= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Plasmon comments on Some famous scientists who believed in a god - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (76)
To someone who truly takes a certain religion seriously as a scientific hypothesis, attempting to extract non-obvious information from that religion's holy book is scientific work! The book was supposedly written by, or inspired by, an omnipotent being. How could they not expect to find important clues in there?
The complete and utter lack of modern theistic scientists looking for a soul-body communication organ, to name just one example.
People such as Francis Collins, who claimed to have converted to christianity after seeing a three-part frozen waterfall, which he interpreted as a sign of the holy trinity? Even though 3 is a significant number in more religions than I can be bothered to count ? No, such people are not worth mentioning in a serious discussion of this subject.
Why did you mention him then? Why not mention Erwin Schrödinger or Heisenberg for example?
He is the only well-known example of a modern theistic scientist that I can think of.
Both are dead, and I am not familiar with their thoughts on religion.
I looked up Schrödinger on wikipedia, and there it is : "Despite being raised in a religious household, he called himself an atheist.".
He was agnostic most part of his life. But you are right that at one point in his life he openly declared himself an atheist. I remembered wrong. Heisenberg at the other hand was openly a theist. If you can only think of Francis Collins, maybe you shouldn´t base all your beliefs on just one person?
Wikipedia on Schrödinger:
I did say the only relatively well-known one, not the only one. Would you prefer if I used as an example Frank Tipler or Immanuel Velikovsky, both of whom make up exceedingly implausible hypotheses to fit their religious worldview, and are widely considered pseudoscientist because of that? Or Marcus Ross, who misrepresented his views on the age of the earth in order to get a paleontology phd?
No, today's good theistic scientists, to the extent that they still exist, are precisely those who have stopped to take religion seriously as a scientific hypothesis.
Being interested in religion does not a theist make. Nor does merely acknowledging the possibility of an unspecified creator entity, the simulation hypothesis is not theism.
That is extremely obvious and something of the first thing I said in this article is that you mustn´t make a religious belief into a premise for science. Of course you can´t mix up scientific work with religion.
I strongly disagree. If religion were true, that would be exactely what you should do.
Why?
That statement is widely accepted today, but it is only widely accepted because virtually all attempts to do so have failed.
What happened is the following: people did try to base science on religion, they did make interesting predictions based on religious hypotheses. By elementary Bayesian reasoning, if an observation would be evidence for a religion, not observing it is evidence (though possibly weak evidence) against that religion. That is hard to accept for religious people, thus they took the only remaining option : they started pretending that religion and science are somehow independent things.
Imagine - just imagine! - that Decartes did find a soul receiver in the pineal gland. Imagine that Newton did manage to find great alchemical secrets in the bible. Imagine! If that would have happened, do you think anyone would claim that "of course you can´t mix up scientific work with religion" ?
That kind of religion is quite alien to me so I can´t say. I think we would have speratae systems today if such discoveries had been made. A couple of centuries ago people explained different phenomena with different systems. Some phenomena used Aristotle´s teachings, some used mechanichs (as taught by Archimedes) and some used magic as a model.
I view religion as dealing with what is currently, at least partly, beyond the realms of experimental science. For example, concepts like love, goodness and evil are concepts that religions offer to explain. Science don´t have many theories concerning these concepts that are widely spread and accepted. We could use religious beliefs as premises, but since we can´t prove these premises yet, we can´t use them.
On the contrary, the neuroscience of ethics is a big thing nowadays.
And "widely spread and accepted" is not the criterion; it should rather be "consistent with observations, repeatable, and useful to make testable predictions."
Well I meant accepted by scientists :) I am familiar with the scientific method. Which is not odd since natural science is my all-time favorite subject. As a side note, as far as I know, neuroscience has not produced any answer to why there is evil yet.
Probably because they have been dead for forty for fifty years.
The best example still living might be Robert Aumann, though his science is less central (economics) than anyone on your list. Find a well known modern scientist who is doing impressive work and believes in any reasonably traditional sense of God! It's not interesting to show a bunch of people who believed in God when >99% of the rest of their society did.