a physics class to say that God doesn't exist as it is to say that he does.

A.A.Alfie · 26th November 2009, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Beth

Are you sure he believes in those things? Just because someone is catholic doesn't mean they automatically believe in all the teachings of the catholic church.

Agreed.
It may be he doesn't accept the literal word, more the lessons they teach.
Conversely, perhaps he accepts that God can do anything - including creating the heavens and earth, virgin birth etc etc, because he is God.

drkitten · 26th November 2009, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

If a science teacher said that a (human) virgin birth was possible according to the laws of nature, then he'd have an issue. The whole point of miracles is that they are things that are scientifically impossible. If they were scientifically possible, they wouldn't be miraculous. There's nothing in science that precludes miracles, per se.

Not even. Lots of the "miracles" of the Bible are perfectly possible natural events, well within the laws of science -- what made them miraculous was simply their timing. Moses struck a rock and a spring welled up. Pharaoh refused to let the Hebrews go, and a plague of locusts struck the fields, and then all the cattle got sick. A madman had a spontaneous remission, just as John Nash is documented to have had. I'm not seeing anything contrary to science as we understand it here.

And there are lots of scientifically possible ways to get a "virgin birth," especially if you buy into the modern physics paradigm where anything imaginable is possible at extremely low probability. (I think there's a famous urban legend of a Minie ball pregnancy -- look it up. If Dirac can simply conjure up semen and anti-semen at will and Planck can teleport the semen anywhere he likes, a virgin birth seems trivial.)

CS Lewis made this argument sixty-odd years ago. Science just says what happens if the normal rules of the universe are followed. Nothing about science says that someone can't mess with the rules of the universe, only that they seem not to have done so in a way we notice.

24th November 2009, 07:00 PM	#1
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	If Any Scientists Believes In God? If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God?
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

24th November 2009, 07:08 PM	#2
Hokulele Official Nemesis TLA Dictatrix Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: To be determined. Posts: 21,351	Only if his/her beliefs inform his/her science as opposed to the other way around.
	__________________ You, madam, do not appear to be bound by the physical laws that govern the rest of us. - JoeyDonuts You should listen to the evil one - Don't try to understand it, just experience it. - AJM8125

24th November 2009, 08:21 PM	#5
Hokulele Official Nemesis TLA Dictatrix Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: To be determined. Posts: 21,351	Ack, I got things completely backwards in my previous post. Bah.
	__________________ You, madam, do not appear to be bound by the physical laws that govern the rest of us. - JoeyDonuts You should listen to the evil one - Don't try to understand it, just experience it. - AJM8125

24th November 2009, 09:21 PM	#8
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 19,317	So some scientists have skeptic blind spots when it comes to god beliefs. Meh, who cares unless their religious beliefs lead to bad science in whatever field they are in. It's an unfortunate fact of life the current human species has yet to leave this kind of primitive thinking behind.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

25th November 2009, 03:20 AM	#9
bef New Blood Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 18	There are a great deal of believers who have contributed a lot to science, even to evolutionary biology. The issue is when scientists try to involve their religious views in their science. That's not to say that said scientist is not severely mistaken when it comes to their religious beliefs, it's just that if they keep the two separate, it's a non-issue and would be comparable to asking if the scientists political views should stop them from teaching science.
bef New Blood Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 18

24th November 2009, 07:49 PM	#3
fromdownunder Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,527	Originally Posted by Eyeron If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God? Yes he/she should still be allowed to teach Science in a Science classroom. Just as if he/she also should be allowed to be a lay preacher in a Church. The important bit is that they do dot not mix up the two different subjects. Some (many?) scientists do believe in God, and to their credit(?) manage to compartmentalise these two separate, and not necesarilly inconsistant worlds. The simplest example is of the Christian who also happens to be a Biologist, and accepts that the Bible is myth, allegory, poetry, with a little history thrown into the mix, but still accepts the underlying message of a personal God, and a Jesus who sacrificed himself to save man. It can be done pretty easily for those who want to do it that way. Norm

