6 ms·

There are, by definition, no good scientists who allow their religious beliefs to dictate their science. Some religious people are able to separate their person

There are, by definition, no good scientists who allow their religious beliefs to dictate their science. Some religious people are able to separate their personal irrationality from their professional rationality, and that's just fine.

stingraycharles 15y ago
By what definition? There are quite a few historical scientists who made great discoveries, who very extremely religious too. Newton comes to mind.
- Turing_Machine 15y ago
  A more recent example would be this fellow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
  - LeafStorm 15y ago
    An even more recent example is Francis Collins [1], who directed the Human Genome Project. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
- idiot900 15y ago
  There is no place in the scientific method for belief without evidence, which is what faith is; faith forms the basis of religion.
  - camperman 15y ago
    Wrong. In the New Testament, faith means assurance based on a reliable track record. It's the Greek word "pistis" and the two terms - faith and assurance - are used interchangeably.
    - haberman 15y ago
      " Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." --John 20:29 This verse has always struck me as directly anti-science.
      - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
        When was the last time you saw a top quark? Yet you surely believe in them because other people "have done the work" to prove they are there. There is no doubt faith is different than science, but I think this particular example doesn't capture the real difference. Honestly, I'm not sure how I would qualify that difference, beyond (good) science will change in the light of new evidence. Faith often requires modifying how one interprets evidence so it fits within one's religious views. I've also met people whose faith stands parallel to science. In that case, changing understanding of the physical world doesn't impact the spiritual world. That is where I try to be.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        I am a fan of Rational Wiki's definition of faith. Essentially, it is something that you can use to back up the belief in something. Evidence is also something that you use to back up a belief. You can more or less plug in either of them, but evidence has clear advantages. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Faith http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Faith This article explores thoughts on faith that I don't agree are useful, but the opening sentence is the most useful definition I've seen.
      - LeafStorm 15y ago
        In this specific context, Jesus was talking to Thomas - though the other apostles had told Thomas that Jesus had returned, Thomas did not believe until Jesus came to him personally. So the verse isn't promoting "blind faith," it's criticizing those who insist on a direct revelation before being willing to accept the truth. I don't think it really applies to science (at least not empirical science), and it is definitely not anti-science.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    >"There is no place in the scientific method for belief without evidence" I'm not a professional scientist but as a wannabe theoretician I can't concede how this can be correct. Indeed I think it needs to be wrong often in order for experiment to progress from theory. I'd warrant that the LHC was only built because those theoreticians at the forefront of physical advances in particle physics at Fermilab and CERN (and wherever) felt that, despite not yet having the evidence, that nonetheless the Higgs boson (or other particles like the Chi_b (3P)) would be found. Moreover often one adopts a first hypothesis because one is convinced of the truth of that position without a rigorous proof; obviously empirical method then steps in to affirm that belief. Yes beliefs can be found to be false, but they can also be confirmed.
    - andrewflnr 15y ago
      Ideally, one adopts a hypothesis specifically to prove it false, not because one is sure it is true. Even if you believe it before you run an experiment on it, you do so provisionally, without putting "faith" in it, because you know you might be forced to discard it. This is not the faith in science you are looking for.
      - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        I've generally found that the expected mechanism comes first; an opposing hypothesis to falsify comes after. With complex scenarios it's can be necessary to develop in depth the consequential outcomes before one can find something that can readily be demonstrated empirically. How do you determine otherwise which experiments are worth performing. We don't have infinite resources. For example. Einstein published his theory of relativity in 1916 having worked, apparently, on it for 8 years. Do you suppose he worked on it because he believed it false? One of the outcomes of the theory was then first observationally confirmed by Eddington's observations of an eclipse in 1919. Up until 1919 Einstein and other's put much faith in the theory by using it to model reality without knowing if it's predictions would be observed without falsification. I'm all for Popperian falsification as the modus of formal scientific advance but on an individual level it appears to me that those who work for many years on unconfirmed theories are often believing in the truth of those theories without empirical confirmation. >"Even if you believe it before you run an experiment on it, you do so provisionally, without putting "faith" in it, because you know you might be forced to discard it." Moreover, it strikes me that one could not put faith in anything (the love of your mother say) if it were prevented by the possibility that later evidence would force you to discard it. That statement also appears contrary to the illustration I've given concerning GR too.
  - gldalmaso 15y ago
    There's no reason why one cannot have faith and leave it out of their scientific work.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    On the contrary: the principle that natural laws will be the same in the future as they have been in the past, or that they are the same in one place as they are in some other faraway place, must be accepted without evidence as a premise of the scientific method.
    - alephnil 15y ago
      There is evidence for that however. Like that the emission lines from distant stars and galaxies are the same ones as in our own solar system and here on earth (but red shifted). If the laws were not the same everywhere, you must introduce a god that make it look that way, or otherwise explain how it can appear like the laws are the same everywhere without actually being so.
      - philwelch 15y ago
        There is only evidence that the laws of nature have been consistent in all past observations, but actually it's only an assumption on our part that future observations will continue to be like the past. This point is generally credited to Hume.
- gnaritas 15y ago
  Only because their discoveries and religion didn't conflict. There is zero room in doing good science for faith.
- Shorel 15y ago
  He however, must have rejected at least some parts of the Bible, and had a particular customized belief. Like the part that says Pi is 3.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
hobolobo 15y ago
And some, such as Galileo in the case of heliocentrism, tie themselves in knots trying to reconcile the observable world with their faith.

stingraycharles 15y ago

By what definition? There are quite a few historical scientists who made great discoveries, who very extremely religious too. Newton comes to mind.

