Why are some scientists averse to religion?

[hallenrm]

The mighty hurricanes and tornados of our atmosphere are wonderfully ordered and wield power greater than many atomic bombs. Where does their order, their precise spiral and funicular shapes arise? Out of chaos and disorder? Yes! Precisely so--driven by the energy from the Sun.

 

That implies that Energy is God. Indeed their are religions that are based on such a belief. :thumbs_up

[arkain101]

Lately I am developing a strong feeling that many regular hypographers are rather averse to religion.

 

I wouldnt take it personal.

 

Science is what is for a reason to accomplish what it has.

 

Others described it further.

 

In respect to a scientific view (not personal) people may sound cold hearted or whatever you want to call them, but they are mearly explaining science not themselves..

 

I am sure there are alot of kinds scientists and alot of A-hole scientists.

 

Theres alot of a-hole religious people, and alot of kind ones.

 

Thats about all I got to say.

 

An open mind can not close anything in nor shut anything out.

[Tormod]

basically you can not clump all people who believe in a god as religious.

 

Yes, you can - belief in god(s) is one of the tenets of religion. Thus, such belief is what makes people religious.

 

Then one could also define the belief that there is no god (again no proof it is a belief) is a religion by definition (Atheism).

 

Again, you are misunderstanding the term "atheism" and that is a common problem. Atheism implies non-belief, not "belief in no god".

 

I never suggested, hinted at nor stated that Atheism was paganism.

 

I know. My point was that whereas paganism is religion, atheism is not. :thumbs_up

[Vagabond -SC2-]

Tormod, not to beat a dead horse, but just to help me in my own to clarify a little more. I am sure it is just a basic of different definitions... but ...

 

Ok, if Atheism is non-belief then if one asks an Atheist if there is a god what is the answer? Would they answer no? (they have no real proof of no god. Now if you ask a religious person they will say yes, though they also have no real proof that there is a god - they are answering on faith or a belief).

 

Perhaps a better term may be Agnostic?

 

Anyway is an atheist even capable of answering the question, is there a god? With no data either way either answer would be ones own thought or perception or mental conviction of the truth or can we say belief?

 

As for definitions and misunderstandings I am sure I have a lot of them. For me (now i could be wrong) a person does not have to be religious to believe in god. Religion to me (now i could be wrong) is an institutionalized system of beliefs, practices, and thoughts. So if someone does not contribute, support or participate in this system but still believes in a god / superior being / whatever are they religious?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Actually, I disagree with your first statement. I have a science text book published in 1890. It is NOT littered with wrong or bad conclusions. There is a reference to the "aether theory" which was proven wrong soon afterwards. There is a faulty idea concerning the nature of electrons, but the book admits of doubt. The book is not marked by errors, but rather, is marked by omissions.

 

If you want to cast dispersions on the history of science, then:

The history of religion and faith is littered with millions of dead bodies.

You make a good point and state it beautifully.

 

But science isn't just the book you have it's the accumulation of all of the things we once thought were true and now know aren't. The book you mention admits of doubt and in my mind it qualifies as an example of the best that science has to offer. Perhaps some who read that book missed the part about doubt?

 

You have faith in science, rather, you have faith in a particular way of relating to existence, gathering information and drawing understanding from that data. So do I.

 

With respect to religion, well, as far as I'm concerned we have enough trouble dealing with facts so dealing with heresay as a basis for a belief system (which is really all religion is.. ) is even more dubious a methodology.

 

I cast doubt on the idea that we should ever presume certainty.

 

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "whenever I find myself agreeing with the majority, I take pause and contemplate my situation". It's not the safe way to go but in my mind it's the only rational direction to take.

 

To me, that's science in a nutshell.

 

When science, or those who pretend to be scientists, want everyone to agree about something (and stop at nothing to achieve that), how is it any different than religion? And how will that path lead to fewer dead bodies?

[InfiniteNow]

Ok, if Atheism is non-belief then if one asks an Atheist if there is a god what is the answer? Would they answer no? (they have no real proof of no god. Now if you ask a religious person they will say yes, though they also have no real proof that there is a god - they are answering on faith or a belief).

 

Perhaps a better term may be Agnostic?

No, they are different.

 

Agnostic - Not sure, don't have a firm stance either way.

Atheist - There is no god. Will answer no if asked.

 

It's not an issue of proof really, as nobody can prove if there is/is not a god beyond the concept we are discussing.

[Buffy]

Steve: you're--to use the scientific term--projecting:

The book you mention admits of doubt and in my mind it qualifies as an example of the best that science has to offer. Perhaps some who read that book missed the part about doubt?

