Is it possible to be a scientist and religious?

Yes.
The truth is...Scientists who believe in multiverse theory....
...
Gods...and them well....
they just...
and...
um
....

>The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you

Werner Heisenberg

Possible? Yeah.
Plausible? No.
Dogmatic reasoning is literally the opposite of the scientific method.
Also, you can hypothesize about the existence of the supernatural of divinities outside of your work, but that's definitely not a scientific way to see the world.

Look up Jordan Peterson

youtube.com/watch?v=P5_-pfqFGJI

personal favorite:

youtube.com/watch?v=MLp7vWB0TeY

you can't rationalize everything. You can't even answer why the universe started to exist.

Well, to truly be a scientist while being Catholic, Muslim or some kind of fundamentalist sect is avoiding some serious cognitive dissonance, as a rational person who believes in scientific inquiry to accept this entire body of beliefs and rules from religious leaders is simply weak-minded and ridiculous.

But there is absolutely nothing contradictory between being a scientist and believing in Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism or some protestant church open to a personal interpretation of the Bible and relationship with God, these explain and relate to spiritual matters beyond the realm of science and as an open-minded rationalist it is as absurd to reject the guidance and wisdom of others as it is to accept it as absolute truth.

Of course, if by 'religious' you simply mean 'believing in some form of a god', then yes, as a scientist asserting gnostic atheism is quite irrational and contradictory.

....
One need only look at an artist.
Tiny Gods.
Tiny Gods everywhere....

You don't have to. You're just assuming there IS an agent with agency responsible, and then justifying that as God without question

Every single scientific theory, correct or not, ALWAYS starts with certain assumptions or observations, e.g. A is like this, therefore B, C and D, with these mathematical equations.
I doubt this will ever change, however deep we go, there's always more questions waiting for us. Another theory may be proposed that explains A, but it too will assume certain things about the universe.
This strongly indicates that our world has a creator. The very fabric of an ordered universe screams this.

>go see a psychiatrist
>first question he asks is "Why are you depressed?"
>says "the big man up there won't help you if you don't help yourself"

I dropped him.

You forget that these scientific assumptions are usually based on observation, not feelings or random speculations

>Dogmatic reasoning is literally the opposite of the scientific method.

>your teacher tells you something is true
>>you believe it
>your god tells you something is true
>>you believe it

Same difference.

>not a scientific way to see the world
>scientific

Science just models the world. It's not the arbitrator of truth.

>a universe where the harmonic series diverges
>ordered

Wait a licensed psychiatrist told you to find God? Really? I guess that's not illegal outright, but fuck, as somebody who works in the field that's beyond unprofessional.

Truly a good selection there.

I know this philosophy, but I think that one of the main scientific questions about religion is the possibility of revelation as a historical phenomena, i.e. the factual nature of any possible connection between humanity and God. Kierkegaard's examination of the issue in Fear and Trembling to me seems inadequate, because he believes that the teleological ethical duty can be suspended if God communicates to the human, but what proof is there of this God being God? Hegel handles this issue better in the Philosophy of Right where he examines the "law of the heart" which drives all faith based fanaticism. The law of the heart makes any subjective correlation with "god" a truth and subverts the intersubjective agreement of the law of a nation state. The issue is can revelation be scientifically accepted: no. But I do think that faith can be a connection of truth or trust with the universe as a knowable entity. While I believe this to be an anthropomorphism I think there is a dialogue between subject and object and that there is an immanent intelligence within the universe, even if it is beyond reason or experience.

>You forget that these scientific assumptions are usually based on observation

>Every single scientific theory, correct or not, ALWAYS starts with certain assumptions or observations
>assumptions or observations
>observations
Idiot.

What are you babbling about?

Is it possible to be religious?
Define God.

If you want a sky daddy I can introduce you to a few lmaos who would be more than happy to ayy your lmaos.

True I overlooked that part, sorry about that. However, the idea that because scientific theories may use assumptions, that this demands an intelligent creator is still not founded on anything

>However, the idea that because scientific theories may use assumptions, that this demands an intelligent creator is still not founded on anything
That's not what I said. My point is that there must be something or somethings in the universe which just "are". The fact that these things probably have certain, exact properties implies choice by the creator.

God == the universe.

Ticks the omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient boxes.