24th November 2009, 08:03 PM	#4
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by fromdownunder Yes he/she should still be allowed to teach Science in a Science classroom. Just as if he/she also should be allowed to be a lay preacher in a Church. The important bit is that they do dot not mix up the two different subjects. Some (many?) scientists do believe in God, and to their credit(?) manage to compartmentalise these two separate, and not necesarilly inconsistant worlds. The simplest example is of the Christian who also happens to be a Biologist, and accepts that the Bible is myth, allegory, poetry, with a little history thrown into the mix, but still accepts the underlying message of a personal God, and a Jesus who sacrificed himself to save man. It can be done pretty easily for those who want to do it that way. Case in point : Ken Miller, expert biologist, lead witness for the plaintiffs in Dover, author of one of the top high school biology textbooks, and also a major writer on the relationship between science and religion. I recommend his book Finding Darwin's God. If you think science and religion are incompatible, this book may answer you.

24th November 2009, 08:39 PM	#6
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 5,249	I recall Isaac Asimov saying he knew numbers of folks in the sciences who were believers of one sort or another. He said that they tended to keep their religion separate from their science....A uniquely human ability, I imagine.

24th November 2009, 08:51 PM	#7
Tricky Radical centrist Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 27,290	We've discussed before whether humans are "hardwired" for religion or not. I am not firmly on either side in that debate, but whether we are hardwired or socially programmed, religion is still a big part of many people's lives, and that includes scientists. I work with a large number of scientists, especially earth scientists who know beyond reasonable question that the whole Genesis stuff is total BS. Yet many go to church every Sunday and even talk about their church at work. One micropaleontologist puts up flyers for her church activities in the morning then settles down to spend the rest of the day seeing where the nannofossils fall in the evolutionary sequence. It's arena separation. It's cognitive dissonance. It's different needs being satisfied. But the vast majority of people like this want religion because they think it teaches morality and science because it works. Few are bible-thumpers or creationists.

25th November 2009, 03:39 AM	#10
Sideroxylon Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 566	As long as the hypothesis is rigorously tested I don't think it matters what kind of belief inspired it. I've read some great examples of wrong-headed ideas leading to important scientific discoveries, though memory fails me for the details.
	__________________ Look out honey 'cause I'm using technology.

25th November 2009, 04:35 AM	#11
Cainkane1 Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 2,566	Originally Posted by Eyeron If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God? It depends. Many Christians incorporate evolution into their belief system. I can't see a problem if for instance a believer teaches chemistry or physics. If the teacher teaches biology he or she should keep her beliefs to themselves.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

25th November 2009, 07:58 AM	#12
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon As long as the hypothesis is rigorously tested I don't think it matters what kind of belief inspired it. I've read some great examples of wrong-headed ideas leading to important scientific discoveries, though memory fails me for the details. William Paley and the Divine Watchmaker is an obvious example. He posed a very, very important question. Can there be a watch without a watchmaker, or less metaphorically, can there be any other way that various forms of life could have occurred other than via divine fiat? Darwin studied Paley, and his theories, deeply in his youth. It took several decades before he found an answer. He answered it in a way that Paley would have found unexpected, but that negates neither the significance of the question or of the answer. Einstein is supposed to have stumbled across the basics of special relativity by wondering what it would be like to ride on a beam of light. He realized that there were a number of contradictions involved and developed SR as an attempt to address those contradictions. Again, a completely wrong-headed idea (a massive body moving at the speed of light) led to a fundamental breakthrough. Dirac's "prediction" of the positron is another one; he didn't so much predict the positron as had it fall into his lap from his mathematics, which he rejected as a trivial mathematical blurb, with no relation to actual physical reality. If you took seriously (as Dirac didn't) the idea that pure math might be predictive, you'd look for a positron and find it, as Anderson did in 1933. Of course, only one of these is truly a "religious" example -- but they clearly show how incorrect ideas, taken seriously, can nevertheless lead to compelling evidence for a major discovery.

