Science and Theism Doesn't Work out right?

[Fake Messiah]

Science has done a lot of work in disproving gods, but people then changed gods. Like, in ancient Greece, when someone would explain some natural phenomenon as natural and without any need for divine intervention, they would be sentenced to the crime of impiety.

And many Greek philosophers were accused of impiety. One such guy was Anaxagoras who claimed that the Sun was a fiery rock and not some guy driving his golden carriage across the sky. Because of that, he was sentenced to death for the crime of impiety. But he also explained the cause of the Moon and solar eclipses, which gave Greeks an advantage in battles because they were free to fight instead of refusing to fight because gods were sending an omen.

And that's probably why the Hellenistic religion was declining - because more and more of its aspects were debunked.

And then came Christianity which also persecuted people who debunked its aspects, but it met the same faith when Newton discovered that the universe works on its own merit. But people (that is the intellectuals) became deists - meaning that they, again, changed the god.

And that is why we still see the old-times Christians who are trying to ignore science by creating private Christian schools where they omit certain branches of science, and want to abolish the Department of Education.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Science has done a lot of work in disproving gods, but people then changed gods. Like, in ancient Greece, when someone would explain some natural phenomenon as natural and without any need for divine intervention, they would be sentenced to the crime of impiety.

And many Greek philosophers were accused of impiety. One such guy was Anaxagoras who claimed that the Sun was a fiery rock and not some guy driving his golden carriage across the sky. Because of that, he was sentenced to death for the crime of impiety. But he also explained the cause of the Moon and solar eclipses, which gave Greeks an advantage in battles because they were free to fight instead of refusing to fight because gods were sending an omen.

And that's probably why the Hellenistic religion was declining - because more and more of its aspects were debunked.

And then came Christianity which also persecuted people who debunked its aspects, but it met the same faith when Newton discovered that the universe works on its own merit. But people (that is the intellectuals) became deists - meaning that they, again, changed the god.

And that is why we still see the old-times Christians who are trying to ignore science by creating private Christian schools where they omit certain branches of science, and want to abolish the Department of Education.

Actually, Newton believed that God ran the universe, down to the smallest detail: 

"So then gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the Divine Power it could never put them into such a circulating motion, as they have about the sun".

In fact, a large part of everything Newton wrote was on the subject of theology, not science.  He wasn’t trying to eliminate God from science, but trying to show how God make things work.

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

I'm not saying what Newton's motivations were or what he believed in, but it is regarded that his discoveries launched the Age of Enlightenment.

Of course, Newton wasn't in a vacuum, but he continued on the works of Kepler and Copernicus. And also, there was that Glorious Revolution in England which made it safer for freethinkers since it was no longer consumed with religious infighting.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm not saying what Newton's motivations were or what he believed in, but it is regarded that his discoveries launched the Age of Enlightenment.

Of course, Newton wasn't in a vacuum, but he continued on the works of Kepler and Copernicus. And also, there was that Glorious Revolution in England which made it safer for freethinkers since it was no longer consumed with religious infighting.

All perfectly true, but it doesn’t support the notion that science and theism are incompatible.

And, for the record, Kepler and Copernicus were both deeply religious.

Boru

[Ahriman]

Science and theism are totally incompatible, for a number of reasons. For one thing, science is about updating previously held understandings and coming to (hopefully) better understandings. Theism just wants everything to stay the same.

[Pat Mustard]

Science relies on empirical examination, so it doesn't speak to the (non)existence of god. On the other hand, specific religious claims are testable. We know the archaeological and societal origins of most gods, and they're a pretty disreputable bunch.

Science and theism are largely antithetical:
Science begins with a question, proposes tests, and examines the evidence.
Religion begins with The Truth, ignores the evidence, prohibits examination, and forbids the question.

(Bold mine)

While true in essence, that's not always the case. There have been plenty of deeply religious scientists - Mendel, Faraday, Boyle, Newton, and so on - who made important advances in scientific knowledge. In many cases, they did so because they believed that learning how things work contributes to the greater glory of God.

Boru

The thing is, not one single one of those scientists made their religious advances because of their religion. In fact Darwin, the scientist christians most love to hate, didn't become agnostic until long after he discovered his theory of evolution, he actually dithered on publishing it for twenty years over his personal religious beliefs and the societal backlash controlled by religion he feared to unleash.

The vast majority of religious scientists, when doing science, will openly leave their religion at the door.

[Belacqua]

The thing is, not one single one of those scientists made their religious advances because of their religion.  In fact Darwin, the scientist christians most love to hate, didn't become agnostic until long after he discovered his theory of evolution, he actually dithered on publishing it for twenty years over his personal religious beliefs and the societal backlash controlled by religion he feared to unleash.

The vast majority of religious scientists, when doing science, will openly leave their religion at the door.

I think it might be more accurate to say that when doing science they don't rely on religious dogma or scripture. But that doesn't mean that they stop being religious. As if they switch it off in the lab. 

If a person believes that mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe, then measuring and quantifying different aspects of the universe is not separate from that person's religion. 

Leonardo da Vinci, to give one example, thought that close observation of fluid dynamics told him about how God works in the world.

Anyway, the Talmud and the Heart Sutra, etc., don't address the same questions that science does.

[Ahriman]

The thing is, not one single one of those scientists made their religious advances because of their religion.  In fact Darwin, the scientist christians most love to hate, didn't become agnostic until long after he discovered his theory of evolution, he actually dithered on publishing it for twenty years over his personal religious beliefs and the societal backlash controlled by religion he feared to unleash.

The vast majority of religious scientists, when doing science, will openly leave their religion at the door.

I think it might be more accurate to say that when doing science they don't rely on religious dogma or scripture. But that doesn't mean that they stop being religious. As if they switch it off in the lab. 

If a person believes that mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe, then measuring and quantifying different aspects of the universe is not separate from that person's religion. 

Leonardo da Vinci, to give one example, thought that close observation of fluid dynamics told him about how God works in the world.

Anyway, the Talmud and the Heart Sutra, etc., don't address the same questions that science does.

I'm starting to think all those really old scientists weren't all that bright.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, they weren't. That's histories greatest inside joke. Because our "greatest minds" are still hopped up chimps...and in each and every age they tend to have the same little ticks their communities do.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

(Bold mine)

While true in essence, that's not always the case. There have been plenty of deeply religious scientists - Mendel, Faraday, Boyle, Newton, and so on - who made important advances in scientific knowledge. In many cases, they did so because they believed that learning how things work contributes to the greater glory of God.

Boru

The thing is, not one single one of those scientists made their religious advances because of their religion.  In fact Darwin, the scientist christians most love to hate, didn't become agnostic until long after he discovered his theory of evolution, he actually dithered on publishing it for twenty years over his personal religious beliefs and the societal backlash controlled by religion he feared to unleash.

The vast majority of religious scientists, when doing science, will openly leave their religion at the door.

Again, perfectly true, but it doesn’t alter the fact that deeply devoted theists cannot only do good science, but can (and frequently do) attribute their findings to God.

The notion that theism and science are mutually exclusive doesn’t stand up to even the most casual scrutiny.

Boru