"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 93275 comments on the Examiner.com story from Jan 22, 2012, titled "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think". In it, Examiner.com reports that:

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#42 Jan 28, 2012
Daily Reflections wrote:
Maybe there is something to this "god gene" hypothesis. True, it gets complex because of environmental influences but maybe biology plays some role in religiosity and influences which way we go.
There is still this problem with materialism saying that consciousness is an illusion and doesn't really exist. Likewise a bigger problem with this dualism, the body and the mind, the soul and the flesh which makes even less sense. So what is consciousness, the mind, the soul or what ever you call the inner me?
I’m not sure that materialism says that consciousness is an illusion and doesn't really exist. Personally, I find such debates as that (and dualism, or 'inner me') unrewarding ‘blah’.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/materialism

I think what you really want to know is: why are people religious when it seems to go against all evidence and reason?

I think the God hypothesis isn’t the only possible genetically based theory. Perhaps, most people who are religious don’t have mystic experiences (nor believe they’ve had them)? They may still be pre-disposed genetically to believe in a creator.

The Nature of Intelligence Theory...
People talk as if someone has intelligence or lacks it. I don’t think intelligence should be viewed like that.

Take two examples:
Robt Mugabe. The guy is a qualified teacher with two masters degrees. He thinks the British or white race is behind all his difficulties and is a Roman Catholic.(Fortunately, he’s grasped that witches don’t exist).
There is a mechanic who fixes my car. From conversation, it is unlikely he could achieve the standard of mathematics that I have mastered (or once did :-). I could never learn to fix a car as well or as quickly as he does.

So there are different kinds of intelligence. Some are quite widely defined, e.g. Mechanical-mindedness, intellectual. Others are very narrow, for instance someone can have a facility for languages and be so 'stupid' in every other respect they aren’t employable.

There is the example of the ‘stupid copper’ or ‘intelligent idiot’. The common example is the guy who joins the police force and is physically fittest and toughest. He passes every written exam with flying colours, but put him at a road junction and try and get him to direct the traffic and he’ll have queues for miles in one direction and uninterrupted traffic in the other. He has no ‘common sense’.(I think USAmericans might call them geeks?)

So maybe people can be brilliant scientists and religious because they are ‘intellectual idiots’?

I have another theory to add to those. I call it the ‘Under 7 Brain Development Theory’(for short :-). It is this...
I note the Jesuit saying,“give me a boy under 7....” I also note the observation about Feral Children – that if they haven’t learned human language by about the age of 7 or 8, they are NEVER able to learn human speech. This is a surprising phenomenon (and perhaps not firmly and scientifically established as a fact).

We are all a product of nature and nurture, so what is the effect on some minds (but not on all) of some methods or intensity of religious instruction to the under 7’s? Biologically or developmentally, some brains might be permanently impaired by it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#43 Jan 28, 2012
I should add that apart from the three theories I mentioned above, some people are religious for needy or social reasons - environmental reasons.

For instance, it can be hard to reject religious faith (either consciously or unconsciously) if one knows it will lead to a high degree of rejection by one's family or community.

Some people may be emotionally and psychologically imprisoned to some degree, by the religious conviction of those important to them? At the least, it might leave them feeling 'can all these people be wrong?' It can be tough for some people to conclude 'yes'.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#44 Jan 28, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>No, I think the scientific method is a myth.
Just saw this.

Wow. Just ... wow.

Candidate for the FSTDT.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#45 Jan 28, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>Galileo was a devout Catholic until the day he died, and was carried to mass daily when he was too weak to walk there. All of his observations of the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter were confirmed by Jesuit priests whereas the natural philosophers (supposed scientists) refused to even look through the telescope.
This would be a LIE!

http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-r...

At most, it was Guilio Libri, who was an opponent of Galileo and a professor of Aristotelian Philosophy in Pisa and not a scientist (he taught Aristotle's "science", he did not DO science).
Daily Reflections

Pomona, MO

#46 Jan 28, 2012
Yes Ed that's what they have been teaching in mainstream philosophy courses at the major universities for the last several years that the sciences search for "reductionism". Or that material things are made up of smaller units, molecules, then smaller, atoms, and so on. But the problem with consciousness is it is not material but now thought to be a process of neurons in the brain of which we don't have a lot of understanding.
I haven't read all of Dawkins books but know he has been important in changes in our thinking about "progressive evolution" or "evolutionary arms race within species" where an environmental niche will be quickly filled by changes in organisms. When humans die our, he says, our niche will be quickly filled by some other species.
I find it really interesting to think about. And when biology we studied 30 or 40 years ago seems almost primitive to the pool of understanding today. Thank God for opencourseware and online free lecture series from the ivy league schools. I try to avoid the blogs who at the very best most often have their own agenda. That's why the best and brightest in the world come to our universities to study.