25th November 2009, 08:09 AM	#13
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 It depends. Many Christians incorporate evolution into their belief system. I can't see a problem if for instance a believer teaches chemistry or physics. If the teacher teaches biology he or she should keep her beliefs to themselves. I'm not sure I would even go that far. One of the best psychology instructors I had was a closet dualist. I supposed more correctly, he was a semi-closeted dualist. He was also one of the best neuro-modelers around. His disbelief that the models actually reflected how human minds work didn't keep him from being one of the world's best at modelling "brains." His basic argument, which he would cheerfully share with students -- is that these theories didn't match his intuitions about how "meat" behaved. But he also recognized that neither his intuitions nor other people's theories were the final word, and the actual final word was the empirical data. One of the things that made him good was this type of reflexive scepticism. Since he didn't trust any theories that went beyond the data, he was astonishingly good at spotting theories with unstated and unsupported premises, and he'd happily knock down all these castles-in-the-air conjectures by asking whether or not such-and-such had been actually demonstrated. And then he'd get to work designing an experiment to demonstrate it (or not). I'd have a lot more respect for the ID folks if they did anything similar. One of their claims, for example, is that there is no such thing as a mutation that increases information. This is clearly false according to any of the standard definitions of information (e.g. Chaitin complexity). But the standard definitions of information are almost misleadingly incomplete, as any of the chaos theorists at the Santa Fe institute can tell you. They've been working for decades on trying to find a definition of information that is based on semantics instead of probability -- and failing. If Dembski were an honest scientist instead of a charlatan, he'd be living out of a broom closet at Santa Fe looking for such a definition, precisely because such a definition, if it existed, might put his biological theories on solid ground. Instead he's writing and selling books that he knows are wrong. Just because your beliefs don't match the current evidence doesn't mean that the beliefs are wrong. It just means you need to look very carefully at the current evidence and see what further work needs to be done and what new types of evidence would need to be developed.

25th November 2009, 08:17 AM	#14
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Forum wierdness created double posting.
	Last edited by drkitten; 25th November 2009 at 08:26 AM.

25th November 2009, 08:21 AM	#15
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 26,812	Originally Posted by Eyeron If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God? No. Your all or nothing position has no merit.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____"Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity."--The Atheist____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon

25th November 2009, 09:52 AM	#16
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 14,373	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon As long as the hypothesis is rigorously tested Would that this be done in the other arena besides religion where logic and skepticism often fall by the wayside.
	__________________ Reid Fleming, World's Toughest Milkman, in *A Day Like Any Other* The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

25th November 2009, 07:22 PM	#17
bruto Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 6,657	Originally Posted by Eyeron If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God? I am not sure why religious belief should be any greater cause for disqualification than the belief that the only possible notion of God is "an invisible man in the sky."
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson)

25th November 2009, 07:31 PM	#18
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 28,320	Stephen Jay Gould referred to the separation of science and religion as NOMA - non-overlapping magisteria. Basically, science talks about things that can be measured and enumerated. Religion talks about things of the soul and afterlife. There's no reason why these things should overlap.
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Episode 17: Coming Mid-February. We welcome Lexi Hameister into the world at 1830 on 29 January! What's an "arthwollipot"?

25th November 2009, 07:42 PM	#19
lightfire22000 Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Nashville, TN. Posts: 689	Would anyone seriously consider barring Max Planck from teaching science?

25th November 2009, 09:25 PM	#20
linusrichard Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lansing, Mich. Posts: 2,355	Originally Posted by lightfire22000 Would anyone seriously consider barring Max Planck from teaching science? If he's so smart, how come he's dead?
	__________________ "We are talking about an old ladies genitals after all." - ponderingturtle

25th November 2009, 09:27 PM	#21
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 15,120	Originally Posted by Eyeron If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God? Yes.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

25th November 2009, 10:37 PM	#22
KingMerv00 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 8,790	Originally Posted by Eyeron If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him... Of course not.
	__________________ TEEK on Merv: He really is cute. Not in a tickle-me-Elmo way, either. Cicero: [Ann Coulter] doesn't require defending. Her education, college appearances, and book sales speak for themselves

25th November 2009, 11:17 PM	#23
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 19,317	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Stephen Jay Gould referred to the separation of science and religion as NOMA - non-overlapping magisteria. Basically, science talks about things that can be measured and enumerated. Religion talks about things of the soul and afterlife. There's no reason why these things should overlap. Translation: Made up woo involving god beliefs are excused with this tripe. All other woo are allowed to be challenged.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

26th November 2009, 01:43 AM	#24
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 28,320	Originally Posted by skeptigirl Translation: Made up woo involving god beliefs are excused with this tripe. All other woo are allowed to be challenged. That's a valid opinion.
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Episode 17: Coming Mid-February. We welcome Lexi Hameister into the world at 1830 on 29 January! What's an "arthwollipot"?

