Jump to content

Religious scientists/doctors


Mr Rayon
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science#2001.E2.80.93today_.2821st_century.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

 

Why are there so many religious scientists/doctors?

 

What makes these people immune to intellectual criticism from the scientific atheist community?

 

Furthermore, if it's good enough for these brainiacs why are there so many anti-religious bigots in the world?

 

Would you ever consider changing your stance in whatever your current spiritual belief system is now?

 

Do you expect religion to ever disappear from the world? If so, when?

 

Also, in your opinion, what is the correlation between religiosity and intelligence?

As people become more intelligent, will they only become more religious or the other way?

 

Do you have an interest in religion?

 

Why is there so many religion-related threads in SFN?

Edited by Mr Rayon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, in your opinion, what is the correlation between religiosity and intelligence?

 

The correlation is not an opinion; it's a fact. As for which way the correlation goes, I'll give you a hint: >95% of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists.

 

Know another correlation? Religiosity and just about every measure of societal health are strongly inversely correlated. Also, atheists are by far underrepresented in prisons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

compared to what?

 

What makes these people immune to intellectual criticism from the scientific atheist community?

 

They're good at divorcing their analytic, skeptical side when it comes to accepting arbitrary cultural beliefs.

 

Furthermore, if it's good enough for these brainiacs why are there so many anti-religious bigots in the world?

define 'so many'...

 

Would you ever consider changing your stance in whatever your current spiritual belief system is now?

absolutely, if any evidence came along. Can you say the same?

 

Do you expect religion to ever disappear from the world? If so, when?

not anytime soon, obviously.

 

Also, in your opinion, what is the correlation between religiosity and intelligence?

As people become more intelligent, will they only become more religious or the other way?

 

I'm guessing not a strong correlation when controlling for factors such as socio-economic status, education, etc.

Do you have an interest in religion?

as a cultural phenomenon, yes.

 

Why is there so many religion-related threads in SFN?

because you people keep starting them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes these people immune to intellectual criticism from the scientific atheist community?

As far as I can tell they get no intellectual criticism from the scientific atheist community unless they seek it out. In which case they are probably interested in other views. I have never in my life been approached by an atheist expounding his beliefs or criticizing mine. The religious however have called me, knocked on my front door, and even started yelling at me on the street. Not to mention the lightly veiled anti-atheist threads on SFN. A better question might be "what makes many of the religious immune to manners".

Edited by zapatos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are there so many religious scientists/doctors?

 

There aren't.

 

97% of Royal society members and 93% of National academy of sciences members answer "No" to the question "Do you believe in a personal god?" http://www.humanreli...telligence.html www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html. This is in two nations (the UK and the USA) where 65% and 93% of the respective populations believe in some form of God. http://en.wikipedia....#United_Kingdom

 

So, Mr. Rayon, the question according to the data is: Why are there so few religious scientists?

 

Care to offer an answer?

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, if it's good enough for these brainiacs why are there so many anti-religious bigots in the world?

 

 

Mr Rayon, first a definition of the word Bigot from Mirriam Webster

 

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

 

 

 

Just take a look at the world, all of the hatred that comes from Religious groups, the wars that eminate from Religious groups, the Fatwahs, the armies that march with God on their side (all of them) The Catholic v Protestant fighting that takes place in Northern Ireland, and you have the nerve, the temerity, to call the anti religious community Bigots?? Why don't you take some time to actually research the facts according to your definition and get back to us on that. Indeed your own aggressive attitude towards those that are irreligious isn't exactly very forgiving is it? Not Christian is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are there so many religious scientists/doctors?

Since when is 35 (from the first link) a large number? In context, of course — there are hundreds of thousands of scientists* in the US alone.

 

 

*only counting physical and life sciences

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a religious person, BUT I do wonder how everything got started... There must be some kind of force involved outside our Universe. With force I don't mean force of higher power, but actual force and it's source.

 

Sure it's possible that net energy in Universe is zero, but what ignited it? Some kind of disturbance maybe, but on what and what disturbance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Born and raised as a Roman Catholic (I am of Italian origin) but have pretty well given it up. This may colour my opinions.

 

Everyone seems to remember the evils brought about by religion but noone remembers all the good they've done and the wars they've stopped.

