Misconceptions of science and religion found in new study

"We found that nearly 50 percent of evangelicals believe that science and religion can work together and support one another,"

Really? What do they think religion can add to science (except maybe a historical footnote)?

Nearly 60 percent of evangelical Protestants and 38 percent of all surveyed believe "scientists should be open to considering miracles in their theories or explanations."

And 100% of scientists believe religious people should be open to facts. Go figure.

Nearly 60 percent of evangelical Protestants and 38 percent of all surveyed believe "scientists should be open to considering miracles in their theories or explanations."

You can rephrase that sentence to "scientists should be open to using white spirit magic in their work", and it means exactly the same thing.

And therein lies the problem. Science isn't a thing, it is a process. It is a method of removing bias from your work. Yet the people who thing religion is compatible with science specifically state that they want to purposefully insert bias into the scientific method.

The very fact that they'd say something like that indicates a deep and disturbing misunderstanding of how science works. "Science and religion are compatible! As long as science gives up all its core principles and adopts a religious viewpoint!"

The mainstream scientists aren't more opened to facts than the religious people, when some finding threats their social status, not to say potential grants and carrier. On the other hand, some scientists made a good business from connection of religion and science and the prizes of Templeton foundation dwarf these of Nobel committee. It's not difficult to guess, I don't like both attitudes, so that no one of both sides of conflict between science and religion likes me.

Religion and science are not incompatible. Unfortunately, as the study shows:

"22 percent of scientists think most religious people are hostile to science." and

"Nearly 22 percent of the general population think scientists are hostile to religion."

There is always a strident minority which tries to stir up strife and hatred.

But there are many religious scientists:

"Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God's existence."

Most of the giants of science we revere were very religious: Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton to name just a few.

Unfortunately, science itself has become a religion to many and religious strife is to be expected to continue.

Hmmm well where shall we begin?

"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 ...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

-Science tells us that the creation myth is wrong.

"22 And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman and brought her unto the man."

-Well we know this is nonsense.

"2 "I am the Lord thy God, who have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

-Well we know there never was an exodus so this god here is lying.

"18 "He that believeth in Him is not condemned; but He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

-And we know that believing in a god who lies about creation and the exodus cannot be a source of truth and goodness.

"Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God's existence."

-Scientists can only believe in holy books that are poetic metaphor. But they were written as the literal truth.

Most of the giants of science we revere were very religious: Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton to name just a few

EVERY TIME a religionist repeats a misconception like this it should be countered with the truth. THE TRUTH IS dog, that the only way to make a living back then was to profess a belief in the prevailing religion. If you didn't BELIEVE you didn't WORK. This is obvious to everybody but you desperate religionists.

Unfortunately this is still true today in many regions and disciplines, most notably US politics. We almost had a president who believes that Jesus walked amongst the ojibway and the Comanche, who are in actuality the lost tribes of Israel.

The charlatan who concocted this religion also redrew hieroglyphics with human heads and claimed this was proof that the patriarchs were in Egypt.
http://en.wikiped..._Abraham

There are many aspects, in which dense aether model replaces the concept of God. It's omnipotent and omnipresent. On the other hand, some concept of contemporary physics bring the notion of God too. For example, the AdS/CFT correspondence and holographic model leads to perspective of intelligent deity living at the boundaries of observable universe. The interior of glowing black holes shares many common points with hell, their exterior with heavens, and so on. I explained already, why highly organized, intelligent and/or harmonic motion appears chaotic, when being observed as a low-dimensional projection of process in high number of extradimensions. For our animal pet the behavior of people would appear incomprehensible and chaotic, like the random quantum noise. Also, the concept of Multiverse brings a notion of alternative reality, which is not fully accessible for us. So I don't think, the notion of God is completely ad hoced from both historical, both scientific perspective.

these statistics are obviously designed by religious people to attempt to assert religion into sciences. The wording is very suspect even in their published draft so you can assume the wording in the original survey was much worse.

"Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God's existence."
then you take that at ~80% non religious and 20% religious (using their obviously inflated statistics) that means about 7% of scientists have no doubt god exists and 29% have no doubt god doesn't exist. the other 64% have reserved doubts. I'd consider myself in the last catagory by simple openmindedness and the willingness to take things much less literally than most. ancient aliens, panspermia, biomimetic immortality... can't be proven so can't be written off.
and the part about being open to using miracles in theory... we already do, just don't ascribe them to a singular allpowerful being that somehow has time to control every atom and care if you masturbate. quantum physics

was originally described as 'spooky action at a distance' by einstien and planck.. There were soo many people who tried to shoehorn 'god' into that space for decades.

most simplistically, scientists have historically used god when they've met a question they can't answer. Doesn't make the question unanswerable. As a matter of fact, 99.997% of all things that have ever been atributed to gods or dieties has eventually been worked into relative and quantum physics. we've come a long way in 1200 years. even further in the last 70. no matter how fuzzy our heuristic systems are, we're pushing towards determinism at moores law speeds.

http://www.youtub...ILvxYbFA I think Neil has a good solution. "Scientists aren't knocking on the door to sunday schools, so religious people shouldn't be knocking on the door of science class." I find it apalling when Atheists rip on religious people. They are behaving like bullies when they do that. People can believe whatever they want. Science is based on empirical data, so keep the conversation on that and we can all work together. And religious people need to remember, they take a leap of faith and that's not science. The Math studies don't involve religion, so neither should the science studies. Mutual respect for one another's belief systems. Don't you think there's already enough bad out there, let's not make more tension. Agree to disagree about some stuff.

Nearly 60 percent of evangelical Protestants and 38 percent of all surveyed believe "scientists should be open to considering miracles in their theories or explanations."

this is like saying: "forget empirical data" or "even pseudosciences like EU are every bit as valid as long as someone believes in it"
IOW- total bunk!
A personal FAITH may allow someone to also have scientific views and to seek knowledge and definition of the universe through science, but RELIGION, the dogmatic views that they take, are normally against science, as they view it as a threat to their credibility and power to influence others

Of those who feel science and religion are in conflict, 52 percent sided with religion

religion is about CONTROL, not TRUTH

religion clouds the mind and allows people to GIVE UP (see Newton)
it also inhibits scientific growth
science is a way to find answers and weed out fantasy. it is not a thing. it is a method
gopher65 said it well above

The mainstream scientists aren't more opened to facts than the religious people, when some finding threats their social status, not to say potential grants and carrier

@nestle/osteta/zephir
fallacy not supported by facts
you are talking about the acceptance of pseudosciences in real science
there is a REASON that certain things are not accepted by the scientists that you call "mainstream"... it is called PROOF
you use anecdotal evidence for dense aether when you should use maths
you use analogy when you should use logic and science methods
and before you begin another rant/flood of aether crap or cold fusion speculations... there is NO EVIDENCE to support your musings, whereas scientists (your "mainstream" scientists that you like to complain about) REQUIRE EVIDENCE

when you get empirical data and you can make a logical argument, publish
get peer reviewed

Until then, you are doing nothing but spamming

There are many aspects, in which dense aether model replaces the concept of God

@zephir/nestly/osteta
now THIS is TRUTH

aether and religion are both based upon BELIEF
there is no supporting evidence for either
both require the suspension of logic and ignorance of empirical data in order to succeed

time and again I have requested empirical data from you and all I got was links to pseudoscience sites:
NO EXPERIMENTS THAT CAN BE REPLICATED
NO STUDIES, NO PUBLICATIONS, NO PROOF, NO EMPIRICAL DATA

When you get some empirical data, and can actually state that you have a hypothesis, publish and come back and argue. until then, religion and aether are pretty much the same thing... faith based and requiring NO PROOF
neither of which are scientific, and NEITHER of them considered even a THEORY... unless you use the definition: "an unproven assumption"

How anyone could look at those numbers and conclude anything other than "Yes there is very clearly a cultural divide here" is beyond me. Sure, there are many scientists that were indoctrinated into religion, and attempt to mesh the two for personal or social reasons. However the two ideas are fundamentally in conflict, and while I think the study was likely flawed, even the numbers here show that there is a real divide. They assert the two can work together, but provide no actual evidence for that.

