Ask Me Help Desk - Science and Religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

I once knew a zoologist who spent his vacations square dancing with his wife. I've known several with an interest in motorcycles. But I've never known a good biologist whose main interest wasn't the science itself. If it's just a job, they are not going to be good scientists.

So who said that those who are Christians or who have other hobbies do not have a main interest in science. That again, seems not just presumptuous, but very judgmental of what others can enjoy or do in their lives.

Maybe we should put your outside activities under a microscope to see if you could become a good scientist.

Quote:

I don't think that a literal interpretation of the Bible is compatible with a scientific understanding of the world, at least not in the big picture sense.

Your opinion is noted, but I would suggest that most scientists can only dream of being as good as many of the Christian scientists. Pre-judging is not compatible with good science, and when someone prejudges others based upon their faith in God, that indicates that they engage in prejudging (which is the same thing as prejudice). If a person would engage in prejudging elsewhere in their life, how can we know that would not spill over into their work as a scientist and impair their objectivity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

So who said that those who are Christians or who have other hobbies do not have a main interest in science.

Not I.

Quote:

Your opinion is noted,

Really? By whom?

Quote:

but I would suggest that most scientists can only dream of being as good as many of the Christian scientists.

No doubt.

As I recall, I was making a joke about devil worship and bigamy not being suitable hobbies for a serious scientist. I stand by that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

Not I.

Good - then there is nothing about outside interests or being a Christian that in any way impairs a person from being a good scientist. We agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Good - then there is nothing about outside interests or being a Christian that in any way impairs a person from being a good scientist. We agree.

Hardly. First of all it would depend entirely on what you meant by "being a Christian."
Obviously, 7 percent of members of the National Academy of Sciences are believers of some sort, though I don't know if they are Christians. They may all be Muslims for all I know. Well I know Francis Collins is Christian. So that's one.

You asked "So who said that those . . ." I did not say anything like what follows.

And your two sentences are hardly equivalent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3 1

So who said that those who are Christians or who have other hobbies do not have a main interest in science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3 2

then there is nothing about outside interests or being a Christian that in any way impairs a person from being a good scientist.

Just to be clear. I didn't say the first one and I don't agree with the second one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

Just to be clear. I didn't say the first one and I don't agree with the second one.

Okay, you seem all over the map here.

Do you or do you not believe that being a Christian impairs the chances of a person being a good scientist - YES or NO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Okay, you seem all over the map here.

Do you or do you not believe that being a Christian impairs the chances of a person being a good scientist - YES or NO.

Weren't you just told that it depends what you mean by "being a Christian"? If your idea of "being a Christian" means believing the earth to be approximately six thousand years old, then no, it's not compatible with doing good science. At least not in biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, or geology. I'm sure I left a few out.

What Akoue said.

Plus, "What is this? 20 questions?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

Weren't you just told that it depends what you mean by "being a Christian"? If your idea of "being a Christian" means believing the earth to be approximately six thousand years old, then no, it's not compatible with doing good science.

No doubt similar thoughts were expressed to men like Galileo too. This response is akin to saying - you don't agree with my opinion, so you are not a scientist. A scientific response would be long the lines of "I don't think so, but if you have some evidence that may point that way, let's have a look".let's look at the evidence and see.

I wonder if you ever thought why so many spectacular discoveries have been made over the centuries by men who were thinking outside of the normal boundaries. The reason is because if you only accept what is known today, you will never seen what is unknown. It is not those minds closed to what they don't agree with that move science forward - they are the ones who oppose progress.

Those who say that you cannot be a good scientist and a good Christian are not scientists themselves, rather they are "priests" (or wannabees) of a religion that they call science. They are not in fact practicing scientists if they are unwilling to keep an open mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

let's look at the evidence and see.

Tom, I already posted the evidence. Remember the data on members of the National Academy? That was evidence.

The top scientists in the United States don't have beliefs like yours. They mostly aren't Christians. They mostly don't even believe in God. In terms of religion, they are an entirely atypical sample of Americans. That's evidence.

Your belief that the world is only 6000 years old is contradicted by geology, paleontology, astronomy, isotope dating (physics), and probably several other fields. It's just absurd from a scientific point of view. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but your belief is not at all compatible with science of the last 150 years.