I would argue that religion is important for ancient developing societies, up to probabily the industrial revolution, because they instilled morals on people. Otherwise it would have been a purely animalistic survival of the fittest. Universal access to education, at least in the developed countries, has brought an end to the need for religion.

 

Don't know if this concerns the OP and scientists' beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest fallacy on this topic is that religious people are supposed to be unable to do scientific work — that religion and science are somehow mutually exclusive.

 

I am religious and I have done a wide variety of scientific work, and my religion has had zero effect on my work, and my work has had zero effect on my religion. Why should my religion exclude me from operating equipment, mixing chemicals, coding programs, analyzing data, writing reports, etc? Why should operating equipment, mixing chemicals, coding programs, analyzing data, writing reports, etc exclude me from being religious?

 

Why are there so many religious scientists? Because there's many religious people and many scientists, and there's bound to be some religious scientists. Think of it in terms of a Venn diagram ([sarcasm] but be careful because using Venn diagrams too much will make you lose your religion [/sarcasm]).

 

What makes these people immune to intellectual criticism from the scientific atheist community? They aren't immune.

 

if it's good enough for these brainiacs why are there so many anti-religious bigots in the world? Because there are many anti-religious bigots in the world.

 

Would you ever consider changing your stance in whatever your current spiritual belief system is now? [sarcasm]Only if I use too many Venn diagrams.[/sarcasm]

 

Do you expect religion to ever disappear from the world? No.

 

Also, in your opinion, what is the correlation between religiosity and intelligence? I don't know; should there be a correlation?

 

As people become more intelligent, will they only become more religious or the other way? Well, some people are getting more intelligent, while most people are becoming more stupid.

 

Do you have an interest in religion? Yes.

 

Why is there so many religion-related threads in SFN? I think the biggest fallacy on this topic is that religion and science are somehow/supposedly mutually exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is there so many religion-related threads in SFN? I think the biggest fallacy on this topic is that religion and science are somehow/supposedly mutually exclusive.

 

They should be. Come on ewmon, what is the meaning of religiosity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That site starts with "I see the phrase “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” tossed around often-especially in terms of religious debates. "

So do I

I ask how they sleep at night with that tiger in their bedroom.

 

Even without all the maths that the web page gives they usually accept that, if there were a tiger they would know about it, so the absence of evidence is actually evidence of absence.

I'd still like MigL to let us know what wars were stopped by religion.

 

Now, I realise that, if the war didn't happen, nobody will have given it a name, but I'd like to see what major international conflict was resolved peacefully, rather than belligerently, because of the intervention of religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Whoever wrote that blog post is extremely sexy.

 

I think the biggest fallacy on this topic is that religious people are supposed to be unable to do scientific work

 

Who said that? Or is it you who is doing the fallacy by creating a straw man?

 

 

 

 

religion and science are somehow mutually exclusive

 

They sure are. And guess which one eventually wins every conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever wrote that blog post is extremely sexy.

 

I can heartily confirm the author is a VERY sexy man.

 

...but I'd like to see what major international conflict was resolved peacefully, rather than belligerently, because of the intervention of religion.

 

oh, oh, now that's the stickler because migl said...

 

...wars they've stopped

 

da da DADAAAAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As people become more intelligent, will they only become more religious or the other way? Well, some people are getting more intelligent, while most people are becoming more stupid.

 

 

I just have to say this is not true. People are, as a whole, becoming more intelligent. It's called the Flynn Effect.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is there so many religion-related threads in SFN? I think the biggest fallacy on this topic is that religion and science are somehow/supposedly mutually exclusive.

They should be. Come on ewmon, what is the meaning of religiosity?

religiosity

n.

the quality of being religious, esp. of being excessively, ostentatiously, or mawkishly religious.

 

I think the biggest fallacy on this topic is that religious people are supposed to be unable to do scientific work

Who said that? Or is it you who is doing the fallacy by creating a straw man?

It seems you answered this question below.

 

that religion and science are somehow mutually exclusive.

They sure are. And guess which one eventually wins every conflict.

So, being religious, I can't do science? I can't operate equipment, mix chemicals, code programs, analyze data, write reports, etc?

 

Well, some people are getting more intelligent, while most people are becoming more stupid.

