Why do those who are the least comfortable with religion in science, mention religion the most often?
One thing I have noticed in my scientific career is that those who have a religion tend not to invoke it during scientific conversations. In contrast, those who are atheist (or at least who see science and religion as incompatible) tend to mention religion the most often. To me, that is interesting and unexpected.
This topic is timely because my husband and I were watching a DVD lecture series by a prominent scientist. Although incredibly gifted at explaining his own topic, I watched his scholar-ship fall down several times by commenting (negatively) about religion and its role in scientific history. I was puzzled, because, although I do believe in Christianity, it would never occur to me to mention religion (whether positively or negatively) during a scientific talk. The reason is not that I would be ashamed to do so, but rather that I take it for granted that as a scientist I am investigating the physical laws of this universe that God made.
This universe (with its fundamental particles and all its other assorted items), is a rather orderly universe. It and its laws may even exist nestled within a much bigger Universe, as I have mentioned in a previous post. We may simply be a special case of limited laws and limited dimensions within a much wider universe of God's, for all we know. I am not saying this is 100% definitely the case, or that we must find a way to 'explain God', but rather that as scientists we are seeking the truth and it seems silly to rule out a truth (God).
In fact, to my surprise many atheist scientific scholars will happily adopt string theory, despite this theory having all the same objections that atheists give as a reasons they do not believe in God. These reasons are things like lack of being able to make a testable prediction, lack of measuring instruments of sufficient sensitivity to detect this, etc. For the record I don't have a problem with string theory, or with God.
However, it seems that some of those scientists who feel science and religion are incompatible will try to use science as a sort of a 'platform' to deride religion. I feel that as an unfortunate result, the appearance of their scientific scholarship suffers, as it did with this prominent scientist's lecture series. A good scholar should be able to consider the physical laws of the universe without needing to resort to positive or negative mentions of religion. In other words, I feel that science is a topic which could be studied equally well by those of any religion, or by atheists or agnostics. These people will differ internally by how they personally view the universe, perhaps, but they can investigate its physical laws equally well and equally rigorously.
There is the theory of the "blind watchmaker" proposed by Richard Dawkins. But who says there has to be a blind watchmaker? What if there is a Watchmaker; He is real, and He sees? Atheists and Christians are two sides of the same coin. They would each like to believe they have nothing to do with each other. But really, neither can absolutely prove their claims, and these claims are mutually exclusive. They are indeed two sides of the same (very human) coin. Flip the coin and only one will come up correct.
Who says there has to be a blind watchmaker? - Richard Dawkin's assertion of a blind watchmaker is no stronger than my own that there is a seeing Watchmaker. That is a coin.
After several (negative) mentions of religion by the prominent scientist in the DVD lecture series that we were watching, my husband remarked that this scientist might be atheist. I replied "Probably, because he keeps bringing up religion all the time."
If you found this post interesting, you might also like these related posts on this blog:
This topic is timely because my husband and I were watching a DVD lecture series by a prominent scientist. Although incredibly gifted at explaining his own topic, I watched his scholar-ship fall down several times by commenting (negatively) about religion and its role in scientific history. I was puzzled, because, although I do believe in Christianity, it would never occur to me to mention religion (whether positively or negatively) during a scientific talk. The reason is not that I would be ashamed to do so, but rather that I take it for granted that as a scientist I am investigating the physical laws of this universe that God made.
This universe (with its fundamental particles and all its other assorted items), is a rather orderly universe. It and its laws may even exist nestled within a much bigger Universe, as I have mentioned in a previous post. We may simply be a special case of limited laws and limited dimensions within a much wider universe of God's, for all we know. I am not saying this is 100% definitely the case, or that we must find a way to 'explain God', but rather that as scientists we are seeking the truth and it seems silly to rule out a truth (God).
In fact, to my surprise many atheist scientific scholars will happily adopt string theory, despite this theory having all the same objections that atheists give as a reasons they do not believe in God. These reasons are things like lack of being able to make a testable prediction, lack of measuring instruments of sufficient sensitivity to detect this, etc. For the record I don't have a problem with string theory, or with God.
However, it seems that some of those scientists who feel science and religion are incompatible will try to use science as a sort of a 'platform' to deride religion. I feel that as an unfortunate result, the appearance of their scientific scholarship suffers, as it did with this prominent scientist's lecture series. A good scholar should be able to consider the physical laws of the universe without needing to resort to positive or negative mentions of religion. In other words, I feel that science is a topic which could be studied equally well by those of any religion, or by atheists or agnostics. These people will differ internally by how they personally view the universe, perhaps, but they can investigate its physical laws equally well and equally rigorously.
There is the theory of the "blind watchmaker" proposed by Richard Dawkins. But who says there has to be a blind watchmaker? What if there is a Watchmaker; He is real, and He sees? Atheists and Christians are two sides of the same coin. They would each like to believe they have nothing to do with each other. But really, neither can absolutely prove their claims, and these claims are mutually exclusive. They are indeed two sides of the same (very human) coin. Flip the coin and only one will come up correct.
Who says there has to be a blind watchmaker? - Richard Dawkin's assertion of a blind watchmaker is no stronger than my own that there is a seeing Watchmaker. That is a coin.
After several (negative) mentions of religion by the prominent scientist in the DVD lecture series that we were watching, my husband remarked that this scientist might be atheist. I replied "Probably, because he keeps bringing up religion all the time."
If you found this post interesting, you might also like these related posts on this blog:
- Atoms vs God
- Why do Some Atheists Struggle to Accept God, Yet Would Supposedly Accept a 'Matrix-like' World?
- Who is God?
Comments
Post a Comment