Since: Mar 09

Hidden

#47 Jan 28, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
A simple look at any dictionary (try http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scient... for example) shows that the word scientist entered the dictionary in 1834. Now even assuming that the idea of a scientist existed some 34 years earlier and it just took awhile for a word to get coined and to get into the dictionary, we are still unable to consider people such as Galileo to be scientists.
Now those historical revisionists like to say that BEFORE there were scientists, there were "natural philosophers" which was basically the same thing. Under that definition Galileo still wasn't a scientist as he wasn't a natural philosopher and natural philosophy definitely excluded mathematicians and astronomers.
Galileo was a devout Catholic until the day he died, and was carried to mass daily when he was too weak to walk there. All of his observations of the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter were confirmed by Jesuit priests whereas the natural philosophers (supposed scientists) refused to even look through the telescope.
Of course that doesn't stop atheist scientists with an axe to grind from lying about the affair.
Galileo was a scientist becuase he used the scientific approach to formulate his position, he did not use a philosophical or religious approach. He didn't use passages from the bible to support his contentions, he used observable evidence.

Just becuase the term scientist didn't come around until later doesn't mean that the definition is not retroactive. That's like saying the person who invented the wheel wasn't an inventor, becuase the world hadn't been coined. It's just mincing words.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#48 Jan 28, 2012
Daily Reflections wrote:
.... where an environmental niche will be quickly filled by changes in organisms. When humans die our, he says, our niche will be quickly filled by some other species.
I find it really interesting to think about....
Me too, but I hope he meant "if", not "when" :-)

I thought that (like me) he hoped we would ultimately escape being strictly confined to this planet?

Arguably, modern humans have only existed for 1/4 of a million years.'Early modern society' is an English historical term applicable to the early 17th century. It's very early days and baby steps, I hope. We haven't got rid of superstitions or achieved a global yet!
Feli

Germany

#49 Jan 28, 2012
you know people from USA, this science in your country and many another countries are for usual people on the level of a little bit reading and little bit writing or making driving license and it is the whole science of usual citizen. And do you think that if an usual citizen can write and read, it is a reason to neglect belief in God.
And it is the same thing with another people, who has got a little bit more intelligence that they understand a little bit more from this science, but it is no everything and it can be that this human knowledge will be always only a small piece of absolute, complete knowledge. And if they say, we go on the Moon and it means now that it is no God, it is not the truth, knowledge does not reject existance of God I think personally that otherwise, it supports and it is the proof for existance of God.
Daily Reflections

Pomona, MO

#50 Jan 28, 2012
Feli
I think I understand where you are coming from. I had a good Muslim friend who was very bright and intelligent in the sciences (chemistry). At the same time he was a devout Muslim. He could manage both in his mind and be a good human being. I think a lot of people can.

But the real enemy of mankind is this fundamentalism from both the Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam. Those who take the Koran and the Bible literally and preachers drunk with power over others.
Both books were written when people were savages and had little understanding or empathy for each other. It was a time of fighting with edged instruments, not the total destructive arsenal we have today. We better learn to get along with each other or as a wise man once said when going out to get revenge "dig two graves".
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#51 Jan 28, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe in Thor, God of Lightning?
No?
Then stop using all electricity.
Does that sound like an impressive argument? Obviously not. Yet it is no different from the argument you made.
In order to prove that science is wonderful you start by assuming that science is wonderful and then come back around to re-prove what you started out by assuming. Earth shattering.
Actually PS, it is very VERY different.

Or uh... are you claiming the ability to harness electricity was due to the application of magic rather than the application of the scientific method?

Oh wait - the scientific method doesn't exist, right? Therefore it must have been magic.

Your dumbosity can only go further down from here...
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#52 Jan 28, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
Of course that doesn't stop atheist scientists with an axe to grind from lying about the affair.
Every time you say that you expose where you get your ignorance.

Go tell it to the atheists.

Water boils at 100 degrees whether you're an atheist or a theist.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#53 Jan 28, 2012
Feli wrote:
you know people from USA, this science in your country and many another countries are for usual people on the level of a little bit reading and little bit writing or making driving license and it is the whole science of usual citizen. And do you think that if an usual citizen can write and read, it is a reason to neglect belief in God.
And it is the same thing with another people, who has got a little bit more intelligence that they understand a little bit more from this science, but it is no everything and it can be that this human knowledge will be always only a small piece of absolute, complete knowledge. And if they say, we go on the Moon and it means now that it is no God, it is not the truth, knowledge does not reject existance of God I think personally that otherwise, it supports and it is the proof for existance of God.
I would put it like this: belief in a god is not based on reason or evidence, but believe any fantasy you wish. Religion is more often problematic than belief in a god.

Stop the religious superstition, such as ‘Jesus died for our sins’.

At the least, don’t damage our unifying, secular society. Keep religion out of morality, science, politics, law courts and education.

Reject tribalism, including religious tribalism such as that which has resulted in tensions between Zionists and Islamists.

Freedom of religion by all means, but freedom from religion too. Never be afraid to stand up for a secular society.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#54 Jan 30, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
So since the word "man" wasn't in the dictionary in 1032 AD, we can't consider anyone to be a man that existed in 1032 AD? Your logic is laughable.
Can you please post a collaborating link for your claim that "All of his observations of the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter were confirmed by Jesuit priests". Also, the question arises as to WHEN were they confirmed? Also, when was the term "natural philosophers" included in the dictionary? If it was after Galileos time, than according to you, you can't consider them to be natural philosophers.
First of all, the earliest English dictionary was compiled in 1592 so your bizarre claim that the word "man" entered the dictionary in 1032 seems rather suspect to me.

