|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith Science - Logically Indefensible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
foxjoe writes: subbie said: Most scientists are in fact people of faith.Please name 2? It's often hard to know the religious beliefs of scientists because faith and religion is not a frequent topic in scientific circles, but here's a couple well known scientists who are "people of faith":
But answering your question proves nothing. When someone states that most scientists believe in God they are usually referring to formal surveys that have been taken. I can't recall any precise figures, so I don't recall whether the figure for the number who believed in God was greater than 50%, but it was a hefty percentage. People aren't drawn to science because they're atheistic religion haters. They're drawn to science because they love science, and they're people of all types, from the deeply religious to the deeply atheistic and everything in between.
Let me name a few that aren't of faith: Einstein, Hawking, Dawkins, Gould, Darwin, Huxley, Eldredge, Mayr, Simpson, Johanson, Leakey, Sagan, and Asimov The survey I mentioned also revealed that the likelihood of belief in God decreases with increasing scientific accomplishment, and this list is consistent with that result since these are all very prominent scientists. But I'm not sure it could be accurately said that none of them are people of faith. For example, while Einstein could not be said to believe in God, and certainly not the Jewish God, he was an extremely spiritual person and a man of deep faith. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Percy states:
For example, while Einstein could not be said to believe in God, and certainly not the Jewish God, he was an extremely spiritual person and a man of deep faith. Einstein was a Spinoza Panthiest, which to some who can't tell the difference, is wrongly considered the same as athiest. Please allow someone else to elaborate:
quote: From: http://www.ctinquiry.org/...eflections_volume_1/torrance.htm Sorry for the large cut n' paste but if it came from just me don't believe anyone would believe it was true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foxjoe  Inactive Member |
That's nice. And this was found in a letter that Einstein wrote:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foxjoe  Inactive Member |
And how do you know these two fellows weren't paid by the Templeton Foudation?
Ken MillerGerald Schroeder
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
What about Francis Collins who headed the Human Genome Project?
I think you will find it hard to maintain the position that any scientist who professes to religious faith is in the pay of an organisation such as the Templeton Foundation. How do you know that the entire discovery institute isn't a cunning ruse funded by George Soros to make the religious look like incompetent mendacious eejits? TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foxjoe  Inactive Member |
Templeton foundation recipient.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foxjoe  Inactive Member |
I never said that religion makes you incompetent.
Scientists that work their whole life and still go to church, aren't necessarily religious. And even if they are, I said it was for personal entertainment. And for that use, it is a great thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
foxjoe writes: Scientists that work their whole life and still go to church, aren't necessarily religious. That's starting to sound pretty silly: A scientist who goes to church is "no true Christian". Maybe Answers In Genesis is paying you to come here and make evos look bad. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
You appear to have found a letter which pretty much backs up exactly what Anglagard's excerpt said. Did you read Anglagard's message, the one you replied to? It doesn't appear so, because the tone of your reply indicates that you think you found a contradiction.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Foxjoe,
EvC Forum is a serious debate site, and serious debate doesn't seem to be your interest, so I'm permanently suspending you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Maybe Schroeder has done some good science in the past but I have seen some very serious criticisms of the "science" in his apologetic works. So maybe he isn't a good example to use. I'd rather use even Kurt Wise - but Francis Collins, Simon Conway-Morris or Howard Van Till might be better choices.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Pardon the digression, folks. I have no idea why this subject came up, but as long as it has and we have a lull...
RevDG: by the way they call it MID, multiple identity disorder, rather than multiple personality disorder I'd like to know your source for this, DG, so I'm up to date. The last time I saw an APA definition (DSM-IV) it was called Dissociative Personality Disorder. This would have been six or seven years ago. That was a new designation with the fourth edition. The APA wanted to discourage the popular misconception that the disorder represents multiple personalities in a single body. It's a single personality, of course, that has fragmented itself into compartmentalized personas. None of the personas comes close to acting as a complete personality. _____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : Detail. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
It is 'Dissociative Identity Disorder' , and was called that since 1994.
Some people think it is therapist induced. Others disagree. I do know one person who suffers from it. I don't know if it is 'therapist induced' or not. I know that the symptoms are real to the person who is suffering through it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foxjoe  Inactive Member |
anglagard I did read the whole post concerning Einstein.
What I think of it is that it is simply an opinion. I thought mentioning scientists and their distinction would help me win the debate purely on politics. Sorry mr admin... Joe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
but registering under a new name while suspended is against forum rules.
We are not dumb. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024