Science vs. faith

[skyrider44]

You seem to be conflating the personal beliefs of scientists with their scientific research. A christian scientist working in the field of biomedical chemical engineering is going to practice his science the same way as a Muslim scientist or an atheist scientist.

In your second sentence, you make an unsupportable sweeping generalization. The extent to which scientists are influenced by their religious convictions in the practice of science is not monolithic, as the books I listed demonstrate.

 

[Foster Zygote]

In your second sentence, you make an unsupportable sweeping generalization. The extent to which scientists are influenced by their religious convictions in the practice of science is not monolithic, as the books I listed demonstrate.

A scientists religious beliefs may influence their interpretation of the meaning of their work, a Muslim astronomer may look at the Bolshoi Simulation and be amazed at his god's creation, but when it comes to the implementation of actual methodology of science, he's going to do it exactly the same way as a Buddhist or atheist astronomer. If an hypothesis requires faith, belief without evidence, then it isn't scientific. Hypotheses are tested because of a lack of faith in them.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

In your second sentence, you make an unsupportable sweeping generalization. The extent to which scientists are influenced by their religious convictions in the practice of science is not monolithic, as the books I listed demonstrate.

Scientists are not robots, and their ideas and inspirations may come from whatever culture they're immersed in. They might find inspiration in their religion, from something they heard at their grandmother's knee, from the last movie they watched, from something they saw on the way to work...

If you mean something qualitatively different from that, can you explain please?

 

[Foster Zygote]

The two items are not congruent. Gravity does, indeed, work "again and again"; modern medicine does not. A diagnosis of pancreatic or ovarian cancer is a veritable death sentence. Moreover, treatment for mental illness remains in the dark ages (ask my close friend who lived with a bi-polar wife for 17 horrific years).

Given the state of molecular medicine, it is very likely that pancreatic and ovarian cancer will be treatable, if not curable, later in this century. The same goes for bi-polar disorder. There are many diseases and medical conditions that were commonly fatal in the past, that are now easily cured or managed today. Science is not static. It is an ongoing process that continues to advance. The fact that it does not offer "all the answers" does not invalidate its effectiveness.

 

[skyrider44]

How, precisely, did his religious faith impact on his scientific work? Would his results have been different had he been a Hindu, a Sikh or an atheist?

With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant. The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable; and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise.

 

[bruto]

With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant. The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable; and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise.

1: If you, who made the allegation, cannot quantify the extent of influence, the you cannot say questioning the extent of influence is irrelevant.

2: It is unclear, at this point, what your premise actually is, but if you for the moment consider the possibility that all your respondents are not idiots, then another possibility for what you consider a misunderstanding might be that your intentions are not clear. It would probably do everyone including yourself some good if you would try again to express whatever it is you intend.

 

[kerikiwi]

Some people find refuge in semantic manipulation.

Indeed. Like conflating the meanings of 'faith'

 

[RandFan]

The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith...

So, when a pedophile priest rapes a child are they also influenced by their religious faith?

You are engaging in the fallacy of correlation implies causation (post hoc ergo proctor hoc).

• That a priest is a pedophile does not mean that religion influenced their behavior.
• That a friar made an important scientific discovery does not mean that religion influenced his behavior.

 

[The Norseman]

His genetic discoveries remain relevant because he brought to bear both scientific and religious faith.

Evidence of this?

In your second sentence, you make an unsupportable sweeping generalization. The extent to which scientists are influenced by their religious convictions in the practice of science is not monolithic, as the books I listed demonstrate.

Read again what he wrote. Your second sentence is a strawman.

With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant. The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable; and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise.

Unsupportable assertion on your part. Also, in order for this sentence to make sense to others, you should first define what you mean by 'Mendel's work', 'influenced' and 'religious faith.'

 

[tsig]

The two items are not congruent. Gravity does, indeed, work "again and again"; modern medicine does not. A diagnosis of pancreatic or ovarian cancer is a veritable death sentence. Moreover, treatment for mental illness remains in the dark ages (ask my close friend who lived with a bi-polar wife for 17 horrific years).



Really? Why then do scientists posit hypotheses if they have no faith their theories will be validated?

Non-believers tend to suppose that humankind--encased in a mortal shell with only five senses--is omniscient, and that science and technology make them all-knowing. Nope.

Aren't prophets human?


Really?

 

[Foster Zygote]

With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant.