What is really going on is a rapid secularisation of society, similar to what we have seen in europe. There is no need to work together on this, they aren't compatible.

As an example, she found that evangelical Protestants are twice as likely as the general population (11 percent) to consult a religious text or religious leader for questions about science

Well, they might as well consult "The Lord of the Rings" for all the good that will do, it just goes to show the atrophy the human brain goes through after reading fictitious shit like the bible for years. Idiot religious types.

I find it apalling when Atheists rip on religious people. They are behaving like bullies

It's religion that has been waging attacks on people for centuries for their disbelief. The is ignorant religious types that threaten violence on nonbelievers, islam and christianity being the worst offenders.

The good religious are the dead religious.
They cannot do harm to anyone including rape, murder, child molestation, terrorism, war, indoctrination of bullshit. Every one of these are attributed to religion one way or another and continues to the present.
The list goes on.

No surprise to me. During a forty-year career as an engineer and scientist, I have never noticed any more hostility to religion in scientists than in the general public. And contrary to some reports, I have not found that people of faith are any more hostile towards science than the general population. The problem, as said by a commenter above, is "a strident minority which tries to stir up strife and hatred". Just read through the comments for a many sad examples.

Ecklund is an accommodationist clown, who is very happy to be "lying for Jesus"™. She is obsessing over science vs religion, never mind the damage it causes the former, and has been found out to "doctor" each and every report's statistics. [See e.g Coyne's analyses on his blog Why Evolution Is True, among many others.] Her goal, as well as that of her funding Templeton Organization, is to make out the religiousness of scientists seem large and important.

Undoubtedly this work too will get rejected by scientists in all other areas. Unfortunately it seems the bar for publication in social sciences is so low to be non-existent, since obvous statistical falsehoods are passed routinely in her case.

@Nestle; dogbert, bmorrow: "mainstream scientists aren't more opened to facts", "dense aether"; "Religion and science are not incompatible."; "a strident minority".

Claims made without evidence are rejected without evidence.

@jerryjbrown; bmorrow: "They are behaving like bullies"; "tries to stir up strife and hatred".

Or they are describing the facts in the face of falsehoods, and making fun of ridiculous ideas. The first is admired in scientists, the latter in comedians.

You are specially pleading for religion.

Well, as a matter of fact no one cares about such feeble whining. =D

Humans 46 chromosomes
Chimps 48
46/48 96% match

Number of chromosomes is unaffected by natural selection. Offspring of a species remain of that species. Organisms can change and adapt (drastically) in appearance and function but don't change species.

Mutations (chromosomal) reduce desirability, a mutant offspring has a decreased probability of procreating.

The evolutionary theory of species sharing common ancestors is false.

Claims made without evidence are rejected without evidence

The ignorance of new findings and/or ideas means the ignorance of their evidence at the first line. What do you think the opponents of evolution are doing all the time, when they're dismissing it? They primarily ignore its evidence. For mainstream physicists it's not advantageous to argue against cold fusion and to attract the attention of publics to this subject in this way. A much reliable and easier attitude is to pretend, such a thing did never happen. No replications in peer reviewed journals means no evidence - end of story. Or at least they're hoping so. This approach is simple, but it works for simple people.

Actually, the delay in peer-reviewed attempts fo replication of each finding indicates quite reliably, how much the mainstream dislikes it. It's exact metric of intersubjective hate for me. Were EM-drive or Tajmar experiments replicated in mainstream press? Was superconductivity of graphite attempted to replicate in mainstream press? Nope, currently it just violates way to many theories, which are developed for it already. Scientists aren't so stupid, they do realize immediately, that such finding would violate their existing work (grants, job, thesis, carrier) in a given area.

So at the moment, when the mainstream community gets quiet about something suddenly, I immediately know, that there will be a social problem with acceptation of this finding.

An elephant in the room on "science" remains the reality of "scientific" claims never being supported. They say things, offer absolutely no incontrovertible proof tangibly place in "rank and file" hands, rely on their complicit allies in the "news" to play up their supposed correctness and hide evidence they are lying, and the gullible in the "rank and file" believe it. The fact is, "proof" is not just a group of people having evidence, but every single individual having the same evidence available to them. But that's how "science" defines it, as them telling everyone else what to think. They make no move to demonstrate that what they say is true. And "science" devotees just mock at the suggestion, but not once, ever, under any circumstance, actually indicate where such evidence can be obtained.

Shills for "science" bleat such inane things as "You're writing on a computer, using electricity and you question 'science'?" Which only shows how shallow so many "science" devotees are and how cravenly conniving so many others are. Because just because "science' says works one way does not mean it does! A carny fraudster tells you they have a rock that answers questions. They flip a switch, you ask a question and lights flash answering you. Does that "prove" the rock answered? Where is the proof, for example, that electricity isn't tiny aliens moving energy? Even "science" doesn't measure current by so many moving electrons, which they claim it is, but by the magnetic field they supposedly produce. Devotees ridicule, but make no move to settle it!

They make no move to demonstrate that what they say is true.

The problem arises in the moment, when some "truth" could help many people in the world - just with exception of the small group of scientists. Which is why the hysteresis in acceptation of uncomfortable truth exists here. I'm pretty sure, that the cold fusion will become considered seriously with mainstream science just in the moment, when Chinese will start to sell megawatt scale plants based on it. On the other hand, the finding of graphene didn't threat the existing jobs of scientists at all - on the contrary. Which is why it was accepted so smoothly, that the Nobel prize has been issued for just after three years. This finding fulfilled the social demand of scientific community, not the industry - which is why we already have myriads of publications of happy scientists about it, but still no practical application. The progress of mainstream science today is solely driven with its occupational criterions.

Now the question simply is: are WE paying the scientists just for THEIR happy & safe life - or for OUR better life? Shouldn't we have a better control of what the scientists are actually doing? This is indeed a sensitive question, because without spending of lotta time we - as a laymen - cannot decide reliably, what the perspective and useful research is - and which is not. It's like the public control of politicians: we are paying them for knowing the best, what is good for our society. But such a freedom and responsibility requires the neverending public feedback, or the people payed from mandatory fees will start to use them against their payers.
I'm afraid, that whereas the people already learned why and how to check the work of politicians regularly, their awareness of priorities of public research is still very low. They're just under hope, the scientists know itself, what is best to do for all of us. Well, every lack of public feedback comes with its own price - soon or late.

