Spirit photography

[Walter]

Not the first thing that comes to mind for me

that's cos you're naughty !

[SusanDoris]

I once found a list by faculty showing percentages of religious 'scientists' and from memory , physics showed lowest right down to social sciences which showed highest number of religious.

I think in physics it was lower than 12 percent

iv just had a look for it but cant bloody find it .  perhaps it was in a book !

Agreed! I've seen quite a few times over the years this claim that 'many scientists are religious', but when it comes down to it, the number who are physicists, astronomers, etc is very low indeed, and then it turns out they were retired, had been drawn into the woo etc. who is able to suspend his disbelief and say he worships a god of some sort.
I'd like to see someone come up with the name of a current, working at the cutting edge of astronomy, physics, space engineering, etc.


Edited to add: I recently watched again Sean Carroll's you tube on QFT the Higgs-boson revisited. It is well worth watching I think. That may not be the exact title, but google should find it easily.

[Walter]

Agreed! I've seen quite a few times over the years this claim that 'many scientists are religious', but when it comes down to it, the number who are physicists, astronomers, etc is very low indeed, and then it turns out they were retired, had been drawn into the woo etc. who is able to suspend his disbelief and say he worships a god of some sort.
I'd like to see someone come up with the name of a current, working at the cutting edge of astronomy, physics, space engineering, etc
n

Edited to add: I recently watched again Sean Carroll's you tube on QFT the Higgs-boson revisited. It is well worth watching I think. That may not be the exact title, but google should find it easily.

thanks Susan
Good post and I'll have a look for the vid later x

[ippy]

Agreed! I've seen quite a few times over the years this claim that 'many scientists are religious', but when it comes down to it, the number who are physicists, astronomers, etc is very low indeed, and then it turns out they were retired, had been drawn into the woo etc. who is able to suspend his disbelief and say he worships a god of some sort.
I'd like to see someone come up with the name of a current, working at the cutting edge of astronomy, physics, space engineering, etc
n

Edited to add: I recently watched again Sean Carroll's you tube on QFT the Higgs-boson revisited. It is well worth watching I think. That may not be the exact title, but google should find it easily.

Steve Jones Biologist U. C. L. Will he do Susan.

ippy

[Shaker]

Steve Jones Biologist U. C. L. Will he do Susan.

ippy

Have you got the right man ippy? Steve Jones is an atheist.

http://tinyurl.com/y84jqxxm

[Nearly Sane]

Agreed! I've seen quite a few times over the years this claim that 'many scientists are religious', but when it comes down to it, the number who are physicists, astronomers, etc is very low indeed, and then it turns out they were retired, had been drawn into the woo etc. who is able to suspend his disbelief and say he worships a god of some sort.
I'd like to see someone come up with the name of a current, working at the cutting edge of astronomy, physics, space engineering, etc
n

Edited to add: I recently watched again Sean Carroll's you tube on QFT the Higgs-boson revisited. It is well worth watching I think. That may not be the exact title, but google should find it easily.

Let's remember first of all that my statement was there are lots of scientists who I disagree with. Now given that Walter states under 12% of physicists and higher for other disciplines. That's a big number. As to your claim that any who did believe it from those fields were drawn into it because they were old that's an unevidenced assertion and a No True Scotsman fallacy.

I am unsure of who is at the cutting edge of those disciplines and I don't know the religious persuasion of those that I know of  who are other than a few obvious ones, but I note the moving of the goalposts.

Anyway just to check what is  your opinion of say Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris and Ken Miller? 

[SusanDoris]

NS #202

I'll come back to respond as soon as I can.

[Walter]

Let's remember first of all that my statement was there are lots of scientists who I disagree with. Now given that Walter states under 12% of physicists and higher for other disciplines. That's a big number. As to your claim that any who did believe it from those fields were drawn into it because they were old that's an unevidenced assertion and a No True Scotsman fallacy.

I am unsure of who is at the cutting edge of those disciplines and I don't know the religious persuasion of those that I know of  who are other than a few obvious ones, but I note the moving of the goalposts.

