Can a scientist be a Christian? or of any other supernatural faith?

[jayem]

I'm under the impression that Sir Francis Bacon was a Christian.

I suspect he was a Christian of some variety. Roger Bacon, who lived a few centuries earlier, also had a hand in promoting empiricism as the best route to scientific knowledge. IIRC, he was a Catholic friar.

 

[TudorGothicSerpent]

Can a scientist be a Christian? or of any other supernatural faith?

The obvious answer is yes. Definitely. Why in the world not?

Personally, I don’t know how those two aspects of a functioning conscious mind can occupy the same mind without great conflict, but that doesn’t mean that it is not possible, just that I am not capable of it, or of understanding it.

Mainly because most religious scientists don't separate the two that strictly. It's not like there are two compartments that are totally separate, and never the twain shall meet. Most religious scientists are theistic evolutionists who allow their scientific views to impact their religious ideas. Science may lead to relative liberalism, but it doesn't necessarily lead to atheism. I'm an atheist, and I'm mainly so for philosophical reasons. My scientific views are almost identical to where they were when I was an orthodox Catholic.

And if such is the case, then that mind may be comfortable in a faith based life, and may also do honest science where possible, but if so, I don’t understand the structure of the wall that separates these two divergent aspects of a basic understanding of existence.

There's no wall. Simple as that. Science doesn't inevitably lead to being irreligious.

 

[sfs]

The promotional piece you linked to uses cutting edge
persuasion techniques. I've only see the most advanced
marketers using those methods of persuasion. Animation
, in this case "Puppets", is known to be more effective at
altering people's viewpoints than live video.

On TV you'll see animated characters do all kinds
of promotions.

Doctors are closer to performance artists than hard science.
They do enjoy practicing their art form. Most Doctors are
famous for their ego's and hate to share the limelight with
anyone else.

With my mother, sister, brother, aunt and friends as nurses,
and a cousin as a doctor, I don't need to reach past my own
family to know about medical doctors. It's interesting to see
the amount of money spent on that promotional piece you
linked to. Likely it was in the thousands.

It looks like "Matter" is investing in it's promotional pieces
in a push for Venture Capitol. ($)

http://matter.vc/our-first-tech-partner/

You didn't answer my question: did Dr. Khan behave as he did out of ego or greed?

 

[SkyWriting]

You didn't answer my question: did Dr. Khan behave as he did out of ego or greed?

I did not work with him.
Your source does not even
touch on his personal life
or motivations.

One, the other, both
or more.

 

[sfs]

I did not work with him.
Your source does not even
touch on his personal life
or motivations.

One, the other, both
or more.

Wait -- are you saying that scientists might not always be motivated by greed or ego, or are you saying that they all are motivated by those two things?

 

[bhsmte]

I did not work with him.
Your source does not even
touch on his personal life
or motivations.

One, the other, both
or more.

Looks like you got out over your skis a tad.

 

[Bananagator]

The interaction of these two worlds are like the ocean and the beach, forever together, sometimes calm, sometimes violent, but always separate.

See, this is a disconcerting trend I see in - well, most of the population actually.
I personally see the laws of physics as the greatest proof for the existence of God. Everything is so organized, so intricately detailed that I have a hard time believing that the world was formed by coincidence.
Science can explain how things work, but it doesn't explain how those things came to be.
and I also just don't like it when people ignore scientific fact.

 

[whois]

That's the public face they show. Behind the mask, it's all money and ego.

let's not confuse "institutionalized science" with pure science.
you cannot possibly say that any of the earlier scientists were working along the lines of ego or money.
the only way i see ego entering the picture is by scientists pushing their pet theories.
as a matter of fact, i'm willing to bet that institutions are the bane of true science.
if you want to lay blame, then lay it on institutions, not the scientists.

 

[Armoured]

That's the public face they show. Behind the mask, it's all money and ego.

research science being so well paid and all

I've worked in research and development for 20 years and so know people firsthand.

Not wishing to inject logic into an otherwise fun demonising rant, but if YOU "worked in research and development for 20 years", does that not, in fact, make you a scientist? Ergo, ego and wealth driven?

Or are we going to play the word redefinition game now?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Can a scientist be a Christian? or of any other supernatural faith?

I used to say "Yes" and there are countless examples of Christian scientists. However, I think there is a philosophical schism between scientific thinking and the acceptance of "miracles". Consider the following story:

Two men are sitting on a hill thousands of years ago and they both see lightning strike a tree in the distance. One man exclaims, "Wow! That was amazing, awe-inspiring and powerful! God must have caused this miraculous phenomenon!" The second man exclaims, "Wow! That was amazing, awe-inspiring and powerful! I wonder what caused it?"

Do you see the difference between the two men? One acknowledges his own ignorance and that ignorance compels him to seek a greater understanding.