There's no doubt that a few folks missed that part. The problem is your premise that that example is only "the best" and there's some dark commonality with religion that "scientists won't admit." Since you like your belief system that conflicts with "science" you wish to make science "just another belief system" so that you can say science is no better than your own. But you do at least get the core of what science is all about, its just a matter of getting you to realize that that's *all there is*.

You have faith in science, rather, you have faith in a particular way of relating to existence, gathering information and drawing understanding from that data. So do I.

Why is the word "faith" relevant here? As several have mentioned, any of these activities is open to question when doing science: as Pyros example shows, it was the lack of data and misinterpretation thereof that led both to wrong conclusions and their overthrow.

 

The thing you keep missing is this:

I cast doubt on the idea that we should ever presume certainty.

Science does not provide "certainty."

 

Let me say that again so that its clear:

 

Science does not provide "certainty."

 

Religion does: it answers the questions that can't so far be answered with "science" (and boy is there hell to pay when they can be answered!).

 

The aspersions you cast about "science" here certainly (!) can be applied to specific statements by "scientists," but these are cases where they are *not* practicing science, but rather falling into the human tendency to want fo find "truth". The vast majority of "science," is explains things with such complete precision that the "certainty" takes more 9's than I can put on the page. It is not "belief" that makes me sure that if I drop a hammer that it will hit my toe, it is "knowing there's a "99.99999999(ad nauseum)" certainty that it will. For a true scientist, there's always that understanding, that the one data point that puts a chink in the theory might finally show up at any time. That's what makes it fun.

 

When science, or those who pretend to be scientists, want everyone to agree about something (and stop at nothing to achieve that), how is it any different than religion? And how will that path lead to fewer dead bodies?

"want"? "stop at nothing?" I have no doubt there are oodles of examples of "those who pretend to be scientists" that do this, but to say this about science is ascribing to science that which it expressly circumscribes.

 

Fewer dead bodies do indeed come from heeding scientific theories, although sometimes it takes a while to get them right. That's why when it comes to purchasing software, I never buy version 1.0 and I'm one of the last to upgrade. If Mark Twain was an IT manager, that's what he'd do too.

 

I applaud your skepticism, but if your kid makes a set of wings and wants to jump off the roof, are you sure you want to be skeptical that gravity is "just a theory?"

 

But Jimmy did it and it worked,

Buffy

[IDMclean]

Yes, you can - belief in god(s) is one of the tenets of religion. Thus, such belief is what makes people religious.

 

Actually Tormod, belief in god(s) maybe a sufficient element of religion it is not a necessary one however.

 

One can be a theist and be non-religious, like one can be an atheist and be religious. Theist does not imply religious/religion. Though in the majority of cases religion contains the sufficient element of theism.

 

As it has been discussed, religion as a concept is basicly uncertain. Though it has been noted that belief in X is not sufficient to constitute a religion.

 

So making the assertion that belief in god constitute a religion is equivalent (in action) to making the assertion that non-belief in god constitutes a religion. What both of these are, are stances on the existence (or nonexistence) of a hypothetical entity.

 

So neither Theist, nor Atheist are implicitly religious, nor do these stances consitute a religion.

 

Odd, I know but true in my observations.

 

In my observations the synopsis of the main stances on god are:

Question: Is there a god or gods, does god or gods exist?

Theist; Yes.

Atheist; No.

Agnostic; Will not answer the question.

Nontheist; Mu/Non, Rejects the question on principle.

 

Note that these are not stances on religion, but stances on god. Pink invisible, intangible elephants are not necessarily an idol of a religion, though they can be. Diety is not necessarily an idol of a religion, though they can be, and often are.

[ughaibu]

KickAssClown: You miss the difference in respect of stances on the hypothetical entity, the entity is hypothesised by the theist, not by the atheist, so these are not balanced positions.

[IDMclean]

Well, Ughaibu, you might be right to a degree. what you then touch upon is what is a god?

 

I, myself, have a concept of god, a form. However my concept of God is not the same concept of god that a christian uses, or a jew uses. There are traits that are common amongst gods, necessary one might even suppose.

 

So what we then need to define once we have found a common definition for "religion", a common form to work with, is a common definition of "god". I know with reasonable certainty that my concept of god would be rejected as a concept of god.

 

I have to go, more later, I suppose.

[ughaibu]

But atheists dont need a concept of god. The irreligious aren't necessarily hoping that someone will engineer a quasi-religion for them.

[Pyrotex]

But atheists dont need a concept of god. The irreligious aren't necessarily hoping that someone will engineer a quasi-religion for them.

Quite true.

 

That's why I am a Unitarian. The UU church (full name: Unitarian Universalist) is not quite a religion in the sense of other Christian churches. No belief in god (any god) is required at all. For this reason, we occassionally have towns in Texas that want to refuse giving a UU church a permit for non-taxable religious status. "They ain't a REAL church! Dammit, they don't even believe in Jesus!"

