4 ms·

Let's not forget, as the author does, that not being a devout Christian was really quite dangerous (and not just career-wise) for much of the time, including 19

Let's not forget, as the author does, that not being a devout Christian was really quite dangerous (and not just career-wise) for much of the time, including 19th century. If you accept that being a Christian was not really much of a personal choice, then being a Christian also loses quite a lot of weight in Christian apologia illustrated with religious scientists of old.

obstinate 12y ago
Yep. At that time, P(good scientist|christian) and P(good scientist) would be roughly equal, since P(christian) was ~100%. So it is hard to learn anything about the influence of Christianity on being a good scientist during this time period.
m_coder 12y ago
For the bulk of scientists in this day I cannot speak however, Faraday's religious position was not a comfortable moving along with the rest of society in order to advance his career. He truly did believe in Jesus and that influenced his private life as a result. For example, he attended the Sandeman church where he was a deacon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday
etse 12y ago
Somewhat tangential thoughts... Being a devout Christian does seem quite dangerous career-wise today. I was going to conclude that being a devout Christian in the sciences today seems to "not really be much of a personal choice", but actually I think there is some room for it. There seems to be little freedom to avoid being a closet Christian if you are in biology and would like to not have to guess if you would have colleagues who support your work. On the other hand, astronomers and physicists seem to be friendlier to the devout Christians in their respective fields.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Are they unfriendly towards devout Christians, or are they unfriendly towards loud, proselytizing Christians who constantly try to tie their religion into everything they do? Maybe I'm wrong, but I strongly doubt that regular churchgoers who don't shove it in other people's faces have any trouble. Some Christians love to whine about oppression but it's almost always a case of "I want to shove this in everybody's face, and I demand that they sit there and take it."
- justin66 12y ago
  > Being a devout Christian does seem quite dangerous career-wise today. When does it even come up?
- m_mueller 12y ago
  I think this depends on what you mean by 'devout'. If you mean it in the mostly American Evangelical sense, then yes, it might severely hamper your scientific career since you will be less open minded about your topics of study. If you look at modern Catholics and many European Evangelics, this is not really the case. Interpreting the bible as a moral guide rather than a presentation of facts makes a big difference. If this weren't the case, you wouldn't see so many physicists and mathematicians to be religious.
dang 12y ago
Are you sure about the 19th century? What dangers do you mean? There were still social conventions in 19th century England demanding lip service to religion, but I don't have the impression that they demanded devoutness (which is an inner condition and not something that can be enforced in any case), nor that they still put intellectuals in physical danger. As with social conventions nowadays, people could usually tell who the true believers were as opposed to who was merely following the what-you-can't-say rules. So I'm not sure that devoutness (if Faraday and Maxwell actually were devout) loses as much signal value as you suggest.
- conistonwater 12y ago
  Pretty sure. My understanding is that it was not socially acceptable to be atheist until quite recently. I'm not sure I meant physical danger, though. Ostracism is dangerous enough, there are plenty of ways to hurt people and influence their choices in life other than beating them up with a stick. > There were still social conventions in 19th century England demanding lip service to religion... Why isn't this an outrageous infringement on somebody else's freedom? And why should we discount its effect on who rose to the top and who didn't? We know generally there can be many detrimental psychological effects on people coming from their social circumstances. These effects were presumably the same a few centuries ago, just much less well documented. > ... people could usually tell who the true believers were as opposed to who was merely following the what-you-can't-say rules I wouldn't be so sure. First, I'm not sure I can tell myself who's paying lip service these days, I'm just assuming no one is because I would consider it unnecessary. Second, when people read about historical figures, the accounts are really quite filtered: if someone was paying lip service back then and you read what was said about them or what they said in public themselves, how can you be sure these days what was lip service back then and what wasn't? The author of the article is absolutely certain it wasn't lip service for these two scientists. I'm saying this kind of evidence isn't even remotely enough.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  The big confrontation between religion and science happened over evolutionary theory in 1874. The Scopes trial was in 1925. As for the present: it is said that it is impossible to be both a declared atheist and the President of the USA at the same time today, so there are some careers in which religion factors in heavily even now. And those in turn influence the scientific world directly, see the troubles with stem cell research in the recent past.