And "science' does betray the public by portraying itself as utterly and completely reliable. It places claims in the "news" without proviso and dutifully represents itself to the public as perfect. It's when it's confronted that "science", like any fraud, finally admits their untruth. Like so many frauds, too, "science" engages in dodges, like saying it can be wrong, but, in its defense, it's willing to change its mind readily. It doesn't mention those who were harmed by the previous lies being trusted, and those who will be harmed by the new lies. Another elephant in the room, "science" does not handles the actual internal mechanism of anything, it operates only by looking at effects! Again, if forced, they admit only that their claims are "consistent with" observations, but they never independently vouch for the reliability of those "observations"! To make assertions about absolute, ultimate causes is deceit on "science's" part.

And "science' does betray the public by portraying itself as utterly and completely reliable

@julianpenrod
you are confused: "science" is completely reliable

science is the use of the scientific method to study the universe

the scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning

therefore your problem is with people, NOT science

Another elephant in the room, "science" does not handles the actual internal mechanism of anything, it operates only by looking at effects

wrong again: see Quantum theory
science seeks to understand the fundamental laws of everything

it seems to me that you have a serious beef with certain people, OR you have an inability to understand science and its methods

science is the use of the scientific method to study the universe

Nope, the science SHOULD be the use of the scientific method to study the universe (and for now I'm ignoring the apparent tautology, i.e. the circular reasoning in your stance). The scientists itself shouldn't define, what the correct scientific attitude is and what is not - or we will end like the serfs of politicians, who will judge by itself, what is correct political decision and what it's not. Especially when they want to be payed for our own money.

because without spending of lotta time we - as a laymen - cannot decide reliably, what the perspective and useful research is - and which is not.

@zephir
and yet even self-proclaimed aficionados of science like yourself cannot understand that everything we do right now is based upon fundamental science research, much of which you deplore, such as CERN and particle colliders

Which is why the hysteresis in acceptation of uncomfortable truth exists here. I'm pretty sure, that the cold fusion will become considered seriously with mainstream science just in the moment

Claims made without evidence are rejected without evidence, as Torbjorn said very well
when there is evidence
EMPIRICAL DATA
then there is change/adaptation
this is what confuses you, Zeph
it MUST have empirical data. It MUST be provable
that is why aether/dense aether/EU and other pseudosciences (like JVK pheromones) are ignored

Nope, the science SHOULD be the use of the scientific method to study the universe

@zephir
my definition is WHAT SCIENCE IS
YOU are spouting personal conjecture based upon your constant humiliation for supporting a pseudoscience hypothesis
this causes you to see conspiracy where none is
no one is against you and your hypothesis... they are against PSEUDOSCIENCES
when YOU CAN PRODUCE EMPIRICAL DATA YOU WILL BE LISTENED TO

The scientists itself shouldn't define

IMHO – this is TOTALLY WRONG
you dont want your scientists investing hard won money in PSEUDOSCIENCE garbage
therefore scientists MUST make a decision based upon what is known
that KNOWN info is empirical data
therefore the pseudosciences are left OUT of the loop
and lastly: FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH underpins it ALL
if something violates a fundamental law, it is not worth researching
like the perpetual motion machines you were supporting on another thread
you dont invest in known fallacies unless you are crazy/stupid

Claims made without evidence are rejected without evidence

Just because you never accepted any evidence doesn't mean, no evidence is here. I can say as easily, the evolution is BS, because we never managed to observe the true formation of new species by our naked eye. Everything else is an indirect proof, i.e. just an indicia, i.e. it's not proof at all. So I can dismiss your belief as easily, as you can dismiss my ideas with your approach. You should prove first, my arguments represent no evidence. And this discussion is not about aether or evolution or whatever else.
What I'm discussing are the signs of religious approach in science and the signs of scientific attitude in religion. It's no secret for me, that for example the creationism is the only effective opposition of established research in mainstream science. Which is bad situation, because scientists themselves should seek for every opportunity for disapproval of evolution, no matter how feasible it appears by now.

The scientific attitude by Popper's metodology is based on falsification of existing theories, not in pilling of arguments for them. This critical stance is the whole basis of scientific method here. If you cannot admit it, then we even cannot discuss, what the true "scientific" approach is and what is not. In this way, every creationist, who is providing logical arguments for his stance is a true scientist by the very definition of the science - and not a crackpot or something.

Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool."

therefore the pseudosciences are left OUT of the loop

Of course not until they argue logically and their arguments are based on observational facts. In addition, the AWT brings a concept of observational perspectives and the mainstream science rises the concept of Multiverse. Which just means, under certain situation everyone could have his bit of truth, no matter how remote it may appear for his opponents. It just depends on the reference frame, which perspective will appear more valid quite objectively.

I'm often explaining it with complementarity of black holes, which is already accepted in mainstream physics. The whole trick is, inside of black hole the path of light appears straight and the space-time curved, wheres from outside the space-time appears flat and the path of light is curved. Both perspectives are perfectly valid for all observers and the physicists must be able to handle this paradox.

We can develop many criterions for decision, which perspective is better under such a controversial situation. The simplest approach which I do like the most may be based on utilitarian principle of least action: the model which provides most of testable predictions with minimal effort is the most useful here. Of course, we could invent many other criterions, but the scientific method should remain based on falsification of testable predictions. At the moment, when even the creationism provides the clue, how to find the testable counterexamples against evolutionary theory, then it indeed becomes a fully fledged scientific theory or at least hypothesis. To be honest, the creationism is not so far as effective model as the evolutionary theory, especially in connection to genetic analysis - but it has its bright spots too, as I explained for example here.

This sort of article diminishes the reputation and standing of PhysOrg in my eyes.
A 'study' by a "Director of Religion and Public Life Program"? Really? On a supposedly "scientific" news site?
Now what do you suppose this article is meant to add to the total sum of scientific knowledge?
What novel theory or scientific fact does this add to our understanding?
Get real PhysOrg; If these articles are meant to spark controversy and generate a lot of comments that's fine (if you want to check that anyone's reading your site), but remember that it also diminishes your reputation in the mind of any scientist that is using your site to cross-check for news.
That means it potentially reduces the number of serious readers.

PS: Just to highlight how important this 'study' is, Jeff Fitlow, the reporter of this illuminating 'study' is the Assistant University photographer at Rice.
NB Get real PhysOrg, and check your material BEFORE you publish it here... very, very sloppy!

What novel theory or scientific fact does this add to our understanding?

You should ask for it bellow every article, which promotes the particular advances of for example laser fusion research. Why the people should be interested, when some physicists have built the new detector for neutrinos? Why not to wait for published results instead? And so on...

In this way it's difficult to accept your stance without pointing to application of double standards on the subject of your critique. Which is one of sign of so-called pathological skepticism. Also, your nonsensical reference to origin of article instead of its actual content belongs into logical fallacies and a signs of pseudoskepticism too. Even the blind chicken can find its corn now and then - it doesn't matter which color it has.

the AWT brings a concept of observational perspectives and the mainstream science rises the concept of Multiverse. Which just means, under certain situation everyone could have his bit of truth...

