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 will define Science as that field of inquiry that observes and measures and theorizes facts about the material world.
I posted the following questions in the Science and Technology forum (Blue). I have picked a few responses I found interesting and posted them below. Texts were underlined by me.
A few willingly gave their qualifications as scientists. I found their responses refreshingly direct and simple. I thought I will share them here.
My impression is Scientists think of Science the same way Vedanta does. There is no conflict between Science and Religion. This may be a small sample of Scientists but a sample we normally do not hear from in this forum.
You can read all the discussion and responses here.
Do you believe science has answers for everything? Like for EVERYTHING.
Define science. If you define it as what we CURRENTLY know, of course not everything is known. Dark matter for one is constantly debated.
No. What science does do is help us define what we don't know. No legit scientist will tell you that science can answer everything because there are still things we don't even know the right questions to ask.
Science is a work in progress, and the revolutionary progress is ONLY possible if a scientist disagrees with the prevailing orthodoxy and proposes a different way of explaining the observed phenomena. The Scientific Method is based on the theory being verifiable. If a theory is based on flimsy assumptions -- or even fraudulent ones -- it would have difficulty being replicated by others. This, unfortunately, has been a major problem of late.
First, science is a discipline of study. It is independent of religion. The first question does science have the answer for everyone? No. It is absurd to think so. Science can offer insight. Some questions of moral, ethical, or philosophical cannot be fully answered by science. It can offer data to help make an informed decision or develop a view.
Do scientists ever make up theories and laws that are proven wrong?
Postulation and theories are a basic function of the process of learning. As such, many get proven wrong.
Do scientists ever fudge results to prove a theory?
A quick search of that question will bring up many instances, which is why peer review is important.
Do you believe science establishes universal truths? Define universal truth any way you want.
If your universe is small, universal truths come easily. Plato's cave.
Universal truths? Speed of light is a constant. Maxwell's Equations. Newton's Laws. Things like that. Though even among these we have to recognize that more complete explanations may come along. We have to allow for the fact that we don't know how much we don't know, and new things can always be learned.
Absolutely not! The fact that science does not "establish universal truths" is what makes science different from religion. Current theories and "laws" describe our best explanation for the phenomenon based on all the information and observations that can be gathered about it at the current time.
Responses to "are there scientists who practice religion?"
My personal view is the "conflict" between science and religion is a political construct intended to cause conflict. Most of the scientists I know see no conflict between religion and science because they deal with two very different things.
Yes, there are religious scientists, but they view them as entirely separate endeavors, with different purposes, methods, and bodies of knowledge. The claim that "God exists" is a metaphysical one, not a claim about nature or physical laws.
Most religious people support science quite strongly
I will define Science as that field of inquiry that observes and measures and theorizes facts about the material world.
I posted the following questions in the Science and Technology forum (Blue). I have picked a few responses I found interesting and posted them below. Texts were underlined by me.
A few willingly gave their qualifications as scientists. I found their responses refreshingly direct and simple. I thought I will share them here.
My impression is Scientists think of Science the same way Vedanta does. There is no conflict between Science and Religion. This may be a small sample of Scientists but a sample we normally do not hear from in this forum.
You can read all the discussion and responses here.
Do you believe science has answers for everything? Like for EVERYTHING.
Define science. If you define it as what we CURRENTLY know, of course not everything is known. Dark matter for one is constantly debated.
No. What science does do is help us define what we don't know. No legit scientist will tell you that science can answer everything because there are still things we don't even know the right questions to ask.
Science is a work in progress, and the revolutionary progress is ONLY possible if a scientist disagrees with the prevailing orthodoxy and proposes a different way of explaining the observed phenomena. The Scientific Method is based on the theory being verifiable. If a theory is based on flimsy assumptions -- or even fraudulent ones -- it would have difficulty being replicated by others. This, unfortunately, has been a major problem of late.
First, science is a discipline of study. It is independent of religion. The first question does science have the answer for everyone? No. It is absurd to think so. Science can offer insight. Some questions of moral, ethical, or philosophical cannot be fully answered by science. It can offer data to help make an informed decision or develop a view.
Do scientists ever make up theories and laws that are proven wrong?
Postulation and theories are a basic function of the process of learning. As such, many get proven wrong.
Do scientists ever fudge results to prove a theory?
A quick search of that question will bring up many instances, which is why peer review is important.
Do you believe science establishes universal truths? Define universal truth any way you want.
If your universe is small, universal truths come easily. Plato's cave.
Universal truths? Speed of light is a constant. Maxwell's Equations. Newton's Laws. Things like that. Though even among these we have to recognize that more complete explanations may come along. We have to allow for the fact that we don't know how much we don't know, and new things can always be learned.
Absolutely not! The fact that science does not "establish universal truths" is what makes science different from religion. Current theories and "laws" describe our best explanation for the phenomenon based on all the information and observations that can be gathered about it at the current time.
Responses to "are there scientists who practice religion?"
My personal view is the "conflict" between science and religion is a political construct intended to cause conflict. Most of the scientists I know see no conflict between religion and science because they deal with two very different things.
Yes, there are religious scientists, but they view them as entirely separate endeavors, with different purposes, methods, and bodies of knowledge. The claim that "God exists" is a metaphysical one, not a claim about nature or physical laws.
Most religious people support science quite strongly
Instead of once again giving us mere opinion, you could provide evidence of 1) religious concepts supported by science and 2) religious concepts refuted by science. The second will be a much longer list.
