Religious Beliefs & Scientific Thought

[The Felonius Pope]

I am currently reading a book by professor Kenneth Miller on the evolution-creationism debate. Professor Miller believes a creator is impossible to explain the complexity of life, but goes onto state that the universe itself is the true evidence of design. He is a Catholic. My question is: can religious belief really go hand in hand with good science? How do religious scientists separate their scientific doubt and religious certainty?

 

[Laurens]

I am currently reading a book by professor Kenneth Miller on the evolution-creationism debate. Professor Miller believes a creator is impossible to explain the complexity of life, but goes onto state that the universe itself is the true evidence of design. He is a Catholic. My question is: can religious belief really go hand in hand with good science?

Well I'm sure Kenneth Miller is a good scientist.

I'm sure there are plenty of other good scientists who hold religious beliefs.

I don't understand why, when given a scientific understanding of the world, someone would be religious, however I don't think being religious precludes one from being a scientist, or even a good one.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

I think it takes a real special individual to be able to separate his/her 'Science' life from his/her 'Religious' life. If the scientist would work in the proverbial 'lab' and they're able to follow the scientific method accordingly, I see no major concern or problem. I think a good way to look at the following conundrum would be the following:

We all carry different 'roles' in life. Some of these roles overlap and some of these roles could be considered opposites. As long as the scientific role is followed inside the context and confines of the scientific method then I don't think it matters. As long as the proper channels of peer-review are followed then I think any significant bias or 'overlap' of roles would be detected and dealt with accordingly. I also think that the 'overlap' of roles will introduce a different set of biases than would show up in a Scientists that doesn't carry the 'religious' role.


Actually, I think that a more serious problem occurs at the level of educators than does at the level of scientists (more so at the high school level). And I think that if more 'scientist' types are active in the education process at the level of high schools the better or more efficient or accurate scientists we would produce in a particular region.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Obviously someone could be a good scientist even if that person happened to be religious. One of my favorite science teachers back in school was a Mormon of all things. It just seems that the kind of beliefs that go along with being religious are contrary to the skepticism and objectivity we expect from the scientific community.

 

[KittenKoder]

Science and religion are two completely different realms, and two completely different aspects. That is what those who deny science fail to see or admit. Basically, neither can touch the other. So it is possible, however, organized religion relies heavily on ignorance in the masses, and that's why they try so hard to convince their followers that science is wrong. The plain and simple fact is that anything outside the realm of the natural world is possible, it's even probable, but nothing is more probable or possible than anything else when you discuss the supernatural world. That's the beauty of it, and why organized religion chose that to particular area to use. Nefariousness cannot be overlooked in the organized religions' structure, but so long as they accept science is science and their religion is supernatural and that the two are on completely different levels, then I see nothing wrong with it.

The problem only arises when the religious views and opinions are used to discount scientific advances simply to keep the masses ignorant, that is wrong and vile. This is why I hold preachers and evangelists responsible for the ignorance of their followers, they do everything they can to keep the ignorant, but I do forgive the followers for their ignorance. Though ignorant followers do need to be corrected and shown the error of their ways, they do not deserve to be held responsible for bad beliefs, only bad actions based on those beliefs.

The hurdle is getting them to recognize that they are being conned, once they realize that, they will naturally begin to accept science even if they maintain their beliefs, they just often stop following the religious leaders. This is what religious leaders fear more than death itself, for various reasons often including greed and megalomania. It is not uncommon for the leaders to take the first actions against something as this encourages the masses. I've gone a bit off topic but meh. Ultimately, it is possible for the masses to accept both, it's just they are convinced by the leaders that they cannot.

 

[Laurens]

Obviously someone could be a good scientist even if that person happened to be religious. One of my favorite science teachers back in school was a Mormon of all things. It just seems that the kind of beliefs that go along with being religious are contrary to the skepticism and objectivity we expect from the scientific community.

I don't think anyone is immune to superstition.

Even the most rational people might be in awe if I handed them an item that once belonged to say Einstein or Charles Darwin, people would want to touch it, even though there is no rational way that any of Einstein or Darwin's essence could magically rub off on an object, we still behave as though it can. A truly objective sceptic would say; 'I have no desire to touch that object because it's just a [whatever that object might be] there's no way that it contains the essence of Darwin simply because he once touched it, that is completely irrational.' but most of us probably would desire to hold something that once belonged to Charles Darwin, simply because he once held it...

I don't think it is possible for any scientist to be completely sceptical or rational because we are all human, and we all are superstitious and irrational from time to time.

Some are more so than others. But I think someone like Ken Miller would be open and state that it is his belief that the universe is intelligently designed, but can't prove it scientifically. So long as they understand this then there shouldn't be a problem with religious scientists...

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Though ignorant followers do need to be corrected and shown the error of their ways, they do not deserve to be held responsible for bad beliefs

Why shouldn't people be held responsible for their beliefs? If people subject themselves to a political ideology we think is wrong or bad (Nazism, communism, etc) we hold them responsible for thoes beliefs. When we answer a question incorrectly in school we are corrected. No matter what others tell us, we as indivisuals are ultimately responsible for what we believe.

