Why are some scientists averse to religion?

[Pyrotex]

Whether or not god exists isn't particularly important for this discussion. What's important is the incontestible fact that (statistically) the more educated and intelligent a person (scientist) is, the more likely they are to be un-believers, agnostics, atheists, non-theists, neutral and/or hostile to any concept of super-reality deities.

 

All of these proffered terms have so much overlap, that they can be considered synonomous. Furthermorer, people who do not believe in god, generally have no interest whatsoever in which terms applies best to them.

 

Again, I do not need someone pounding me over the head with a thesaurus and trying to define what particular species of non-believer I am. Sorry, but I could really care less. And I don't see that it advances the conversation in any productive way.

[IDMclean]

I see clearly that my points of contention were glossed over and otherwise ignored. To which I can only suggest that one go and read over the argument presented again. The point was not about the existence, nor non-existence of god/gods. The point was in the fallacy of assumed definition, and the limitation of the scope of a given arguement.

 

There are litterally millions of definitions of god and/or gods. Of which the Christian god is 1.

 

The Title of this thread is:

"Why are some scientist averse to religion?"

 

To which my answer is, Religion, like god, is a variable with no standard scientifically acceptable definition. Irregardless of personal views this is why science is conventionally adverse to religion.

 

Science is designed to omit, to not speak of or about things, that it can not emperically affirmed, and that which by identity can not be falsified.

[ughaibu]

KickAssClown: You are not being ignored but if your view is that scientists are averse to religion because they cant define it consistently enough to study it, you've been misunderstood, by at least me, and not surprisingly, as scientists do define and study religion. Further, this thread is about "some scientists", not about the practice of science but about the people.

[Sacri Sankt]

science is a method, religion is a decision. once something is judged to be 'religion', it becomes immune to the scientific method. for this reason, religion is sometimes rightly seen as a self-imposed delusion, enforcing incorrect, outdated ideas with no way to refute these ideas scientfically.

 

since at least some scientists are also decent human beings, they dont like to see thier fellow humans minds in self-imposed shackles, and seek to free them.

 

however, they invariably attack religion, which is the wrong approach totally. what needs to be targetted is the weakmindedness that leads to religious thinking. if the religious were treated as tho they suffered a psychiatric disorder, it would be cured within a generation.

[Tormod]

what needs to be targetted is the weakmindedness that leads to religious thinking. if the religious were treated as tho they suffered a psychiatric disorder, it would be cured within a generation.

 

Whoa - this is hardly a scientific statement.

 

I think this thread is heading for the theology forum pretty fast now.

[Sacri Sankt]

im sorry, i didnt mean to stray. but my point up to that was valid, i think.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Let me come at it from a different direction. What if scientists believed in something that didn't exist? What grounds would they have to criticize religion, if that were the case? You know. Glass house. Throw rocks.

[Sacri Sankt]

scientists have often believed in things that dont exist. phlogiston and the four humours spring to mind. once the concensus realises the position they hold is wrong, scientific opinion just undergoes a paradigm shift. since science itself is just a method, its capable of changing its users too.

[Larv]

My favorite way to differentiate science from religion, and to explain why scientists are mostly averse to it, is to invoke Julian Jaynes' theory about "the origin of consciousness from the breakdown of the bicameral mind." Science IS a manifestation of consciousness, while religion harps back to the primitive bicameral mind, wherein "the word of God" is hallucinated as an unquestionable command. It's an evolutionary thing, and Jaynes makes his case from evidence he observes in the personal symbolisms of sculptures and in the use of pronouns occurring in the evolution of written languages.

 

One more thing. Science has peer reviews; religion does not. The most important aspect of science is skepticism, which doesn't fly so well inside the Church of the True Believer

 

—Larv

[Sacri Sankt]

actually religion does have peer reviews, in the form of synods. but thats a minor point. this theory you describe is very interesting, im going to read up on it.

[Tormod]

scientists have often believed in things that dont exist. phlogiston and the four humours spring to mind. once the concensus realises the position they hold is wrong, scientific opinion just undergoes a paradigm shift. since science itself is just a method, its capable of changing its users too.

