I disagree. I know plenty of people doing science who are religious. All the ones I know are credible and do good work. I mean even Einstein was religious.
Personally i prefer the term spiritual. But this concept of god as the way the universe is rather then a person has even been held by established catholics where god the persona is a symbol for the masses.
Many people forget that the centralized church in rome is an umbrella organisation for many different schools/philosophys/flavors/interpretations of Christianity.
For example the last pope was a jesuit. The first of this order to become pope and the main reason he did not wear the lavish clothes.
I agree. There’s some weird stuff that nobody can explain. Some phenomenons may be science we haven’t discovered yet, and dismissing them all means they’ll never be investigated further.
But don’t be basing your day to day activities on them.
That’s not at all how a scientist looks at the unknown. There are plenty of things we can’t yet explain, and maybe we will not understand them in our lifetimes. But science rejects the notion that anything cannot be understood, or that supernatural explanations can handwave away discrepancies. Like, if you were doing an experiment, and you got anomalous results, so you concluded that a fairy probably changed reality for a moment, you aren’t really doing science anymore. Science requires the fundamental axiom that the universe is consistent and governed by natural laws. Failures of those natural laws to predict outcomes is not a violation of the natural laws of the universe, but instead represent incomplete or incorrect understanding of them.
Which is not to say that you’re wrong about people. Humans can simultaneously hold incongruous thoughts. Some scientists can and do hold supernatural beliefs, it’s just that when they do, they aren’t doing science. This isn’t like saying they aren’t true Scotsmen. It’s more like a baker who is baking bread with a chisel and a block of wood. Their profession is still baking, so they are still bakers, but carving a loaf of wood is not really baking, and the result is not really bread.
I disagree. I know plenty of people doing science who are religious. All the ones I know are credible and do good work. I mean even Einstein was religious.
That’s why results have to be replicable. They’re credible to speak on their works which can be verified without biases or pretexts.
This is the strength of the scientific method. It’s using instrumental data, independent from the human.
No he wasn’t. When Einstein used the term god it was not as in a deity but a metaphor for how the universe works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
Thats like really just religion with extra steps.
Personally i prefer the term spiritual. But this concept of god as the way the universe is rather then a person has even been held by established catholics where god the persona is a symbol for the masses.
Many people forget that the centralized church in rome is an umbrella organisation for many different schools/philosophys/flavors/interpretations of Christianity.
For example the last pope was a jesuit. The first of this order to become pope and the main reason he did not wear the lavish clothes.
No, he wasn’t
This is constantly being trotted out, but he was an atheist
The physicist who first theorized the big bang in 1931 : Georges Lemaitre, was a Catholic priest.
The founder of the science of genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a Catholic abbot.
I agree. There’s some weird stuff that nobody can explain. Some phenomenons may be science we haven’t discovered yet, and dismissing them all means they’ll never be investigated further.
But don’t be basing your day to day activities on them.
That’s not at all how a scientist looks at the unknown. There are plenty of things we can’t yet explain, and maybe we will not understand them in our lifetimes. But science rejects the notion that anything cannot be understood, or that supernatural explanations can handwave away discrepancies. Like, if you were doing an experiment, and you got anomalous results, so you concluded that a fairy probably changed reality for a moment, you aren’t really doing science anymore. Science requires the fundamental axiom that the universe is consistent and governed by natural laws. Failures of those natural laws to predict outcomes is not a violation of the natural laws of the universe, but instead represent incomplete or incorrect understanding of them.
Which is not to say that you’re wrong about people. Humans can simultaneously hold incongruous thoughts. Some scientists can and do hold supernatural beliefs, it’s just that when they do, they aren’t doing science. This isn’t like saying they aren’t true Scotsmen. It’s more like a baker who is baking bread with a chisel and a block of wood. Their profession is still baking, so they are still bakers, but carving a loaf of wood is not really baking, and the result is not really bread.