Unbiased scientific progress made by Religion.

[Ad Initium]

Which unbiased scientific progress was made by religious persons?

 

[Unwardil]

I'd say this guy counts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

 

[borrofburi]

There's been quite a bit... I think Craig Venter (?) is religious, and also the lead scientist on the human genome project.

 

[Ad Initium]

exellent

 

[DTBeast]

this guy was pretty religious and not too shabby with the Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

 

[monitoradiation]

Perhaps Georges Lemaitre counts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

The man was a roman catholic priest and a great scientist.

 

[Aught3]

How about Abdus Salam? Won the Nobel prize for physics in 1979 for his work on the electroweak theory and was a devout muslim.

But shouldn't this really be called scientific progress made by religious people?

 

[RichardMNixon]

But shouldn't this really be called scientific progress made by religious people?

A very important distinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestly discovered oxygen.

And who could forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_pascal

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

Galileo should make the list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Edit: 7/20 I've got to retract this. See Mapp, AW's and my posts below.

 

[nasher168]

The majority of the important scientists throughout history would have been religious, if for no other reason than it being the cultural norm at the time. There are also plenty of ones today.

 

[simonecuttlefish]

Please don't forget the amazing insites and breakthroughs Kent Hovind contributed to the scientific field of cryptozoology, surely a remarkable Christian addition to the scientific knowledge base.

Starts at about 5:20 in.

 

[borrofburi]

this guy was pretty religious and not too shabby with the Science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

As I understand, he was weirdly religious...

But shouldn't this really be called scientific progress made by religious people?

I agree. It's not religion doing the scientific progress, but the religious people.

The majority of the important scientists throughout history would have been religious, if for no other reason than it being the cultural norm at the time. There are also plenty of ones today.

This. Also religion is still the cultural norm, even if that trend is shifting especially heavily in science and scientists.

 

[Mapp]

That's kind of a silly question. First what do you mean by religious persons? Do you mean people who professed a faith? Do you mean people who professed faith in a certain religion, i.e. Christianity vs. simply Deism? Do you mean all people who believe in something they call God? People who were actively involved in a faith? If you just meant people who believed in God, the list is going to be huge, especially if you go back about 100 years. However, that list is fairly meaningless. In many cases, professing a faith was a requirement to living. Take Galileo for instance, who ran afoul of the Church. Does the fact that they profess a given faith mean they are actual adherents to it, or are they just doing it to get a job at Oxford? Do we really know what kind of a theist Newton was, for example?

A much more informative list is how many of these scientists used their religion as part of their scientific findings. In other words, how did their dogma contribute to their understanding. The answer is zero, not one scientist needed to invoke God or magic in order to explain their laws and theories. God only popped up later, at the edge of their knowledge, when they reached questions that they either would not or could not tackle. Einstein never had to write E=M(God + C)2, nobody had to posit, "and here's where the miracle happens" in their work. People of faith have offered a lot to science. Faith has offered nothing.

 

[AndromedasWake]

Don't forget that there's a difference to progress made by 'Religion' and by 'a religious person'.

Every religious scientist in history has been a scientist at their work, and a religious person away from it. Newton, Huygens and Eddington, for example, all made significant contributions in their earlier years, then spent the rest of their lives trying to reconcile their findings with their beliefs (and failing to produce anything memorable for it.)

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

I came back to add Gottfried Leibnitz, but after reading Mapp's and Andromeda's posts thought better of it.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

What about Johannes Kepler who in the 17th century, when astronomy and astrology were indistinguishable, did both?

Famous for pre-Newtonian laws of planetary motion, Kepler was a true believer whose search for order in the planets was driven by his desire to lend mathematical credence to the Christian god's "celestial spheres."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler

 

[DeathofSpeech]

Which unbiased scientific progress was made by religious persons?

You would have to include Euler. Ironically, not just religious but a rabid fundy.

René Descartes made contributions that he perceived as being in defense of religion and ironically was viewed as something of a heretic in his time.

Robert Hooke - Anglican and from a family of ministers and church officials, though I'm not sure one could point to any examples that he made his religion conspicuous.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Unbiased scientific progress made by Religion

That's a contradiction. A "scientific progress" made by a religion would be biased towards that religion. Take the "science" of creationism, for example. Or the so-called "islamic science."

Which unbiased scientific progress was made by religious persons?

As for that, religion pre-dated science, and therefore the early scientists naturally had to have been born and brought up in religious families. Take Galileo, the pioneer of astronomy. He grew up in a highly orthodox christian environment, much to the point that he had to renounce his discoveries and observations simply to hold on to his life.

All scientific progresses (the real ones I mean, not the psuedoscience like examples above) are unbiased, regardless of which religion the person bringing the progress belonged to, or even whether he was irreligious. It doesn't matter whether a scientific progress was brought about by a religious person or an irreligious one, because the progress is in no way related to his religious beliefs. Simply because science does not depend on religious beliefs. And quite the contrary, religious beliefs often hinder scientific progress.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

...progress is in no way related to his religious beliefs.

Is this really true?

Granted, religion has done science more harm than good over the centuries, and there is credence to the point made earlier that just because a scientist was religious doesn't mean that religion advanced his science. As with Euler, Newton and other religious science greats listed previously, it seems fair to say that they advanced science in spite of their religion rather than because of it.

But can we really say religion has never done anything to advance science? The case of Johannes Kepler still leaves room for doubt about that.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

...progress is in no way related to his religious beliefs.

Is this really true?

Granted, religion has done science more harm than good over the centuries, and there is credence to the point made earlier that just because a scientist was religious doesn't mean that religion advanced his science. As with Euler, Newton and other religious science greats listed previously, it seems fair to say that they advanced science in spite of their religion rather than because of it.

But can we really say religion has never done anything to advance science? The case of Johannes Kepler still leaves room for doubt about that.

Agreed. While it is doubtless uncommon, have have no difficulty in accepting that it has occurred.