If there is no conflict, one must ask why religion is not used in science papers? We know the usual excuses, but what is the real reason?
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but you won’t read a scientific paper referencing God.
That’s simply how research papers are done, and I am in a science/ medical related field.
Most things I read pertain to food microbiology, and food safety, plus auditing procedures.
These are single cell organisms we are talking about.
They adapt and evolve by various means.
Much like the Covid virus.
You can still believe in both.
Some science things change too, like the now debunked Nanobacteria, who were thought to have even existed on Mars!
But that’s what science is, ever changing.
By contrast, the Bible doesn’t change.
The laws of the physical senses through science do not show the reality of the spirit realms of this world, and the destructive works of demon spirits, fallen angels and powers of darkness which is absent through the physical science works. The destructive works of these spirits have works in physical accidents and bad health of people and animals, and also have destructive weather forces manipulation in the storms......... These are all ignored by the physical science of the world and the unexplained questions on the works that science cannot explain, where the demonic spirits are rejected and reasoned out, but these are here in the earth
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but you won’t read a scientific paper referencing God.
That’s simply how research papers are done, and I am in a science/ medical related field.
Most things I read pertain to food microbiology, and food safety, plus auditing procedures.
These[B][/b] are single cell organisms we are talking about.
They adapt and evolve by various means.
Much like the Covid virus.
You can still believe in both.
Some science things change too, like the now debunked Nanobacteria, who were thought to have even existed on Mars!
But that’s what science is, ever changing.
By contrast, the Bible doesn’t change.
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT WHAT SCIENTISTS THINK ABOUT SCIENCE MAINLY AND ARE THERE SCIENTISTS WHO ARE ALSO RELIGIOUS SECONDARILY NOT a compare and contrast of religion and science.
Thanks for sharing you thoughts. If you would like to go back and look at those questions again that will be great as well. Or you can read the thread in the science forum which I think is quite interesting.
The laws of the physical senses through science do not show the reality of the spirit realms of this world, and the destructive works of demon spirits, fallen angels and powers of darkness which is absent through the physical science works. The destructive works of these spirits have works in physical accidents and bad health of people and animals, and also have destructive weather forces manipulation in the storms......... These are all ignored by the physical science of the world and the unexplained questions on the works that science cannot explain, where the demonic spirits are rejected and reasoned out, but these are here in the earth
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT WHAT SCIENTISTS THINK ABOUT SCIENCE MAINLY AND ARE THERE SCIENTISTS WHO ARE ALSO RELIGIOUS SECONDARILY NOT a compare and contrast of religion and science.
Thanks for sharing you thoughts. If you would like to go back and look at those questions again that will be great as well. Or you can read the thread in the science forum which I think is quite interesting.
To answer the secondary aspect of your question, a PEW Research poll conducted back in 2009 found that 51% of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancment of Science believe in God or a higher power. This is less than the general public.
''A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.''
As for the first part of the question, I'm pretty sure that scientists have a high regard for science and the scientific method. Ater all, they are scientists.
To answer the secondary aspect of your question, a PEW Research poll conducted back in 2009 found that 51% of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancment of Science believe in God or a higher power. This is less than the general public.
''A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.''
As for the first part of the question, I'm pretty sure that scientists have a high regard for science and the scientific method. Ater all, they are scientists.
There are even more recent polls than 2009 that show percentage of scientists who practice religion. Almost 90+% of scientists of South Asian descent practice religion. And they are all well paid and recognized in their field. I mention that because religious practice is often correlated to poverty in a simple minded fashion in this foorum.
As for what they think of Science and the methods Science uses, I found many of the responses are very pragmatic about what Science can and cannot and what it is and is not. I am not surprised, because that has been my experience with scientists among friends and family. There is a false and skewed sense of awe about Science and its findings and methods in the Religion forum, approximating religious fervor, that is not shared by scientists who actually are engaged in the field. Those i know would find that amusing.
To answer the secondary aspect of your question, a PEW Research poll conducted back in 2009 found that 51% of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science believe in God or a higher power. This is less than the general public.
''A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.''
As for the first part of the question, I'm pretty sure that scientists have a high regard for science and the scientific method. After all, they are scientists.
Religion relies on the non-sensory experiences of inspiration, intuition, and revelation and the interpretations of them. Science relies on sensory experiences and measurements through instrumentation and the interpretations of them.
There are even more recent polls than 2009 that show percentage of scientists who practice religion. Almost 90+% of scientists of South Asian descent practice religion. And they are all well paid and recognized in their field. I mention that because religious practice is often correlated to poverty in a simple minded fashion in this foorum.
It is not simple minded, it is a fact. Studies show religion is more common where education and living standards are low.
Why do many religious people rely on ad hominems such as simple minded instead of providing evidence for their opinions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
As for what they think of Science and the methods Science uses, I found many of the responses are very pragmatic about what Science can and cannot and what it is and is not. I am not surprised, because that has been my experience with scientists among friends and family. There is a false and skewed sense of awe about Science and its findings and methods in the Religion forum, approximating religious fervor, that is not shared by scientists who actually are engaged in the field. Those i know would find that amusing.
Lol, sense of awe about Science and its findings.
Can you make a rational argument instead of the usual Irkleing?
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.
Religion relies on the non-sensory experiences of inspiration, intuition, and revelation and the interpretations of them. Science relies on sensory experiences and measurements through instrumentation and the interpretations of them.