@zephir
this is faith, philosophy, etc. there is NO EMPIRICAL data and cannot be proven wrong or right, which is something that is NOT SCIENTIFIC

Just because you never accepted any evidence doesn't mean, no evidence is here

actually, you have offered ZERO evidence that would be considered empirical
links to pseudoscience sites, yes, but NO EVIDENCE

You should prove first, my arguments represent no evidence

ok. PROVIDE ONE LINK TO A STUDY THAT VERIFIES AETHER

signs of religious approach in science

how about believing in something without evidence or proof?
THAT is what faith is all about...so this discussion is VERY relevant

spreading your " aether faith" is a part of the problem WHY people have misconceptions about science

Sorry, I'm forced to dismiss your attempts for discussion about AWT as a part of your strategy of distraction from subject and as the attempt for masking the lack of your arguments with accusation of your opponents from promotion of particular theory. Please, don't attempt for it again. I don't need the aether model for anything from my stance presented above.

Most of the giants of science we revere were very religious: Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton to name just a few.

Unfortunately, science itself has become a religion to many and religious strife is to be expected to continue.

Most scientists are atheists: http://www.lhup.e...elig.htm
Galilei had not much choice, now did he?

The second statement is utter nonsense, although some scientists do tend to behave like popes and cardinals.

science is the use of the scientific method to study the universe

Nope, the science SHOULD be the use of the scientific method to study the universe (and for now I'm ignoring the apparent tautology, i.e. the circular reasoning in your stance). The scientists itself shouldn't define, what the correct scientific attitude is and what is not - or we will end like the serfs of politicians, who will judge by itself, what is correct political decision and what it's not. Especially when they want to be payed for our own money.

The statement is at most too wordy: "science is a method to study the universe" is what is meant. Off course the scientists should themselves determine the method. That is why they are called scientists.

Actually the scientists adhere on Popper's methodology and he was a philosopher and economist. Which I do perceive as quite correct, the subject of science should be defined with meta-science, not with science itself, it's proponents the less. Of course, some scientists feel uneasy with it - especially these ones, who develop and promote the theories like the string theory without testable predictions. Which is just another reason for my, why to enforce the cognitive stance of metaphysics into subject of physics. The scientists are just a people like any other and they have a tendency to release the rules of their work on behalf of their particular needs. The consequences for string theorists are apparent already: they failed in quantitative predictions and they even didn't recognize its success regarding these qualitative ones.

As usual Nestle, your rant on my comments are nonsensical, irrelevant and illogical, quite apart from your obvious lack of command of English, which makes anything you write here hard to read or understand.
I wonder why you persist in this futile attempt to try to sound knowledgeable when you so obviously are not.
Why not direct your attention to some religious Web site where you might be able to fool those readers?

...your rant ...nonsensical, irrelevant and illogical, lack of command of English, you persist...futile attempt, ...religious Web, fool the readers...

How many logical fallacies did we count in few sentences? I'm not against discussion about science in scientific way, but such a discussion is not so free league. It has its own rules. If you find some violation of logics at my side, you're welcomed to prove it first. The absence of logics is provable like any other logical paradox. I admit my stance is quite special, because I do occupy the extrinsic perspective of outsider. I do play for laymen society, not for community of scientists as such.

You're right that religious tendencies pervaded the science recently. IMO it's the result of extradimensional perspective, which the mainstream science faces by now. The established truths of the 20th century aren't valid anymore and the science returns to its roots. I'm illustrating it often with observation of water surface by its waves.

With all the prejudicial comments here, It looks like religious people of the 21st century are going to be the gays of the 20th. What a sad world. Please let them be!

mytwocts,

Most of the giants of science we revere were very religious: Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton to name just a few.

Most scientists are atheists:

Not really. According to this study:

Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God's existence.

And those are just the ones who are certain.

Unfortunately, science itself has become a religion to many and religious strife is to be expected to continue.

The second statement is utter nonsense

Not really. Look up Gaia. Look up pantheism. Nature as god. This is particularly common in the biological sciences.

At the proximity such a water surface appears complex and turbulent, but with increasing distance from human observer scale the character of universe becomes low dimensional and easy to handle with deterministic formal theories. The objects appear like the regular spheres at these scale and the waves are spreading in regular circles. Unfortunately with increasing distance from human observer scale the notion of mathematical universe disappears again and the waves are getting scattered in the similar way, at the human observer scale. And these low dimensional well established theories aren't working anymore.

Not only the mainstream science experiences the pressure of religious groups for outside, it itself becomes more dogmatic than before, which can be quantified for example by the usage of categorical terms.

Nestle as usual you do not make sense.
I don't think you even know what the word 'logical' means.
As I said, try some religious Web site. They might even appreciate you there... :)
In any case you would get much more bang for your buck.

try some religious Web site

The research in science is often religious by its very nature. For example, the string theorists managed to develop their models forty years without experimental feedback. Such an attitude requires lotta belief. Also, the more advanced theories are becoming, the more time it takes from their postulation to verification. For example, the model of Higgs boson is fifty years old - it's more than two human generations. During this time the scientists just believed in it - they couldn't be sure with it. Actually, the recent acceptation of this finding is still affected with this religion - the Higgs boson stuff is IMO way more complex and works differently, than its founders expected.

"Scientists aren't knocking on the door to sunday schools, so religious people shouldn't be knocking on the door of science class."

But they are which is why we need to fight them.

I find it apalling when Atheists rip on religious people. They are behaving like bullies when they do that.

Religionists act like bullies when they insist that evolution not be taught in schools. They act like bullies when they burn each other's churches and mosques, blow up girls schools, and force women to do nothing else but make babies until it kills them.

People can believe whatever they want

Thats what hitler and pol pot said.

Science is based on empirical data, so keep the conversation on that and we can all work together. And religious people need to remember, they take a leap of faith and that's not science

Your leap of faith comes from a book full of confirmed lies. The stories in it are empirically false. We must assume the promises we find there are as well. You should too.

I find it apalling when Atheists rip on religious people. They are behaving like bullies when they do that.

Religionists act like bullies when they judge others based on what god they do or do not believe in. They spread this abusive mindset when they force this belief on their children and tell them they'll go to hell if they don't conform.

"Good is not enough" is what religionists tell themselves, their families and their friends. They only associate and do business with others of their faith. They discourage their kids from marrying outside the faith.

Bigotry = persecution = bullying. We have had enough of it.

"Science" is a process it is not a thing. It is a way of collecting and using information in order to arrive at an understand of reality. It is a method of removing bias from your conclusions. If the ideas that you hold dear are shown to be not supported by the evidence science requires you to let go of those ideas.

There are some religious people that believe that the earth is the fixed unmoving center of the universe, because they feel that their faith demands that they hold this world view. This way of thinking will never be compatible with Science.

"Scored of Islamist insurgents [Boko Haram] dressed in military uniforms stormed the Christian farming village of Izghe, in Borno state, late Saturday and opened sporadic fire on residents, killing at least 60 people in an attack specifically targeted at male residents."

