3 ms·

As I get older, this seems obvious to me; the idea of a scientist who's also to some extent religious makes just as much sense, maybe more, than a strongly athe

by jrm4 2y ago

As I get older, this seems obvious to me; the idea of a scientist who's also to some extent religious makes just as much sense, maybe more, than a strongly atheist one -- especially given, that historically, religion and science weren't strongly mutually exclusive?

kitkat_new 2y ago
if it seems that obvious, you surely can explain why it would make semse?
- jrm4 2y ago
  Sure, it's the appreciation that there are unknowns and how to treat them. As you know, the best SCIENTISTS aren't 100% sure about very much. Reverence and wonder can cut across it all.
  - Timwi 2y ago
    Religion tends to make people more sure about things that they don't really know for sure. In my mind that has always struck me as an obstacle to being a good scientist. Appreciating that there are unknowns is exactly what gets a lot of people into science, and the correct way to treat those unknowns in science is to say that you're not sure about something until you've run the experiment.
the_af 2y ago
Hm, whether a scientist is religious should bear little relation to studying religion or anything adjacent to it. For historians it'd be more obvious I think: it would be foolish to ignore religion since it's an artifact of human history. A historian who is an atheist can still study and compare religions. But what about science? While the object of religion itself, i.e. the supernatural, is outside the scope of the scientific method, the existence of religion and religious practices themselves is not. What if there's a biological cause of religious belief? What if religious belief is a side effect of the same brain structures that make humans social animals, or that makes capable of language, or conscious, or something like that? As long as you're not making a religious argument, religion as a human artifact should be fair game for science. The risk could be to offend religious people, of course.

by jrm4 2y ago

kitkat_new 2y ago

if it seems that obvious, you surely can explain why it would make semse?

jrm4 2y ago
Sure, it's the appreciation that there are unknowns and how to treat them. As you know, the best SCIENTISTS aren't 100% sure about very much. Reverence and wonder can cut across it all.
- Timwi 2y ago
  Religion tends to make people more sure about things that they don't really know for sure. In my mind that has always struck me as an obstacle to being a good scientist. Appreciating that there are unknowns is exactly what gets a lot of people into science, and the correct way to treat those unknowns in science is to say that you're not sure about something until you've run the experiment.

the_af 2y ago

Hm, whether a scientist is religious should bear little relation to studying religion or anything adjacent to it. For historians it'd be more obvious I think: it would be foolish to ignore religion since it's an artifact of human history. A historian who is an atheist can still study and compare religions. But what about science? While the object of religion itself, i.e. the supernatural, is outside the scope of the scientific method, the existence of religion and religious practices themselves is not. What if there's a biological cause of religious belief? What if religious belief is a side effect of the same brain structures that make humans social animals, or that makes capable of language, or conscious, or something like that? As long as you're not making a religious argument, religion as a human artifact should be fair game for science. The risk could be to offend religious people, of course.