Scientists who are religious

robindch

> The structure of DNA has been Mathematically proven.

Could you explain what you mean by this? The sentence doesn't have much meaning as it stands.

> Also, Mathematics is the fundamental (and some would say, only) true
> science. Therefore science theories can be proven, but biological and
> chemical ones aren't often because they are too complex for Mathematics
> as it stands.

I think you should read up on Karl Popper's work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

...as there are some basic errors in your understanding of what science is.

Beruthiel

r3nu4l wrote:

A scientist must accept the possibility of a divine being simply because science should never rule out anything that cannot be disproved. Until someone can perform an experiment that conclusively proves there is no God, then we must accept that there may be a God.

Why must you accept that there maybe a god? As a scientist, I would have thought that just because you do not have the answer to a problem just yet, doesn't mean there will not be a very logical one in the future. Just because we do not have the answer now, does not mean you fill in that lack of knowledge using god as the answer. That is not at all scientific, thus I cannot get my head around the fact that scientists especially can be religious.

r3nu4l

robindch wrote:

> The structure of DNA has been Mathematically proven.

Could you explain what you mean by this? The sentence doesn't have much meaning as it stands.

huh? Mathematics has been used to prove that the structure of DNA elucidated by Watson and Crick (and others) is correct. [unapologetic]Don't ask me to provide a linky, as I'm not bothered, I've other things to do.[/unapologetic]

robindch wrote:

...as there are some basic errors in your understanding of what science is.

Ah yes, the wonderful wonderings and ponderings of philosophy...:rolleyes: Philosophical observancies on "what science is" are many and varied, Poppers' is just one. As a fully trained PhD scientist with years of practical laboratory experience and now working in Scientific and Medical Communications I don't have much time for the musings of philosophers or noise..trees falling...woods. Sorry but I'm not going to waste my time, if it pleases you to think I am bathing in my own ignorance that is fine by me

I think I'll drop out of this now, I gave my opinion based on the OP's question so I'm not hanging around...feel free to pick my post apart, I won't be responding

@Beruthial: We must accept the possibility because there is no definitive proof to say there is no God. Nor is there even any evidence to say there is no God. Once there is a definite answer then we can stop accepting that there must be a God. We can't just stop believing in possibilities just becasue there is the chance that someone will disprove them in the future. Believing in possibilities allows for experimentation and thus knowledge, Increased knowledge allows refinement of experiments to the point where in some cases you can decrease the odds of likelihood that your theory is correct.

I don't think science should accept the possibility of various gods, I think science should ignore the whole issue entirely until there's evidence etc enough to convince them otherwise.

Just because we do not have the answer now, does not mean you fill in that lack of knowledge using god as the answer.

Precisely, hence my old sig:

Who stole the cookies from the cookie jar?
I don't know so it must be god!

I'm a buddhist and a scientist in training... yes...
I don't think the two (science and more theistic religions) are mututally exclusive I guess, they're just generally better off being kept apart

Beruthiel

r3nu4l wrote:

@Beruthial: We must accept the possibility because there is no definitive proof to say there is no God. Nor is there even any evidence to say there is no God. Once there is a definite answer then we can stop accepting that there must be a God. We can't just stop believing in possibilities just becasue there is the chance that someone will disprove them in the future. Believing in possibilities allows for experimentation and thus knowledge, Increased knowledge allows refinement of experiments to the point where in some cases you can decrease the odds of likelihood that your theory is correct.

I'm sorry r3nu4, I simply cannot get my head around this must word.
It's like DaveMc said, we must therefore also accept that there may be such things as unicorns, or fairies or ghosts, santa claus. It all has as much meaning to me. I cannot accept that there must be a god unless I have full proof evidence of one, even then I'm not sure what that 'evidence' could be to make it so. I'm probably more likely to think this god to be Q from Star Trek.

Dades

Beruthiel wrote:

I'm probably more likely to think this god to be Q from Star Trek.

I'd hope god would have a cooler hat.

r3nu4l

Beruthiel wrote:

I'm sorry r3nu4, I simply cannot get my head around this must word.
It's like DaveMc said, we must therefore also accept that there may be such things as unicorns, or fairies or ghosts, santa claus. It all has as much meaning to me. I cannot accept that there must be a god unless I have full proof evidence of one, even then I'm not sure what that 'evidence' could be to make it so. I'm probably more likely to think this god to be Q from Star Trek.