"At least four people were killed... an explosion on a tourist bus in the Egyptian resort town of Taba... extremists... have called for the establishment of an Islamist caliphate."

"A bomb killed at least one policeman and wounded another during a vaccination campaign for polio and other diseases among children in Pakistan ..."

-We are sick of reading these stories every day. We are sick of all religions whose books ALL say the same things. You think yours is the good one? SO DO THEY.

Ask xian Serbs who slaughtered Moslems in Bosnia, what god wants of them. Ask the Rwandan bishops, priests, and nuns who encouraged and participated in the slaughter of 10s of 1000s of Tutsis. Fellow catholics. ASK THEM.

It is a way of collecting and using information in order to arrive at an understand of reality

Sometimes this process for scientists is getting more important, than its result. In this moment we are facing a problem with science, which is not quite different from problems of religious church with further progress. The science is OK, but the scientists are just a people.

@technocreed

With all the prejudicial comments here, It looks like religious people of the 21st century are going to be the gays of the 20th. What a sad world. Please let them be!

When they stone a young woman - for daring to date a man from a different sect - do you think they should be left alone? http://www.youtub...JNrc8sKw Ahh you say - but that is just a minority. The point is more about the kind of thinking that religious people often engage in. My God is a vengeful God - and sanctions the punishment of the wrong doers.

Hitchens was so right when he stated that we will finally reach our potential as a species (paraphrased) when we leave such thinking behind us. Here is a great debate with Hitchens.
http://www.youtub...NrAy36yU

https://sciencex....omments/

Avoid political and religious discussions: Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, political and religious discussions are not allowed.

If you find some violation of logics at my side, you're welcomed to prove it first

@zeph
all possibilities for us to understand your logic went out the window with your comment

in which dense aether model replaces the concept of God. It's omnipotent and omnipresent

so your retort

Please, don't attempt for it again. I don't need the aether model for anything from my stance presented above.

makes em want to know WHY YOU brought it into the discussion to begin with?
I used YOUR FAITH IN COTEXT of this discussion
it is a FAITH and has an acolyte that needs no proof that pushes it
spreading your " aether faith" is a part of the problem WHY people have misconceptions about science... you cant go to many articles even here without you bringing it up (even on THIS article you had to drag it in)
and why? Because it is your FAITH

learning the WHY of people like you may help us understand the WHY of pseudosciences
which in turn will help us understand the WHY of people mixing religion and science

I would be GLAD to leave DAW model alone
if only YOU can also leave it be and leave it off of a REAL science site

I'm not against discussion about science in scientific way

@zephir
as long as you can support a theory that has NO EMPIRICAL DATA
and you can discuss it at will on a science site when you feel the applicability to whatever it is that you see
then you are against scientific discussion

If you find some violation of logics at my side, you're welcomed to prove it first. The absence of logics is provable like any other logical paradox

ok!
you believe in a hypothesis that has no empirical data!
This has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN
your aether faith is a BELIEF
NOT LOGICAL
PSEUDOSCIENCE
therefore your logic is broken and cannot withstand scrutiny

the model of Higgs boson ...the scientists just believed in it...couldn't be sure

and then they FOUND IT right where they said it would be
you are mistaking a HYPOTHESIS with FAITH
another break in logic

I'm a staunch atheist, but y'all are making atheists look bad. Especially comments such as:

"religion clouds the mind and allows people to GIVE UP (see Newton)
it also inhibits scientific growth"

This is not entirely incorrect, Captain Stumpy. We can all agree that religious fanatics are responsible for fantastically destructive paranoia: the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the Salem witch trials, and many many more.

HOWEVER! To say that all religion ends in the censure of science is simply not correct. Take Thomas Aquinas, for example. He was hugely influential to scientists, though he was a staunch catholic. He had no problem with the idea of abiogenesis, and he was instrumental in spreading the philosophy/science of Aristotle.

C'mon people, Aristotle is THE SCIENTIST. We owe our modern science to, among others, a 13th century catholic. So please, attack the CORRECT religious targets, not ALL of them. Then you're no better than they are.

I'm not against discussion about science in scientific way

@zephir
to continue

The established truths of the 20th century aren't valid anymore

FALLACY
therefore NOT logical or scientific
what established truths?

The research in science is often religious by its very nature

FALLACY
the research in science is to determine what and how something is happening
it is the empirical data that gives understanding
this is where religion and science DIFFER

NOW do you see why I used your aether comments in this discussion?
You cling to it like a religion
it is no different than a FAITH
even the data I provided to you that refutes aether in other links is not enough for you to drop it and discuss REAL SCIENCE
this is no different than creationist saying "god did it"
pseudoscience is a stumbling block to real science because it invites a fervor no different than religions and logic cannot refute faith when that faith cannot see logic

there is NO PLACE for religion in SCIENCE

I can't put this strongly enough. We owe our modern understanding of EVERYTHING to a bunch of greek, arab, indian and continental european philosophers / scientists who were largely religious.

Where would modern medicine be without Avicenna, who was a devout Muslim? Where would thermodynamics be without William Thompson, 1st Baron Kelvin, a devout Christian? What about Descartes and Leibniz? They Freaking Invented Calculus, And Also Were Christians!

C'mon people, I think religion is a bunch of hooey. But how can you claim it has always held us back?

I do not see anything wrong with scientifics who happen to have a religious faith. But I have a very hard time to deal with people who come to comment on phys.org and do not beleive in science.

HOWEVER! To say that all religion ends in the censure of science is simply not correct

@Diogenes Tha Dogg
RELIGION is a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion

Religion is the organized dogmatic institution that only serves to control people and establish rules for observation
this leads to conflict with science, which then becomes the issue

IMHO -a personal faith is ok to have, as long as it does not interfere with science... that is where Thomas Aquinas et al come in...
but my statement about Newton and religion stands for what I can see as he most likely WOULD have figured out much more had he not used the god argument and given up where he did!
This is the problem with RELIGION
religion uses controls like peer pressure/social ostracizing etc to force people back in line to the creed, which is why people in the past recanted scientific pronouncements

I can't put this strongly enough. We owe our modern understanding of EVERYTHING to a bunch of greek, arab, indian and continental european philosophers / scientists who were largely religious

@Diogenes Tha Dogg
yes
and they risked being ostracized for their pronouncements
that means that their faith did not interfere with their science
BUT the RELIGION would have

I think religion is a bunch of hooey. But how can you claim it has always held us back?

IMHO there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between religion and faith
that is the crux of my argument
religion- the dogma/creed/tenet/doctrine is about nothing but CONTROL
that is what happened when muslims decided manipulating numbers was the work of the devil

https://www.youtu...nJC3lvFs

it inhibited growth
this is RELIGION, not faith

but my statement about Newton and religion stands for what I can see as he most likely WOULD have figured out much more had he not used the god argument and given up where he did!

Well, I agree with you until a point. Isn't it plausible that religious beliefs were necessary until recently simply to act as glue for disparate theories? I mean you have a bit of theory here that explains motion, a bit of theory here that explains heat exchange, a bit of theory here that explains sexual propagation, but no grand philosophy to tie it together.

