5 ms·
To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if
by cup 14y ago
To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. Furthermore, more often than not, the loudest champions for science are the ones furthest away from the scientific field. I've never seen such hyperbole or purist/fundamentalist views about science except in non-scientists.
In my opinion science, the thing we do to further humanities knowledge, is deeply flawed, unnecessarily complicated and painfully dirty. Let me provide a few examples:
The "3 year degree". When I finished my three year Science degree I looked back on my time not with pride but rather disdain and anger. I felt like the work I had done to achieve the piece of paper my degree was written on did not warrant three years of my life. I felt like if the university gave me the opportunity, I could have completed my degree in a year, with full time or over time studying. That being said I had the luxury of living in a country with free or freeish education. Don't even get me started on PhDs and postdocs.
Science funding: While science is supposed to be impartial, illuminating and free for all it sadly isnt. Pharmaceutical companies pay big money to get results that allow them bring drugs on the market. I'm not suggesting there methods are corrupt, far from it, but the fact that they have a vested financial interest in results steers there line of thinking so that any scientific discoveries that arn't beneficial to drug x are shelved. PhD students who are supported with financial grants are also impended by NDA paperwork and a wall of patent/commercial impediments.
The point I'm making is that It's not suprising people lose faith in science when they start to look beyond the superficial layers. Science is difficult, confusing and complicated but It's also essential, It's also wonderful and It's also fundamental for human society. The problem though (at least it appears to me) is that in many ways there is a huge disconnect between cutting edge science/peer review articles and the general public. I've been thinking about what to do to plug that gap and make science more accessible to people without requiring 5 years of studying but thats another story all together.
- dhechols 14y ago> To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent and omnipresent without a shred of observable evidence? > Science is difficult, confusing and complicated. Science is cherry pie compared to trying to appease some mystical, invisible, unobserable, unknowable, all-powerful, imaginary god.
- cup 14y agoWell I hypothesis God exists. My experimental method is that I attempt to adher to the principles I understand bring one closer to God. I'll collect my experimental data when I've passed away and determine my conclusion posthumously. I mean this is exactly the issue I'm talking about. My religious beliefs do not impede my scientific work, so why do people get so bothered about it?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- learc83 14y ago>I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent and omnipresent... Thousands of scientists throughout history have been conducting experiments while simultaneously holding a belief in God. To take an example from our own industry, how do you feel about Donald Knuth. Do you discount his work because of his faith? >...without a shred of observable evidence? We all make presuppositions. You assume that your senses are basically reliable. You make this assumption because it is useful, and without it everything you do would be meaningless--yet you have absolutely no way to prove it. Each of us makes assumptions about the nature of the universe. You have no right to judge someone else because you believe your presuppositions are less ridiculous than his.
- Smudge 14y agoThousands of scientists throughout history have conducted research while simultaneously holding beliefs in any number of things. It would be fallacious to discount their scientific work because of this fact, at least as long as they held to scientific principles of reasoning. But the fact that they were scientists does not lend credence to the additional, unfalsifiable claims they may have made about the universe. Furthermore, just because an assertion (e.g. "there is a God") cannot be proven (or disproven) does not mean it should be free from scrutiny. The claim that one has "no right to judge" a belief due to lack of evidence is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Lack of evidence is a perfectly valid reason to be skeptical. There are two presuppositions you compare: "I think, therefore I am" and "There is a God." Both require at least a very fundamental assumption, but only one has any basis in what we might typically refer to as "evidence."
- anamax 14y ago> To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. FWIW, Knuth (yes, that one) is fairly religious. Anyone want to claim that he's stunted? Be sure to include supporting evidence.
- philwelch 14y agoFWIW, computer science is like mathematics--it's largely an exercise in logic and doesn't require any deep commitment to an empirical worldview.
- anamax 14y agoI'll bite - how often does a belief in intelligent design instead of evolution matter? For example, does it matter at all to a particle physicist? How about a chemist? How about materials science? Newton thought that he'd be remembered as an alchemist....
- Herring 14y ago>I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time It irritates you because you take it personally. I understand religion plays an important role in your life I really do, but to a nonbeliever one belief without evidence is just like the next. I would also be suspicious if I met a physicist who used Ouija boards. I'd tell him -- and you and the guy referred to in the article -- to collect evidence & write up a convincing argument to a skeptical audience instead of complaining. There are too many weird beliefs around. If we tried to disprove this stuff there wouldn't be time for anything else.