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

[Martin Moe]

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

I am sure that the answer is yes. I think it is possible for a person to be a good scientist, by that I mean one that is committed to the use of reason and analytical thought within the methodology of modern science to further human understanding of the structure and workings of the universe and our world without the invasion of “revealed” knowledge coloring the results; and at the same time, in an entirely separate thought process, be convinced that there is a God and that It is, or may not be, part and parcel of human existence. 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.

It seems to me that the scientific mind that accepts the existence of a coexisting supernatural “world” would perhaps unknowingly look for, and perhaps create, evidence of that “world” within a scientific analysis of the natural world; and concomitantly look for a supernatural rationale behind the exposition of the natural processes found through scientific analysis. 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.

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.

 

[Goonie]

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

I am sure that the answer is yes. I think it is possible for a person to be a good scientist, by that I mean one that is committed to the use of reason and analytical thought within the methodology of modern science to further human understanding of the structure and workings of the universe and our world without the invasion of “revealed” knowledge coloring the results; and at the same time, in an entirely separate thought process, be convinced that there is a God and that It is, or may not be, part and parcel of human existence. 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.

It seems to me that the scientific mind that accepts the existence of a coexisting supernatural “world” would perhaps unknowingly look for, and perhaps create, evidence of that “world” within a scientific analysis of the natural world; and concomitantly look for a supernatural rationale behind the exposition of the natural processes found through scientific analysis. 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.

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.

Simple answer yes, Francis Collins for example.

 

[SkyWriting]

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 motivation of the scientific mind is to build up ego and wealth.
Mostly ego.

 

[whois]

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

I am sure that the answer is yes.

certainly.
there is no such thing as an "atheist scientist".
there is no true scientist in the entire world that will stand up there and say "there is no god".

 

[MorkandMindy]

First define what you mean by 'a Christian' and then the answer should be obvious.


My definition of 'a Christian' is a follower of Jesus, a practitioner of the faith, a doer not just a sayer.

Following the O.T. is not difficult for a person with the right intent:

Rom 13.9:
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Gal 5.14:
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Jam 2.8:
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

I'm not aware of a commandment to believe the Universe was created in 4004 BC or 10,000 BC at the earliest.

 

[Strathos]

The motivation of the scientific mind is to build up ego and wealth.
Mostly ego.

I thought it was to discover new knowledge.

 

[SkyWriting]

I thought it was to discover new knowledge.

That's the public face they show. Behind the mask, it's all money and ego.
I've worked in research and development for 20 years and so know people firsthand.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html

PLASTIC FANTASTIC: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World.

 

[Jimmy D]

That's the public face they show. Behind the mask, it's all money and ego.
I've worked in research and development for 20 years and so know people firsthand.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html

PLASTIC FANTASTIC: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World.

So were you a scientist and a christian? Was your motivation ego and wealth?

 

[SkyWriting]

So were you a scientist and a christian? Was your motivation ego and wealth?

As with any job. But "discovery" is a nice cover story.

I sat down at a job interview with a laser researcher
and asked him about "basic research". He replied
"There is no basic research, really. Just people paying
to find new ways to make money."

And he only had a year or so left to live due to brain
cancer, so I think he was being honest with me.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

I am sure that the answer is yes. I think it is possible for a person to be a good scientist, by that I mean one that is committed to the use of reason and analytical thought within the methodology of modern science to further human understanding of the structure and workings of the universe and our world without the invasion of “revealed” knowledge coloring the results; and at the same time, in an entirely separate thought process, be convinced that there is a God and that It is, or may not be, part and parcel of human existence. 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.

It seems to me that the scientific mind that accepts the existence of a coexisting supernatural “world” would perhaps unknowingly look for, and perhaps create, evidence of that “world” within a scientific analysis of the natural world; and concomitantly look for a supernatural rationale behind the exposition of the natural processes found through scientific analysis. 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.

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.

Science can take a hike.