Beruthial before edit wrote:

I cannot accept that unicorns exist until one stands before me.

[picks at pre-edit post]I've never seen a live kangaroo but I believe they exist [/picks at pre-edit post] Apologies.

I accept your point, it is very difficult for anyone to believe in things they cannot see. I didn't believe in ghosts until I saw one! I was an extreme sceptic. Maybe it was a manifestation from my mind projected before me, maybe I prefer to believe it was a ghost rather than believe I was a bit crazy that day, who knows?

Just for the record, at one time I didn't believe a God or any other supreme being existed either. Now I do. Again, perhaps it is psychological.

I'm just saying what I believe, when I was in the lab performing experiments I wasn't thinking every day "Hmm, wonder if there is a God?" I was more likely thinking "Hmm, wonder if these extended PCR primers will work?" I separated my belief from my work. It's easy for some people to compartmentalise, sociopaths do it all the time


Finally, what's this you're saying about Santa Claus?

robindch

> Mathematics has been used to prove that the structure of DNA elucidated
> by Watson and Crick (and others) is correct.

Maths has been used to understand (for example) the topology of DNA, but you cannot "prove correct" the structure of DNA, any more than you can prove correct the structure of a house.

> As a fully trained PhD scientist with years of practical laboratory experience
> and now working in Scientific and Medical Communications I don't have much
> time for the musings of philosophers or noise..trees falling...woods.

Er, Karl Popper documented the basics of the modern scientific method. And "as a fully trained PhD scientist with years of practical laboratory experience", I would have expected you to be completely familiar with his work, from the practical point of view, even if you hadn't read it. And even if you hadn't heard of it, I would have expected you to at least be interested by it. Oh well.

> Sorry but I'm not going to waste my time, if it pleases you to think I
> am bathing in my own ignorance that is fine by me

Taking a half an hour out to understand the philosophical basis for your life's work is hardly a "waste of time" in my book. You believe otherwise. As you wish, my friend! Thanks for dropping by

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I accept your point, it is very difficult for anyone to believe in things they cannot see.

actually it's very easy. you're doing it right now, as are billions across the planet.

it's what we're doing that's not easy for most people, accepting the uncaring, unloving deterministic nature of the universe is a bit of a stretch for them atm.

Beruthiel

r3nu4l wrote:

I accept your point, it is very difficult for anyone to believe in things they cannot see.

Which is why I don't.

I didn't believe in ghosts until I saw one! I was an extreme sceptic. Maybe it was a manifestation from my mind projected before me, maybe I prefer to believe it was a ghost rather than believe I was a bit crazy that day, who knows?

I'm going with your imagination on that I'm afraid.
Myself and my partner both experienced something very strange once. I consider it happened for no other reason than the fact we both had too much to eat and drink that particular night and the goats cheese at the end of the dinner probably did not help. Another person might have run from the hotel room and never come back.

Just for the record, at one time I didn't believe a God or any other supreme being existed either. Now I do. Again, perhaps it is psychological.

I'm intrigued.
Do you feel comfortable enough to discuss why you changed your mind?

It's easy for some people to compartmentalise, sociopaths do it all the time

That explains it for me better than anyone else has so far!

Finally, what's this you're saying about Santa Claus?

oops

r3nu4l

Mordeth wrote:

actually it's very easy. you're doing it right now, as are billions across the planet.

it's what we're doing that's not easy for most people, accepting the uncaring, unloving deterministic nature of the universe is a bit of a stretch for them atm.

Oooh, nice viewpoint! Not what I was thinking of but very acceptable:)

@robindch: Meh! Sorry, just can't be arsed. Sir Karlie was a great man etc etc and his work on conditional prediction, unconditional prophecy etc was nice and all that but having read a ton of it in the past, I'm honestly not bothered and to say I fundamentally misunderstand some of the basic principles in science is codswallop, baloney and other words not often used in modern society

I just don't have time for many philosophers anymore but to give Karlie his dues at least he was a true professional and knew what he was talking about. He gave it his all, unlike a lot of the pseudo-armchair philosophers about the place who claim to understand what they've read in some book or in philosophy 101 lectures.

pH

r3nu4l wrote:

[picks at pre-edit post]I've never seen a live kangaroo but I believe they exist [/picks at pre-edit post] Apologies.