It was Charles Darwin's reading of the great geologist Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology--given to him by the captain of the HMS Beagle (who was a Christian, by the way)--that helped Darwin begin to understand how old the Earth was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

Tom, I already posted the evidence. Remember the data on members of the National Academy? That was evidence.

Evidence of what?

Quote:

The top scientists in the United States don't have beliefs like yours. They mostly aren't Christians. They mostly don't even believe in God. In terms of religion, they are an entirely atypical sample of Americans. That's evidence.

Most people in the US are not Christians - so what? You should know that claim that a person cannot be a Christian to be a scientist based upon a survey of how many scientists are Christians is a completely illogical conclusion.

Probably the only profession where the majority are Christian are the clergy.

Quote:

Your belief that the world is only 6000 years old is contradicted by geology, paleontology, astronomy, isotope dating (physics), and probably several other fields.

That is your belief, but I have discussed this with members of a number of those same professions and I have examined the evidence and it is not as clear cut as you think. Have you taken the time to consider the assumptions? Have you even looked at the information posted by the increasing numbers of scientists who disagree with your position?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Evidence of what?

The evidence you asked for.. .
Get some sleep. I think you are starting to lose it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Have you even looked at the information posted by the increasing numbers of scientists who disagree with your position?

You haven't given me any reason to think you know what I think and I don't know which scientists you are alluding to, so I can't answer this new question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

The evidence you asked for.. .
Get some sleep. I think you are starting to lose it.

I did not ask for any evidence.

Quote:

You haven't given me any reason to think you know what I think and I don't know which scientists you are alluding to, so I can't answer this new question.

It was a generic question. And it should be easy enough if there is no bias against those who disagree with your religious views. If there is, then what you are discussing is no longer science, but a competing religion.

I've created a new thread. For all your 'religious' discussions, please post them on 'Validity of Bible and sciences'... I've been reading your answers and sometimes you were completely out of subject.

Well, someone said that the world is more than 40 billion years old... I'll study this and submit an answer... Christians say 6,000 and scientists say more than 40 billion.
<<<<BTW, THE BIBLE IS PERFECT>>>>

Maybe I am joining in a little late ,has this thread run its course and is on its way to its demise?

I do not understand why science and religion has to be a fight each time it is brought up.

I find what I believe and follow not to be contradictory with scientific findings. And to have scientific facts about our natural world is something that strengthens my belief.

So yes, science and my belief co-exists without conflict.

No, you are not 2 late... Islam and science both says the same things? There's no conflict between them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shelesh

No, u r not 2 late... Islam and science both says the same things? There's no conflict between them?

It is not so much as Quran and science saying the same thing,but that the Quran enforces seeking knowledge of the world and how it works.
In Islam we are commanded to look at the creations in the world, which is where science comes in and explains it all.

The Quran does not give a specific time for creation in years, and it mentions that every living thing is made of water,there is no conflict there.
About evolution, the Quran does not specify if we evolved, but it is mentioned that the first human was created by the Almighty.
Quran mentions that the heavens and earth were one before it was "cloven asunder" and that the universe is expanding.

The few things that the Quran does mention related to the natural world has been verified in scientific findings.

I'll create a thread for a discussion on Christianity and Islam..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shelesh

Well, someone said that the world is more than 40 billion years old.... I'll study this and submit an answer... Christians say 6,000 and scientists say more than 40 billion.
<<<<BTW, THE BIBLE IS PERFECT>>>>

Not all scientists say 40 billion. There is a large group who hold to a young earth also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Not all scientists say 40 billion. There is a large group who hold to a young earth also.

Hello again:

Actually, NO scientists say 40 billion. The Universe is only 13.7 billion years old, and the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. We know that, because of carbon 14 dating. No, really, we KNOW that! We're not making it up!

I submit to you, that any person who says they believe in science, but that the earth is only 6,000 years old, doesn't know how silly he sounds.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

NO scientists say 40 billion. The Universe is only 13.7 billion years old, and the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.
excon

I, the admitted "right winger", agrees.

And I agree too that no reputable scientists say the earth is just 6000 years old.

