Most Scientists Believe In God

[OZman]

View attachment 63822

---
These quotes can easily be taken out of context and become meaningless.
For example, Einstein's theories & math equations seem to reflect reality pretty well ... if you understand them.

.

The posts were not meant to be anti science, merely a pointer that sometimes theoretical physicists can get carried away. I am all for science, but only to explain the behavior of matter, not my own consciousness.

Tesla never really understood Einstein's theory.

Dr. Michio Kaku: Math is the Mind of God | Big Think

 

[anotherlife]

The contradiction between science and religion is a mostly communist dogma, for financial gains. Scientists are not supposed to like dogmas.

---
I don't think "contradiction" is accurate.

Real scientists seek knowledge via evidence, and are agnostic beyond that horizon between known & unknown, although logical theories are fun.

Religion is not interested in evidence, but engages in imaginary ideas to fill the gaps in its knowledge base, then tries to sell its/his authority (dogma) to the masses for political gain.
.

You could swap the two explanations and it would still make sense. Everything is evident within the bounds of its assumptions. Repeatable too. Whether scientific or religious. This is why we call them axioms.

---
My assumption is that your axioms are in your subjective head (mind), whereas scientific axioms are based on "objective reality" that is shared by multiple observers.

The evidence used by scientists is observable and/or measurable and experienced in the same objective manner by many scientists to form a body of knowledge that results in practical creations, such as boats, cars, trains, airplanes, space ships, electrical generators, light bulbs, radio, TV, computers, etc.

What practical use has resulted from religious axioms?
.

Such objectivity exists in religious studies too. It is closer to the objectivity of social sciences and economics, rather than that of natural sciences. And even with that, the general question of the usefulness of mathematics in natural sciences is classified a religious debate.

---
Math is a tool used in comparing & correlating variables reflecting reality as we know it. Math/statistics is used in all scientific research, whether physical, bio, or social. It helps to keep science objective, but requires a logical methodology to provide value.

What objectivity is there in religion? The followers of one "authority" all "see" the same "God"?
.

The religious objectivity is a result of the universal laws that define human mind. Same as scientific objectivity. And both religious and scientific objectivities acknowledge the limits and operating characteristics of the mind. So much for objectivity. Even in the sense of scientific repeatability.

What is the statistics of two observers seeing the same thing first, then also when repeated? The average value? Or logic?

 

[PK1]

View attachment 63822

---
These quotes can easily be taken out of context and become meaningless.
For example, Einstein's theories & math equations seem to reflect reality pretty well ... if you understand them.

.

The posts were not meant to be anti science, merely a pointer that sometimes theoretical physicists can get carried away. I am all for science, but only to explain the behavior of matter, not my own consciousness.

Tesla never really understood Einstein's theory.

Dr. Michio Kaku: Math is the Mind of God | Big Think

---
As you may have implied, scientific methods vary according to subject "matter" (pun!) and focus. Sociology needs different methods than biology, chemistry, & physics. However, there is crossover when logical. For example, psych & biology overlap when studying cognition with neurological correlates.

In time, with further research, science will explain more & more of the behavior of matter related to your consciousness. The details of how consciousness occurs, how it derives from neural matter, will take ... the Nobel prize.
.

 

[PK1]

---
I don't think "contradiction" is accurate.

Real scientists seek knowledge via evidence, and are agnostic beyond that horizon between known & unknown, although logical theories are fun.

Religion is not interested in evidence, but engages in imaginary ideas to fill the gaps in its knowledge base, then tries to sell its/his authority (dogma) to the masses for political gain.
.

You could swap the two explanations and it would still make sense. Everything is evident within the bounds of its assumptions. Repeatable too. Whether scientific or religious. This is why we call them axioms.

---
My assumption is that your axioms are in your subjective head (mind), whereas scientific axioms are based on "objective reality" that is shared by multiple observers.

