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.
One of the most nutorious and ridiculous of the "New Atheists" (what exactly is so "new" about what they are saying?) is Peter Atkins. He once said that scientists who believed in GOD were actually "half scientists"...is that so? Well, let me just do a quick peek at the advances in the modern age and see what the people responsable for them believed in...
Wilbur and Orville Wright: Invented the Airplane. Religion: United Brethren of Christ
Thomas Edison: Invented the Light Bulb, the phonograph, and the Motion Picture camera. Religion: Deists
Nikola Tesla: Invented the Alternating Current and made countless contributions to the fields of electronic engineering. Religion: Serbian Orthodox Christian
Robert Goddard. Invented the liquid fuel rocket which paved the way for modern space exploration. Religion: Episcopalian
Philo Farnsworth: Invented the first working electronic television set and a new type of nuclear fusion reactor. Religion: Mormon
Edward Jenner: Invention: The first smallpox Vaccine and the first modern Vaccine in human history. Religion: Episcopalian
Timothy Berners-Lee: Invention: A way of storing elobatre text and graphics for network use which he named "Hypertext" and a system for providing an uplink to it which would be come known as "The World Wide Web". Religion: Unitarian Universalists.
So, from the airplane to the TV, from the rocket engine to the very web that you are now on, people of faith have made countless contributions to the sciences that have greately improved human life. So, for a bunch of "half scientist" as Peter Atkins puts it...they ain't doing to bad for themselves
I don't think that anyone is saying that a scientist cannot be religious. I think the main objection is in using false science in an attempt to prove religion.
I don't think that anyone is saying that a scientist cannot be religious.
Actually, that is what many celebrity Atheists, like Peter Atkins, are saying.
Quote:
I think the main objection is in using false science in an attempt to prove religion.
John Polkinghorne, a particle Physicists turned Anglican Priests, says that science and religion are two different things and should not be used to prove or disprove one another. So, if it is wrong to use science to attempt to prove religion, it is also wrong to attempt to use science to disprove religion. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Alot of the scientists the OP refers to have been dead for a very long time and grew up in a very different culture in which religion had a greater influence. I don't have a problem at all with a scientist or anyone else for that matter who is religious. What we've seen happening though is that over the last century scientists appear to be much less religious than they used to be and scientists who are atheists have become the majority. We're seeing a cultural change among individuals who are highly educated scientists that is also spreading throughout the general population of most advanced western nations. I believe that this trend is going to continue to accelerate over the next few decades for the simple reason that religion is completely based on faith and is lacking any evidence to support it.
Anywho other recent scientists who were Christians or theists include
Christian B. Anfinsen - Nobel Prize for Chemistry, agnostic to Orthodox Judaism.
Jocelyn Bell Burnell - Discoverer of pulsars, Quaker. (Some modern Quakers aren't theistic though so I could be wrong here)
Francis Collins - Human Genome Project and Director of the National Institutes of Health.
Arthur Compton - Nobel Prize winning physicist.
Charles Coulson - Davy Medal winning chemist. (Chemists are slightly more religious than average scientists according to Pew Research Center, which is NOT a religious group)
Freeman Dyson - Christian of no specific denomination. The Lorentz Medal and Planck Medal.
Arthur Stanley Eddington - Quaker and astrophysicist. (Of an earlier era and theistic so far as I can recall)
Robert Millikan - Nobel Prize winning physicist. (Granted something of a racist)
William Daniel Phillips - Nobel Prize winning physicist and Methodist.
Rosalind Picard - "Affective Computing" and Artificial Intelligence research.
Abdus Salam - Ahmadiyya Muslim and Nobel Prize winning physicist. In his Nobel acceptance speech he stated
"Thou seest not, in the creation of the All-merciful any imperfection, Return thy gaze, seest thou any fissure. Then Return thy gaze, again and again. Thy gaze, Comes back to thee dazzled, aweary." Which is pretty even if I'm not entirely sure I follow all of it. (Lots of thees and thys and so forth)
Allan Sandage - Bruce Medal, Crafoord Prize, and Eddington Medal.
Still it is true the majority of scientists are atheist or agnostic. Atheists seem to encourage their kids to go into science more. (Jewish people do as well) Also science is about seeking natural explanations so devoting your life to that may make one lose interest in other things. (Science is more of a vocation than many professions)
Alot of the scientists the OP refers to have been dead for a very long time and grew up in a very different culture in which religion had a greater influence. I don't have a problem at all with a scientist or anyone else for that matter who is religious. What we've seen happening though is that over the last century scientists appear to be much less religious than they used to be and scientists who are atheists have become the majority. We're seeing a cultural change among individuals who are highly educated scientists that is also spreading throughout the general population of most advanced western nations. I believe that this trend is going to continue to accelerate over the next few decades for the simple reason that religion is completely based on faith and is lacking any evidence to support it.
Actually, the current trends are that the numbers of Athiets have essentially leveled off in most fields of academia. Also, Timothy Burners-Lee created the world wide Web in the early 90s...not essentially the age of the Inquesition.
Religion usually faith (although we have religions like Gnosticism which teach that faith is useless) and science is about hard facts. Just as someone can have emotions and be rational, someone can believe in science and believe in religion.
Science and religion are two totally different things. One does not have to replace the other. I work with plenty of respectable chemists, biologists, and physicists who also happen to be religious. We get along fine in our academia world because they leave their religion at home when they go to work (like folks in many other types of professions). One of them happens to be a a top notch instructor for our advanced evolution course.
Also, there are plenty of clergy who are perfectly OK with science, including evolution: theclergyletterproject.com
Actually, that is what many celebrity Atheists, like Peter Atkins, are saying.
John Polkinghorne, a particle Physicists turned Anglican Priests, says that science and religion are two different things and should not be used to prove or disprove one another. So, if it is wrong to use science to attempt to prove religion, it is also wrong to attempt to use science to disprove religion. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If that is what they are saying good luck to them, that's what they think, it doesn't mean they speak for everybody.
I don't think that science sets out to disprove religion at all and this (it appears in this forum anyway) is a common misconception amongst those who are believers in religion. Science is merely a method of discovery, the clash lies in the idea that the religious feel they have already made the discovery and don't like being told they are wrong or that there is another alternative.
Science and religion are two totally different things. One does not have to replace the other. I work with plenty of respectable chemists, biologists, and physicists who also happen to be religious. We get along fine in our academia world because they leave their religion at home when they go to work (like folks in many other types of professions). One of them happens to be a a top notch instructor for our advanced evolution course.
Exactly. There are allot of hard-edge anti-theists, like Dawkins and Atkins, who think that if someone believes in religion they are 100% against the sciences. What they don't understand is that there is no reason why someone cannot be a man or woman of GOD and be a woman or man of science at the same time.
Exactly. There are allot of hard-edge anti-theists, like Dawkins and Atkins, who think that if someone believes in religion they are 100% against the sciences. What they don't understand is that there is no reason why someone cannot be a man or woman of GOD and be a woman or man of science at the same time.
I think you're putting words into those people's mouths that shouldn't be there. Neither has ever said that every single religious person on the planet is against science. That's ludicrous. What they refer to when they talk about people being opponents to science are the fundamentalists.. the ones who deny obvious scientific theories and facts, and attempt to prevent the progression of science by lobbying to end government funding or trying to pass legislation to remove scientific curriculum that contradicts or differentiates from their specific religious texts, etc.
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.