>serious cognitive dissonance
>simply weak-minded and ridiculous

You're not making an argument, just belittling those different than you.

>as it is to accept it as absolute truth

If you assume God isn't lying to you then if God tells you something, you have to accept that it's true. Do you have trust issues?

>personal interpretation

Something is either true or it isn't true. People don't live in their own personal realities. It's irrational for one person to think big foot is real and another think big foot isn't and both of them to be correct.

>grouping Catholic & Muslim together and Judaism separate

10/10 troll.

Why does this imply choice by a creator? In fact, you have yet to define what this "creator" is?

if you believe in fucking Dog you are retarded. Do you actually enjoy being forced to go to church, i mean seriously? I wouldn't mind it being made illegal for parents to inflict that torment on their children just because they happened to be born in family afflicted by skydaddy fundamentalist cult.

>Implying the universe has a purpose.

Someone once asked a scientist, "What is the meaning of life?"
The scientist responded by saying, "Where did you get that idea? Before we can answer your question, we must first ask "Is there a meaning to life?"

>being intolerant of people of different beliefs

Way to be a bigot

How else can the fundamental properties of the building blocks of a universe be set but by an outside power?
>In fact, you have yet to define what this "creator" is?
We're discussing the existence of the creator, not the nature of the creator itself.

>3 pm rolls around
>suddenly thread is filled with fedoras fresh from middle school

>tips miter

Is it possible to be a scientist and believe in leprechauns?

It is not verifiable yet, but that is no reason to presuppose a creator at all. That urge to assign intention and meaning to everything is basic human instinct, and there is no reason that instinct is validated by reality. Im not asking about its nature, but what feature this presupposed creator has at all. No features verifiable, no features at all, and therefore this is good reason to reject the hypothesized creator.

>Is it possible to be a doctor and believe in leprechauns?
>Is it possible to be a detective and believe in leprechauns?
>Is it possible to be a politician and believe in leprechauns?
>Is it possible to be an actor and believe in leprechauns?
>Is it possible to be a writer and believe in leprechauns?
>Is it possible to be a plumber and believe in leprechauns?
>Is it possible to be an hero and believe in leprechauns?

Stop mythicizing scientists.

Yes, it is possible to be a scientist and religious. It is not impossible because at least one person exists who is a religious scientist.

I am a devout Christian, but my academic track record includes Latin honors from an Ivy, a graduate degree supported by an NSF fellowship, peer-reviewed publications solving open problems in my field, and even a seminal paper creating a new sub-field within my field.

Most were. Even the ones atheists like to use to justify their disbelief were. Like Darwin for example.

>This strongly indicates that our world has a creator.
No it doesn't. It indicates that our attempts to understand the universe through the human mindset (which includes the idea of an paternal intelligent creator) will fail because the universe was never made for us to understand in the first place. We were made by the universe, there is no reason we should have the faculties to understand it. Or maybe we do. But none of this indicates a (clearly pathological) sky daddy.

I admit this is not great if you look at things in a vacuum, he could have just been old and not really cared. Honestly, there has been a lot of research that implies frequent church goers are happier people...but honestly given the state of psychology its hard to trust much of the research from the past twenty years.

>It is not verifiable yet, but that is no reason to presuppose a creator at all.
You say this and follow up with same vague statement about human instincts. You do not say which part of my logic is faulty.
If a universe has certain fundamental properties, upon which everything else in that universe functions, then it is logical to ascribe those properties to an outside power, since, by definition, nothing inside that universe can influence those fundamental properties.

>Im not asking about its nature, but what feature this presupposed creator has at all
>but what feature
>but what feature
So basically asking about its nature? Again, we're not discussing what features this creator has, we're discussing its existence.

How would you justify being a leader in STEM and rational thinking, while also believing that ancient myths are true?

I'm honestly not trolling. On the contrary, I'm pretty intrigued. I'm interested in how someone could be such a rational thinker in one hand, yet fall for such simple obvious nonsense on the other hand.

>wow you're dumb, please stop spouting nonsense at me
>that makes you a bigot!
/pol/ please leave

You completely ignored my point. I am directly saying your logic is deeply flawed because it presupposes something, rather than looking at any actual verifiable evidence. This creator has not been verified and by most accounts is not verifiable AT ALL, therefore your logic is broken. Also, if something has no desribeable features and has no verifiable features and there are no discrete features present, then why predicate your hypothesis on its existence? Also, you have yet to state why an isolated system lime our Universe requires a creator at all.