26th November 2009, 02:12 AM	#25
A.A.Alfie Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 2,113	Originally Posted by Eyeron If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God? Frankly I don't even understand how or why the question is valid. Is the suggestion is that they shouldn't teach? I assume so. If a teacher teaches biology, should they keep their political affiliations to themselves? Or the sports team they follow? Or what they think of global warming? If we answer that: "No, this teacher shouldn't be discussing personal beliefs", then surely it must be ALL personal beliefs. Will we then only allow the to teach their chosen discipline and nothing else?
	__________________ “The wolfhound is right and the cannibal is wrong". Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein Last edited by A.A.Alfie; 26th November 2009 at 02:15 AM.

26th November 2009, 04:43 AM	#26
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	I have always had this enquiry about scientists who hold a religious faith and I confess it puzzles me. Ken Miller, as someone also pointed out, is a case in point. Brilliant biologist, tremendous scientist, believes in the Virgin Birth. Committed catholic. How does this occur? Is this what they refer to as partitioning? Do they believe one thing on Saturday another on Sunday? I have no problem with the likes of Ken Miller teaching science (he is a great educator also) but at a particular level, how can he, in the name of all that is holy to scientific pursuit, deny that very process and take religious stories at face value without evidence or observation? It seems as if his religion is the very antithesis of everything he stands for in science and reason and I don't understand how people can turn it on and off. How does he care so passionately for scientific truth and shun it for the sake of faith? How can he indeed hold onto such a faith when his own methodology yields absolutely nothing for him to believe in? S.J.Gould was wrong. His was a cop out. It is overlapping 'magesterium' because they both try to answer the same questions. History has demonstrated that the scientific process has been far more succesful than the 'off pat' answers offered by religion. It has at least driven us towards the right questions. But for a man, completely immersed in the process of scientific discovery to finally admit Goddidit is beyond me. Its a cop out and a failure to follow the scientific process. It is just settling for an unsatisfying answer. I can only imagine that such people have a little switch that they turn on and off between reason and gullibility. How does Miller, for instance, accept actual raw flesh and blood in his mouth as he prepares his attacks against creationists, demonstrating that all is a natural (and therefore not supernatural) process? Surely he isn't so dumb as to fall for the proposition that 'all faith is stupid except mine'? I wish someone could explain it to me.
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	__________________ *...people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves* - MARDUK

26th November 2009, 04:47 AM	#27
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 28,320	Well, I can't exactly explain it to you, but I do agree that there is an area where religion and science overlap. And that's where religion makes testable claims. As soon as you start making testable claims, you are open to scientific verification. Religion can (but rarely does) avoid making testable claims.
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Episode 17: Coming Mid-February. We welcome Lexi Hameister into the world at 1830 on 29 January! What's an "arthwollipot"?

26th November 2009, 04:59 AM	#28
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	That point certainly enunciates my feelings on the matter. Miller spend most of his waking hours dealing with testable, observable, experimentational claims. How can a part of him accept anything as valid that does not follow that very same criteria?
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	__________________ *...people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves* - MARDUK

26th November 2009, 05:18 AM	#29
Sideroxylon Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 566	Originally Posted by Hux That point certainly enunciates my feelings on the matter. Miller spend most of his waking hours dealing with testable, observable, experimentational claims. How can a part of him accept anything as valid that does not follow that very same criteria? Scientists sometimes hold ideas that are untestable (some of which later become testable due to new technology) though I reckon this kind of speculative activity is best filed under philosophy rather than science. For example, how much if any of superstring theory with its additional dimensions is testable? I think the history of science has shown exploring ideas in such a way is still a useful and reasonable activity.
	__________________ Look out honey 'cause I'm using technology.

26th November 2009, 05:34 AM	#30
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	I wouldn't expect Miller to have an opinion on a theory like superstrings one way or the other. But in his case he is practised and studied in Biological sciences. I expect him to know that virgin birth does not occur in humans. I expect he knows that dead tissue does not reanimate. Yet he forgoes all the things he understands for these things on Sundays. How does he manage to be 50 - 50 on these issues? I take your point about theoretical issues but to me its like saying OK we have a Big Bang but Goddidit and thats all there is to it. When such people know perfectly well all we can do is describe the Big Bang as a real event and make no supernatural suppositions before it.
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	__________________ *...people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves* - MARDUK Last edited by Hux; 26th November 2009 at 05:35 AM.