As for the claim that Jesuits confirmed Galileo's observations try http://www.zephyrus.co.uk/galileogalilei.html
or http://books.google.com.pe/books... 's+observations&source=bl &ots=GBOlP2I2d-&sig=uI flYsEFFkQ1P5GKNV30-kusLsc& hl=es&sa=X&ei=tPAmT56a CcPagged_-HpCA&ved=0CDsQ6A EwAw#v=onepage&q=jesuit%20 priests%20confirmed%20galileo' s%20observations&f=false

Or you can read http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science... which says:
"In Carl Sagan's popular picture book on astronomy, Cosmos, the author tells us that Galileo was unable to convince the Catholic hierarchy that there are mountains on the Moon and that Jupiter has moons of its own. The historical fact is the polar opposite of what Sagan contends. Jesuit astronomers of the Roman College confirmed Galileo's telescopic observations and subsequently honored Galileo with a full day of ceremonies. And while Galileo was in Rome for these plaudits, he was given a hero's welcome by cardinals, prelates, and other dignitaries of the Church including Pope Paul V.

It has been known for quite some time now that the majority of Church intellectuals supported Galileo, and that the clearest and strongest opposition to him came from secular agencies."

Or just read about Chrisopher Clavius at http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/clavius.html
" Clavius was initially skeptical, but by the end of 1610 he and other mathematicians of the college had confirmed the existence of the satellites of Jupiter and seen the phases of Venus."
----------
As for Natural Philosophy, that dates back to Aristotle.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#55 Jan 30, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
It is different.
We know that scientists developed those things he mentioned. Since you have no evidence that any of those myths(including yours) are real, or have ever existed, your claim is unfounded.
You are comparing reality to myth. It's not the same thing. Logical fail.
The father of the computer was Charles Babbage, a philosopher, and a mathematician. He was not a scientist. Therefore you have no reason to proclaim that science is responsible for the computer.

P.S. I know the Flying Spaghetti Monster invented pasta in the exact same way that you know scientists are responsible for the computer.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#56 Jan 30, 2012
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith." ~~ Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." ~~ Cardinal Bellarmino, 17th Century Church Master Collegio Romano during the trial of Galileo

"To affirm that the Sun ... is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without going from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures" ~~ Cardinal Bellarmino,~~ Cardinal Bellarmino, 17th Century Church Master Collegio Romano during the trial of Galileo
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#57 Jan 30, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually PS, it is very VERY different.
Or uh... are you claiming the ability to harness electricity was due to the application of magic rather than the application of the scientific method?
Oh wait - the scientific method doesn't exist, right? Therefore it must have been magic.
Your dumbosity can only go further down from here...
We owe our understanding of electricity and the invention of the computer in a large part to Ohm's law, which is basically the first thing taught to electronics students. Ohm's law was first published in 1827 in German in a book entitled, "The Galvanic Circuit Investigated Mathematically."

Again we find that math is responsible for the discovery and not science. Unfortunately for Ohm, not only was his discovery labeled "a tissue of naked fantasy" but he was forced to resign his job as a school teacher by the leading scientists of the time ( http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/mult... ).

Fortunately science did not prevail otherwise that keyboard you're typing on wouldn't even exist.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#58 Jan 30, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time you say that you expose where you get your ignorance.
Go tell it to the atheists.
Water boils at 100 degrees whether you're an atheist or a theist.
Your claim that water boils at 100º is a sign of your ignorance. In fact, water can boil at room temperature and can fail to boil at extremely high temperatures. Additionally, you have no proof that water will behave in the future the way you have seen it behave in the past.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#59 Jan 30, 2012
I'm out of time, boys... I'll check the other thread tomorrow morning.
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#60 Jan 30, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
We owe our understanding of electricity and the invention of the computer in a large part to Ohm's law, which is basically the first thing taught to electronics students. Ohm's law was first published in 1827 in German in a book entitled, "The Galvanic Circuit Investigated Mathematically."
Again we find that math is responsible for the discovery and not science. Unfortunately for Ohm, not only was his discovery labeled "a tissue of naked fantasy" but he was forced to resign his job as a school teacher by the leading scientists of the time ( http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/mult... ).
Fortunately science did not prevail otherwise that keyboard you're typing on wouldn't even exist.
"his analysis of electrical current"

Would uh, that require observation maybe, and perhaps testing?

Or a whole lot of magic?
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#61 Jan 30, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
...Fortunately science did not prevail otherwise that keyboard you're typing on wouldn't even exist.
Perhaps that is an example of what religion can do to a human mind.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News American Atheists terminates its president over... 6 hr Duke for Mayor 7
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... Tue Graftedin1 75
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Apr 14 blacklagoon 3 4,141
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Apr 14 Into The Night 258,515
News The Anti-Christian Movement Apr 10 blacklagoon 3 11
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Apr 9 Wisdom of Ages 6,048
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing Apr 2 blacklagoon 3 35