I accept your point, it is very difficult for anyone to believe in things they cannot see. I didn't believe in ghosts until I saw one! I was an extreme sceptic. Maybe it was a manifestation from my mind projected before me, maybe I prefer to believe it was a ghost rather than believe I was a bit crazy that day, who knows?

As a scientist I'd have thought you could differentiate between verifiable and unverifiable claims.

So why can you trust the claim 'Kangaroos exist' but not the ghosts one? The answer is verifiability - Any claim, where the claimant also provides *you* with a mechanism/instructions to verify it *yourself*.

- Ghosts exist
- How do I verify that?
- Ummm you can't, trust me though I did speak to one late one night 3 years ago
- right.

- Kangaroos exist
- How do I verify that
- Simple, head to Australia (or even your local zoo) and see for yourself.
- Right!

Yes, providing a way of verifying the claim does not automatically make the claim true, the verification may well fail when you attempt it, but claims which are in principle verifiable are rightly given far more credence that the "Trust me, God told me" ones.

r3nu4l

pH wrote:

As a scientist I'd have thought you could differentiate between verifiable and unverifiable claims.

I think you completely missed out on my point...

I said I 'believe' not 'I know'. I cannot verify, so I believe. I verified my 'belief' in kangaroos by going to see one at the zoo, so now I 'know' kangaroos exist.

I never said I 'know' ghosts exist and even questioned my own 'belief' by wondering if it was simply a psychological event.

bonkey

Beruthiel wrote:

I'm sorry r3nu4, I simply cannot get my head around this must word.

I think you're focussing on the wrong word.....but lets run with it.

We must accept that science cannot establish a probability of 0 that God exists.
We must also accept that science cannot establish a probability of 1 that God exists.

Thus, science (using personification) cannot establish that God certainly does or certainly does not exist.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the possibility that God may exist. We could argue the likelihood of that possibility all day long, but it is always going to remain somewhere between a certainty of existence and a certainty of non-existence.

That is as far as science takes us on the issue. Thus, the scientist must accept that the best science can do is not arrive at a definite conclusion.

It's like DaveMc said, we must therefore also accept that there may be such things as unicorns, or fairies or ghosts, santa claus.

Must we? I'd argue that in some of those cases, just as has been argued about the existence of an "interfering God", that science can establish with relative certainty that they don't exist. But that is - again - as far as it goes.

As a simple parallel....science appears to tell us that gravity is always attractive and in is attractive in an inverse-square manner with respect to distance. However, this has only been verified down to scales of about .1 mm (I believe). Thus, we assume that it holds true everywhere, but its possible that it doesn't.

So, even with something as relatively-well understood as gravity a scientist must - strictly speaking - accept the possibility that gravity may not always be attractive and may not always follow an inverse-square relationship with distance.

What a scientist believes to be the case in this respect is entirely up to them. It has no bearing on how good or bad a scientist they are as long as they keep their belief seperate from their work. Should they allow their belief to influence their work, however....thats a different story. The scientist who dispenses with the inverse-square law at small scales because he believes it to be the case but cannot verify it....such a scientist would be treading on very thin ice indeed. The scientist who assumes it to hold should strictly-speaking state that any resultant finding is dependant on it being verified that gravity does indeed behave as expected at these unverified scales.

I cannot accept that there must be a god unless I have full proof evidence of one,

Science cannot accept that there must be a god either, so you're in good company.

However, science must accept that there might be a God because it cannot rule out the possibility.

It can arguably rule out an interfering God, but even then it cannot do so completely from a strict reasoning point of view.

In short, Science is agnostic on the issue because all other positions require untestable, unverifiable assumptions - whether they be for or against existence. Agnostic means that regardless of what you believe the likelihood to be, you accept that the possibility exists.

Beruthiel

I get everything you say bonkey, I don't disagree with how you state it.
The possibility of many things exist. However, for me, I guess that is not enough.

guildofevil

r3nu4l. To be a practising Roman Catholic, you must also, for example, accept the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, right?

I mean, in catholic doctrine, that is what really happened. It is not a parable, it is a miracle performed by Jesus. How can you, as a scientist, reconcile that with the laws of thermodynamics?