 

[sfs]

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

What an sad view you have. I too have worked with scientists for decades, thousands of them. In my experience, very few entered science for money -- not surprising, since science is a pretty lousy way for smart, talented people to make a lot of money. Many are indeed driven by ego, a trait they share with politicians, plumbers, pastors and posters on Christian Forums. In other words, they have the usual mixed bag of motivations that characterize human beings.

Their strongest motivation, though, tends to be curiosity and a desire to solve puzzles. Some also have a strong desire to help other people, and see science as a way of doing that.

Here is a description of one of my colleagues, SkyWriting. Would you say he was motivated more by money or by ego?

 

[sfs]

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.

Doing science requires a belief that physical phenomena tend to follow patterns, patterns that can be discerned by humans. It also requires a willingness to find those patterns using empirical data. Both requirements are entirely consistent with belief in supernatural religion.

 

[JackRT]

What an sad view you have. I too have worked with scientists for decades, thousands of them. In my experience, very few entered science for money -- not surprising, since science is a pretty lousy way for smart, talented people to make a lot of money. Many are indeed driven by ego, a trait they share with politicians, plumbers, pastors and posters on Christian Forums. In other words, they have the usual mixed bag of motivations that characterize human beings.

Their strongest motivation, though, tends to be curiosity and a desire to solve puzzles. Some also have a strong desire to help other people, and see science as a way of doing that.

Here is a description of one of my colleagues, SkyWriting. Would you say he was motivated more by money or by ego?

Thank you for the story of Dr Khan --- scientist and hero.

 

[SkyWriting]

What an sad view you have. I too have worked with scientists for decades, thousands of them. In my experience, very few entered science for money -- not surprising, since science is a pretty lousy way for smart, talented people to make a lot of money. Many are indeed driven by ego, a trait they share with politicians, plumbers, pastors and posters on Christian Forums. In other words, they have the usual mixed bag of motivations that characterize human beings.

Their strongest motivation, though, tends to be curiosity and a desire to solve puzzles. Some also have a strong desire to help other people, and see science as a way of doing that.

Here is a description of one of my colleagues, SkyWriting. Would you say he was motivated more by money or by ego?

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/

 

[Holoman]

Of course, Science was itself created by Christians. Look at what the motto of Oxford University is, Dominus illuminatio mea, The Lord is my light.

In fact, I could ask the question can an atheist be a scientist? All of science is done on one very big presupposition, that the universe is explainable in a rational and intelligible way. Tell me what basis atheism has for believing this? Why do they believe the universe is rational? In fact why do they believe their own minds? Why do they think their brain allows them to accurately ascertain truth, and not delude them into a false truth because it is beneficial to their survival (afterall, according to Darwinian principles the brain has evolved to serve our survival, not truth).

So my friend, Christians have a far better reason for being a scientist than atheists.

And of course, pick up any science text book and you will find the entire basis for science was discovered by theists, Isaac Newton, Farraday, Copernicus...I could go on.

 

[bhsmte]

certainly.
there is no such thing as an "atheist scientist".
there is no true scientist in the entire world that will stand up there and say "there is no god".

There are plenty though that will state; they don't believe a God exists, which would make them an atheist.

 

[jayem]

Of course, Science was itself created by Christians.

Dead wrong. Systematic observation and recording of the natural world (particularly astronomical phenomena) go back to Mesopotamian culture long before there was Christianity. Ancient Egyptians had knowledge of weather, agricultural practices, and geometry (how else could they design and build pyramids?) Science was fairly advanced in classical Greece. Thales, who lived in the 6th century BC, formulated non-supernatural explanations for natural events. Democritus developed the idea that matter is made of invisibly tiny particles. We know about Archimedes and Pythagoras. I'm sure you've heard of the Library of Alexandria, founded in the 3rd century BC, which had hundreds of thousands of scrolls on mathematics and the natural sciences. Christian Europe didn't really get interested in science until around the 12th century. Although, the scientific method is a European concept.