 

What the UU church has is all the necessary trappings of a religious church: the sanctuary, the music, the classes on morality and proper attitude, the sermons on proper behavior, compassion, love, service (et.al.), the prayers (metamorphed into meditations), and most importantly, the sense of community, and communal commitments.

 

What you BELIEVE is your personal choice. Members with similar beliefs associate in church classes, and in meetings outside church, in "Covenant Groups". We got a Christian C.G., a Buddhist C.G., a Humanist C.G.....

 

One could almost persuade oneself that it is NOT a real religion. There is no dogma at all. There ARE a set of covenants, kind of like a moral/ethical philosophy. And members must subscribe to these covenants. But no "belief" is involved.

 

This is as close to religion as I ever intend to get. :doh: :) :hihi:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Buffy, thank you for the very, very well deserved roasting. And I totally agree with you. You'd probably be surprised at the extent of my agreement.

 

The point, I guess, is that there are scientists and then there are scientists.

 

I'm fairly certain that most of us will agree that a workable understanding of the way things are doesn't necessarily mean that we know the way things really are. It just means that what we 'know' right now seems to work.

 

I have decided to bless Hypography with my presence again (my tongue is in my cheek) because I see the need to bypass the issue of 'there are scientists and then there are scientists' and to go straight to the heart of the problem which, to me, is the explanation of the understanding as well as the tools to modify the explanation by feedback, proof, etc. Explanations of our understanding have never had the opportunity to be changed on-the-fly before. This is new and I don't know that all of us truly appreciate what that means nor where it will eventually take us.

 

In discourse with ourselves and with others, the explanation is the key. If we find fault with an explanation, we don't have a good way of explaining the fault nor can we make that identification stick to a faulty explanation until it is resolved. SOP is to just ignore it and move on (not by all, granted, but by enough that movement stagnates).

 

No methodical way, at least. Nothing truly scientific, unless we can say that being stubborn, doing the 'broken-record' routine, and outposting one's opponents is scientific.

 

Perhaps Wikipedia is where this should take place. Or perhaps an arrangement between Wikipedia and Hypography. And perhaps I shouldn't post this. Doubt, sometimes, is a real pain in the ***. Damn. I just know I'm going to hit the submit button.

 

 

 

:doh:

[IDMclean]

Well then, Ughaibu, I must ask. Are you an atheist, non-theist or an agnostic? You have precluded yourself from being a theist, so you must match one of them. Given that you reject the concept of god, I would not classify you as an atheist, as I have said atheist accept the concept, but not the existence of god (affirm in the negative).

 

It would seem to me that 1) you have no interest in answering the question and 2) reject the question on principle. So I would deduce that you are a non-theist in some sense.

 

Alright then, so I am going to ask, what form of deity is it that you reject? Supernatural, immanent and/or transcendent, pan-existent (I wouldn't peg you for a pantheist, but I am not sure given the definition of god under that model), anthropomorphic, etc. These traits aren't all mutually exclusive.

 

I, myself, have two major definitions of "god" or deity. One is the more traditional view, and it is that one which I reject on principle. The god which has the attributes of supernatural, immanent and transcendent, and anthropomorphic. The second form of God, and the one which I am willing to accept on principle and even willing to affirm in the positive is that of the pantheistic god. That is natural, observable, measurable, immanent, but not transcendent, both with and without form.

 

My two definitions makes for an interesting combination because in one sense of god I am non-theistic, in the second sense I am pantheistic.

 

But atheists dont need a concept of god. The irreligious aren't necessarily hoping that someone will engineer a quasi-religion for them.

 

You say that as if I am engineering such a thing. I am merely pointing out that if you answer the question then you have quite clearly got some concept, either of your own or of others of a god or gods.

 

I am not an atheist myself because I don't like word traps, and I am very careful not to get shoehorned into things, unintentionally. Atheism (affirming in the negative in regards to the stance on the existence of "god" or deity) has a flaw in it's stance in that it affirms the validity of the concept of god (a presupposition in the proposition of "Is there a god or gods?"), implicitly.

 

That is where Atheism and Nontheism differ majorly. Atheism buys into the concept of god, implicitly. Nontheism rejects the very concept of god, explicitly.

 

Also to address the earlier assertion that the entity is hypothesized by the theist, so the atheist is free from the burden of proof? I would think that is quite... naive. I mean if I submit a paper on say, the big bang, supporting it's existence, and some number of people reject the findings of the paper, just because they say so. Is that good enough to prove that my findings are incorrect? No. There must be evidence from both sides of that argument. Making a claim buys you in, whether that claim is for or against. As I have outlined, atheist make a claim. That claim being that "there is no god".