I can accept that it may be considered reasonable, form a scientific standpoint, to hold a belief that there is, or was, a creator being. I do not share that belief, but I can see how it could be considered reasonable.

What I do not see, is how you can go from, “You have to accept the possibility of a god”, to “and the god I believe in is this particular one, as described in this particular book, which is interpreted for me by this particular religious organisation”?

Doing that, is going from a point of lack of information and filling the void with all sorts of assumptions. Every unproven, untested, assumption you make in your belief system, makes it less and less likely that what you believe overlaps significantly with reality.

How about this for an analogy:

We have no proof of life on other planets.

We also have no proof that we are the only planet with life.

It would be reasonable, under these circumstances, to hold the belief that extra terrestrials exist or that they do not.

If I were to go further and say that, not only do I believe that life exists on other planets, but that life exists on a particular planet, orbiting around a particular sun and that the aliens are, on average 1m 17cm high, with blue hair, on red skin, living in a pre-industrial, matriarchal society, but put forward no further evidence to support my assertions, it would not be considered a reasonable belief. You cannot prove that they do not exits. But that does not make me correct in believing that they do and it does not make my belief as reasonable as a simple belief that life exists out there, somewhere.

r3nu4l

guildofevil wrote:

r3nu4l. To be a practising Roman Catholic, you must also, for example, accept the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, right?

I mean, in catholic doctrine, that is what really happened. It is not a parable, it is a miracle performed by Jesus. How can you, as a scientist, reconcile that with the laws of thermodynamics?

It is the duty of all practicing Catholics to question their religion and belief. The days of blindly following what comes from the pulpit are thankfully long gone

This miracle comes from the Bible, the Bible is made up of a mish-mash of books and scriptures etc that have been edited, translated, mis-translated etc over two millenia.

It is therfore quite possible that there were originally 5 people and not 5000 and people at the time said "Wow, fair play to you Jesus, I didn't think you'd manage to feed that many people with a few hunks of bread and some cod"

I don't know, I have my doubts and question the miracle but it is a teaching of the Catholic faith. To be a practicing Catholic does not mean that you have to believe everything you are told without question.

I am a practicing Catholic because that is the religion I know. I would however say that I am a Christian first and a Catholic second. I accept that if you believe in God you can praise God anywhere. You can behave as a good Christian and have no belief in God at all. If there is a God, I sincerely doubt that you wouldn't be let in past the pearly gate bouncers simply because you hadn't joined the club!

As a scientist it is very hards for me to reconcile many miracles with the laws of physics. The easiest non-thinking thing to do is explain it all away by saying God did it through Jesus. After all if I believe in a supreme being surely I believe that that being can operate through his 'son' and feed millions with a rusty razor blade if necessary? Tough call. I don't really have an answer that can be easily pinned down and as a scientist it only makes me more curious.

r3nu4l

r3nu4l wrote:

I am a practicing Catholic because that is the religion I know.

Er, so why don't you learn more about another religion? That seems a bit lazy...

Dave!

r3nu4l:

Why do you have to try and reconcile them at all?! Why don't you just accept that they did not happen?

I don't get why you have to channel your belief in a creator through a specific "church". You said yourself that you don't think god will turn you away from the pearly gates for not being in a church.

Can you not just (a) believe in the creator, after-life, etc., (b) pray to this god and observe whatever the results may be (I'm sure you'll find the results pleasing to you), and (c) live a moral life. Surely that'd be enough to appease any god.

You said that you're a practising catholic because that's the religion "you know". So do you "know" anything about the other religions? What makes you think that they're not the "right" religion? Have you examined them all carefully and came to the conclusion that you're in the corrent one, or were you just baptised so you're comfortable in this religion, despite the fact that it could be sending you to hell for being the wrong one?

I don't follow your thinking at all. It seems completely ridiculous to me for a supposed scientist to think like that. But that's just what I think.

By the way, and this may be too personal a question so feel free to disregard it, do you use condoms? Also, as your location is in England, I presume (perhaps incorrectly) that you're surrounded by Protestants -- what do you think will happen to them after they die? Surely if catholics, protestants, and muslims all think they're going to heaven after they die, someone must be wrong!

