“Much of the public believes that as science becomes more prominent, secularization increases and religion decreases,” Ecklund said. “Findings like these among elite scientists, who many individuals believe are most likely to be secular in their beliefs, definitely call into question ideas about the relationship between secularization and science.”

Note also Ecklund's qualification in that article, indicating that while not all forms of spirituality necessarily conflict with science, some (he singles out evangelical Christianity ) absolutely do.

I would also point out that some of the scientists worked in fields like political and sociology, non-hard sciences that are hardly likely to materially conflict with religion, as they do not have competing views of cosmology. Indeed I would be interested to see the break down as to which sciences said what.

Sociology probably questions "deeper" truths of religion significantly more often than, say, chemistry. On the other hand, it's easier to ignore.

True, but sociology is unlikely to 'prove' that (for example) a miracle is just a normal chemical reaction and not blood. This in a sense is what I mean. The 'hard' sciences tend to be the ones that question the 'physical' reality of god, whereas the soft 'sciences' tend to argue about the nature of god.

I disagree with that.

The soft sciences don't discuss the nature of God- thats for Theologians. The extent to which that the Soft sciences look at religion at all, its to examine the impact that the very concept of God has had upon culture and society in general.

But then, they also look at the impact of other concepts like 'race', 'gender', 'money', and even 'baseball'.

The atheist/theist arguments really don't cause that much angst in the Academy, contrary to all of the Sturm und Drang they create in the Interwebz.

Darilian

OK I should have said the concept of god.

I also don't think that many physicists really spend that much time worrying about God either, for that matter.

You just can't critically examine God 'himself' at all- so other than the fact that you're bound to get a good rhetorical workout arguing this sort of stuff on the internet, no one is going to take it seriously as 'research'. Rather, your boss is MUCH more likely to tell you to get back to work....

:p

The reason that belief in God is 'compatible' with being a scientist is that 99.99999999999999999999% of the time, the subject never comes up.

Darilian

True, but the difference that as (say) a sociologist you won't find 'evidence' that contradicts (for example) creationism, whereas as a geologist or biologist you might. You might find differences in religious practices and dogma, but that does not challenge your faith in the 'truth' you have chosen to believe. So a far more interesting question (and study) is what percentage of geneticists or biologists find religion and science incompatible.

True, but the difference that as (say) a sociologist you won't find 'evidence' that contradicts (for example) creationism, whereas as a geologist or biologist you might.

Ahh...

Well, the problem is that Creationists are making a scientific argument, aren't they, when they say the world is 4000 years old?

So long as religion isn't making any claims about the nature of physical reality, there's no conflict. Science has nothing to say about the nature of Good and Evil.

Darilian

Science has nothing to say about the nature of Good and Evil.

Some science minded individuals have tried to tackle the question from an evolutionary perspective in the sense that whatever helps the species prosper is good and whatever leads to it's destruction is evil.

Sort of begs the question though, don't it- presupposing that our continued existence as a species is a moral good.

We think that our continued survival is pretty nifty because, ultimately, when we say 'Human survival would be cool' we're really saying "MY survival would be cool".

Except, of course, we're going to die. All of us. And the cockroaches, and the viruses, and the Earth, and the Sun, and the universe itself.

Which is a long, fancy, obscure and pretentious way of saying that that hypothesis doesn't really lead anywhere interesting in terms of ethical theory.

Except, of course, we're going to die. All of us. And the cockroaches, and the viruses, and the Earth, and the Sun, and the universe itself.

I think that humans are capable of creating their own meaning.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/21/religion-and-scienc...

But then, many of us already knew all the above, but it is good to be reminded. That the idea that the more inured you become in science, that all "bunk" is by necessity and the pure force of "reason"explained away and flushed out...nonsense.

So long as religion isn't making any claims about the nature of physical reality, there's no conflict

Not to mention multiplying loaves & fishes, burning bushes that talk, parting seas, rising from the dead and virgin births. These are all claims about physical reality.

Not necessarily, if it is meant as metaphor.

Darilian

I also don't think that many physicists really spend that much time worrying about God either, for that matter.

You just can't critically examine God 'himself' at all- so other than the fact that you're bound to get a good rhetorical workout arguing this sort of stuff on the internet, no one is going to take it seriously as 'research'. Rather, your boss is MUCH more likely to tell you to get back to work....



The reason that belief in God is 'compatible' with being a scientist is that 99.99999999999999999999% of the time, the subject never comes up.

Darilian

Not to mention multiplying loaves & fishes, burning bushes that talk, parting seas, rising from the dead and virgin births. These are all claims about physical reality.