Why are some scientists averse to religion?

[CraigD]

The question stated in the thread implies there are two types of scientists. Those that are averse to religion and those that are not. Is it possible that the scientists that are averse to religion claim that those who are not aren't scientific? If both sets are still scientists, then whatever constitutes the difference cannot be part of the definition of being a scientist.

I accept a functional definition of what it is to be a scientist. I don’t care if someone’s a ranting schizophrenic, a computer program, or a mound of termites – if they write papers that “play by the rules” of a formalism I understand (or even one I don’t, but accept that, with enough study, I could), making and testing falsifiable theoretical predictions, I label them scientists. Conversely, even if someone looks and seems brilliant and rational in informal social exchanges, has multiple advanced science degrees and a high-paying job with their own lab and army of postgrad students, if they write papers that don’t, I withhold the label.

 

That said, I believe there is more than one sense in which one can be a scientist. One of these is one who promotes science. Such a person must understand – usually in an informal, intuitive way - something of the social art of persuasion, and be able to describe science in such a way that religious or irreligious people can understand and accept. In order to succeed in this role with religious peoples, a scientist of this kind would avoid giving the impression that he is adverse to religion, regardless of his personal convictions.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I accept a functional definition of what it is to be a scientist. I don’t care if someone’s a ranting schizophrenic, a computer program, or a mound of termites – if they write papers that “play by the rules” of a formalism I understand (or even one I don’t, but accept that, with enough study, I could), making and testing falsifiable theoretical predictions, I label them scientists. Conversely, even if someone looks and seems brilliant and rational in informal social exchanges, has multiple advanced science degrees and a high-paying job with their own lab and army of postgrad students, if they write papers that don’t, I withhold the label.

 

That said, I believe there is more than one sense in which one can be a scientist. One of these is one who promotes science. Such a person must understand – usually in an informal, intuitive way - something of the social art of persuasion, and be able to describe science in such a way that religious or irreligious people can understand and accept. In order to succeed in this role with religious peoples, a scientist of this kind would avoid giving the impression that he is adverse to religion, regardless of his personal convictions.

Beautiful. So, can I take it that the discussion is moot? Basically, some people are averse to religion and some are not. I guess that would mean that being a scientist or not has nothing to do with it. We could change the name to "why are some people averse to religion?". Or am I bypassing the real intent of the thread?

[Pyrotex]

...Basically, some people are averse to religion and some are not. I guess that would mean that being a scientist or not has nothing to do with it....Or am I bypassing the real intent of the thread?

Let's keep the "scientists" in the conversation. I think it is meaningful. I agree with the posts on what a scientist "is", and it got me to thinking. [and boy, are my arms tired!]

 

Why would a scientist in particular be averse to religion in any way? By the great definitions above, we are talking about someone who pays homage to the formalised process called, the Scientific Method (SM); and the kinds of rigourous logic, analysis, deduction, etc, that are used in support of the SM.

 

Some scientists may be atheists or agnostics, and yet may not be averse to religion. Some scientists may be theists and yet may be averse to religion.

 

I think the reason must boil down to the observation that in the USA, we see a common, nation-wide, growing movement among a subset of religious organizations--a movement to modify the curriculae of the public schools so that their children (actually, all children) are not required to become familiar with the Scientific Method, and its way of reaching conclusions. This is especially true with regards to biological evolution, but not limited to that.

 

This growing groundswell of religious discent is encouraging "home schooling" where the so-called "science" books, are little more than repackaged theology. This is, or should be, an affront to anyone who wants our children to get the best education possible. From this stance, an eversion to "religion" (actually, a subset of religious organizations) would appear to be plausible.

 

It is worthy of note, that this under-current of religious hostility to science is peculiarly an American thing. And it is chiefly here (and in the UK) that we find scientists standing up and criticising "religion" for its attack on the public education system.

[Tormod]

It is worthy of note, that this under-current of religious hostility to science is peculiarly an American thing. And it is chiefly here (and in the UK) that we find scientists standing up and criticising "religion" for its attack on the public education system.

 

The first point was good, not so sure about the second. We have a big fight here in Norway over religion in schools - Bible teachings are mandatory (yes, mandatory...in Norway!) in all public kindergarden, primary and secondary schools. But it's not so much an "attack" as something we're trying to get rid of (the state church thingy). It's a relic of the past.