 

[Martin Moe]

Simple answer yes, Francis Collins for example.

Thank you Goonie, Dr. Francis Collins is an excellent example of a very accomplished scientist who seems to fit comfortably in that narrow tidal zone between the raging currents and waves of the ocean of scientific knowledge and the solid, very slowly changing shores of religious belief and culture. In a June 16, 2000 interview with Bob Abernathy in Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, Dr. Collins, expounded on the synergy of his Christian religious beliefs and his commitment to scientific research with the Human Genome Project.

“I have no reason to see a discordance between what I know as a scientist who spends all day studying the genome of humans and what I believe as somebody who pays a lot of attention to what the Bible has taught me about God and about Jesus Christ. Those are entirely compatible views. Science is the way — a powerful way, indeed — to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective — in fact, it’s rather ineffective — in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other. And it is an — a great joy to be in a position of being able to bring both of those points of view to bear in any given day of the week. The notion that you have to sort of choose one or the other is a terrible myth that has been put forward, and which many people have bought into without really having a chance to examine the evidence. I came to my faith not, actually, in a circumstance where it was drummed into me as a child, which people tend to assume of any scientist who still has a personal faith in God; but actually by a series of compelling, logical arguments, many of them put forward by C. S. Lewis, that got me to the precipice of saying, “Faith is actually plausible.””

I think this is an admirable and even compelling description of how a person can comfortably stand with one foot in the nebulous world of the supernatural and the other in the world of hard and exact science. Although I can appreciate the emotional comfort that can be found in Christianity, I cannot find the logic that Dr. Collins speaks of finding in the scriptures. Perhaps the fact that our world exists and that humans can conceive that a God exists is reason enough to seek It. But seeking does not automatically result in finding, and finding something that requires a pre-established belief in a supernatural being before conformation is not an easy task for a rational mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Although, the scientific method is a European concept.

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

 

[bhsmte]

Thank you Goonie, Dr. Francis Collins is an excellent example of a very accomplished scientist who seems to fit comfortably in that narrow tidal zone between the raging currents and waves of the ocean of scientific knowledge and the solid, very slowly changing shores of religious belief and culture. In a June 16, 2000 interview with Bob Abernathy in Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, Dr. Collins, expounded on the synergy of his Christian religious beliefs and his commitment to scientific research with the Human Genome Project.

“I have no reason to see a discordance between what I know as a scientist who spends all day studying the genome of humans and what I believe as somebody who pays a lot of attention to what the Bible has taught me about God and about Jesus Christ. Those are entirely compatible views. Science is the way — a powerful way, indeed — to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective — in fact, it’s rather ineffective — in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other. And it is an — a great joy to be in a position of being able to bring both of those points of view to bear in any given day of the week. The notion that you have to sort of choose one or the other is a terrible myth that has been put forward, and which many people have bought into without really having a chance to examine the evidence. I came to my faith not, actually, in a circumstance where it was drummed into me as a child, which people tend to assume of any scientist who still has a personal faith in God; but actually by a series of compelling, logical arguments, many of them put forward by C. S. Lewis, that got me to the precipice of saying, “Faith is actually plausible.””

I think this is an admirable and even compelling description of how a person can comfortably stand with one foot in the nebulous world of the supernatural and the other in the world of hard and exact science. Although I can appreciate the emotional comfort that can be found in Christianity, I cannot find the logic that Dr. Collins speaks of finding in the scriptures. Perhaps the fact that our world exists and that humans can conceive that a God exists is reason enough to seek It. But seeking does not automatically result in finding, and finding something that requires a pre-established belief in a supernatural being before conformation is not an easy task for a rational mind.

Here is the difference.

When Collins declares he has found something in science, he needs to demonstrate this objectively to others.

When Collins claims to have found something in his faith belief, he only needs to satisfy himself.

Clearly, he has a personal need to have a faith belief and since he can still accept well evidenced reality, I take no issue with it.