So long as they understand this then there shouldn't be a problem with religious scientists...

I don't have a problem with them at all. It is just hard for me to see how such an opened minded person can also be so close minded. Some people say there isn't a conflict between religion and science, but I feel there is some kind of rift there. Religious belief does require some form of close-mindedness and science should, in theory, have an element of doubt and skepticism. Perhaps I am being narrow-minded myself, but to me religious belief and scientifc thought are mutually incompatible.

 

[KittenKoder]

Though ignorant followers do need to be corrected and shown the error of their ways, they do not deserve to be held responsible for bad beliefs

Why shouldn't people be held responsible for their beliefs? If people subject themselves to a political ideology we think is wrong or bad (Nazism, communism, etc) we hold them responsible for thoes beliefs. When we answer a question incorrectly in school we are corrected. No matter what others tell us, we as indivisuals are ultimately responsible for what we believe.

So long as they understand this then there shouldn't be a problem with religious scientists...

I don't have a problem with them at all. It is just hard for me to see how such an opened minded person can also be so close minded. Some people say there isn't a conflict between religion and science, but I feel there is some kind of rift there. Religious belief does require some form of close-mindedness and science should, in theory, have an element of doubt and skepticism. Perhaps I am being narrow-minded myself, but to me religious belief and scientifc thought are mutually incompatible.

Well, no. First, we don't punish people for agreeing with any of those, even Nazism. It's nice to know who they are so when they do something wrong we know why. But we don't jail people just for being idiots, and we shouldn't. It's their actions, regardless of their beliefs, that we do hold them accountable for. There's a Communist candidate in elections almost ever election. Even a Nazi one in a few.

There is a prime example of a well handled KKK rally once, in Idaho of all places. The small town had to allow the KKK rally to happen, it is against the law to stop a peaceful gathering and rightfully so. The townsfolk did not like it, but instead of breaking their own laws, they had a "everybody be happy" rally at the opposite side of town. Guess where most of the town went to? They loved being happy more than hearing bull rantings from some racists. The KKK left town for more "fertile" pastures and never held a rally there again.

Freedom of speech and religion means allowing those we disagree with to spout opinions as well, so long as those opinions are not made into law or used to justify negative actions (illegal), then it's 100% fine. This is the age of reason, and reason is winning out. The craziest ideas are dying off at a pretty fast pace right now. Religion itself is not inherently closed minded either, organized religion uses methods to make the followers closed minded so outside information doesn't lure them away. But a belief in something supernatural does not create closed mindedness. You do realize that much of our current tech is based on ideas given to us by science fiction writers? Your computer was thought to be supernatural at one point, we know they are not now.

So my point is, they fantasies could be insights that could help us a lot. You can't just say that since we don't know it exists yet, that it does not exist, but you also can't live your life based on a doctrine that is telling you to stay put.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Kittenkoder, I did not mean in the slightest that we should imprison religious people or even neo-nazis because of their beliefs. What I meant in saying people should be held responsible for their beliefs is that if a person or group has made a mistake in the past they should own up to it. I realize that the Catholic church has admitted it was wrong about things and apologized. However, I just wish people would come out and say, "I understand all you believers think this stuff is real, but we have been wrong about this sort of thing in the past and the truth is we just don't know."

 

[Laurens]

I don't have a problem with them at all. It is just hard for me to see how such an opened minded person can also be so close minded. Some people say there isn't a conflict between religion and science, but I feel there is some kind of rift there. Religious belief does require some form of close-mindedness and science should, in theory, have an element of doubt and skepticism. Perhaps I am being narrow-minded myself, but to me religious belief and scientifc thought are mutually incompatible.

I think for some they are mutually incompatible (you and I for example), however for others there is no incompatibility or at least they do not see it.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

for others there is no incompatibility or at least they do not see it.

I suppose I agree with you, but it just seems that people like Mr. Miller demand evidence everyday of the week and then feel no need for it on Sunday...

 

[KittenKoder]

Kittenkoder, I did not mean in the slightest that we should imprison religious people or even neo-nazis because of their beliefs. What I meant in saying people should be held responsible for their beliefs is that if a person or group has made a mistake in the past they should own up to it. I realize that the Catholic church has admitted it was wrong about things and apologized. However, I just wish people would come out and say, "I understand all you believers think this stuff is real, but we have been wrong about this sort of thing in the past and the truth is we just don't know."

The things they've done wrong though are not based on belief but the abuse of faith. As a matter of fact, I don't think most christians on the planet even like how they protected those who did wrong doing. So it's holding them accountable for action still, not belief

 

[The Felonius Pope]

I don't think most Christians on the planet even like how they protected those who did wrong doing.

You bring up a good point about the majority of people. In the past, the masses have been heavily influenced, for better or worse, by the ideas of a minority. I tend to feel that the masses should questions those ideas, whether those ideas be political, religious, etc.

 

[KittenKoder]

I don't think most Christians on the planet even like how they protected those who did wrong doing.

You bring up a good point about the majority of people. In the past, the masses have been heavily influenced, for better or worse, by the ideas of a minority. I tend to feel that the masses should questions those ideas, whether those ideas be political, religious, etc.