>presupposes something
What? That our universe has certain fundamental properties?
>Also, you have yet to state why an isolated system lime our Universe requires a creator at all.
Dude, can you read? That's what I've been arguing all this time.
See
>If a universe has certain fundamental properties, upon which everything else in that universe functions, then it is logical to ascribe those properties to an outside power, since, by definition, nothing inside that universe can influence those fundamental properties.

The answer is simple: I have applied my own rationality to what I believe, and I have found that it is not nonsense. I treat my religious beliefs as rigorously as I do my work as a scientist.

Yes, it is common knowledge that this is quite possible - though perhaps much less common nowadays, now that it is socially acceptable not to adhere to any particular religion, now that being irreligious is an option, which it really wasn't in centuries and even decades past.

One notably religious scientist that not everybody knows about was Charles H Townes, who does not seem to have been mentioned ITT thus far. Townes is credited as being (one of) the inventor(s) of (a particular version of) the laser. He died about two years ago, just shy of his 100th birthday.

t. fedora

>your teacher tells you something is true
>>you believe it
You believe it or ask for the source of their information which should eventually end up with scientific research or reasoning.

>your god tells you something is true
>>you believe it
You mean your priest? Because there is no way to verify anything in religion, in fact you are not supposed to verify, just have faith.

Totally different. Science seeks to understand the world, religion seeks to convince you the world is already understood. One is a process, the other is not.

The universe itself just is.

No, your presumption is that "fundamental properties" require a creator. After all, nothing within the bounds of our Universe necessitates an intelligent creator(besides man-made creations), so why should the Universe itself be different? That is why asked why it requires a creator. You logic is this: The Universe has verifiable properties--> these properties are fundamental to its existence--> this necessitates a creator--> a creator is proven by the Universe's properties--> repeat from start. Its a simple case of grossly circular reasoning.

>You're not making an argument, just belittling those different than you.
Actually he's just belittling those who have stupid beliefs. But so what?

>If you assume God isn't lying to you then if God tells you something, you have to accept that it's true. Do you have trust issues?
I don't think the average religious person thinks god talks to them. Maybe the average mental patient. This completely distorts the issue by pretending that religion = talking to god, when religion = believing someone who interprets someone from thousands of years ago who claimed to talk to god.

>Something is either true or it isn't true.
How exactly does that make someone else's dogma better?

>rationality
>religion
Pick-a one

>How else can the fundamental properties of the building blocks of a universe be set but by an outside power?
Why do you think fundamental properties were "set" at all? Why are religious people so susceptible to this circular reasoning?

The point flew way over your head buddy.

>"There is no way to verify anything in religion, in fact you are not supposed to verify, just have faith.
Science seeks to understand the world, religion seeks to convince you the world is already understood. One is a process, the other is not."

I chose both.

So, believing in something, based solely on faith,and zero evidence, is a rational thing to do?

Congrats, that's broken logic

More importantly, is it possible to reconcile the moral value of religious texts with the patent falsehoods they are all so liberally riddled with?

>The Universe has verifiable properties--> these properties are fundamental to its existence--> this necessitates a creator--> a creator is proven by the Universe's properties--> repeat from start
>repeat from start
You just added that last part yourself.
>circular reasoning
What I'm saying isn't circular reasoning.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
>Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with
>Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
I started with the fact that there are certain things in this world that simply "are", and have properties independent of anything else. I then concluded that a creator must exist. This isn't circular reasoning.
>After all, nothing within the bounds of our Universe necessitates an intelligent creator
I'm arguing that those basic building blocks (which are obviously part of the universe) require a creator. Everything else we see in the universe is built upon these fundamental properties. Those building blocks couldn't have just popped into existence, how can you not see this?

I think people too often misrepresent Religion and Science as having some kind of polarity between them.
Spirituality is essentially a personal journey, Science is a humanitarian one at its core. No number of advancements in Science will suddenly uncover the 'meaning of life' or save us from our 'tragic mortality', Religion will always provide a comfort and reconciliation with that. They have completely different purposes so I don't understand why the question even needs to be asked.

wow you're dumb, please stop spouting nonsense at me

Aaand back to the presupposition. "I'm arguing that those basic building blocks (which are obviously part of the universe) require a creator." and "...building blocks couldn't have just popped into existence...". Both of these you assume to be correct, but they aren't at all.