I just have to say this is not true. People are, as a whole, becoming more intelligent. It's called the Flynn Effect.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Thank you. The Flynn Effect ... I'll want to remember that. Maybe it just seems as though they're getting more stupider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems you answered this question below.

 

Only if you're an idiot or building a straw man.

 

 

So, being religious, I can't do science? I can't operate equipment, mix chemicals, code programs, analyze data, write reports, etc?

 

You may want to check what I said again. Yes, religion and science are mutually exclusive. If you're doing one, you're not doing the other. That's not to say one person can't do either one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well John ( and randomc ), I can think of one instance of religion stopping a war right off the top of my head...

 

In the year 450 BC, after having ransacked most of eastern and western Europe, the forces of the Hunnish empire, led by Attila the Hun, were poised to sack Rome.

The pope of the period ( actually known as the 'bishop' of Rome at the time ), Leo the 1st, met with Attila and convinced him to withdraw from Italy and make peace with the Emperor of the western Roman empire.

 

Attila the Hun left Italy for his home of the eastern steppes, and died shortly after, leaving his empire in disarray, and they never again threatened the west.

 

Like I said, I'm not religious, but I am tolerant, and if some people need to believe in a higher power, who am I to deny them that option.

Besides, the two are apples and oranges, one is a belief ( requires no proof ) the other is a science and is solely based on proof.

I leave it to you to decide which is which.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well John ( and randomc ), I can think of one instance of religion stopping a war right off the top of my head...

 

In the year 450 BC, after having ransacked most of eastern and western Europe, the forces of the Hunnish empire, led by Attila the Hun, were poised to sack Rome.

The pope of the period ( actually known as the 'bishop' of Rome at the time ), Leo the 1st, met with Attila and convinced him to withdraw from Italy and make peace with the Emperor of the western Roman empire.

 

Attila the Hun left Italy for his home of the eastern steppes, and died shortly after, leaving his empire in disarray, and they never again threatened the west.

 

 

MigL, so there was a Pope (or a Bishop) of Rome 450 years Before Christ?? Are you a Mormon? Dont tell me Christian forces were around in Rome before Christ as well as the USA? I dont think Attilla was from the Eastern Steppes either Are they not are Asia? I thought he was more this side of the Urals?

 

I'm just kidding I'm sure you mean A.D.

 

But your example is painfully inadequate, you can counterbalance such a weak argument with, The First Crusade, the Second Crusade, the Third Crusade, The German peasants war, Cromwells conquest of ireland, The thirty years war between the Holy Roman Empire and the Hapsburgs. All of the anti Islamists should take note here, all these quoted wars were waged by Christian forces!

Edited by Sergeant Bilko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well John ( and randomc ), I can think of one instance of religion stopping a war right off the top of my head...

 

In the year 450 BC, after having ransacked most of eastern and western Europe, the forces of the Hunnish empire, led by Attila the Hun, were poised to sack Rome.

The pope of the period ( actually known as the 'bishop' of Rome at the time ), Leo the 1st, met with Attila and convinced him to withdraw from Italy and make peace with the Emperor of the western Roman empire.

 

Attila the Hun left Italy for his home of the eastern steppes, and died shortly after, leaving his empire in disarray, and they never again threatened the west.

 

Like I said, I'm not religious, but I am tolerant, and if some people need to believe in a higher power, who am I to deny them that option.

Besides, the two are apples and oranges, one is a belief ( requires no proof ) the other is a science and is solely based on proof.

I leave it to you to decide which is which.

 

From Attila's wikipage - describing the more likely reason Attila didn't carry on to Rome, as opposed to the propaganda version put about by the Church

 

In reality, Italy had suffered from a terrible famine in 451 and her crops were faring little better in 452; Attila's devastating invasion of the plains of northern Italy this year did not improve the harvest. To advance on Rome would have required supplies which were not available in Italy, and taking the city would not have improved Attila's supply situation. Therefore, it was more profitable for Attila to conclude peace and retreat back to his homeland.

 

Secondly, an East Roman force had crossed the Danube under the command of another officer also named Aetius—who had participated in the Council of Chalcedon the previous year—and proceeded to defeat the Huns who had been left behind by Attila to safeguard their home territories.Attila, hence, faced heavy human and natural pressures to retire "from Italy without ever setting foot south of the Po."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.