It isn't entirely inconceivable that the idea of God was absolutely necessary to keep aspiring scientists focused and motivated. Maybe the idea of God is not as necessary anymore, but I think that it is still beneficial

As for Newton without God: replace God with any other false belief. Let's say that Newton believed that stars were powered by burning coal. Wouldn't that be equally wrong? Isn't God just another of many false hypotheses?

IMHO there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between religion and faith
that is the crux of my argument
religion- the dogma/creed/tenet/doctrine is about nothing but CONTROL
that is what happened when muslims decided manipulating numbers was the work of the devil

Are you saying something like: religion is faith that's past its expiration date?

Isn't it plausible that religious beliefs were necessary until recently simply to act as glue for disparate theories? ... but no grand philosophy to tie it together

@Diogenes Tha Dogg
again... what you are referring to is a faith, IMHO
I dont care what faith a person has, really. That faith most likely DID provide a cohesive function for people in the past.
My specific argument is against the dogma, the tenets that are used for purposes of control: this is the definition of religion
not the faith, or the belief in something...
I am totally against RELIGION
that INSTITUTION of doctrine that forces people to choose between A and B

other than that I agree with what you are saying

Are you saying something like: religion is faith that's past its expiration date

no
religion is the set of RULES that govern what version of a faith you may have
it is designed to segregate and control
FAITH is just something that is believed that cannot be proven

Elaine Howard Ecklund
Director of the Religion and Public Life Program

Not really. Look up Gaia. Look up pantheism. Nature as god. This is particularly common in the biological sciences.

Disagree:
"Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."

Not really. Look up Gaia. Look up pantheism. Nature as god. This is particularly common in the biological sciences.

There is a lot of hocus locus around, but it is not science.

Science and religion are compatible IF the religion is up tho date with modern scientific insight and IF the science is true to the scientific method.
Fundamental believers reject science where it does not agree with their beliefs. Such people can be excellent scientists in fields where such controversy does not arise.
Agnosticists claim they can not decide on the existence of god(s). They are doubting their own judgement so are less suitable as scientists. Scientists are people who know or else, set out to investigate and reach a conclusion.

@verkle

because I know from experience that Christians are more truthful and can be trusted more.

And you thus demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of science - and rational thought. My experience is exactly opposite of yours. I would trust a Christopher Hithchens, or a Daniel Dennet, over a Benny Hinn or a Pat Robertson, any day of the week. However - the point is about the thinking system. A group of people who believe in a magic sky fairy - who created the universe by waving a magic wand, are holding us back in a superstitious world view. The fact that they may be nice people is irrelevant.

Science and religion are compatible IF the religion is up tho date with modern scientific insight and IF the science is true to the scientific method.

The article talks about collaboration, which is a bit more than coexistence.
I'm still somewhat confused as to how religion can collaborate (i.e. add anything) to scienctific work. I know religion makes plenty of claims (about various origins, existence of gods, moralities and whatnot) - but science is about demonstrating what one claims.And there religion is a no-show. Just making stuff up for others to verify isn't a contribution (even though quite a few posters here think it is).

I would trust a Christian scientist more than an atheist one

I dunno. Since I've never seen anyone who is a "christian scientist" (as they just use the label "scientist" - but know nothing about what science is) that's really a non-issue.

Osteta. I like your comparisons. I think they approach the same thing differently. Science describes what happens. Religion aims for the why. For much of history they've been entirely compatible, even mutually supportive.

Here is the beginning of revolution in physics. Physics, according to which God cannot exist, shall have to be soon discarded. Read http://www.expres...is-grave

No....BECAUSE of einstein, Hawking came to the conclusion, that black holes in the current definition don't exist. What DOES exist, is what we STILL observe. A super massive objekt in the centre of the galaxy. The problem with the old definition and thoughts about black holes is, that information was lost, after hitting the event horizon, which leads to problems in current scientific understanding. SO in Hawkings view, a APPARANT horizon replaces the event horizon, which allows for information over long periods of time to get out of there again, which could solve the information loss problem.
That's all...there are still these massive objects, they just are seen in a different light by hawking.

With all the prejudicial comments here, It looks like religious people of the 21st century are going to be the gays of the 20th. What a sad world. Please let them be!

They will not let us be. The stakes are too high. Wish-granting, immortality, and absolution are worth destroying the world for. We can't let them do this.

"Religion must die for mankind to live."
http://youtu.be/7jETVUulGwc

-We all agreed that the religion of nazism had to die. And so we refused nazis the promised land, destroyed their Joshuan hordes, and killed their messiah.

It's when it's confronted that "science", like any fraud, finally admits their untruth

What about the fraud that the god who promises to grant wishes and eternal youth, also said that there was a flood, an exodus, and a great Solomonic/davidic kingdom? THOSE things never happened. And so the god who described them is lying about those promises as well.

Why can't you religionists own up to THIS monstrous fraud?

I don't consider him a Christian

-But millions do. Millions of you xians still believe that the Jews killed Christ because your book SAYS so in the gospel of john. Many of you people even believe that slavery is ok because god says so in his book. Millions of people in the confederacy took god at his word and fought a war because of it.

Have you ever been to a church? If you did, and have an open mind, you wouldn't be saying what you wrote

Church. That's where you go to hear trained salesmen pick and choose all the choice bits from your book, to make you think that your religion is nothing but goodness and truth. It's not. The pulpit has been used to perpetrate all manner of atrocity in similar fashion.

"If sexual abuse in Ireland warrants [the popes] contrition, what contempt is shown by the Vatican's silence over its role in genocide... tens of thousands of [Rwandan] Catholics were hacked to death inside churches. Sometimes priests and nuns led the slaughter."

SOP.

"the Vatican says that those priests, those bishops, those nuns, those archbishops who planned and killed were not acting under the instruction of the church..."

-OF COURSE NOT. They were acting under the instruction of the book. Joshua and Gideon to be exact.

"One such is Father Athanase Seromba, who led the Nyange parish massacre and was sentenced to 15 years in jail by the tribunal. In April 1994, Seromba helped lure over 2,000 desperate men, women and children to his church... One of the refugees asked: "Father, can't you pray for us?" Seromba replied: "Is the God of the Tutsis still alive?" Later, he would order a bulldozer to push down the church walls on those inside and then urge militias to invade the building and finish off the survivors... At his trial, Seromba said: "A priest I am and a priest I will remain." This, apparently, is the truth, since the Vatican has never taken back its statements defending him..."

-Millions died and the church was in the thick of it.

SOP

Philosophy is built on knowledge, critical thinking and curiosity. Everybody should be allowed to have their own philosophical position on different subjects and should be respected for that. Sometime discussions here turn to acrimonious bickering. One should accept divergence because, in these situations, we can only agree to disagree.

Here is an example of religion-inspired scientific inquiry:

"(CNN) - A Kentucky pastor who starred in a reality show about snake-handling in church has died -- of a snakebite.

"Jamie Coots died Saturday evening after refusing to be treated, police said.

On "Snake Salvation," the ardent Pentecostal believer said that he believed that a passage in the Bible suggests poisonous snakebites will not harm believers as long as they are anointed by God. The practice is illegal in most states, but still goes on, primarily in the rural South."