A.Why do these supposed building blocks require a creator?

B. Why couldn't they have popped into existence? We do not yet know the previous history of the non-existence before our Universe, so why presume a creator at all?

Also, yes, you have committed circular reasoning. I'll use your definition given: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

"A creator exists because the Universe has fundamental properties, the Universe has fundamental properties because a creator exists."
or if you are going to split hairs, you began with this:
"The Universe has fundamental properties because the creator made it that way, the creator exists because the Universe has fundamental properties."

This is common circular reasoning.(Also, please define these building blocks?)

>Is it possible to be a scientist and religious?
>This includes mathematicians, medical doctors, engineers, etc..

I used to wonder the same thing. Why are all my associates who are very intelligent still somewhat religious or continue to adhere to an unscientific view of the world.

Answer is simple. Intelligence is compartmentalized.

A smart intelligent doctor may be terrible at accounting. An engineer may have no idea how to cook. Most of these productive people are intelligent as well. They better manage their time and simply don't invest as much interest or energy in disseminating religious propaganda.

You are correct in your implication. Believing in something based solely on faith and zero evidence is not a rational thing to do.

I, however, do not simply believe solely on faith and zero evidence. I myself have been presented with enough personal evidence to have faith. This initial faith has since grown since I have sought and found even more evidence as I walk this path.

It's not unlike the manner in which I and my colleagues will have opinions as to various open problems and conjectures; nothing of value comes from idling because we don't know the answer. To blindly reject or accept without performing meaningful work is useless to science. In the same way, to blindly reject or accept the things of God without giving meaningful thought and seeking thorough validation is of little value to me.

My logic is not broken, but I don't fault you for your lack of understanding. I'm sure you have much to learn about many things.

That's not a refutation. I thought you would give something a bit better than just quitting like a child.

You have claimed that I in some manner have broken logic without any further qualification. I have responded in kind. If you desire a more rigorous description, I encourage you to qualify what, precisely, you mean in your claim.

Different user here
>stops arguing with someone over the Internet
>how childish

>engineers,
engineers literally just do cookie cutter copy+pasting from mathematicians and physicists as their career so you would certainly expect theyd be religious

Actually, I deleted my comment because I though you were someone else in the thread. That response wasn't in the right vein, considering that our conversation wasn't as formal or serious, so I got rid of it. Basically, I was too aggressive and serious

No worries. Aggression is common when discussing such topics; it's at least constructive in the sense that it shows engagement.

Yeah, I should've checked which user you were, sorry mang. Got frustrated over nothing

Not knowing everything just means that you know that you can't confirm or deny that there is a god. If you really were smart, you would say something like science teaches us to question what we know, and to not accept that things just are. Whichever side you start on, you should question whether or not there is or is not a god, and eventually you should realize that there is no way of knowing with any certainty. The key is to pick a side if you want, god or no god, but also be self aware of the fact that both are possible.

Personally, with everything that we know so far, I don't believe that a god has a place in our understanding of the universe. But I also recognize that our understanding of the universe is far too incomplete to ever come near a conclusive answer to that question.

If asked a question that you do not know the answer to, would you simply guess based on the little that you know, and then recognize that your answer is likely incorrect? Or would you make a guess, and then claim that you are correct and everyone else is wrong and that the little bit of logic that brought you to that conclusion is anywhere near enough evidence to definitively support your answer? I find it frustrating when people don't address the extreme ambiguity surrounding the question and claim to be right.

>historically
I believe OP was wondering about the present day situation. Not to mention that the church power was strong enough in the past to stifle non-religous thought, scientific or otherwise, so a person would have to conform to their ideas/practices to gain access to their books/means.

>I started with the fact that there are certain things in this world that simply "are", and have properties independent of anything else.
If there are independent properties then they can't depend on a creator. You're contradicting yourself. If there are fundamental properties then there is no god, as properties are not an intelligent being. If they are not fundamental, then we must ask what they depend on. Perhaps a fundamental property, perhaps infinite regression, perhaps a causal loop, or something outside of our imaginative/perceptual abilities. But clearly this does not necessitate a fundamental intelligence. The universe would appear to operate in some fashion regardless.

