Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a couple friends who grew up very religious, one a Baptist Fundamentalist and both studied science in college and their religious views changed drastically. So that and another thread made me wonder if there are a lot of religious biologists, paleontologists, physicists, neuroscientists, geologists, sociologists, psychologists, ecologists, etc and what the percentages would be.
Are there any on here and what is your religion and field of expertise?
For those of faith and feel certain governing bodies of scientists are wrong, do you think they're intellectually correct with the data up until this point? Do you feel a lack of trust with them and God will prove them wrong?
And those who are on the opposite very pro-science side, can science sometimes be bad for humanity - like the invention of nuclear weapons?
Just curious where people are coming from.
The greatest of good brings the wickedest of evil. Or if you could show me ware a great good didn't bring a great evil I am willing to listen.
cars kill or mane many people across the globe. In fact, i bet they cause a considerable number of evil things to happen to some very nice people.
I would consider religion in the same category as fire, guns, and cars. Truly second level thinking by those wanting to ban one or more of the those.
I have a couple friends who grew up very religious, one a Baptist Fundamentalist and both studied science in college and their religious views changed drastically. So that and another thread made me wonder if there are a lot of religious biologists, paleontologists, physicists, neuroscientists, geologists, sociologists, psychologists, ecologists, etc and what the percentages would be.
Are there any on here and what is your religion and field of expertise?
For those of faith and feel certain governing bodies of scientists are wrong, do you think they're intellectually correct with the data up until this point? Do you feel a lack of trust with them and God will prove them wrong?
And those who are on the opposite very pro-science side, can science sometimes be bad for humanity - like the invention of nuclear weapons?
Just curious where people are coming from.
From the Islamic point of view - it's in harmony.
Great Muslim scientists and Mathematicians in the past, whose work is the basis of modern day science, were not only highly acclaimed scientists of their era but many were also religious scholars who believed in the existence of God.
They not only used the exploration of scientific knowledge as means to benefit humanity but also the same knowledge was used as achieve meekness and docility to appreciate God as to how he made things work - instead of being a smug.
Now, you may not believe that Islamic world has any contribution to science, but do your own research to find more details.
However, there are still highly educated Muslim physicians, engineers, academicians etc working as positive contributing members of the society not only in the U.S. But all accross the world.
Gaining knowlege that benefits humanity is part of Islamic faith.
This guy is an MIT graduate, a top class scientist, academicians, a scholar and also an Imam in the masjid.
People, OP, are coming from judging and arbitration without understanding, that there is no in principle difference between science and religion.
Religion is science of spiritual and science is religion of material.
Spiritual and material are opposite poles of the same - Reality.
People see only what they want to see, what they were conditioned to see, indoctrinated to see. Very few see ALL and AS IT IS and for them, your question makes no sense.
Great Muslim scientists and Mathematicians in the past, whose work is the basis of modern day science, were not only highly acclaimed scientists of their era but many were also religious scholars who believed in the existence of God.
They not only used the exploration of scientific knowledge as means to benefit humanity but also the same knowledge was used as achieve meekness and docility to appreciate God as to how he made things work - instead of being a smug.
Now, you may not believe that Islamic world has any contribution to science, but do your own research to find more details.
However, there are still highly educated Muslim physicians, engineers, academicians etc working as positive contributing members of the society not only in the U.S. But all accross the world.
Gaining knowlege that benefits humanity is part of Islamic faith.
This guy is an MIT graduate, a top class scientist, academicians, a scholar and also an Imam in the masjid.
Nope. Sorry. I was surprised that he sprang his fallacy so early. Yes, one should have the humility to learn truth from any source, even a litle child. But what he is failing to say is that one should not just accept whatever one it told - which is obvious - and not that it should be given some credit because it is without evidential support, but al ways it should be tested using the mental tools of evidence and reason.
The appeal to humility is pretty clearly an appeal to unquestioning acceptance - for faith -claims, which he as a scientist would NEVER accept as a way of finding stuff out in science.
That is what makes the irreconcilable and incompatible. You can wangle a place in the head by keeping them is separate parts of the brain, but as soon as you let them work together, either science -thinking wil erode so many of the claims, or the religious faith will warp the science. And that is always the danger. As we even saw with Einstein who would noty accept Quantum mechanics On Faith in a universe ordered by some kind of cosmic controller.
I haven't watched the who le thing and I will try to, and I may change my views on his angle, but so far it ain't looking good.
No. It gets no better. He talks of how his praying 5 times a day got ridicule. How could a scientist believe that? It's a good question. And he IGNORED IT - he went back to the Quran and buried himself in Faith.
Prove with evidence seems to be in the bias eye of the beholder trans.
Question how old is our solar system and can science prove their dating?
The question rather is, can one trust science or the Bible? Science has research, evidence and peer review. The Holy books have just Faith, and in the face of questions from science, denial.
The sheer distance of the stars shown that their light being here has to have the millions of years for their light to arrive - unless one buys the theory that God faked it to look like that.
While dating rocks seems to have been a bit ballpark, the antiquity of the rock -strata was realized even before Darwin. Radiometric dating made the figures more accurate. The believers can either accept the science and pop a god in any convenient gaps, or can try to debunk science. We can look into the methods used to determine the age of the solar system, but the question is, Pneuma - which are you going to trust for reliable fact, Bible or science?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-17-2017 at 05:27 AM..
I can't really imagine what pretzels one would have to tie oneself into to be a fundamentalist paleontologist.
Kudos for giving Phet the right straight away .
It is indeed a curious question of how experts in a discipline can believe a Holy Book that seems to contradict the results of that discipline.
What it comes down to in the end is, you either dismiss what of the Holy Book doesn't fit and hang onto what doees. That gives you your Christian evolutionist. Or you deny science. You really have to. Then you spend time, effort and money on spreading lies about evolution in hopes to make the palpable fairy -tale of Genesis look credible - and do terrible harm to education, and more in America and elsewhere - just to try to prop up a creation -myth.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-17-2017 at 05:23 AM..
So there ARE fundamentalist paleontologists? Wow. Compartmentalization is even more magical than I suspected.
Maybe, there very well may be. But since your are running your mouth and in my world, lets see what you have.
I would be happy to teach you about science and scientists. Let me start with the the questions that start the scientific process. Then we can move to the next steps.
1) list the personality traits of a fundamentalist.
2) Is it possible that those personality traits are in a scientist.
The next step is looking at our list and comparing that list to scientist. i have examples of wacky scientist. they show the same traits as a wacky theists.
oh wait, I forgot you ran away from me because when science rubbed up against your belief statement, and your statement of belief folded, as they always do when a belief statement rubs up against the scientific method., you ran away. I think its called shunning.
lmao, when you're more worried about how the universe works then you are about a statement of belief maybe you will man up and face me down again. fact against fact. But I doubt it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 