Philosophy is built on knowledge, critical thinking and curiosity

NO, philobabble is built on the same sort of deception as religion. It is religions stunted half-brother.

Everybody should be allowed to have their own philosophical position on different subjects

Does this include the philosophy that some races are created superior to others and thus have the right to subjugate and enslave them?

We will OPPOSE all such 'divergence'.

All else being equal, I would trust a Christian scientist more than an atheist one, because I know from experience that Christians are more truthful and can be trusted more

@verkle
this only means that
1- you didnt understand what I posted
I dont hate someone who has a "faith". I dont even care, as long as it does NOT interfere with their ability to be objective and logical

Christianity and science are not mutually exclusive

a faith is not mutually exclusive with science, a RELIGION IS
DONT confuse faith with religion:
faith is the belief in something without proof
RELIGION is the dogmatic institution that controls people

Do you know any Christians personally? Have you ever been to a church? If you did...you wouldn't be saying what you wrote

I cant say anything FOR Cocoa, but I can truthfully say too many christians that I have met are anything BUT... and I have travelled the world, so this is not just a US thing

For 2000 years millions of believers have prayed for illness to be cured with no demonstrable result whatsoever. This has been by far the most extensive medical trial ever and also by far the most conclusive one. Science and religion are compatible: science can be used to draw religious conclusions. In this case the overwhelming conclusion is that there is no god that answers prayers.

Philosophy is built on knowledge ...

No, it is not. It is the search for knowledge where there is none. It is built on the absence of knowledge.

I think it is quite telling that the title of the study is "Religious Understandings of Science (RUS)"...and not the other way around. It certainly indicates Ecklund feels more qualified to approach the question from that direction. However, I think it just as likely it indicates she believes it far more academically worthy to examine the attitudes of the religious about science, but that studying scientists' attitudes about religion not as worthwhile.

A "SUR" is definitely needed as much as RUS, since the prejudices and misunderstandings of science about religion appear to be every bit as great, if not greater, than those of religion about science.

A "SUR" is definitely needed as much as RUS, since the prejudices and misunderstandings of science about religion appear to be every bit as great, if not greater, than those of religion about science

I think you should consider just how little religionists know about their own religions, including yourself apparently. Few religionists know what is in their books, or the kinds of evil this content has been used for, or just how easy the books make the commission of this evil. Few of them have any idea how much the various book religions have in common.

Believers and non-believers alike need an education on the content and character of all the religions.
https://www.youtu...IafHhwEw

-At 3:00. Education in our schools for our kids about ALL religions.

@verkle

Do you know any Christians personally? Have you ever been to a church? If you did, and have an open mind, you wouldn't be saying what you wrote.

Yes I know many Christians - where I work - I think there are two of us who are not fundies. My mother is devastated that I no longer go to church 5 - 10 times a week - which was my practice for my whole upbringing. It is only since seeing through the nonsense of the magic sky fairy - who creates universes by waving a magic wand - that I have begun to see the possibilities that a free mind can have.

No - Christianity and science are not compatible. Science requires evidence. The only way that scientists can practice a religion like Christianity - is by compartmentalizing their minds in a very bizarre manner.

All else being equal, I would trust a Christian scientist more than an atheist one,

I'd trust a compassionate atheist more than a compassionate christian. Why? Because the atheist didn't need to be told to be compassionate.

How much do you really trust people who have to be told : "do not kill" to actually not go out and kill? ...And who have, throughout history, even broken THAT commandment whenever it pleases them?

I wouldn't trust such people as far as I could throw 'em.

So they surveyed Americans whether Science and Religion can work together.

This is a country where 25% of the population don't know a fact taught to most 6-7 year olds in most countries national curriculums at school - That the Earth goes round the sun

http://phys.org/n...sun.html

Science and Religion are complete polar opposites.

Religion employs the use of 1 book, with no evidence, and uses majority voting to decide facts.

Science employs the use of millions of books, case studies, thesis's, papers, journals, lab books etc, that are stringently reviewed, questioned mercilessly for evidence, and uses no such voting system but uses the best evidence at the time to decide facts.

They are completely opposite.

triplehelix,

Religion employs the use of 1 book, with no evidence, and uses majority voting to decide facts.

Ask yourself why, if religion is so bad, you must mischaracterize it.

You define religion as a single monolithic belief (Christianity? Abrahamic?).

There are many, many religions and within Christian religions, there are many varieties.

There is no single book. There are many texts and historical references.

There is a lot of evidence.

I am unaware of any Christian religion which uses the democratic process to reveal facts.

In fact, every believer in any religion believes what they believe based on their interpretation of the evidence they have access to.

Do you mischaracterize because you don't understand, because you are filled with hatred or because you perceive that it gives you an unfair advantage in an argument?

There are, in fact, many scientists who serve God and continue to do excellent scientific work.

There are, in fact, many scientists who serve God and continue to do excellent scientific work.

And this simply proves that they are able to engage in a bizarre level of compartmentalization. There are also many scientists who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. http://www.examin...-as-bunk

But scientific thinking requires that we look at evidence. The evidence on the age of the earth is overwhelming. So all you have demonstrated dogbert is that there is a large group of people who are willing to be inconsistent in their lives. Science and religion are not compatible.

dogbert.

"There is no single book. There are many texts and historical references."

Each religion separately USES 1 book to prove things that are clearly no true. The fact there are many religions all claiming to be all knowing but saying different things means if God is real, only ONE religion out of thousands is correct - A statistic that is akin to simple guess work, not science.

"In fact, every believer in any religion believes what they believe based on their interpretation of the evidence they have access to."

Sorry, I am a scientist, the evidence I gain in my research doesn't lead to interpretation issues. I use empiricism and objective testing to come to a reasonable, testable, demonstrable, and repeatable and replicable conclusion, not a conclusion that is pie in the sky and has literally infinite possibilities.

"There are, in fact, many scientists who serve God and continue to do excellent scientific work."

Rare, and doesn't prove science and religion work together.

dogbert

"There is a lot of evidence."

No there isn't, and I have been in countless arguments with those who defend religion. It goes round in circles at best, and at worst, I am just simply spoonfed a truck ton of lies, bullshit, misinterpretations, threats, stupidity, and all round nauseating levels of intellect.

If you want to continue fucking your daughter and then sacrificing her to the local populace because a voice in your head told you to, then whatever. But us sane humans would like to continue without those kinds of people thanks. We would one day like a government that hasn't got deep roots to an imaginary friend.

There is a lot of evidence

@dogbert
no, there is not
there is anecdotal evidence, which is not considered evidence
IF there is real empirical data, you should be linking it, not just saying it

I am unaware of any Christian religion which uses the democratic process to reveal facts

erm... that is how you got

... within Christian religions, there are many varieties

now, where as this statement below

There are, in fact, many scientists who serve God and continue to do excellent scientific work

is true depends on your version of serving
IF you are referring to creationist movement, then no
but if you are referring to scientists who also have "faith", then sure

there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between faith and religion

faith is the belief without evidence

religion is the standardized doctrine that does nothing but control people

I'd trust a compassionate atheist more than a compassionate christian. Why? Because the atheist didn't need to be told to be compassionate.