 

True, and they still do. It's a part of science that we need to believe, or at least be able to imagine, things that don't exist.

 

The phogiston theory was not exactly stupid (it basically taught that fire was caused by phlogiston), nor was it 100% wrong (they mostly got it backwards - phlogiston was "released" by fire, as opposed to oxygen which is consumed by fire) but it did eventually lead to the discovery of oxygen, and to the correct classification of oxygen as what is consumed by fire.

 

So the phlogiston theory is an example of a scientific theory that did not withstand the test of time.

[Sacri Sankt]

At the time of publication of The Origin of Consciousness, he was heavily criticized for pandering to pedestrian readers and not submitting the work to a proper peer review. It was, however, a successful work of popular science, and was a nominee for the National Book Award in 1978.

 

lol

 

this seems quiet an old theory, one that hasnt aged well either. ancient people were very sophisticated, they hardly acted like schizophrenics (of whom i know plenty).

[Tormod]

actually religion does have peer reviews, in the form of synods.

 

Not really - it is not a feature of "religion" as such but of a minority of Christian churches. And I wouldn't call it peer review. Attendance at a synod is restricted to those who already follow the doctrines.

[Sacri Sankt]

thats true, but then scientific peer review is only open to peope who work in science. and all religions do alter their beliefs over time, whether thru a formal synod or just differing teachings, as with buddism. i dont think its a matter of rigidity of thought so much as a self-imposed delusion. but even in religion there are no eternal truths, doctrines change and adapt.

[Sacri Sankt]

Larv:

i dont get why the big mystery of why bicameralism collapsed, assuming it ever existed. psychopaths. those bastards would have a ball controlling everyone if everyone where schizophrenic. so conciousness would be a social adaption to protect yourself from psychopaths. so if cave paintings are the earliest sign of conciousness, id guess a few thousand years earlier is the first psychopath.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by wikipedia:

At the time of publication of The Origin of Consciousness, he was heavily criticized for pandering to pedestrian readers and not submitting the work to a proper peer review. It was, however, a successful work of popular science, and was a nominee for the National Book Award in 1978.

lol. this seems quiet an old theory, one that hasnt aged well either. ancient people were very sophisticated, they hardly acted like schizophrenics (of whom i know plenty).

OK, wikipedia rules! But I actually did read his book, and I like his model of consciousness. The Big C a hard thing to explain. My own take on it is that it rides on the complex vehicle of symbolic language, and therefore must be interpreted in that context. Religions seem awfully unconsciouness to me, and they bitterly oppose anything that would challenge their bicamerality. Do you have a better model of consciousness to offer?

 

—Larv

[Pyrotex]

actually religion does have peer reviews, in the form of synods. but thats a minor point. this theory you describe is very interesting, im going to read up on it.

Please DO read "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"!! I have read it three times in 12 years. Mind-blowing piece of research and logical speculation.

 

You'll never think about "god" the same way again.

 

As to Peer Reviews in religion, synods do not make the grade. A scientific peer review essentially speaks for all Science, ensuring that any new paper does, at least, NOT violate any well-respected tenets or processes of known science.

 

Synods only speak for one "denomination"--which is only a minority segment of "Religion" in general. There are thousands of sects, belief-systems, temples, churches, mosques, organizations and faiths within "Religion" -- and no one anywhere is making any serious, effective effort to demand consistency among all of them. It's kind of like if there were thousands of differenct "sciences" -- all with their own equations and theories and experiments, which are incompatible with those of other "sciences".

 

So there really isn't any analogous comparison between peer review and synod.

 

There used to be, though. In the 15th through 18th Centuries, there was the Inquisition, whose purpose was to ensure consistency throughout Christendom. In the end, it failed to deliver.

 

But thanks to peer reviews, there is only ONE Science. Not held in check by authority or force, not by dominating the content of scientific papers, but by ensuring that the authors followed the Scientific Method.