What we need to do is show people that they don't have to follow anymore. Everyone can be leaders and voice against those they honestly do not agree with. Embrace individuality, we no longer need the tribe mentality that religions hold onto. I think the hardest part for people stuck on religious dogma to drop is the tribe mentality, but thanks to technological advances that is no longer needed for survival. But meh, someday they will see that they can have their cake and eat it too, they can believe in a deity and accept science.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

they can believe in a deity and accept science

For some reason, people seem to have the misconception that belief in a divine being requires you to be religious.

 

[nudger1964]

this guy does the best job ive ever heard mixing religion and science
George Coyne, the director of the Vatican Observatory


i love this guy....give him a tough question of theology in the face of science...he shrugs, and say i dont know
im sure he would have found it easier to be a jew than a catholic, but hey ho. he deals with it

you can skip to about the hour mark where he is taking questions and it a very interesting insight, into his mind if no one elses (its also very entertaining btw)

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

At York Skeptics this month we had a fascinating talk by Prof. Tom Mcleish. He's a theoretical physicist, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for research at Durham University and a Fellow of the Royal Society. Those are pretty impressive scientific credentials in anyone's book. He's also a practising Christian.

Personally I can't reconcile religious beliefs with science, but there is clear evidence that some very intelligent people can, and I have to accept that.

 

[Epiquinn]

I am currently reading a book by professor Kenneth Miller on the evolution-creationism debate. Professor Miller believes a creator is impossible to explain the complexity of life, but goes onto state that the universe itself is the true evidence of design. He is a Catholic. My question is: can religious belief really go hand in hand with good science? How do religious scientists separate their scientific doubt and religious certainty?

You're making it sound as though a human being could simultaneously hold two contradictory sets of beliefs inside their head, but *gasp* how is this possible? As we all know, humans are intelligent beings, known for their impeccable logic, consistency and scrupulously uniform standards!

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Every one of us is capable of scientific inquiry, just as every one of us is capable of mindless acceptance of blind faith. If the scientific method is used to discover data regarding a particular subject, there's no choice but to accept it as such. If the same researcher goes on to use other forms of self-fulfilling knowledge, it's not science.


Remember, we're not designed perfect beings of flawless rationality. We're evolved apes with limited ability of reasoning and a bunch of rational flaws embedded in our DNA.

 

[Dean]

Miller is associated at least ideologically, with the Francis Collins' "Theistic Evolution" crowd, which is quite indefensible, both scientifically and philosophically, thinking here particularly of the notion of a loving god, and its evident incompatibility with biological evolution, as I discussed in this thread. And like i said in that thread, (extending this to both Collins and Miller), there is a sad tendency for people who are manipulated from childhood into religious doctrines, and who happen to be scientifically educated, to dismiss out-of-hand aspects of science that may conflict with their religion (e.g. in this case Evolutionary Science), and instead simply reshape the facts at hand to fit with their pre-conceived bias, which , I'm sorry to say , is the complete opposite of what scientific inquiry is supposed to be about. It just goes to show that all the innate intelligence , and even education , in the whole god-damned godless world, will NOT sway you, and it will instead just cause one to make (in this case) frankly embarrassingly absurd things for men of their education, to fit with , like I said , a predetermined conclusion, believed in; in lieu of proof and with no regard for either logic, or evidence.

To see a classical example of this, I would advise visiting Collins's BioLogos website and YouTube channel. I also discussed those websites in the above-linked thread. The arguments put out by these people are typically incoherent, and utterly indefensible, from a scientific standpoint as well as a religious one. Don't ask me to produce examples, because I'll end up giving you an essay-length post, and I already discussed this matter, again; in that other thread. But as I tire of saying, people such as Collins and Miller who are both astute in scientific and rational modes of inquiry, and are yet simply unable and / or unwilling to accept parts of science that don't bode terribly well for their religious beliefs, are ... mediocre scientists, in my view, as they apparently haven't fully grasped what scientific thought is all about. It's about critically examining one's own beliefs, not bending the facts to fit with your preconceived bias.

Most Christians in Europe for instance, accept evolution, but that only works becayse they tend to get it wrong on some central details. They have two narratives blended together and the critical details are kept blurry and that works for a time. In that version God created DNA and the like and guided it somehow or whatever so that humans came out at some point, then there is some 'lalalalala' and then somehow the Bible gets things somewhat correct. Sure, science and religion can co-exist. They can co-exist in the same manner with which physics and the Harry Potter series can co-exist. Does that answer it? The bit about 'can they separate their scientific minds from their religious certainty?' hits it on the nail. Sure, they CAN, because they have. And that's fine, just so long as they don't sprinkle it liberally with pseudo-scientific baggage and then pretend it's 'rational'. It's NOT.

The claim that the universe per se is evidence for God, does not sound like the remark of a truly critical mind. See what I mean? Despite his education, he apparently can't see through the absurdity of this for his religious dogma. This is nothing more or less than a religious assertion, and like most religious assertions, it's unproven, and unprovable.