8

8 Answers

Ray Dart Profile
Ray Dart answered

Have you any evidence that many scientists believe in God?

Newton did, but he also believed in astrology and alchemy (and possibly the tooth fairy, as far as I know).

Einstein was an atheist (in the normally accepted sense of the word) but often referred to God in his writings (usually in a philosophical way "God does
not play dice with the universe"
.)

Scientists often profess adherence to the principles of Christianity - but many governments do that too, with no actual religious belief at all.

Believe whatever you are comfortable with.

9 People thanked the writer.
View all 4 Comments
Ray Dart
Ray Dart commented
He once stuck a bodkin down the side of his eyeball "To see what pertains there". As you say - rather odd.
Tom  Jackson
Tom Jackson commented
Interesting.

388 years after his death, you consider "Newton a bit of a whackadoo."

While extrapolation is dangerous, I wonder what the world's opinion of your comment will be.
Tom  Jackson
Tom Jackson commented
I don't know why, but the phrase "out of your league and over your head" ran through my mind.

There is a line from an old song that also is running through my mind: "Come back when you grow up girl---you're still living in a paper doll world."

Oh, never mind---actually, I do know why.
John McCann Profile
John McCann answered

Scientists are human and have human foibles, not least of which is delusional beliefs.

Only about 40% of all US scientists have any belief in deities, while in even more rarified scientific circles the belief in deities drops dramatically. Evidence drives science and it would be intellectually dishonest to have beliefs without reason.

You have to compartmentalize you mind to do science and have deistic beliefs. I, for one, could never do that. Of course I am a biologist and biologists are the least religious of all scientists.

Tom  Jackson Profile
Tom Jackson answered

I have one degree in physics.

Since I have an intimate knowledge of the limitations of science, the necessity of a higher level of inquiry with different tools and fewer inherent limitations becomes necessary to posit more comprehensive theories of the nature and cause of the existence of what we can observe and also those things that we may only rightly speculate about, due to the absence of "scientific" proof.

As only a "part" of "creation" and / or a solely evolutionary "process," intellectually honesty requires my position be thus.

3 People thanked the writer.
View all 11 Comments
CalTex - Doug Morgan
Just to clear up the definition of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy, please refer to this link: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/arguing-from-ignorance/. Science does not use this logical fallacy to arrive at its findings.
CalTex - Doug Morgan
@Normal: You wrote, " When something absurd breaks the system, and science cannot, with the knowledge it has today, explain it, it terms it as 'supernatural' or one of its many similes."

Can you provide some instance of a scientist claim that a phenomenon is "supernatural" simply because they cannot explain it? In all my 65 years of living I have not heard that. Not from actual scientists anyway. Given this definition: "of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal" it would first be necessary to determine that there is no natural explanation, and, most importantly, that there will NEVER be a natural explanation. To determine that there will never be a natural explanation would require all scientist to collectively be clairvoyant.
CalTex - Doug Morgan
It possible, even likely, that we will one day have the necessary knowledge to all those gaps in our current knowledge of physiology. Therefore, those gaps are not explained away as supernatural. Science can only assume that the answer will be natural. Only theists and philosophers might have a non-natural assumption. That's just how science works. It NEVER deals in or considers the supernatural. Otherwise, it would never accomplish anything.
CalTex - Doug Morgan Profile

Science is neutral on the idea of deities because the supernatural is beyond the purview of science.  Science only deals with natural phenomena, and can only apply logic and reasoning to the observation and testing of natural phenomena.  Therefore, scientists, like anyone else, are free to believe that a deity or deities are the motivating force behind the existence and behaviors of those natural phenomena.

ly fen chen Profile
ly fen chen answered

In the life we should have a belief, as it make us have energy and confidence which'll make us achieve something that we do. So having a religion is important, even scientists as well.

Allo Vera Profile
Allo Vera answered

Most of the great scientists believed in something, it was this along with the elixr of life, the philosophers stone, that drove them. However, for many their beliefs were not as laid out in religious texts ie a personal God. They believed that a universe that run on laws must have a lawgiver, there is no reason for the universe to run in an orderly fashion, you could wake up tomorrow and float up into the sky. Alchemy, masonry and science run parallell. The scientists disliked the oppression of the church, they had difficulties with museums.  So they supported eachother in order to overcome the stuffiness. 

Some of Darwins friends did not agree with his theory on Origin Of The Species but supported it in order to gain footing over the Church. This helped infiltrate The Royal Society and gain favour with the sovereign. In the time of the Reinnassance many supported the idea of Hermeticism,  God Hermes and Egyptian God Thoth, the medicine symbol is still that of the caduceus.  These were the beliefs of many of the mystic cults including the Freemasons which is said to go back to Solomons Temple. Oddily Freemasonry has become more mystical than it's origins of just certain handshakes to recognise the qualification of another mason. This may be because some members of The Age Of Enlightenment joint their order, their ideas were less pragmatic and more philosophical with regard to societal structure.

Darwins Grandfather greatly influenced Darwins idea. Especially in regards to a social Darwinism,  Darwin was more intrigued by artificial evolution. Issac Newton was challenged by Tesla over his theory of Gravity.  Tesla was one of the greatest scientist he invented technologies which we use today, mobile phones, microwaves, and at the time the "death ray." Many of his ideas were taken on his death.  Tesla believed in a creator he also believed in eugenics, he could speak 9 different languages and was said to have a photographic memory inherited from his mother. Population growth and survival of the fittest were important to scientists,  still are.

What may of aided their beliefs is many of their ideas came by way of dreams, visions and eureka moments, I'm pushed for space but here are a few.

Dimitri Mendeleev dreamt the periodic table.

Russel Wallace had a fever and dreamt about the theory of evolution. He was different to Darwin though, even though Darwin often quoted him. Wallace believed in a non material origin of higher mental faculties,  he said that mathematics, artistic, musical, metaphysical, wit and humour set humans apart. He believed an unseen universal spirit had intervened 3 times, once in creation, once in the introduction of consciousness in higher species and once more in the mental faculties of humankind. Wallace also thought of a pure paper money system not backed by silver or gold. Interesting with regards to today's IOU's that are only valid when put back into the system.

August Kekule dreamt of Benzene molecules.  He dreamt of dancing atoms, a snake swallowing its own tail, ie rings of carbon. Recognised as the Omborus

Srinivasa Ramanujan dreamt that a hindu goddess drew mathematical proofs for him. These turned out to be accurate.

Otto Loewi dreamt that it was chemical messengers that signal across synapses.  This won him the Nobel Prize.

Louis Agassiz understood the structure of fossil fish by dreaming.

Rene Descartes dreamt of the basic scientific method. He was in the kitchen with his masonry heater when he had 3 visions from a divine spirit. Upon exiting these visions he formulated analytical geometry, which he believed the pursuit of science would be the pursuit of all wisdom. Descarte also believed in an evil demon, the deus deceptor.

Ty Hibb Profile
Ty Hibb answered

They wanted their questions answered for themselves. Why we are here as humans is something that scientists are not allowed to explore. But when there is a need to have that question, along with all of the "why" questions, answered you find yourself in search for your creator. This search is ridiculed but there is a need because we were created with an inherent need to get the question and answered about why. From a small child this need became apparent and it stays with us throughout our lives.

AnnNettie Paradise Profile

While it is true there are many in the scientific community who scorn religious faith. There are a significant number of scientists who find themselves deeply impressed by the evidence pointing to design in the natural world around us. Many scientists openly profess belief in a Creator. Granted, they may not believe in a personal God or in the Bible. Yet, they are convinced that the design evident in nature requires an intelligent Designer.

Answer Question

Anonymous