Could a person earn a PhD in Physics but have little faith and/or belief in the material?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Could a person earn a PhD in Physics but have little faith and/or belief in the material?

Surely somebody could have the intellectual / cognitive tools to master all of the material while at the same time saying that he/she takes all of it with a grain of salt.

Or has a person mastered the material only if he/she believes that it reflects reality and that it must be taken seriously?

 

[RC1970]

How can something be material and not be real?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

How can something be material and not be real?

We are talking about learning material / reading material.

 

[lesliedellow]

Surely somebody could have the intellectual / cognitive tools to master all of the material while at the same time saying that he/she takes all of it with a grain of salt.

Or has a person mastered the material only if he/she believes that it reflects reality and that it must be taken seriously?

I imagine it would be difficult enough to maintain interest in something you regarded as bunkum, let alone to conduct serious research into it. Research is what a PhD requires - you don't get it just for book learning.

 

[RC1970]

We are talking about learning material / reading material.

Okay, you mean subject matter. Yes, for instance, it is possible to have a PhD in a field of theory and not believe that the theory is correct.

 

[KCfromNC]

Surely somebody could have the intellectual / cognitive tools to master all of the material while at the same time saying that he/she takes all of it with a grain of salt.

Or has a person mastered the material only if he/she believes that it reflects reality and that it must be taken seriously?

Science is mostly unconcerned with metaphysical nonsense like this, so yeah it would be possible. That being said I'd imagine that most physics PhDs believe in some sort of underlying physical reality to that which they observe, simply because most people do.

 

[SkyWriting]

Surely somebody could have the intellectual / cognitive tools to master all of the material while at the same time saying that he/she takes all of it with a grain of salt. Or has a person mastered the material only if he/she believes that it reflects reality and that it must be taken seriously?

An electron exists in a cloud of probability, and is considered to be all places at one time.
If an atom were the size of two football fields, it's nucleus would be smaller than a grain of sand.
So reality is mostly empty space with some sand sprinkled in it.
You can take reality with any degree of seriousness you choose.

 

[bhsmte]

Surely somebody could have the intellectual / cognitive tools to master all of the material while at the same time saying that he/she takes all of it with a grain of salt.

Or has a person mastered the material only if he/she believes that it reflects reality and that it must be taken seriously?

Some people can compartmentalize quite well.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Some people can compartmentalize quite well.

I imagine it would be very difficult though. The mental gymnastics would be quite arduous.

 

[bhsmte]

I imagine it would be very difficult though. The mental gymnastics would be quite arduous.

Dr. Ben Carson is a good example of being able to compartmentalize.

And yes, it would require very strong internal and external defense mechanisms, to protect the psyche from contradictory evidence.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Yes it's possible. As mentioned above Ben Carson does a phenomenal job and is a very gifted surgeon. It's just the battle to keep your belief of both would be ridiculous. You'd know your knowledge of one subject while your faith tells you all you have learned and can easily verify is wrong or is debatable. It's playing both sides of the fence.

 

[juvenissun]

Science is mostly unconcerned with metaphysical nonsense like this, so yeah it would be possible. That being said I'd imagine that most physics PhDs believe in some sort of underlying physical reality to that which they observe, simply because most people do.

I see bunch of Ph.D. in Physics in the building all the time. When I asked them questions, most of the answers I got are: "I don't know" or "I am not sure". At best, it is like: "Theoretically, it should be, but in reality, I am not sure".

That is what a Ph.D. is. However, I agree that they are philosophical.

 

[juvenissun]

,

 

[lesliedellow]

I see bunch of Ph.D. in Physics in the building all the time. When I asked them questions, most of the answers I got are: "I don't know" or "I am not sure". At best, it is like: "Theoretically, it should be, but in reality, I am not sure".

That is what a Ph.D. is. However, I agree that they are philosophical.

Vague mumbo-jumbo. Would you like to make it concrete with an example?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Haven't there been people like Michael Behe who earned PhDs in Biology specifically for the purpose of combating Darwinian evolutionary theory and advancing Intelligent Design theory?

If somebody would and could go through all of that trouble with part of Biology, isn't it possible that somebody would and could do it with all of Physics?

 

[lesliedellow]

Haven't there been people like Michael Behe who earned PhDs in Biology specifically for the purpose of combating Darwinian evolutionary theory and advancing Intelligent Design theory?

If that was his motive for doing a PhD in biology, he didn't do a very good job of it. He convinced none of his colleagues, and that includes the Christians amongst them. In any case, I think you will find that even Michael Behe is an "evolutionist"; he just tried to argue that God would have needed to intervene occasionally to help it over the odd hurdle.

If somebody would and could go through all of that trouble with part of Biology, isn't it possible that somebody would and could do it with all of Physics?

You had better hope they don't do it with "all of physics". Otherwise the computer you are using right now will instantly stop working. Not to mention never being able to get your car out of the garage again, airplanes falling out of the air all over the place and bridges collapsing everywhere - and that's just for starters.

 

[juvenissun]

Vague mumbo-jumbo. Would you like to make it concrete with an example?

No. I partially addressed the concern of the OP. That is it.
You may ask further question.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'd think that getting a PhD in physics would mean you'd understand the experiments which prove the physics to be correct.

But it's probably possible.

 

[lesliedellow]

No. I partially addressed the concern of the OP. That is it.
You may ask further question.

In other words it was empty waffle and nothing else.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

You had better hope they don't do it with "all of physics". Otherwise the computer you are using right now will instantly stop working. Not to mention never being able to get your car out of the garage again, airplanes falling out of the air all over the place and bridges collapsing everywhere - and that's just for starters.

But you said that Behe failed.

Maybe an analogy would help. Maybe people here have heard the assertion that pundits in the mass media don't necessarily believe or agree with what they write--they have to write something to get paid. George Will does not necessarily believe everything that he writes. Maureen Dowd does not necessarily believe everything that she writes.

The same thing is said about members of academia in the social sciences and the humanities (and probably the natural sciences and mathematics too). They have to publish something to keep their position in academia and get paid, therefore academic journals are full of bogus, useless papers about bogus, useless research, the thinking goes.

What makes a PhD in Physics any different? Could a person earn a PhD in Physics while agreeing with and/or believing absolutely none of the discipline's findings?

If you oppose deconstructionists / postmodern theorists, don't tell them about this thread--it is playing right into their hands.