Religious or spiritual belief and science

[Jon Miller]

A separate study I don't have access to:

http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/ctx.2008.7.1.12

It might be the source of more detailed information.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Jon, I don't have access to the original nature article as I'm at home right now

If you're at the lab you should have fulltext access. Nature 386 435-436

According to the sources I'm finding which quote the results of that article, physicists+astronomers are the most disbelieving of all groups of scientists in the general scientist survey, with 77.9% expressing doubt or disbelief.

http://www.creationists.org/secular-media-bias-concerning-creation-and-evolution.html

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclon.uab.es%2Frecursos%2Fdescargar.asp%3Fclau%3D%25270000001781%2527&ei=kqkYSrqkLJCEtwfWrJjnDA&rct=j&q=nature+386+435-436&usg=AFQjCNGT1tJ4ApdumaNOVJ5X0p0SpwX52g

This would leave those randomly selected from "American Men and Women of Science" listing themselves as physicists as having a belief rate of 22.1%

I find even this slightly, but not improbably high.

[Jon Miller]

Physicists are the most disbelieving, but I don't remember it being that high.

I will look it up at the lab later.

JM

[MrFun]

I am sorry but I still find this very muddy and unclear.

1. If a 'soul', by your definition, imparts no value set upon us then effectively God is giving carte blanche to every murderer, suicide bomber or manic cleric preaching death who happens to be a believer! Without any moral code I can rape my sister and yet still be assured of the transcendance of my immortal 'soul' if I believe in God?

2. Your answer simply refers to Q1 which is in itself unsatisfactory.

3. That really is a bit of a cop out. If God is a supreme being - all knowing, all seeing - then one, logically, must credit that God with intelligence, logic and reason. Just what does make humanity so very special over other provenly self aware creatures? Swans are monogamous, elephants mourn their dead off-spring and chimpanzes are able to use primitive tools as well as developing deep familial bonds.

4. You did not answer it. More accurately you referred to an already flawed answer to Q1. Apart from a blanket acceptence of God's existance there has to be some form of judgement upon our actions and intents. How is this achieved? It would take a lot of effort to keep a ledger of every one of us but how else would you decide upon which of us should spin off the wheel of karma?

It seems to me that what you are propounding is a rather imprecise and muddled form of existentialism which a lot of very great philosophers have tried, and failed, to rationalise for at least the past 200 years.

1. You're joking with number one, right? Your reasoning that as long as one believes in God that they can commit all kinds of horrendous acts without consequences is ABSURD. Of course there is morality involved with God in addition to believing in him.

3. Intelligence, logic and so on are directly related to the makeup of a creature's brain. That is all part of evolution; a soul is not a product of evolution, but a product of God's gift to humanity - and possibly to other intelligent life elsewhere in universe.

4. See number one for moral judgment - I still can't believe you came to that absurd conclusion. Where was I claiming that all you had to do, is believe in God regardless of one's actions or behavior?

[trev]

Just because you can't see it's there doesn't mean it doesn't exist as long as it can be proven mathematically. Can you can find a equation that proves the existence of God or a godlike entity?

Dark energy and dark matter have not been proven mathematically, all that has been proven is that physical observations of the universe and theories prior to the invention of dark matter and dark energy are incompatible, so extra mathematical terms have been placed into the equations to 'make it work'. There is no proof that adding these extra terms is the correct scientific way of resolving these equations, or that these extra terms describe dark matter and dark energy. They are solely a mathematically construct to try and make the equations work. The existence of dark energy and dark matter falls into the realm of belief more reasonably than into the realms of theory.
I am using this example to demonstrate that some science is as much about belief as it is about theory, at some time in the future, observations may confirm these beliefs as reasonable proven theories.
In fact I am confident that there are forces and matter that exist, probably in additional dimensions that science has not yet observed, and when found will explain the universe and its origins much better than current ideas.

[Jon Miller]

I still can't find the one that divides it by field.

The caliber study was interesting, for one thing most scientists come from irreligious or liberally religious backgrounds.

Mathematicians are the most inclined to believe, at 44%. Physicists and astronomers are the most inclined to doubt or disbelieve, which is that 78%. I think that is including agnosticism.

"We expected a higher proportion of beleif among physicists... particularly with some entertaining the athropic principle and.... Big Bang cosmology... But we were wrong."

I still maintain it is an ego thing, as most phycists I know are very egotistical (there is some reason for it, we are generally the smartest people we know).