 

To the point, there is not so much religious hostiliy here in Norway. Mostly scientists keep their faith to themselves. The creationism vs evolution debate has never been an issue here, basically because most people tend to realize that the two ideas can coexist.

[infamous]

To the point, there is not so much religious hostiliy here in Norway. Mostly scientists keep their faith to themselves. The creationism vs evolution debate has never been an issue here, basically because most people tend to realize that the two ideas can coexist.

So very good to know that this point of view actually exists. It's really sad that we in America have such difficulty understanding that, creationism and evolution can coexist.........................................Infy

[Larv]

...most people tend to realize that the two ideas can coexist.

Newton certainly did, and he ranks as a pretty good scientist. Darwin was, too; he even mentioned the Creator in the conclusion of his Origin of Species. So this sort of coexistence often happens amicably. I would not have nearly as much trouble with some of the true-believers in America if they didn't evangelize their faiths. Some religions don't do that, and I respect them for it. Love and hate are not very scientific either, and just about every scientist dabbles in those affairs. So I think scientists can be spiritual and emotional and still be good scientists. I also think that peer review is a wonderful tool for keeping us from becoming too foolish.

 

—Larv

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Excellent point, Larv. Only bad science is about "truth". Science is about the pursuit of understanding and knowledge.

So what, exactly, does the term 'truth' refer to then? Before it sails out with the bathwater, what are we tossing out?

I observed before that there exist terms that refer to internal concepts. The confusion we have here, at least the confusion I feel, seems to peak when one of those babies becomes the subject of the conversation. Is this another one of them? I wouldn't throw out 'love' although I sometimes feel that scientists don't include it in their craft. Is truth something like that?

[Tormod]

Truth is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Truth is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

hey, you make funny joke. :D Precisely. But is there no science in the study of the 'eye'?

[ughaibu]

ldsoftwaresteve: Have you looked at the link in post 100?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I am looking at it now. Very interesting.

from that link:

Traditionally, scientific realism asserts that the objects of scientific knowledge exist independently of the minds or acts of scientists and that scientific theories are true of that objective (mind-independent) world. I'll take that to mean that the theories are more or less true of that ... world. Without any claim as to the actual 'truth value' of a theory.The reference to knowledge points to the dual character of scientific realism. On the one hand it is a metaphysical (specifically, an ontological ..philosophy the most general branch of metaphysics, concerned with the nature of being..) doctrine, claiming the independent existence of certain entities. On the other hand it is an epistemological (the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, in particular its foundations, scope, and validity) doctrine asserting that we can know what individuals exist and that we can find out the truth of the theories or laws that govern them. (I assume our 'Scientific Method' IS this doctrine)

Ok. So we have something we are aware of outside of ourselves(that which exests independently of the mind) and a doctrine (scientific method) to deal with it.

Just an observation, undoubtedly highly inaccurate, is that the dissertation immediately starts talking about how the claim of realist presupposes accurately identified entities in a way that implies anything to the contrary is not realistic. Questions about the truth value of the fundamental entities used in science came up and led to whole new categories of regarding this stuff. The referents are sufficiently confusing to have fooled me, no doubt.

I prefer to keep stuff simple. As soon as it becomes complicated, I suspect a loss in truth value. My mind then jumps on a tube and goes floating down a river and I have a beer in each hand.

So, back to the start. We are also aware of things that exist only in our heads and sometimes it is hard to differentiate those things and metaphysical (things outside of me?) things. Or are those considered 'phenomenal' things? ****. Let me use external things.

Internal (of the mind) and external (of the rest of existence and not in any other mind either).

Physics deals with external things, i.e. those thing visible with the 5 senses or with tools that enhance those senses. We regard externals by interpreting the information provided by our senses and we have a whole boatload of internal tools for doing that, some automatic and built in and some that we have created.

The end result of regarding existence is explanation and there we have where most of the attention immediately leaps. Let's don't go there. I'm concerned about the process that takes place prior to that. Okay, so we can't without going there. So let's limit the focus on explanations of what happens in the mind. Isn't this actually the external representation of which is the scientific method?