Since we have fresh blood in this thread now (yay!), can we clarify the question?

Obviously, science and religion do coexist in the world and do coexist in many people's minds.

In addition, there are definitely reputable scientists who are religious. The one I keep mentioning is Francis Collins who helped guide the Human Genome Project to completion.

From Wikipedia, for example:

Quote:

Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He became an evangelical Christian after observing the faith of his critically ill patients and reading Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.[9]

In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design. His own belief system is Theistic Evolution which he prefers to term BioLogos.

Francis Collins (geneticist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, Shelesh, what do you mean by coexist-- beyond co-exisitng in the world and co-existing in a particular person's mind? We already know they CAN coexist that way. Please clarify what you are asking. Do you mean, SHOULD they coexist? Something else?

Thanks!

Correction:
Sorry guy, I missed the '.' in 40 billion and did not pay attention.. --- 4.0 billion

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

Since we have fresh blood in this thread now (yay!), can we clarify the question?

Obviously, science and religion do coexist in the world and do coexist in many people's minds.

In addition, there are definitely reputable scientists who are religious. The one I keep mentioning is Francis Collins who helped guide the Human Genome Project to completion.

From Wikipedia, for example:

Francis Collins (geneticist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, Shelesh, what do you mean by coexist-- beyond co-exisitng in the world and co-existing in a particular person's mind? We already know they CAN coexist that way. Please clarify what you are asking. Do you mean, SHOULD they coexist? Something else?

Thanks!

A previous post stated that only a few percent of the scientists believed in God. So, this means that religion, somehow tends to close and limit the mind of man. It acts as a barrier to intellectual inquiry and observation. But their coexistence depend on the individual.. maybe, it depends how people interpret science and religion. Even if it is a few percent, it does exist.. Am not saying they should coexist but can they co-exist in the world of today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shelesh

Correction:
sorry guy, i missed the '.' in 40 billion and did not pay attention.. --- 4.0 billion

No problem. 4-6 billion works for the purposes of this discussion :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shelesh

I'll create a thread for a discussion on Christianity and Islam..

That may not be such a good idea, as it just may very well turn into an argument on who's right.
Obviously each of us believe in our faiths with all our hearts and will not like to see it belittled,but if we could put out our beliefs as information and not have it slammed down,that will be nice as I too would like to read more on the Christian belief in such things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

That may not be such a good idea, as it just may very well turn into an argument on who's right.
Obviously each of us believe in our faiths with all our hearts and will not like to see it belittled,but if we could put out our beliefs as information and not have it slammed down,that will be nice as I too would like to read more on the Christian belief in such things.

I agree. There's already umpteen discussions/debates over this very thing - already here on the site.

... see, for example, the Similar Threads listed at the bottom of this page...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shelesh

A previous post stated that only a few percent of the scientists believed in God. So, this means that religion, somehow tends to close and limit the mind of man. It acts as a barrier to intellectual inquiry and observation. But their coexistence depend on the individual..maybe, it depends how people interpret science and religion. Even if it is a few percent, it does exist.. Am not saying they should coexist but can they co-exist in the world of today.

Shelesh, Thanks.

To clarify and sum up

... Belief in God
Americans generally:... 73%
Scientists generally:... 30%
NAS* scientists:... 7%
NAS biologists:... 5%

*National Academy of Sciences (a prestigious organization of the top ranking scientists)

Here's an interesting interview with biologist Francis Collins on this exact subject.
He is a Christian AND a member of the National Academy.
Voices - Francis Collins - National Geographic Magazine

(I might have mentioned that a lot of good biologists ride motorcycles. :) )

Beware the source on statistics like that.

Here's a statistic worth a chin scratching:
99.73% of Statistics are not accurate.

:)

I'd be curious what the statistics compiled by a Theistic organization would show.

... and my guess is that the truth would be somewhere between the two.

It is easy to dismiss statistics simply because they ARE statistics. But that doesn't make them false.

I have every reason to think these are all accurate, possibly excepting the first one -- 73% for Americans generally, which I picked up from Wikipedia's entry on the demographics of atheism. Another page at Wikipedia gives the figure 78%, which I'm prepared to accept. If you have a neutral source for this figure, possibly a government or academic source, please contribute it. But the numbers on scientists are from well-conducted surveys and I feel comfortable with the numbers.