I haven't read the rules of the catholic church, so perhaps someone can clear it up for me -- in order to be a good catholic, does one not have to follow exactly what il papa says? I would have thought that one would, otherwise there'd be no point

r3nu4l

bluewolf wrote:

Er, so why don't you learn more about another religion? That seems a bit lazy...

@Bluewolf and DaveMcG...what makes you think I haven't :rolleyes: I spent a lot of time in the wilderness of religion and returned to Catholocism as I felt it had more to offer than the others I looked at.

@DaveMcG as for the term "supposed scientist" :rolleyes:
Scientists are human beings, we think and feel and have emotions. We do not operate on logic and rationality alone. It would be a very poor excuse for a human that operated only on these. Imagine not enjoying art or music...shudders!

Why can you guys not accept that other people believe differently to you? Are you so insecure in your own belief that you need me to justify mine to you? I don't have to you know Weird...

Beruthiel

r3nu4 wrote:

Why can you guys not accept that other people believe differently to you? Are you so insecure in your own belief that you need me to justify mine to you? I don't have to you know Weird...

I don't think it's that.
I agree with you, some people do come across a tad agressive in the way their question is structured. It is difficult for an atheist to understand the concept of god and how someone who is intelligent to believe in him.
Please don't be put off and leave though, I'm hughly curious how you became a believer after so long not being. I'm a nosey biddy see....

guildofevil

r3nu4l wrote:

Why can you guys not accept that other people believe differently to you? Are you so insecure in your own belief that you need me to justify mine to you? I don't have to you know Weird...

You should expect your beliefs it to be challenged if you post about them in Atheism & Agnosticism. And as I stated earlier, I CAN accept REASONABLE beliefs, other than my own.

The reason you are getting a hard time from us, is because, on the one hand, in your job, you follow rational, logical, thinking, but as soon as it comes to religion, start jumping to conclusions, without supporting evidence.

Holding Christian beliefs, when all you have to support them is an old book (which you have given yourself permission to pick and choose from) and the fact that science can't prove the isn't some sort of god, is the same as holding a belief in my blue haired, red skinned, little matriarchs.

I can understand a scientist believing in a god. I cannot understand a scientist following a particular religion, unless they are willing to set logic aside, in return for the comfort of self delusion.

Dave!

r3nu4l wrote:

@Bluewolf and DaveMcG...what makes you think I haven't :rolleyes: I spent a lot of time in the wilderness of religion and returned to Catholocism as I felt it had more to offer than the others I looked at.

I didn't say you haven't, I asked have you.

I don't see what Catholicism has to offer over other religions, but to each their own.

r3nu4l wrote:

@DaveMcG as for the term "supposed scientist" :rolleyes:
Scientists are human beings, we think and feel and have emotions. We do not operate on logic and rationality alone. It would be a very poor excuse for a human that operated only on these. Imagine not enjoying art or music...shudders!

Apologies, I didn't bother to read back on where you justified calling yourself a scientist, so said supposed because I didn't know whether or not I would consider you a "scientist". You are indeed a scientist, alright?

As to the second part of the quote,
surely you could adopt logic in this instance: Yesterday, the Roman Catholic Church believed that still-born babies go to 'Limbo' rather than heaven. That means that Roman Catholics throughout the world must believe that also. The Pope has since decided that he doesn't believe this anymore, so once he decrees same, that will be the RC church's new stance until it's changed again. That means that Roman Catholics throughout the world, no matter how much they believed in Limbo previously, have to suddenly start believing that still-borns go straight to heaven.

Now how is that at all logical? How can 1 man decide on a whim, with no explaination or evidence needed, that yesterday the babies went to limbo, tomorrow they'll go to heaven. That does not make sense to me, and I don't know how it sits right in your scientific mind.

r3nu4l wrote:

Why can you guys not accept that other people believe differently to you? Are you so insecure in your own belief that you need me to justify mine to you? I don't have to you know Weird...

I'm secure in my belief, but I don't think that your beliefs make any sense, so I'm just posing questions to you so that I may understand them better. Perhaps you'll convince me and I'll end up confessing all of this! "Bless me father for I have sinned... I am an atheist!!! :eek:"

Zillah

1 - Science cannot prove God does not exist, therefore a scientist must accept that there may be a God.