How can you ascribe "God" as the cause of some observed event and still practice the scientific method which seeks natural explanations? The only way I think it can be done -- and the only way I have seen it done -- is to compartmentalize reality into two sets of topics: topics which can be probed scientifically and topics which cannot be probed scientifically. So, the Christian neuroscientist will claim that the universe's beginnings is beyond the realm of science while the Christian cosmologist will claim that consciousness is beyond the realm of science. Both scientists advance their respective scientific fields while compartmentalizing epistemology to maintain their beliefs.

In reality, any topic should be open to scientific enquiry.

 

[Michael]

I have observed that most people with faith in a supernatural being use that faith as the basis for an analysis and subsequent rejection and/or revision of the truth and meaning of the physical evidence and theories that describe the biological and geological evolution of our world. At its base the separation of science and religious belief is stark and uncompromising. The intent of the religious mind is to bend science to support religion, and the motivation of the scientific mind is to find the truth without bending to preconceived supernatural revelations. The interaction of these two worlds are like the ocean and the beach, forever together, sometimes calm, sometimes violent, but always separate.

Meh. I don't believe that there is as much separation as you naively imagine. Scientists also tend to evoke supernatural constructs whenever they feel like it. "Dark energy" is apparently a "revealed" entity, as are exotic forms of "dark matter". They certainly have no *empirical* effect on anything in a lab.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Dark energy" is apparently a "revealed" entity, as are exotic forms of "dark matter".

I couldn't understand this passage ...

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

... until scientists discovered dark matter.

They certainly have no *empirical* effect on anything in a lab.

Agreed.

 

[whois]

I used to say "Yes" and there are countless examples of Christian scientists. However, I think there is a philosophical schism between scientific thinking and the acceptance of "miracles". Consider the following story:

Two men are sitting on a hill thousands of years ago and they both see lightning strike a tree in the distance. One man exclaims, "Wow! That was amazing, awe-inspiring and powerful! God must have caused this miraculous phenomenon!" The second man exclaims, "Wow! That was amazing, awe-inspiring and powerful! I wonder what caused it?"

Do you see the difference between the two men? One acknowledges his own ignorance and that ignorance compels him to seek a greater understanding.


How can you ascribe "God" as the cause of some observed event and still practice the scientific method which seeks natural explanations? The only way I think it can be done -- and the only way I have seen it done -- is to compartmentalize reality into two sets of topics: topics which can be probed scientifically and topics which cannot be probed scientifically. So, the Christian neuroscientist will claim that the universe's beginnings is beyond the realm of science while the Christian cosmologist will claim that consciousness is beyond the realm of science. Both scientists advance their respective scientific fields while compartmentalizing epistemology to maintain their beliefs.

In reality, any topic should be open to scientific enquiry.

did any of the earlier scientists ascribe a god to their observations?

one of our board members is a professed christian, does he ascribe a god to any of his observations?

 

[AV1611VET]

did any of the earlier scientists ascribe a god to their observations?

You mean like, when they divided time into BC and AD?

Scientists found a way to circumvent that by coining the term: BCE.

 

[Holoman]

There is a great example that I think fits here by John Lennox. A scientists belief in the supernatural does not prevent him from conducting science.

Take for example a mathematician that adds $3,000 to a drawer, and the next day adds $3,000 more. By the laws of arithmetic he ascertains $6,000 is in the drawer. Suppose he opens it and finds only $4,000. Does the mathematician now discard the laws of arithmetic claiming they have been broken? Of course not, he still holds the laws of arithmetic and claims the laws of the country have been broken!

Agents, like God, can peform actions that act contrary to laws, that doesn't mean the laws aren't correct, or that someone cannot investigate these laws even if he believes in an agent capable of bypassing them.

 

[Holoman]

Meh. I don't believe that there is as much separation as you naively imagine. Scientists also tend to evoke supernatural constructs whenever they feel like it. "Dark energy" is apparently a "revealed" entity, as are exotic forms of "dark matter". They certainly have no *empirical* effect on anything in a lab.

Couple that with the 'singularity' in the centre of a black hole, which is the scientific name for, 'its like magic and we have no idea how it works'

 

[whois]

You mean like, when they divided time into BC and AD?

Scientists found a way to circumvent that by coining the term: BCE.

in all honesty, as far as science goes, there should be a "kelvin" type of timeline.
the year zero would correlate to the instant of the big bang.
all other timelines could be referenced to this by an offset.
this scheme would allow all of the different timelines to be ascertained independently, then these could be fit into the master timeline by the offset.
-my opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

in all honesty, as far as science goes, there should be a "kelvin" type of timeline.

Perhaps the Antichrist will take that into consideration.

 

[durangodawood]

Of course a scientist can be Christian.
But the commitment gets problematic if she veers toward scriptural literalism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course a scientist can be Christian.
But the commitment gets problematic if she veers toward scriptural literalism.

Yup.

Science + Biblical literalism = cognitive dissonance.

Scientists get on us about interpreting the word of God literally, but then go out and interpret what they see literally.