Genius mathematicians and scientists believing in God

lol...how does this not make them Brainlets

Newton of course was a religious freak

but even the great Carl Gauss believed in this retarded fairy sh*t


Gauss declared he firmly believed in the afterlife, and saw spirituality as something essentially important for human beings.[31] He was quoted stating: "The world would be nonsense, the whole creation an absurdity without immortality,"[32] and for this statement he was severely criticized by the atheist Eugen Dühring who judged him as a narrow superstitious man.[33]

Though he was not a church-goer,[34] Gauss strongly upheld religious tolerance, believing "that one is not justified in disturbing another's religious belief, in which they find consolation for earthly sorrows in time of trouble."[2] When his son Eugene announced that he wanted to become a Christian missionary, Gauss approved of this, saying that regardless of the problems within religious organizations, missionary work was "a highly honorable" task.[35]

Euler, Cauchy, Godel were also christian/religious nutbags


I am a mediocre mathematician and I am already of a greater intellect than these legends for the simple fact that I don't believe in God

In my opinion, old timers like Newton and Euler can't be blamed too much for being Bible thumpers because they didn't know about evolution and many other things that would probably have made them doubt the religious dogma. Back then pretty much everybody was religious.

If they had lived today, chances are pretty good that they would be atheists, or agnostics or something like that.

Ramanujan was very religeous

It helps me to better understand the meaning of the appeal to authority fallacy.

Man is a religious animal OP. You most probably hold plenty of religious (superstitious) beliefs yourself. You're just wilfully blind to it.

>people were more likely to be religious back when religion was a more important part of society
>therefore religion is for smart people
mmmkay

OP is clearly a trolling Christfag

Euler was an Enlightenment era mathematician and often corresponded with many other intellectuals of the day who were deists. Euler thought these anti-Christian views were not just wrong but harmful.

All it means is that even smart people can get affected by ideology or religions.

Which is exactly why "argument from authority" is a fallacy.

Religion is still extremely important to society. It will be for many thousands of years still. If you want non-religious humans you'll have to genetically engineer them to be non-religious. Academics, ironically, are some of the most religious people there are.

Yeah but it's much less so important. And because of that, intelligent individuals are much less likely to be religious. Pointing at people in the past and saying that smart people are religious is dumb.

Tell me this doesnt remind you of a religious cult

He's just too stupid to actually make a good argument, despite all of the ammunition available to him.

Maybe you misunderstand their conception of god.

>Yeah but it's much less so important.
False. You have a poorly defined notion of religion, where you conflate it with old religious traditions like Christianity. You don't have to be a member of some officially recognised cult to be a member of a religion. Religion is a socio-cultural phenomenon.
People haven't become less religious, they've simply changed their [math] religio [/math].
Transhumanists are religious people.
The LessWrong types.
The feminists.
You name it.

You can call these things surrogate religions. It doesn't really matter. They're functionally identical to religions.
Humans are religious by nature. Religiosity has co-evolved with sociality, perhaps as a pure spandrel, or maybe as a solution to the free-rider problem. There are plenty of hypothesis put forward to explain this fact. And it is a fact: man is religious to the bone.

No, you dont get it. Most things in our society are like this. The ignorant belief that money alone makes you happy, that our economy will infinitely grow and of course political ideology. You have no idea how common /pol s mindset is

I am willing to bet you're one of the most religious posters itt.
And stupid to boot.

I believe in Goddess. Am I good scientist?

>False. You have a poorly defined notion of religion
The pot calling the kettle black. The OP is specifically talking about belief in god.

Those are some spicy opinions you got there.

>scientist who were alive when you would be murdered by the state for saying you didn't believe in god.

>thinking that you can believe what people say when under the threat of being killed.

Fuck off, that didn't happen in Euler or Gauss' time.

Why so defensive Christcuck?

There are religious scientists and engineers living today whose achievements could never in 100 years be surpassed by yours.

But that isn't a surprise, given that science is a Christian invention, the oldest extant university in the world was started by monks, and the scientific method was invented by a monk, and all of this was intended to bring mankind to a more complete understanding of the universe. A communion was even held on the moon. Religious beliefs make perfect sense when you are intelligent enough to understand God's word and see the creation all around you and view God as an all pervasive unknowable force of subtlety, the sublime and all creation unfolding constantly before our eyes, within us, encompassing everything indefinable such as beauty, meaning, love and art.

Just remember you will remain a perma-brainlet as long as you continue to see science and atheism as the same entity. I swear, each time one of you comes on Veeky Forums talking about invisible sky daddies and shit, I can't help but feel like you know very little about religion and science. You're not as erudite and intellectually enlightened as you think, because the conceptions you have of both things are half-baked and immature as fuck.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting while we do the big boy work, sciencecucks.

Newton's time , it would be difficult to be a atheist

but Euler and Gauss definitely could of in their era without much opposition

>There are religious scientists and engineers living today whose achievements could never in 100 years be surpassed by yours.
Far out numbered by nonreligious scientists, even though the majority of the general public is religious.

>muh Heisenberg quote
It's fake

What is this, fucking reddit?

>But that isn't a surprise, given that science is a Christian invention
Considering that there is no point at which science can be said to have been "invented" and that it's development runs through ancient Greek, Arabic, and European hands, this is a curious claim. Is science pluralistic then too? Muslim? Or perhaps ascribing the dominant cultural meme of whoever developed it is stupid, since one had nothing to do with the other.

>Considering that there is no point at which science can be said to have been "invented"
Clearly chimerical hellenic beliefs and the methods used to arrive at conclusions supporting those beliefs are exactly the same as the ones we use today. Aristotelian physics are the peak of modern scientific thought.
>Far out numbered by nonreligious scientists, even though the majority of the general public is religious.
Not an argument.