Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science

[rodeodance]

I think that God/intelligent design/the supranatural-whatever you call "it' will play a role in our next election.



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?th&emc=th

August 23, 2005

Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science

By CORNELIA DEAN

At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?"

Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals.

Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."

But disdain for religion is far from universal among scientists. And today, as religious groups challenge scientists in arenas as various as evolution in the classroom, AIDS prevention and stem cell research, scientists who embrace religion are beginning to speak out about their faith......

[Borgnine]

1. I think you can believe in God and science.

It's when you mix the two that it becomes a problem.

[rodeodance]

3. well, that is the problem right now (in the Repug gov.)--the mixing of

the two.

The Repugs charge that if you don't want to mix--then you are a non-believer. It is a very serious charge/claim--and it gets lots of people on the defensive (even as it is untrue).

[emanymton]

2. Dumb Down ... ID: When You Are Too Lazy To Think. God Did.

[DavidDvorkin]

4. Thank you, Dr. Hauptman

That's the kind of outspoken scientist we need more of.

[HereSince1628]

5. I share Hauptmans contempt of dualist thinking but most of my colleagues

in Biology dept.s and other science departments in both private and state universities went to church. Many held positions in church organizations, and I am not talking about being a president of an Unitarian fellowship. And that was as true in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota as it was in Arkansas.

As much as it dismays me to see scientists join groups that believe in spirits and ghosts, scientists live and participate in all aspects of our culture. And before their prelims and their airline flights many of them pray.

[Stuckinthebush]

6. Sure a scientist can be a devout believer in God and all things

supernatural.

It is called partitioning....a psychological/psychiatric term that denotes an individuals ability to have two diametrically opposed world views.

Happens all of the time.

[StudentOfDarrow]

7. Of course you can.

Anyone can believe in God because God exists in many different forms for different people. Of course, SOME religious views are opposed to science (the world is 6000 years old, etc.), but not all religious people share all religious views. A more productive question would have been "Can you believe the story of Adam and Eve and be a good scientist?" or "Can you be a good scientist and believe in intelligent design?".

[CardInAustin]

8. Sure you can....

Of course you can believe in God and be a good scientist. What stops someone from believing that everything came from God. It can neither be proven nor disproven....so it really shouldn't interfere. Now, if you start mixing in Intelligent Design, etc, that contradict scientific findings....then we have a real problem.

[StudentOfDarrow]

9. Welcome to DU!!! n/t

[CardInAustin]

10. Thanks!

I have lurked for a long time....and maybe posted once or twice....but mainly just listened.
:hi:

Was on here almost daily during the election but didn't really feel like there was much to say that others weren't already saying. Plus, there is another board where I "engage the opposition" on a pretty much daily basis.

Happy to be amongst the like-left-minded people ;-)

[StudentOfDarrow]

11. What is this "other board?" n/t

[newyawker99]

17. Hi CardInAustin!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Trillo]

13. 6000 years is a ReFrame, now meaning only religion?

My apologies for butting in here, but that is not stricly speaking true. According to Will Durant in The Story of Civilization, Volume 1, Our Oriental Heritage, originally published in 1935, in the printing I own which isn't specifically dated, page 116, chapter 7, which curiously according to the Table of Contents is the beginning of the written part of Book One:

"Written history is at least six thousand years old."

My point is that just because someone uses 6000 years as a reference point in a conversation, doesn't mean that it's either an explicit or implicit reference to religion. Perhaps it's a reference to Sumeria. Perhaps it's a reference to the beginning of Near East "Civilization." Perhaps it's a reference to the culture or city of Susa.

One of the bad things about using an old history text is that current understanding probably has dated some prior knowledge. I sure hope that someday I find the time to continue reading the rest of Durant's volumes. Time is so short.

Of course, I concede the point that some fundamentalists also use 6000 years (approximately) in some way regarding their creation metaphor. Myself, I find their time period argument preposterous, and the time scale vastly wrong even as it might relate to any "Intelligent Design" theory, a dualist name if I've ever read of one.

Edit: misc. typos.

[StudentOfDarrow]

14. Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that

the phrase "6000 years" can only be used to reference the earth's age or a religious standpoint. My point is, some Christian churches believe that the Earth is about 6000 years old, a view that is virtually impossible to back up.

[shrike]

12. I've read some comments by some damn good scientists

who believe in God. However, I think there's a difference between a belief in divinity and the embrace of religion.

I remember an article in Discover Magazine about a physicist who was probably one of the most intelligent people I've ever had the pleasure to read about. He said he "sensed" God, His presence, everywhere in creation, however, and felt He existed. The man was no, however, religious in the least. He did not attend church and did not believe in an afterlife.

Believing in God, or a divinity, takes so many forms. It is a mistake to think that all those who believe in a higher power take Genesis literally.

I remember reading an article about Einstein, by one of his biographers. Einstein appeared to believe, or semi-believe, in a higher power of source, although his ideas did not conform with any religion I've ever heard of.

His biographer said Einstein's "belief," if you want to call it that, resembled more of a pantheistic view of things: God is in everything, and everything is God. Einstein, too, regarded the creator as an open question, a possibility; certainly not a fact.

[struggle4progress]

15. Science is practiced correctly by observing phenomena, seeking ..

.. natural descriptions, and attempting to provide qualitative methods for predicting the results of observations and experiments. This is, therefore, a practice in which anyone can engage, regardless of their other philosophical ideas. Supernatural ideas (whether or not such ideas are "true" in some abstract sense) are simply extraneous to the scientific enterprise.

Many people have philosophical prejudices and religious beliefs. Such matters really cannot be addressed by scientific methods. Anyone who wants to practice science should have the intellectual integrity and discipline to set aside such prejudices and beliefs when seeking to interpret experiments or attempting to develop theory.

[struggle4progress]

16. I've met some good scientists who are devotely religious.

But they didn't push their philosophical speculations or religious ideas as "science."