Wow. I have to leap to ISO900X certification and what little I understand of it. Specifically, the part of a process improvement methodology that looks at itself and focuses on improving itself. Self critique, self analysis, self correction and repair in other words.

Does the scientific method have built in process improvement?

How does this relate to religion? Well, assuming that some of the practices of some of the religions or at least some of their followers is somehow reflective of a faulty internal process.... that results in all kinds of abberant behavior...

I'm standing on an island and have no idea how I got here.

Oh yeah. If we see something, how do we know it exists outside of ourselves and not just in our own mind/s? And if that can happen once, isn't it really possible that it happens more than we know? How can we identify those things that might qualify as phantoms? And is there something below the scientific method that allows us to create them even though it might be accidental? Excuse the leap. I'm pressed for time.

[infamous]

If we see something, how do we know it exists outside of ourselves and not just in our own mind/s? And if that can happen once, isn't it really possible that it happens more than we know? How can we identify those things that might qualify as phantoms? And is there something below the scientific method that allows us to create them even though it might be accidental? Excuse the leap. I'm pressed for time.

If one can reproduce the event thereby establishing repeatable evidence, and accomplish this result time after time, truth begins to show itself. This is the scientific method and the only way to gain an understanding about reality. One can ask "What if" all day long, until their blue in the face and finish the day with the same question on their mind. It's fine to ask "What if" if one is prepared to find a method by which the question can be answered. If no method exists, asking what if is a fruitless pursuit. My father had an amusing answer to "What if".

 

His answer:

 

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt on the ground when he hopped. Amusing answer...........no? At least he wasn't just asking "what if" without also recognizing a method for reaching the answer...........................Infy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Infy:

If one can reproduce the event thereby establishing repeatable evidence, and accomplish this result time after time, truth begins to show itself. This is the scientific method and the only way to gain an understanding about reality.

But we don't always do that with everything we 'see'. And also, an event occurs at more than one moment. We see a change. We relate that change to another standard of change (a clock, for instance) and we thus measure the 'time' the event 'takes'. We thus 'see' time. But I contend that this is one instance of a phantom, or, of something we see in our heads through implication. The change 'implies' time and its existence is assumed.

Here we've created an existent out of thin air. A universally agreed upon existent. And it might not exist outside of our imagination.

Now is the bleeding edge of existence. The blade exists in our mind and nowhere else.

[infamous]

Now is the bleeding edge of existence. The blade exists in our mind and nowhere else.

I take it then that you're saying we really have no way of knowing for sure any fact or truth. There certainly are many things we don't know and may never know. It's true that our minds only process the information we receive and perception can be distorted. Nevertheless, while I agree that it is possible for this information to become distorted, I also believe that it is possible to gain accurate data if we stick to the scientific method. Here's a nugget of truth for us to digest;

 

If we can never know the reality of our existence, we can at least adjust to the information we personally recieve. If we refuse to accept this standard of existence, maddness will follow us all our days......................Infy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I take it then that you're saying we really have no way of knowing for sure any fact or truth. There certainly are many things we don't know and may never know. It's true that our minds only process the information we receive and perception can be distorted. Nevertheless, while I agree that it is possible for this information to become distorted, I also believe that it is possible to gain accurate data if we stick to the scientific method. Here's a nugget of truth for us to digest;

 

If we can never know the reality of our existence, we can at least adjust to the information we personally recieve. If we refuse to accept this standard of existence, maddness will follow us all our days......................Infy

Nicely put Infy. :doh: I agree with you.

And acknowledging that our perception is not infallible is easier for older folks like me to understand. Our bodies start failing us, the senses start to go and the idea hits home. Youth is often infallible and immortal, at least in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think madness follows doubting the efficacy of our minds. That's just being open to the idea that we can have self induced blind spots. I guess the thing to consider is that we might have a way to root them out. But only if we doubt our senses, especially as it relates to certain percepts.

I'm reminded of the movie "A Beautiful Mind" and the part where someone speaks to him in a hallway (I think), and he takes his index finger and pokes the guy. He was making sure it wasn't a phantom. That was my favorite part of the movie. The saddest and the happiest. Sad because of the doubt and happy because of his solution. I don't know if it was true or not. But it's interesting to contemplate. Maybe the little nugget of truth is bigger than we think.