Anyway just to check what is  your opinion of say Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris and Ken Miller?

an example that anomalies occur in nature . The ability to compartmentalise different and opposing thoughts at the same time as in cognitive dissonance and still fully function in your field does not mean you are correct about the opposing one .
Humans are very strange creatures and in these cases I  personally have no respect for them

[Nearly Sane]

an example that anomalies occur in nature . The ability to compartmentalise different and opposing thoughts at the same time as in cognitive dissonance and still fully function in your field does not mean you are correct about the opposing one .
Humans are very strange creatures and in these cases I  personally have no respect for them

And since I wasn't suggesting they are correct in a different field, one only has to look at Pauling to understand that. But that in turn means the quotation of any number of scientists as regards a non scientific question is of no more worth than any random group.

[Nearly Sane]

NS #202

I'll come back to respond as soon as I can.

No problem, keep tapping in all senses!

[Shaker]

And since I wasn't suggesting they are correct in a different field, one only has to look at Pauling to understand that. But that in turn means the quotation of any number of scientists as regards a non scientific question is of no more worth than any random group.

Feynman said: "A scientist looking at a non-scientific problem is as dumb as the next guy."

That said, it would be nice to think that the sort of mental training that the scientific endeavour inculcates (hopefully) means that they needn't be as dumb as the next guy. Going by the sheer amount of fairly elementary fallacies they commit that wouldn't go through on the nod at work I don't think that can be said of many religious scientists. None that I'm aware of, anyway.

[Nearly Sane]

Feynman said: "A scientist looking at a non-scientific problem is as dumb as the next guy."

That said, it would be nice to think that the sort of mental training that the scientific endeavour inculcates (hopefully) means that they needn't be as dumb as the next guy.

Anecdotally it often feels like the opposite, as when dealing with issues where there is no right answer.

[ProfessorDavey]

Have you got the right man ippy? Steve Jones is an atheist.

http://tinyurl.com/y84jqxxm

Yes - that was my point too.

[Walter]

And since I wasn't suggesting they are correct in a different field, one only has to look at Pauling to understand that. But that in turn means the quotation of any number of scientists as regards a non scientific question is of no more worth than any random group.

spot on

[ippy]

Have you got the right man ippy? Steve Jones is an atheist.

http://tinyurl.com/y84jqxxm

Of course he is, I misread Susan's post, bit busy at the mo, painting my living room ceiling, must have had a dob of paint in my eye.

Apologies.

ippy 

[SusanDoris]

Ns 202 

All three, however valuable and useful their scientific work and research have been, appear to have a large blind spot. I think it is sad that they have allowed belief in a totally unevidenced God to cloud their views. One wonders how much more they  could achieve in the world of science without such a belief.

I obtained some quotes :
http://www.equip.org/article/no-god-of-the-gaps-allowed-francis-collins-

Collins is an Evangelical Christian [1] and a theistic evolutionist[2], which exasperates biologists…

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/simon-conway-different habitats

Conway Morris then takes up Alfred Russel Wallace’s nineteenth-century position that the evoution of the human mind is inexplicable by evolution:

I see that Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic, so however much he may think he can separate that from his scientific work, I  hope that he is being constantly challenged, so that future generations do not fall into the trap of belief.

[Nearly Sane]

Ns 202 

All three, however valuable and useful their scientific work and research have been, appear to have a large blind spot. I think it is sad that they have allowed belief in a totally unevidenced God to cloud their views. One wonders how much more they  could achieve in the world of science without such a belief.

I obtained some quotes :
http://www.equip.org/article/no-god-of-the-gaps-allowed-francis-collins-https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/simon-conway-different habitatsI see that Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic, so however much he may think he can separate that from his scientific work, I  hope that he is being constantly challenged, so that future generations do not fall into the trap of belief.

And again, the point here is that there are scientists who believe things I disagree with. I also disagree with your repeated No True Scotsman with a soupçon of Ipse Dixit here.

[SusanDoris]

NS

Okay!!

[Shaker]

And again, the point here is that there are scientists who believe things I disagree with. I also disagree with your repeated No True Scotsman with a soupçon of Ipse Dixit here.

It would be a NTS if it was being argued that they're not actually scientists. It isn't - Collins, Miller, SCM  et. al. are all highly trained and qualified scientists in their respective fields; what's being stated is that they're inconsistent in their application of the scientific method, believing things on emotionally appealing grounds that they would never in a million years accept professionally.