obstinate 12y ago

Yep. At that time, P(good scientist|christian) and P(good scientist) would be roughly equal, since P(christian) was ~100%. So it is hard to learn anything about the influence of Christianity on being a good scientist during this time period.

m_coder 12y ago

For the bulk of scientists in this day I cannot speak however, Faraday's religious position was not a comfortable moving along with the rest of society in order to advance his career. He truly did believe in Jesus and that influenced his private life as a result. For example, he attended the Sandeman church where he was a deacon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday

etse 12y ago

Somewhat tangential thoughts... Being a devout Christian does seem quite dangerous career-wise today. I was going to conclude that being a devout Christian in the sciences today seems to "not really be much of a personal choice", but actually I think there is some room for it. There seems to be little freedom to avoid being a closet Christian if you are in biology and would like to not have to guess if you would have colleagues who support your work. On the other hand, astronomers and physicists seem to be friendlier to the devout Christians in their respective fields.

mikeash 12y ago
Are they unfriendly towards devout Christians, or are they unfriendly towards loud, proselytizing Christians who constantly try to tie their religion into everything they do? Maybe I'm wrong, but I strongly doubt that regular churchgoers who don't shove it in other people's faces have any trouble. Some Christians love to whine about oppression but it's almost always a case of "I want to shove this in everybody's face, and I demand that they sit there and take it."
justin66 12y ago
> Being a devout Christian does seem quite dangerous career-wise today. When does it even come up?
m_mueller 12y ago
I think this depends on what you mean by 'devout'. If you mean it in the mostly American Evangelical sense, then yes, it might severely hamper your scientific career since you will be less open minded about your topics of study. If you look at modern Catholics and many European Evangelics, this is not really the case. Interpreting the bible as a moral guide rather than a presentation of facts makes a big difference. If this weren't the case, you wouldn't see so many physicists and mathematicians to be religious.

dang 12y ago

Are you sure about the 19th century? What dangers do you mean? There were still social conventions in 19th century England demanding lip service to religion, but I don't have the impression that they demanded devoutness (which is an inner condition and not something that can be enforced in any case), nor that they still put intellectuals in physical danger. As with social conventions nowadays, people could usually tell who the true believers were as opposed to who was merely following the what-you-can't-say rules. So I'm not sure that devoutness (if Faraday and Maxwell actually were devout) loses as much signal value as you suggest.

conistonwater 12y ago
Pretty sure. My understanding is that it was not socially acceptable to be atheist until quite recently. I'm not sure I meant physical danger, though. Ostracism is dangerous enough, there are plenty of ways to hurt people and influence their choices in life other than beating them up with a stick. > There were still social conventions in 19th century England demanding lip service to religion... Why isn't this an outrageous infringement on somebody else's freedom? And why should we discount its effect on who rose to the top and who didn't? We know generally there can be many detrimental psychological effects on people coming from their social circumstances. These effects were presumably the same a few centuries ago, just much less well documented. > ... people could usually tell who the true believers were as opposed to who was merely following the what-you-can't-say rules I wouldn't be so sure. First, I'm not sure I can tell myself who's paying lip service these days, I'm just assuming no one is because I would consider it unnecessary. Second, when people read about historical figures, the accounts are really quite filtered: if someone was paying lip service back then and you read what was said about them or what they said in public themselves, how can you be sure these days what was lip service back then and what wasn't? The author of the article is absolutely certain it wasn't lip service for these two scientists. I'm saying this kind of evidence isn't even remotely enough.
jacquesm 12y ago
The big confrontation between religion and science happened over evolutionary theory in 1874. The Scopes trial was in 1925. As for the present: it is said that it is impossible to be both a declared atheist and the President of the USA at the same time today, so there are some careers in which religion factors in heavily even now. And those in turn influence the scientific world directly, see the troubles with stem cell research in the recent past.