In a very strict philosophical sense, yes. But in the exact same manner I must also accept yellow unicorns, pixie/fairy cross breeds, a gigantic pink zombie, the anti-matter ghost of Leonard Nimoy, the exploding singularity in my toothpaste and the chirping chirp monster of Zargon 7 that some homeless guy was shouting about.

They're all absolutely ridiculous notions, theres not a shred of verifiable exidence for any of them, and they should all be regarded with the same degree of scepticism. We should ignore such nonsenese until their respective claiments can provide some proof.

2 - Catholicism does not take any of the bible literally.

Not true, the majority of the New Testament is taken as gospel truth. And if you personally reject the bible as an ambiguous mish-mash of badly translated books then you're not a Christian; you're an ill-defined theist.

3 - Miracles appear to make no sense and require the presumed existence of a divine being to explain.

Rather than desperately try to force your brain into accepting this nonesense, why not reject it along with all the other ridiculous claims you get bombarded with day to day. Await further verifiable evidence. These "mircales" should be seen in the same light as the chirping chirp monster of Zargon 7 and its love-causing eye beams.


Aside from all that, I am also fascinated as to what could have converted you as an adult.

r3nu4l

r3nu4l wrote:

@Bluewolf and DaveMcG...what makes you think I haven't :rolleyes: I spent a lot of time in the wilderness of religion and returned to Catholocism as I felt it had more to offer than the others I looked at.

Er, this did, actually:

you wrote:

...because that is the religion I know.

That implies you're not any other religion because you don't know anything about them.

Why can you guys not accept that other people believe differently to you?

Why does my asking a simple question mean I'm not accepting? Are we not here to discuss religion?

guildofevil

It's usually a personal tragedy, depression, childhood trauma resurfacing, that sort of thing, that causes a religious conversion. Life seems hopeless so people start to look for a solution outside themselves. This could turn out to be a vague or non theist becoming devoutly religious in the faith they grew up in, or an already religious person converting to a different religion.

A friend of mine converted to Mormonism after the death of his girlfriend. Another became a born again Christian after a very bad childhood and adolescence. Both had been raised catholic. By the time I met them, neither were exactly typical examples of their adopted faiths and I don't know if either of them still subscribe to the religions in question.

The thing they had in common was that they had been approached by missionaries at a time when they needed help and answers. The religions of the missionaries appeared to provide those answers and both felt they had been helped and so converted.

When last I spoke to either of them about it, they were obviously at the point where they were barely paying lip service to the religion and I would be very surprised if either of them were still even doing that.

Talliesin

guildofevil wrote:

It's usually a personal tragedy, depression, childhood trauma resurfacing, that sort of thing, that causes a religious conversion.

You have statistics to support this statement?

guildofevil

Talliesin wrote:

You have statistics to support this statement?

No.

The imaginary friend of a person who, may or may not have existed, told me, so it must be true.

I believe it is true, so it is true.

You can't prove it isn't true, so it is true.


Or: Allow me to make a slight alteration to my above statement:

In my experience it's usually a personal tragedy, depression, childhood trauma resurfacing, that sort of thing, that causes a religious conversion. Life seems hopeless so people start to look for a solution outside themselves. This could turn out to be a vague or non theist becoming devoutly religious in the faith they grew up in, or an already religious person converting to a different religion.

robindch

> The thing they had in common was that they had been approached by
> missionaries at a time when they needed help and answers.

You'll see a lot of this kind of thing around the place.

Hundreds of scientologists turned up in New York just after the WTC attacks to assist in their own, er, special way (see here and here). Evangelical christians, muslims, scientologists, jews and quakers all turned up in droves after the 2004 tsunami around Indonesia (see here, here and here). And we had the protestant evangelicals in Ireland during the famine, from which the 'soupers' arose.

> It's usually a personal tragedy, depression, childhood trauma
> resurfacing, that sort of thing, that causes a religious conversion.

Interestingly, Anthony Bourdain's A Cook's Tour says the same thing about his experiences of people conversion to vegetarianism -- you either do it in your early teens, or you suffer some awful liife tragedy, then go veggie for life. Strange similarity, isn't it?

guildofevil

I have a friend who suddenly went veggie after he got, and recovered from, cancer. He's a pretty militant atheist so religion wasn't an option for him, I suppose. Interesting.