Walter had the right of it in #204: "The ability to compartmentalise different and opposing thoughts at the same time as in cognitive dissonance and still fully function in your field does not mean you are correct about the opposing one".

[Nearly Sane]

It would be a NTS if it was being argued that they're not actually scientists. It isn't - Collins, Miller, SCM  et. al. are all highly trained and qualified scientists in their respective fields; what's being stated is that they're inconsistent in their application of the scientific method, believing things on emotionally appealing grounds that they would never in a million years accept professionally.

Walter had the right of it in #204: "The ability to compartmentalise different and opposing thoughts at the same time as in cognitive dissonance and still fully function in your field does not mean you are correct about the opposing one".

Except it is exactly an NTS because it argues their views can be dismissed because they are their views. No true scientist could believe these things therefore these are not true scientists.

Because all I said was that there are many scientists whose views I disagree with

[ProfessorDavey]

Ns 202 

All three, however valuable and useful their scientific work and research have been, appear to have a large blind spot. I think it is sad that they have allowed belief in a totally unevidenced God to cloud their views. One wonders how much more they  could achieve in the world of science without such a belief.

I obtained some quotes :
http://www.equip.org/article/no-god-of-the-gaps-allowed-francis-collins-https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/simon-conway-different habitatsI see that Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic, so however much he may think he can separate that from his scientific work, I  hope that he is being constantly challenged, so that future generations do not fall into the trap of belief.

As someone who spends much of his professional life around scientists, my experience suggests that scientists are significantly more likely to be non religious and specifically atheist than the general population.

That said I know a number of scientists who are religious (various religions), however in nearly all cases there seems to be compartmentalisation between their professionalism as a scientist and their private beliefs. Certainly there is little evidence that there is a conflict, nor that they are trying to use their profession to support their belief or vice versa.

I can think of a couple of example of more evangelical Christian scientists (in each case it is Christian) - one of whom is often put forward as a creationist and a scientist (his scientific discipline isn't linked to speciation etc), who also had a reputation amongst his colleagues for ... well, making up data. His identity shall not be revealed.

[Nearly Sane]

As someone who spends much of his professional life around scientists, my experience suggests that scientists are significantly more likely to be non religious and specifically atheist than the general population.

That said I know a number of scientists who are religious (various religions), however in nearly all cases there seems to be compartmentalisation between their professionalism as a scientist and their private beliefs. Certainly there is little evidence that there is a conflict, nor that they are trying to use their profession to support their belief or vice versa.

I can think of a couple of example of more evangelical Christian scientists (in each case it is Christian) - one of whom is often put forward as a creationist and a scientist (his scientific discipline isn't linked to speciation etc), who also had a reputation amongst his colleagues for ... well, making up data. His identity shall no be revealed.

Holy unevidenced poisoning of the well, Prof D! By the way just to check, was the person Scottish?

[ProfessorDavey]

Holy unevidenced poisoning of the well, Prof D! By the way just to check, was the person Scottish?

Wholly, I think you will find.

Merely sharing my knowledge of this guy and his reputation amongst those who worked with him, including PhD students he supervised. He is now retired and no he isn't Scottish - why exactly is that question relevant.

You can choose to believe me or not, that's up to you to decide.

[Nearly Sane]

Wholly, I think you will find.

Merely sharing my knowledge of this guy and his reputation amongst those who worked with him, including PhD students he supervised. He is now retired and no he isn't Scottish - why exactly is that question relevant.

You can choose to believe me or not, that's up to you to decide.

Holy whoosh, Prof D! And attempt to poison well by an unevidenced statement with a clearly implied generalisation! Hey everyone it's Poison Davy!

[ProfessorDavey]

Holy whoosh, Prof D! And attempt to poison well by an unevidenced statement with a clearly implied generalisation! Hey everyone it's Poison Davy!

I am not making claim of generalisation - indeed I was absolutely clear that I was making a specific point about a specific person. In a broader sense I was merely providing my experience as a professional scientist and therefore likely to have interacted with more professional scientists than most on this message board.

By the way, why was it relevant to ask me whether this person was Scottish?