The evidence used by scientists is observable and/or measurable and experienced in the same objective manner by many scientists to form a body of knowledge that results in practical creations, such as boats, cars, trains, airplanes, space ships, electrical generators, light bulbs, radio, TV, computers, etc.

What practical use has resulted from religious axioms?
.

Such objectivity exists in religious studies too. It is closer to the objectivity of social sciences and economics, rather than that of natural sciences. And even with that, the general question of the usefulness of mathematics in natural sciences is classified a religious debate.

---
Math is a tool used in comparing & correlating variables reflecting reality as we know it. Math/statistics is used in all scientific research, whether physical, bio, or social. It helps to keep science objective, but requires a logical methodology to provide value.

What objectivity is there in religion? The followers of one "authority" all "see" the same "God"?
.

The religious objectivity is a result of the universal laws that define human mind. Same as scientific objectivity. And both religious and scientific objectivities acknowledge the limits and operating characteristics of the mind. So much for objectivity. Even in the sense of scientific repeatability.

What is the statistics of two observers seeing the same thing first, then also when repeated? The average value? Or logic?

---
What are the "universal laws" that define the human mind?
If you have a coherent reply, how do they vary with the "laws" that define non-human minds?

I betcha you're a dualist, a popular view before modern science.
.

 

[MaryL]

I believe in the flying spaghetti monster. 95% of all people I cherry pick can verify it. So?

 

[BreezeWood]

The details of how consciousness occurs, how it derives from neural matter, will take ... the Nobel prize.

.

funny how so many derive their conscious from "neural matter", particularly in regards to humanity.

.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

View attachment 63202

Strawman.

That is not the scientific claim, nor what atheists and nonbelievers claim.

 

[PK1]

The details of how consciousness occurs, how it derives from neural matter, will take ... the Nobel prize.

funny how so many derive their conscious from "neural matter", particularly in regards to humanity.
.

---
Is it also funny to have no evidence of consciousness when neural matter dies?
What is your definition of "humanity"?
.

 

[BreezeWood]

The details of how consciousness occurs, how it derives from neural matter, will take ... the Nobel prize.

funny how so many derive their conscious from "neural matter", particularly in regards to humanity.
.

---
Is it also funny to have no evidence of consciousness when neural matter dies?
What is your definition of "humanity"?
.

.
Is it also funny to have no evidence of consciousness when neural matter dies?

what was funny, 1 is where is the neural matter you claim necessary for consciousness above and again your claim of its non existence when the physiology expires for either ... haha.

A real scientist leaves out emotional interpretations and focuses on the evidence. Fully rational.
There is no known evidence for any god-like being or "spirit" (sic) ...

or "spirit" - emotional [sic] is not Spiritual ... and the "real" scientist without emotion is fully rational when interpreting metaphysical circumstances, such is the poetic justice for an atheist.

.

 

[Likkmee]

83% of the general public believes in God.

Only 51% of scientists.

Why's that?

Because 1/2 of those assholes think THEY are gAwd. Much like your dope dealers in white with stethoscopes.

 

[PK1]

The details of how consciousness occurs, how it derives from neural matter, will take ... the Nobel prize.

funny how so many derive their conscious from "neural matter", particularly in regards to humanity.
.

---
Is it also funny to have no evidence of consciousness when neural matter dies?
What is your definition of "humanity"?
.

.
Is it also funny to have no evidence of consciousness when neural matter dies?

what was funny, 1 is where is the neural matter you claim necessary for consciousness above and again your claim of its non existence when the physiology expires for either ... haha.

A real scientist leaves out emotional interpretations and focuses on the evidence. Fully rational.
There is no known evidence for any god-like being or "spirit" (sic) ...

or "spirit" - emotional [sic] is not Spiritual ... and the "real" scientist without emotion is fully rational when interpreting metaphysical circumstances, such is the poetic justice for an atheist.
.

---
As i mentioned previously, my contention is that a real scientist is agnostic, not atheist or theist.

Do you believe you witnessed "consciousness" without a biological support system? If so, please explain.
Please provide an example of a "metaphysical circumstance".

