Why are some scientists averse to religion?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

Yes. Scientists are open to to contradictory evidence, but not evidence, as you put it, that will 'shake their belief systems', for there are none. There is only evidence. Scientists do not 'believe' in evidence, but they do draw some remarkable conclusions from it. There is no 'belief system'. Please understand that, now.

Understand that? You are asking me to believe that.

Of course each group has a belief system. As discoveries are made that invalidate previous 'understanding', the belief system changes to incorporate the new evidence. And each group has faith in what they believe. A scientist, I would hope, has faith in their identifications and that those identifications are correct. But a good scientist knows that there's a good chance that what they think they know is not correct, so they are always on the lookout for the truth. A good scientist has doubt. Certainty is the hallmark of only one of the groups.

Beorseun, you don't know that the laws of nature (whatever they are) won't change at some future moment in time. You simply have faith that they won't.

[hallenrm]

My post can viewed in continuation of the post by Pyrotex yesterday. It started a train of thoughts in myself, I reflected on my life and found that yes I was much more religious when I was a child, perhaps because of the overriding influence of my religious parents. I used to visit a Temple, almost every week and attend the various religious rituals. But, as I grew up, and I learnt science extra, my visits to temples have diminished to almost a cursory visit or two in an year; I also do not sit for various pujas with the same reverence as before.

 

But, something else has happened to me, side by side. My belief in God has become stronger. Let me tell you the reason. I am a very conscientious person, I do my duties as best as I can, I am also a very efficient worker. Besides all these I had a fairly good educational record, I was amongst the top 5% students in almost all examinations; I also acquired a Ph.D from the most prestigious institution in the country, IIT kanpur. But, to date I have not find any suitable employment. In fact, I never had a permanent job. Believe me, it has not been my choice, but it occurred. I often wonder why. And the only plausible answer I find, is Its God's wish; Its my destiny.

 

Now you see, causality the basic tenet of classical science failed in my life. It was not a result of lack of any actions (force, as they call it). So there is an indeterminacy in the life of people. As and when they come to face such events, their faith in God stenghtens.

[Boerseun]

Beorseun: Understand that? You are asking me to believe that.

Steve, there's a world of difference between understanding and belief. You are trying to shoehorn science into a religious mold, and it's never going to work. Simply because the two aren't comparable. End of story.

A scientist, I would hope, has faith in their identifications and that those identifications are correct.

Once again, a scientists which has faith in anything regarding science, is no scientist at all. A scientist can maybe "hope" that the results will prove his pet theory, but if it doesn't, he admits it and goes on to the next one. There is no "belief" involved here, at all.

But a good scientist knows that there's a good chance that what they think they know is not correct, so they are always on the lookout for the truth. A good scientist has doubt. Certainty is the hallmark of only one of the groups.

Exactly. But there is still no "belief" in anything scientific. Science is empirical, "belief" doesn't feature there. Please understand this, now.

Beorseun, you don't know that the laws of nature (whatever they are) won't change at some future moment in time. You simply have faith that they won't.

You're right, I have no way of saying that stuff won't fall upward tomorrow morning. I'll be quite surprised if it did, however, because there is no evidence to point in that direction. But on the odd chance that it does, it'll be awesome, and it will give us more stuff to think about and experiment with.

 

I'm not being nasty or intentionally rude or anything, but I don't think we're on the same page as far as a definition of "belief" is concerned.

[Heavy]

A river cannot rise above its source. Something with intelligence cannot come from something without intelligence. Therefore man being the most intelligent being on earth had to arise from something even more intelligent.

 

 

To believe is not to know.

[ronthepon]

Using dict.org

 

'Belief'

Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.

 

'understanding'

To have just and adequate ideas of; to apprehended the meaning or intention of; to have knowledge of; to comprehend; to know; as, to understand a problem in Euclid; to understand a proposition or a declaration; the court understands the advocate or his argument; to understand the sacred oracles; to understand a nod or a wink.

 

Etc.

 

Do you 'believe in' the theory of gravitation or do you just 'understand' it?

 

Do you 'believe in' the Copernican Model or understand it?

 

Do you believe in an earth centered universe? Or would you understand it from the link?

 

If I would not believe in anything but my eyes, I'd not prefer to believe one model over the other. With my limited understanding, both seem to explain a lot of observations I can make.

 

But what would you call a guy who would refuse to believe in a sun centered solar system?

 

The 'true scientists' the kind of entity idsoftwaresteve has briefly pointed at, and the entity Boerseun's talking about is a rare feature today. Most of what you'd call scientists are in fact nothing more than ordinary mortal humans, the kind of entity that has 'basic knowledge foundation' and uses this 'basic' 'foundation' to build the 'knowledge'.

 

What I mean is that you gotta believe in the molecular theory, inspite of never actually conducting experiments that prove the existence of molecules, if you want to do some serious research in organic chemistry.

 

Or you gotta believe that gravity won't suddenly turn off when you design a 926 Million Dollar rocket meant to put your critically important sattelite into orbit.

[IDMclean]

It was formulated by some dude that Belief was protoknowledge.

 

That once a belief is validated by emperical evidence it no longer was belief, but simple truth or knowledge.

 

There is a difference, a major difference, between what one believes and what is true.

 

Belief: To hold conviction in the truth of something without validation.

 

There was another dude who said that:

Belief + Validation = Knowledge

 

Just some food for thought

[ronthepon]

Today it's the other way round in science.