There is a long way to go between, the selfish kids that we used to be to the mature thoughtful adults we aspire to be. There is not just one road to get there. Bad people will be bad people and good people will be good people, notwithstanding the beliefs. There are no differences between a compassionate atheist and a compassionate Christian.

@Techno

There are no differences between a compassionate atheist and a compassionate Christian.

Yes there is. One still expresses a need to believe in an imaginary friend - for which there is no evidence. That causes the person to need to compartmentalize - in order to stay sane. Science is an evidence based system - it is a way of looking at things. You cannot claim to understand science - and then believe in an imaginary friend - without some bizarre mental gymnastics. Yes there is a difference.

triplehelix,

Do you mischaracterize because you don't understand, because you are filled with hatred or because you perceive that it gives you an unfair advantage in an argument?

If you want to continue fucking your daughter and then sacrificing her to the local populace because a voice in your head told you to, then whatever.

You could have just said you did it from hatred.

The hatred of the Naturalist to other religions, especially Christianity, is boundless. Members of most other religions do not hate other religions so much, except perhaps Muslims.

I'd trust a compassionate atheist more than a compassionate christian. Why? Because the atheist didn't need to be told to be compassionate.

There is a long way to go between, the selfish kids that we used to be to the mature thoughtful adults we aspire to be. There is not just one road to get there. Bad people will be bad people and good people will be good people, notwithstanding the beliefs. There are no differences between a compassionate atheist and a compassionate Christian.

"Bad" people will be drawn towards more violent and unfair ideologies whereas "good" people will be drawn to a less violent and more fair ideologies. Religion accepts slavery, rape, and torture. Atheistic humanism does not.

As a result, you do get a skewed dataset clearly showing many religious people to be considerably extremist, and usually not in a good way.

You could have just said you did it from hatred.

The hatred of the Naturalist to other religions, especially Christianity, is boundless. Members of most other religions do not hate other religions so much, except perhaps Muslims.

Hatred isn't the reason I have come to the conclusions above. Hate is the reason I say it with vehement poison-like wordings. Religious people don't hate other religions so much? Erm...Checked our planets warfare and history at all? Jewish extermination by a catholic dictator? Jewish/Islam fighting for millennia. Protestant/Catholic bombings in Ireland for decades. Crusades. Protestant/Catholic fighting across Europe. Many Americans wanting to shoot anything that isn't christian. Barbaric attacks in Africa on Muslims vs Christians, both sides getting their hands dirty.

You've just proved my point to why I don't argue with religious people. They have no clue what they're talking about and just make it up as they go along.

There is a long way to go between, the selfish kids that we used to be to the mature thoughtful adults we aspire to be. There is not just one road

But simply telling somene to "be good or else.." doesn't make a good person out of a bad person. It just makes a furtive person out of a bad person.
Now the person who decides to be good - despite the fact that this has neither obvious advantages nor that being bad has obvious reprecussions...now THAT's the kind of person I'd trust. There may be such people among religious people (I have my doubts, having grown up among them)...but in the end the doubt always remains: Are they good because they are good? Or because someone threatens them with eternal pain? People would do most anything contrary to their nature faced with such a threat

no differences between a compassionate atheist and a compassionate Christian.

Atheists tend to be smarter - as they can understand the benefits of being good without having it written down.

That's another thing: You can read this survey another way around: Believers make up the dumber part of the population - because they are SEVERELY underrepresented within the smartest part of the community (scientists).

And if there's one thing the world doesn't need right now: it's dumb people.

@Cocoa,
Sorry for waiting so long to respond, but I needed to reflect to avoid a confrontational answer. Our positioning seems to be contextual. I have read in another comment that you live in the Bible belt; I live in Montreal, Quebec. Here bigotries are of very rare occurrences, nobody is fighting to put creationism in public schools textbooks, abortions are available in hospitals and clinics and there are no moralistic comities waiting for you at the entrance, and religion is kept out of the political realm consensually. There is even a debate in the legislative assembly concerning the ban of religious symbols for public employees, you can google that to broaden your horizons. Warning, Quebec bashing is a Canadian sport.

So my position is more for freedom of conscience than a religious defence; nobody wants to live in North Korea. But even though I am agnostic, I will not reject my cultural background and nobody should.

That is all well and good TechnoCreed - I of course am for live and let live. I also reserve the right to reject my cultural background - and strive to do so.

What surprises me is that so many people seem oblivious to the destructive effect of religion. Have you noticed what is happening in Syria right now? Did you look at the video I linked to - of the young girl being stoned to death - for daring to love someone from a different sect (read religion)? So like the late Christopher Hitchens, and many others, I lobby for a world in which there is an end to violence - and I see dumping the childishness of religion as a first step in that process.

I think the problem is the definitions of scientist, I have a degree in computer science so technically I'm a scientist but that in no way qualifies me to comment on the existence of God.
As an Atheist I obviously don't believe, but I would be more interested to see what percentage of relevant scientists believe in god, for example evolutionary biologists.
If you want answers go to an expert, a "scientist" is too broad a term to be considered as an expert in this context.

Here's real thought about religion and science, correcting real misconceptions about mathematics and religion . . . not some high school public opinion poll,

http://wwwscienti...uth.html

and, for science/mathematics,

http://wwwscienti...cal.html

Miracles are a test. If the congregant believes the tale, the preacher knows he has a sucker.

"... Most of what you see in the news are stories about these two groups at odds over the controversial issues, like teaching creationism in the schools. ..."

Teaching creationism at schools isn't controversial, it's insane.
It isn't possible to have a meaningfull discussion with religious people because they 'believe' things which is 100% at odds with facts and logic.
Religion is a form of infantility or insanity but doesn't exclude the possibility that the bearer has some sanity for some subject matter that doesn't directly conflict with his beliefs.

I think the problem is the definitions of scientist, I have a degree in computer science so technically I'm a scientist but that in no way qualifies me to comment on the existence of God.
As an Atheist I obviously don't believe, but I would be more interested to see what percentage of relevant scientists believe in god, for example evolutionary biologists.
If you want answers go to an expert, a "scientist" is too broad a term to be considered as an expert in this context.

You are an Atheist, so you believe god doesn't exist, but you also think you are not qualified to have that belief? That's a contradiction, and as a computer scientist you should know how to handle that.
But no one is qualified to comment on the existence of god, because that question is by definition unanswerable.
It is however interesting to know what percentage scientist of the 'hard sciences' (information sciences, physics, mathematics and chemistry) are religious.

@freeiam
I am not "qualified" as an expert in genetics, evolution etc so I wouldn't consider giving advice to people in these areas, that doesn't mean to say I am stupid. I see the evidence and have a good understanding of maths, physics, chemistry, and biology so I form my opinions and beliefs based on the evidence I see in the context of what I understand, hence I am an atheist. There is no contradiction there whatsoever. I believe there is no god in the same way many people believe there is one. I don't criticise them for their beliefs and don't care what they choose to believe provided they don't try to enforce their beliefs on others.

65 million years of dinosaurs and nothing....