Their statistics were 1/2 biologists, 1/4 mathematicians, and 1/4 physicists.

If math was the highest at 44%, and physicists were at 22%, then to be at 40% average, than biologists would have to be at 47%, so something isn't right there. It might do with the doubt part of the physicist description.

They received responses like "I beleive in God, but I don't beleive in one that can answer prayer." so it could be that the statistics that I remember (which was closer to 40% of physicists) have a more loose definition of God then the fairly traditional one persented in this study (which is beleive in a god that can answer prayer, with a question of immortality with it).

JM

[Jon Miller]

And surely yuo can log in from home through your university?

JM

[KrazyHorse]

If I set up a VPN, but I don't feel like doing it.

[monolith94]

I think it's going to take my entire lifetime to sort out just some of the profound questions we have about faith and science. One of the reasons I created this thread is to engage in conversation about these things to help me and others with such questions.

Even atheists who carry out respectful conversation such as you or KH are good contributors in that aspect. You're able to ask questions looking in from the outside of religion/spirituality which could help me on this journey.

Surprise! I'm a theist.

[MrFun]

I learn something new about at least one person, every day.

[St Jon]

1. You're joking with number one, right? Your reasoning that as long as one believes in God that they can commit all kinds of horrendous acts without consequences is ABSURD. Of course there is morality involved with God in addition to believing in him.

3. Intelligence, logic and so on are directly related to the makeup of a creature's brain. That is all part of evolution; a soul is not a product of evolution, but a product of God's gift to humanity - and possibly to other intelligent life elsewhere in universe.

4. See number one for moral judgment - I still can't believe you came to that absurd conclusion. Where was I claiming that all you had to do, is believe in God regardless of one's actions or behavior?

I used extreme examples but do you not understand the dilemma? Where does my sense of morality come from? Nature or Nurture has been a question asked for many centuries and I was simply looking to see where your idea of a 'soul' and God fitted in.

If I am raised in an environment where brutality and torture are the norm, many people are, am I to be cast into damnation because I have never been touched by love and compassion so see something like wife-beating as just part of normal life? What influence should my 'soul' have over me in that situation?

What if I am clinically insane and incapable of making any valued judgements? Has my 'soul' deserted me so that I am predestined to hell everlasting without redemption just because of mental illness?

A lot of extremely unpleasant people over the years have deeply believed in God, in various forms, but still genuinely considered themselves to be acting in accordance with thier own 'souls'. Indeed many would have argued that their horrendous acts were to save the 'soul' of their victim.

Where does this all fit in?

[MrFun]

None of the horrible acts you have mentioned as examples would be justifiable even if that was all a person had known for their whole life, St Jon.

Only chance for redemption is for such people to awaken to realization that raping of women and other such acts are morally repugnant and inhumane or reach such awakening through some other way.

[Zoid]

Dark energy and dark matter have not been proven mathematically, all that has been proven is that physical observations of the universe and theories prior to the invention of dark matter and dark energy are incompatible, so extra mathematical terms have been placed into the equations to 'make it work'. There is no proof that adding these extra terms is the correct scientific way of resolving these equations, or that these extra terms describe dark matter and dark energy. They are solely a mathematically construct to try and make the equations work. The existence of dark energy and dark matter falls into the realm of belief more reasonably than into the realms of theory.
I am using this example to demonstrate that some science is as much about belief as it is about theory, at some time in the future, observations may confirm these beliefs as reasonable proven theories.

Well, this is how science works. Scientists discover something (or in this case the lack of something) this must be explained somehow. They propose a theory that can be tested (empirically or with mathematics). If it's wrong it will be discarded (like the theory of the phlogiston) if it's correct it will be another bit of the puzzle that is the universe. Now religious beliefs otoh aren't subject to that kind of scrutiny, no theologian will suddenly jump out of his bath and run naked down the street shouting "Heureka. I've discovered the proof for the non-existence of God"

In fact I am confident that there are forces and matter that exist, probably in additional dimensions that science has not yet observed, and when found will explain the universe and its origins much better than current ideas.

Huh? So that is your belief, is it?

[Jon Miller]

Belief in God is like a belief in empiricism, it is a fundamental axiom and not something that can be proved or disproved.

JM

[-Jrabbit]

He turns around to get a coffee and centuries have passed here.

God, a coffee achiever?