Science and Theism Doesn't Work out right?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

It’s not just ‘really old scientists’. There are plenty of devout believers alive right now who are doing legitimate science.

Boru

[Silver]

Creationism is the illegitimate child of science and theism.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

Boru

Might be mostly in the framing, though, as the question of whether theism and science are compatible may not be the same question as whether or not scientists can be theists.  No more than the question is murder and decency compatible is some comment on whether or not a serial killer can love puppies and be well regarded by their community.

If the question is whether or not a personal and intervening deity is compatible with any of the contents of scientific discovery it's a pretty solid and very plain no.  The whole thing is argued over as an abstraction when it isn't.  The wizard in the sky made no mudmen or ribwomen.

[Fireball]

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.

This would require you to have a negative IQ score.

[Fake Messiah]

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

It definitely shows that God is easily disproved that even theists can do it, this is why god changes. If some ancient Greek took a telescope and looked in the night sky, he would see that the Milky Way was not really milk from Hera's tit but a bunch of stars. Thus, he would debunk that story/ god whether he was an atheist or not. And that's why Galileo was already arguing for a different approach to theism and god himself, and he ultimately won.

There is an interesting 45-minute documentary on YouTube about how these scientists set out to explore the world in medieval times in search of evidence for god, only to change god on the way, but in reality, kill the Christian god. So at the 22th minute, the narrator says:
It was the age of enlightened democracy, freedom, and science that replaced religion at the heart of society.

https://youtu.be/UcZ44kQphlo?si=VawMyL8vQD9C_iv_


So, personal beliefs was not something I was talking about. I mean some scientists were devoted Nazis, but does this mean that Nazism is incompatible with science? The answer is ultimately "no" because ideology is not compatible with science (Nazis were dismissive of what they called "Jewish science" and "English science" etc.)

Or Newton's beliefs in God did put some restrictions on his work - there were some thresholds he would not cross.

Indeed, even scientists sometimes believe in bonkers stuff. Like Nikola Tesla, who was devoutly insane and believed if he touched round things (e.g. pearls), he would die or get sick. Does this mean that being insane is not incompatible with science?

[Paleophyte]

Creationism is the illegitimate child of science and theism.

And it fails at both.

[Paleophyte]

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

True, and I've known a few good scientists who were devout as well. It just goes to show that humans are good at compartmentalizing. It's probably more accurate to say that they were brilliant scientists in spite of religion.