Irrelevant? It is directly related to your assertion. You claim that Mendel's religious beliefs influenced his science. If I ask you how they influenced his science, you can't claim that the question is irrelevant.

The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable;...

You just can't say how, or to what degree.

and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise.

So you can't measure it, but you're sure it supports your position.

Please tell us what aspects of Mendel's employment of the scientific method were determined by his religious faith. Why would an atheist's research have had different for the lack of these religious influences?

 

[catsmate]

Given the state of molecular medicine, it is very likely that pancreatic and ovarian cancer will be treatable, if not curable, later in this century. The same goes for bi-polar disorder. There are many diseases and medical conditions that were commonly fatal in the past, that are now easily cured or managed today. Science is not static. It is an ongoing process that continues to advance. The fact that it does not offer "all the answers" does not invalidate its effectiveness.

At least science based medicine is trying to find the answers unlike faith healing and religion which often obstruct such attempts.

How, precisely, did his religious faith impact on his scientific work? Would his results have been different had he been a Hindu, a Sikh or an atheist?

With due respect, I find your questions irrelevant. The fact is, a) Mendel's work was influenced by his religious faith, the extent to which is probably not quantifiable; and b) even if the answer to your question about possible variance in results achieved by scientists of different religious convictions were determinative, such data would have no bearing whatsoever on my premise.

You have made the assertion, it is up to you to support it with evidence or accept that it is unsupportable and worthless.

 

[poblob14]

When I was studying genetics at Loyola University, our professor was a very old Jesuit priest. (He went emeritus the next year, in fact.)

When the topic of Br. Mendel came up, the good Father stared off into the middle distance, got a wistful look on his face, and said, "Don't ever join a religious order just to get an education. It's not worth it."

Moral: Not all scientists, even those with the outward trappings of religion, allow that religion to inform their work.

 

[skyrider44]

Scientists are not robots, and their ideas and inspirations may come from whatever culture they're immersed in. They might find inspiration in their religion, from something they heard at their grandmother's knee, from the last movie they watched, from something they saw on the way to work...

If you mean something qualitatively different from that, can you explain please?

I agree; they might, indeed, "find inspiration from their religion"--and some do.

 

[skyrider44]

When I was studying genetics at Loyola University, our professor was a very old Jesuit priest. (He went emeritus the next year, in fact.)

When the topic of Br. Mendel came up, the good Father stared off into the middle distance, got a wistful look on his face, and said, "Don't ever join a religious order just to get an education. It's not worth it."

Moral: Not all scientists, even those with the outward trappings of religion, allow that religion to inform their work.

Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.)

 

[MikeG]

At the time Gregor Mendel was working, just about the only way to do science in Germany (as it was then, now in the Czech Republic) was to join the church. His primary interest, BTW, was bees, not plants, and the beehouse he constructed is in a remarkably good state of preservation. The base of the greenhouse where he did his world famous experiments is also still visible.

His career in science was virtually terminated by promotion to high office in the monastery, with dispute resolution, apparently, leaving him little time for his experiments and observations.

Mike

 

[RandFan]

Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.)

Correlation doesn't imply causation. That priests rape children isn't demonstrative that they rape children because of religion. That a Fransican friar discovered genetics isn't demonstrative that his discovery was because of religion.

Your logic is invalid.

 

[RandFan]

Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.)

Please feel free to PM me the links and I will post them. In any event, that's a non-sequitur. You've not demonstrated that spirituality was a causal influence any more than spirituality is a causal influence of priests raping children.

 

[abaddon]

Your professor was entitled to his opinion, even though it conflicts with the spiritual influence Mendel's monastery brothers had on him. (As a newcomer, I can't yet cite outside sources.)

Bull. You passed that milestone hours ago, and in any event, others here will fix any links you care to provide, so no, you do not get off the hook of providing evidence.

 

[bruto]

As I recall Mendel's story, he belonged to an order in which science was held in high esteem. So sure, it's quite possible and even likely that some of his science-loving brethren were helpful in setting him on his path, or that a knowledge of this trait helped him to choose an order where he could pursue his ideas, or both. It's grand and admirable that there are or have been people who believe that finding out the truth about the physical world can lead them to the kind of wisdom they value, and I wish more religious people shared that sentiment. But along with that goes the proviso that in the end it's the quality of the science that counts, and the motivation has no part in the content. It's either science or it isn't, right or wrong for scientific reasons alone, and this is true whatever the motivation, and whatever the hopes.