Turing_Machine 15y ago
A more recent example would be this fellow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
- LeafStorm 15y ago
  An even more recent example is Francis Collins [1], who directed the Human Genome Project. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
idiot900 15y ago
There is no place in the scientific method for belief without evidence, which is what faith is; faith forms the basis of religion.
- camperman 15y ago
  Wrong. In the New Testament, faith means assurance based on a reliable track record. It's the Greek word "pistis" and the two terms - faith and assurance - are used interchangeably.
  - haberman 15y ago
    " Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." --John 20:29 This verse has always struck me as directly anti-science.
    - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
      When was the last time you saw a top quark? Yet you surely believe in them because other people "have done the work" to prove they are there. There is no doubt faith is different than science, but I think this particular example doesn't capture the real difference. Honestly, I'm not sure how I would qualify that difference, beyond (good) science will change in the light of new evidence. Faith often requires modifying how one interprets evidence so it fits within one's religious views. I've also met people whose faith stands parallel to science. In that case, changing understanding of the physical world doesn't impact the spiritual world. That is where I try to be.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        I am a fan of Rational Wiki's definition of faith. Essentially, it is something that you can use to back up the belief in something. Evidence is also something that you use to back up a belief. You can more or less plug in either of them, but evidence has clear advantages. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Faith http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Faith This article explores thoughts on faith that I don't agree are useful, but the opening sentence is the most useful definition I've seen.
    - LeafStorm 15y ago
      In this specific context, Jesus was talking to Thomas - though the other apostles had told Thomas that Jesus had returned, Thomas did not believe until Jesus came to him personally. So the verse isn't promoting "blind faith," it's criticizing those who insist on a direct revelation before being willing to accept the truth. I don't think it really applies to science (at least not empirical science), and it is definitely not anti-science.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >"There is no place in the scientific method for belief without evidence" I'm not a professional scientist but as a wannabe theoretician I can't concede how this can be correct. Indeed I think it needs to be wrong often in order for experiment to progress from theory. I'd warrant that the LHC was only built because those theoreticians at the forefront of physical advances in particle physics at Fermilab and CERN (and wherever) felt that, despite not yet having the evidence, that nonetheless the Higgs boson (or other particles like the Chi_b (3P)) would be found. Moreover often one adopts a first hypothesis because one is convinced of the truth of that position without a rigorous proof; obviously empirical method then steps in to affirm that belief. Yes beliefs can be found to be false, but they can also be confirmed.
  - andrewflnr 15y ago
    Ideally, one adopts a hypothesis specifically to prove it false, not because one is sure it is true. Even if you believe it before you run an experiment on it, you do so provisionally, without putting "faith" in it, because you know you might be forced to discard it. This is not the faith in science you are looking for.
    - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
      I've generally found that the expected mechanism comes first; an opposing hypothesis to falsify comes after. With complex scenarios it's can be necessary to develop in depth the consequential outcomes before one can find something that can readily be demonstrated empirically. How do you determine otherwise which experiments are worth performing. We don't have infinite resources. For example. Einstein published his theory of relativity in 1916 having worked, apparently, on it for 8 years. Do you suppose he worked on it because he believed it false? One of the outcomes of the theory was then first observationally confirmed by Eddington's observations of an eclipse in 1919. Up until 1919 Einstein and other's put much faith in the theory by using it to model reality without knowing if it's predictions would be observed without falsification. I'm all for Popperian falsification as the modus of formal scientific advance but on an individual level it appears to me that those who work for many years on unconfirmed theories are often believing in the truth of those theories without empirical confirmation. >"Even if you believe it before you run an experiment on it, you do so provisionally, without putting "faith" in it, because you know you might be forced to discard it." Moreover, it strikes me that one could not put faith in anything (the love of your mother say) if it were prevented by the possibility that later evidence would force you to discard it. That statement also appears contrary to the illustration I've given concerning GR too.
- gldalmaso 15y ago
  There's no reason why one cannot have faith and leave it out of their scientific work.
- philwelch 15y ago
  On the contrary: the principle that natural laws will be the same in the future as they have been in the past, or that they are the same in one place as they are in some other faraway place, must be accepted without evidence as a premise of the scientific method.
  - alephnil 15y ago
    There is evidence for that however. Like that the emission lines from distant stars and galaxies are the same ones as in our own solar system and here on earth (but red shifted). If the laws were not the same everywhere, you must introduce a god that make it look that way, or otherwise explain how it can appear like the laws are the same everywhere without actually being so.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      There is only evidence that the laws of nature have been consistent in all past observations, but actually it's only an assumption on our part that future observations will continue to be like the past. This point is generally credited to Hume.
gnaritas 15y ago
Only because their discoveries and religion didn't conflict. There is zero room in doing good science for faith.
Shorel 15y ago
He however, must have rejected at least some parts of the Bible, and had a particular customized belief. Like the part that says Pi is 3.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

hobolobo 15y ago

And some, such as Galileo in the case of heliocentrism, tie themselves in knots trying to reconcile the observable world with their faith.