26th November 2009, 06:09 AM	#31
Beth Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Flatland Posts: 3,863	Originally Posted by Hux I wouldn't expect Miller to have an opinion on a theory like superstrings one way or the other. But in his case he is practised and studied in Biological sciences. I expect him to know that virgin birth does not occur in humans. I expect he knows that dead tissue does not reanimate. Yet he forgoes all the things he understands for these things on Sundays. Are you sure he believes in those things? Just because someone is catholic doesn't mean they automatically believe in all the teachings of the catholic church.
	__________________ Beth "You are not the stuff of which you are made." Richard Dawkins, July 2005, 10:45 http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_daw..._universe.html

26th November 2009, 06:42 AM	#32
Mr Clingford Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: UK Posts: 1,354	Originally Posted by Hux I wouldn't expect Miller to have an opinion on a theory like superstrings one way or the other. But in his case he is practised and studied in Biological sciences. I expect him to know that virgin birth does not occur in humans. I expect he knows that dead tissue does not reanimate. Yet he forgoes all the things he understands for these things on Sundays. How does he manage to be 50 - 50 on these issues? The fact that Virgin Birth and Resurrection (not reanimation) are known as miraculous tells you that they are considered to be far from the norm. Scientific laws are descriptive not prescriptive. Orthodox Xtianity believes that there is a God who has entered space-time in a unique event with Jesus Christ. That aspect is falsifiable. These scientists probably believe that God created the general rules of the cosmos and we are in the process of uncovering them.
	__________________ God is my copilot. But we crashed into a mountain and I had to eat him.

26th November 2009, 07:29 AM	#33
Dave Rogers The Unbanned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Notlob Posts: 8,013	Originally Posted by Eyeron If any scientist believes in god, should that automatically discredit him for believing in an invisible man in the sky? Should he be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school for believing in God? If science were a matter of appeal to authority, that might have some merit. As it is, the work of a scientist is best judged on content, rather than the opinions of its originator in an unrelated area. I feel that those who teach science selectively on the basis of religious belief should not be teaching any kind of science in any kind of school, but again that's a matter of content. Dave
	__________________ "I guess for Truthers the great thing about Google is that it abolishes context automatically, thus saving your precious reserves of stupid for more important tasks." - Dr. Adequate GENERATION 6: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

26th November 2009, 07:57 AM	#34
metzomagic Scholar Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 67	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Religion can (but rarely does) avoid making testable claims. Religion can (but rarely does) ~~avoid making~~make testable claims. FTFY

26th November 2009, 08:34 AM	#35
Father Dagon Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Stockholm, Sweden, Mater Evropa, Sol-III Posts: 938	Originally Posted by fromdownunder Yes he/she should still be allowed to teach Science in a Science classroom. Just as if he/she also should be allowed to be a lay preacher in a Church. The important bit is that they do dot not mix up the two different subjects. Some (many?) scientists do believe in God, and to their credit(?) manage to compartmentalise these two separate, and not necesarilly inconsistant worlds. The simplest example is of the Christian who also happens to be a Biologist, and accepts that the Bible is myth, allegory, poetry, with a little history thrown into the mix, but still accepts the underlying message of a personal God, and a Jesus who sacrificed himself to save man. It can be done pretty easily for those who want to do it that way. Norm But a biologist could believe in the literal truth of the bible, and study frogs and still be a good scientist - i.e. the biologist is simply focusing on how the frogs behave here and now. However, that scientist is simply handicapping himself. Compare with the discovery of post-glacial rebound. At first they discussed why the water was receding (vattuminskning). Then they realized that there must've been ice ages and that the Earth must be far older than 6000 years. Maybe 100 000!
	__________________ "Eh-ya-ya-ya-yahaah - e'yayayayaaaa... nhg'aaaaa... ngh'aaaa... h'yuh... h'yuh... HELP! HELP!... ff-ff-ff-FATHER! FATHER! YOG-SOTHOTH"