I provided the source for these statistics earlier. These were surveys conducted by a historian at the University of Georgia and published in the scientific journal Nature.

You can see more details than I have provided by reading this article originally published in Nature and reproduced at this website. (I cannot show it to you in Nature because it costs $300 to $400 a year to subscribe... )

Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God" July 23, 1998

I am 99% sure :) that if asked a different way, 96% of Americans would say that they believe in "God".

I obviously can't persuade you, but you should go and read about the rate of belief in the United States. The consensus from various polls is that it's lower than you appear to think and, also, that atheism has become somewhat more widespread and acceptable over the last 10 to 15 years.

By the way, to be clear, all the people not listed as believing in God are not atheists. Many are agnostics who just don't care one way or the other, or don't think about religion much. These are people who may become religious again at some point, or may become atheists, or may never give the matter any attention.

But please do your own reading before taking a strong position on any numbers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

I obviously can't persuade you, but you should go and read about the rate of belief in the United States. The consensus from various polls is that it's lower than you appear to think and, also, that atheism has become somewhat more widespread and acceptable over the last 10 to 15 years.

By the way, to be clear, all the people not listed as believing in God are not atheists. Many are agnostics who just don't care one way or the other, or don't think about religion much. These are people who may become religious again at some point, or may become atheists, or may never give the matter any attention.

But please do your own reading before taking a strong position on any numbers.

I agree, 96% is way too high, even for America.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shelesh

A previous post stated that only a few percent of the scientists believed in God. So, this means that religion, somehow tends to close and limit the mind of man. It acts as a barrier to intellectual inquiry and observation.

Hello S:

Religion and the Bible aren't the same thing. Most Christians don't take the Bible literally, so they have no problem with the hard numbers science comes up with. Their religion doesn't close their minds.

Others, however, take what the Bible says literally. Therefore, they couldn't go along with ANY of those scientific numbers... THEIR minds are closed - no matter HOW enlightened they try to sound.

excon

The thing I have never understood is the creationist believe in religion and only religion god made this god made that no if ands or buts about it.
But then you take the scientific route evolutionist who believe that we evolved they believe that there is a higher power that helped everything come into existence.
If religion and science are going to coexist, religious freaks need to realize that science plays a part in everything but also their god plays a part in it too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckycharm1978

But then you take the scientific route evolutionist who believe that we evolved they believe that there is a higher power that helped everything come into existence.

Actually that is incorrect. An evolutionist does not posit on how "everything come into existence".

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:
Actually, NO scientists say 40 billion. The Universe is only 13.7 billion years old, and the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. We know that, because of carbon 14 dating. No, really, we KNOW that! We're not making it up!

C14 has a half-life of about 5000 years, therefore any attempt to use it to date something to the billions of years would be astronomically inaccurate.

Quote:

I submit to you, that any person who says they believe in science, but that the earth is only 6,000 years old, doesn't know how silly he sounds.

I may sound silly to someone who tries to use C14 to date something billions of years old, but that is okay with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJ

Beware the source on statistics like that.

Here's a statistic worth a chin scratching:
99.73% of Statistics are not accurate.

:)

I'd be curious what the statistics compiled by a Theistic organization would show.

...and my guess is that the truth would be somewhere between the two.

Before you put a stake in the ground on such numbers, make sure you also know what the actual question that was asked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Actually that is incorrect. An evolutionist does not posit on how "everything come into existence".

Agreed. I have yet to find one who can provide a feasible answer to that question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

C14 has a half-life of about 5000 years, therefore any attempt to use it to date something to the billions of years would be astronomically inaccurate.

I may sound silly to someone who tries to use C14 to date something billions of years old, but that is okay with me.

You're right, Carbon 14 is not used to date anything much older than 60,000 years (~10 half lives). Uranium-lead dating, Potassium-argon dating, or some other similar process is used. These processes have half lives on the order of many billions of years. excon still has a point, though, even if his facts were a little wrong. (C14 still shows that the Earth is NOT 6000 years old... )