What's keeping you from turning to nihilism, Veeky Forums?

>No number of advancements in Science will suddenly uncover the 'meaning of life' or save us from our 'tragic mortality'
Neither will any religion or spirituality.

I'm an occultist and it doesn't affect my outlook on science or the integrity of my experimental method.

A good scientist will be able to separate their beliefs from their work. Maybe not perfectly, because I don't think it's possible to be completely unbiased in many cases, but very much so.

The idea that because there is no meaning, its up[ to humanity to forge our own and impress it on the Universe

What's the point?

Until humans find a way to prolong life indefinitely or finally solve that age old question "why", then yes, religion still has a place.

Life is far too short to play that game of "prove it". The chance we make any meaningful progress towards answering all the "why does this exist/happen" questions is low to none in the span of our life. Religion is there to fill that void; to help us deal with our unknowns: Death, Creation, etc.

Those who prefer to believe in facts of the scientific world are believing in their own form of religion. They have faith that an answer exists at the end; that we can answer why with certainty. Concepts like "it's a law of nature" are faith based. What is nature? Why does it exist the way it exists?

What makes you think we're capable of that? If all of humanity vanished in this instant nothing in the universe would have changed. We are just optimized vessels that carry and propagate a repeating chemical, and nothing more.

When my teacher tells me something, I don't just believe it. Sometimes you might, but the majority of the time there is rationale behind everything you learn, and there is legitimate evidence for it.

When I learn stuff about science, it is all interconnected. Stemming from the most basic observations, like watching things fall, we eventually learn why they fall, and we are told how we learned this, and how to figure it out for ourselves independently.

If I'm told that everything falls at the same rate regardless of mass, I don't have to just accept this. I can go outside and drop a football and a tennis ball and watch it for myself.

If I'm told that god created the earth, there is no observable evidence for this at all, besides the fact that a lot of people believe it.

I don't think you entirely understand what the scientific method is, and if throughout school you really did just believe everything your teachers said without question, then you're simply a sheep who never thinks independently or critically.

Precisely. The reality of our existence as biological creatures defines our potential to become something more. I firmly believe that we will ascend to machinehood sooner rather than later, allowing us to make our own meaning, our own order.

>Those who prefer to believe in facts of the scientific world are believing in their own form of religion. They have faith that an answer exists at the end; that we can answer why with certainty. Concepts like "it's a law of nature" are faith based. What is nature? Why does it exist the way it exists?
You couldn't be more wrong. Rational people know that there is no answer to such questions. There is no reason why the universe is the way it is because the universe was not created by an intelligence. The universe created intelligence. You are projecting a human mode of thinking onto something which is not human. Making up an answer to a nonsensical question is clearly the inferior choice.

Yes, it is possible to believe something correct while also believing something incorrect.

Religion is based on faith and emotion so it does provide us with 'answers'. Science is based on observation and rationality, so looking to Science to answer these questions is pointless.

There is no contradiction in being a scientist and religious. Here are a few notable contemporary examples.

>mathematicians

Laurent Lafforgue

>computer scientists

Donald Knuth

>medical doctors

Ben Carson

I'd say most scientists are non-religious, but it's certainly possible to be a scientist and religious. (1)

1)stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

I believe that too, but wouldn't that just reaffirm the futility of humanity?

He isn't talking about literally forcing meaning onto the universe, he just means that within ourselves we will see a universe that has meaning, and therefore create it for ourselves. "Meaning" isn't a tangible thing that can be applied to the universe. It's something we create ourselves, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that we were the ones who created it. Wherever that train of thought goes idk

Yeah, I guess I've been looking too much into the past and ignoring the future.

Not at all. If we become Machines, then humanity will become anything but futile. We wouldn't be weak and fleshy things anymore, but immortal and godlike Machines. With death eliminated and unbelievable power at our disposal, we could rewrite and reforge to Universe according to our whims. And if there are other superinelligences our there, then we will forge alongside them. We could MAKE truth.

Making up an answer doesn't mean you've correctly answered the question. And you don't need religion just to make up an answer. Looking to *anything* to answer those questions correctly is pointless, because the questions themselves don't make sense.