I have "observed" (interpreted) more consciousness in a pet mouse or bird than a human without a heart pumping.
.

 

[BreezeWood]

Do you believe you witnessed "consciousness" without a biological support system? If so, please explain.

.
... without a biological support system?

that's funny, I thought you said grey matter was required, something about neurological ?


a 'true scientist" whatever that is or anyone will be nothing religiously without Flora and with it has no reason not to be a theist, Atheist.

.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you believe you witnessed "consciousness" without a biological support system? If so, please explain.

.
... without a biological support system?

that's funny, I thought you said grey matter was required, something about neurological ?


a 'true scientist" whatever that is or anyone will be nothing religiously without Flora and with it has no reason not to be a theist, Atheist.

.

Huh?

 

[ChrisL]

Pretty flowers, but that post made absolutely no sense to me!

 

[jillian]

Good article.

Most Scientists Believe in God

many (and perhaps most) of the truly greatest scientists in history were also devoutly religious: Michael Faraday, Nicolaus Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Sir Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Johannes Kepler, Max Planck, Renes Descartes and Werner Karl Heisenberg, to name just a few.

"Statistical data on Nobel prize winners in science between 1901 and 2000 revealed that atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers have won 7.1% of the prizes in chemistry, 8.9% in medicine, and 4.7% in physics; while Christians have won a total of 72.5% of the prizes in chemistry, 65.3% in physics, 62% in medicine and Jews have won 17.3% of the prizes in chemistry, 26.2% in medicine, and 25.9% in physics."
I’m assuming the obvious distinction made in the study between “atheists, agnostics and freethinkers” and “Christians and Jews” would also indicate that said Christians and Jews were indeed believers, and not just identifying themselves thus in a strictly ethnic sense.

Mr. Quandy sensibly goes on to point out how much greater even those percentages would have been if the study had included practicing Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists (which, combined, I believe account for about half the planet). I don’t at all understand why it didn’t, quite honestly.

a 2009 Pew Research poll click here put the percentage of scientists who believe in some form of deity or higher power at 51% (which, technically, as any scientist will tell you, is "most".)

Most Scientists Believe in God

well, if "sag' says so.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Pretty flowers, but that post made absolutely no sense to me!

seriously, you believe Flora is without conscious, agreeing with holio and without a destiny for the Everlasting ... to bad for you.

.

 

[ChrisL]

.

Pretty flowers, but that post made absolutely no sense to me!

seriously, you believe Flora is without conscious, agreeing with holio and without a destiny for the Everlasting ... to bad for you.

.

No idea what you're talking about.

 

[Si modo]

If a scientist...."real scientist", I suppose....believes in a deity, so what? I'm pretty sure they know the difference between a belief and supporting data. They are allowed personal lives and free time, ya know.

 

[PK1]

Do you believe you witnessed "consciousness" without a biological support system? If so, please explain.

.
... without a biological support system?

that's funny, I thought you said grey matter was required, something about neurological ?

a 'true scientist" whatever that is or anyone will be nothing religiously without Flora and with it has no reason not to be a theist, Atheist.

.

---
You are entitled to your minority definition of "consciousness" (biological "awareness" related to adaptation for survival & propagation?).
With that definition, i could agree.
However, what does religion have to do with it? You believe in a Flora god?

Consciousness in animals reflects activity in neural systems. Few animals are without brains or neurons (trichoplax & sponges are examples).

You don't think 80 billion neurons in the human brain reflect a relatively higher degree of consciousness?

A "destiny for the Everlasting" is a nice fantasy for dreamers (with neural circuits).
.

 

[BreezeWood]

You don't think 80 billion neurons in the human brain reflect a relatively higher degree of consciousness?

... a relatively higher degree of consciousness?


I can't help you atheist, is relatively higher greater than none at all ...

* Hint, you haven't caught on yet, Flora has no "central nervous system" at all.

no, you are no more conscious than a tree or any other living being.

its not your brain.

.