 

Knowledge of the little guy + Validation by the big guys = Believeable Knowledge

 

But for protoknowledge, I'd say that a hypothesis earns first place.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

All good points.

 

I guess my point is that certainty of belief is extremely rare and perhaps not existent at all. I think we like to call that 'understanding'.

 

But the history of science is littered with the wreckage of understanding that has not held up. So who, in their right mind, is certain of any belief?

 

It appears that some are terrified of that possibility. I'm not. I've accepted it as certainty. :phones:

 

Maybe someday we'll have the right to be certain about something other than doubt, but I don't see that day being very soon at all.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I have one more point to make on this subject and it has to do with how certain fears drive us. 'Scientists' don't want to be tagged with any scent of being religious.

That is a fear that is irrational, to the point that we now are having to stay clear of terms such as 'belief'.

So now we've got one more self-induced blind spot.

We've thrown out the term and dance around it using other less efficient descriptors strung together to mean the same thing.

A belief is something we think is true.

A validated belief is something we can back up with evidence. An invalid belief has no evidence to support it.

Certainty is extremely short lived. It lasts only as long as we stay away from new evidence. Hence the litter. And we can't afford more blind spots, we're tripping over too much litter as it is.

[ughaibu]

ldsoftwaresteve: I think you're assuming a fear that isn't necessarily universal. I suspect that the philosophical position of determinism can be equated with fear, as in a motivating factor in religions, and that a religion of science, co-dependent on deterministic certainty, can be mooted. On the other hand, those who dont feel a need for certainty will still, likely, find the scientific method more useful than "faith".

[ldsoftwaresteve]

ldsoftwaresteve: I think you're assuming a fear that isn't necessarily universal. I suspect that the philosophical position of determinism can be equated with fear, as in a motivating factor in religions, and that a religion of science, co-dependent on deterministic certainty, can be mooted. On the other hand, those who dont feel a need for certainty will still, likely, find the scientific method more useful than "faith".

Very beautifully put and to the extent that I understand, I agree. Very nice.

[Boerseun]

On the other hand, those who dont feel a need for certainty will still, likely, find the scientific method more useful than "faith".

"Certainty" based on a flawed premise, is no certainty at all. I'd rather call it a failure of logic, but if it makes you happy, so be it.

[ughaibu]

Boerseun: Into which category does my post suggest I place myself?

[infamous]

This is a very interesting topic. I personally find it somewhat amusing however because I see the exact opposite in play, especially within organized religion. Growing up in church I found my interest in science to be something the majority membership considered to be rebellious. Even though I'm a man of faith, I don't put much of it in organized religion. What is always amusing to me is how many persons of faith come to this forum and start trying to preach. I came here to learn more about the science I love, I didn't come here to preach. I find the majority of our membership have no problem with my personal faith as long as I keep it personal, we get along just fine. What is disturbing is that many of the religious can't seem to get along with those individuals who place value on scientific evidence. I would like to think there is room for both within my personal philosophy but here at Hypography, I'll stick to the study of science.

 

...................................Infy

[Boerseun]

I think Infy wrapped it up nicely in the post upstairs, and if I could, I would've repped him. Unfortunately, I can't right now, but that's a different matter altogether.

 

You see, if I find myself in church or in discussion with a priest or pastor, I won't bother to justify my stance using Science, because the discussion is taking place in another realm, outside the scope of science. Metaphysics is just that - the set of knowledge and belief that falls outside the realm of physics.

 

It's a clear division that has to be kept in mind, and I think Infamous is doing a commendable job of it.

 

We come to science forums because we're interested in science. We don't come to science forums to discuss religion or to convert the heathen members - the division between the two must be kept in mind if you're a thoughtful member with a genuine interest in science. If you're not, there are plenty religious forums out there.

 

Nice post, Infy! ;)

[Pyrotex]

A river cannot rise above its source. Something with intelligence cannot come from something without intelligence....

Rivers rise above their source every day. It's called evaporation, and it's driven by the energy from the Sun. This evaporated vapor then condenses and falls down to the 'source' of the river as rain.

 

A tree by the river pulls water in by its roots and raises it up to the crown of the tree, without motors, pumps or even moving parts. The process is called 'osmosis'. For a tall tree near the river's source, the water indeed rises above its source.

 

Likewise, intelligence arises out of lesser-intelligence. Order arises out of disorder all around us, every day, in a variety of ways. Most folks are not trained to look for it or to see it. So they don't. They make a mistake in concluding that it is impossible, merely because they don't see it.

 

The mighty hurricanes and tornados of our atmosphere are wonderfully ordered and wield power greater than many atomic bombs. Where does their order, their precise spiral and funicular shapes arise? Out of chaos and disorder? Yes! Precisely so--driven by the energy from the Sun.

[Pyrotex]

...But the history of science is littered with the wreckage of understanding that has not held up. So who, in their right mind, is certain of any belief?....

Actually, I disagree with your first statement. I have a science text book published in 1890. It is NOT littered with wrong or bad conclusions. There is a reference to the "aether theory" which was proven wrong soon afterwards. There is a faulty idea concerning the nature of electrons, but the book admits of doubt. The book is not marked by errors, but rather, is marked by omissions.

 

If you want to cast dispersions on the history of science, then:

The history of religion and faith is littered with millions of dead bodies.