 

Therefore both theist and atheist have the problem of supporting their claims and refuting the other's claims, with evidence.

 

That is the facinating part, god is a hypothesis, however it is often missed that such is the case. By answering (affirming, postive or negative) the thesis containing the god hypothesis, one accepts the falsifability of the the implicit god hypothesis, thereby treating it as a thesis or theory. Clearly this is not the case. Clearly the god hypothesis is untestable, and therefore non-falsifable. Hence why I do not answer the thesis containing the hypothesis. To do so would doom me to supporting my (extrardinary) claim.

 

Instead I choose to root out the hypothesis and reject it.

 

All this without touching religion.

[arkain101]

Well, Ughaibu, you might be right to a degree. what you then touch upon is what is a god?

 

I, myself, have a concept of god, a form. However my concept of God is not the same concept of god that a christian uses, or a jew uses. There are traits that are common amongst gods, necessary one might even suppose.

 

So what we then need to define once we have found a common definition for "religion", a common form to work with, is a common definition of "god". I know with reasonable certainty that my concept of god would be rejected as a concept of god.

 

I have to go, more later, I suppose.

 

I find it interesting to consider;

 

It appears that ever since the human species has had a vocabulary we have been capable to speak to ourselves in such a way to contemplate what makes us be.

 

Throughout history the explaination of the answer to that question has been directly related to the knowledge / techniquies / means of which was was available at that time to formulate an expression.

 

Each passing version is considered truth, at least untill a newer, more broad, and accurate method to explain is exposed.

 

This evolving truth or explaination targets two such basics. One that targets their own being in self contemplation (the non existing inward world), which is commonly termed as the god aspect, and the other targets the measureable existing outter world, and is an ever changing term that expresses that which requires no god.

 

So its comforting to know that a concept now in any form you choose to call truth, is likely to be a version of explaining the same phenomina, existence, waiting to be changed.

 

 

I read a quote somewhere that went something like

 

Nearly every generation of a society that has ever been, was false according to the following generation. With this considered, it includes this one.

[ughaibu]

KickAssClown: A few points:

1) where did I say that I reject the concept of god?

2) it doesn't make much sense to ask "what form of deity is it that you reject?", as the answer depends entirely on what form of deity is offered and "reject" is undefined. You have asked a leading question.

3) my remark about engineering a quasi-religion responds to your claim that "what we then need to define . . . . is a common definition of "god"", there are plenty of people for whom god as a concept is uninteresting, and so is religion, these people dont need a definition or redefinition of god.

4) my remark about theists proposing the hypothesis, isn't about the burden of proof (although for any claim that god is in the world of common reality the burden of proof does lie with the person making the claim), it's about the act of belief, one does not believe in the non-existence of something that does not exist, this is a matter of perception.

5) there is no evidence in support of the physical reality of any gods, so necessarily gods exist only in the imagination ie all gods are entirely imaginary, even for theists. I have an imagination and I have read enough mythology to recognise the traits of several gods, I have built a consistent model in my imagination, therefore I naturally believe in imaginary gods. Presumably this defines me as some species of theist.

[Vagabond -SC2-]

I am a little confused and need a little clarification.

 

On your 4th point. You make a logic jump that I do not follow. You claim that the theists who believes in god needs to prove to you that it exists. But then you state that you believe that god is non-existent and you do not need to prove that claim. Is that correct? If so that does not make much sense.

 

If you did not know that (have the knowledge) that hemophilia (or any other disease) was caused by a genetic defect you may think or believe that the person afflicted with this condition was possessed or dirty or evil or un-loyal or something else. Now, you not knowing the actual cause, does not change the fact that it is caused solely by a genetic defect and not some other reason.

 

Thus when talking about believing in or not believing in both sides are required to present data, the problem is that no one really has any either way. Things that are real and exist always do whether you can see, detect, understand them or not. Some of the greatest concepts in science were out right rejected by the scientific community till they were later proven. To deign something no matter what it is, is dangerous in the scientific field. And a scientist really should set their hypothesis and then really try to prove it wrong not right.

 

As for you 5th point:

You appear to me as lumping all gods in to that which you have read and learned about from older texts. This is again coming down to definitions what is a god. I do not believe any one in this thread as actually defined god (it is most likely different for each non-atheist). But the definitions that you appear to be using in this point could easily be explained being developed by civilizations that did not have advanced knowledge. And the definitions today will most likely change as more knowledge is discovered. (no lump up all the established religions most have some strong idea of what their god is but some have also changed over the years).

 

Again I have a hard time lumping all of those people who believe in god into the religious group.

 

(ok ramble off)