Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religous about their science

Zeuzzz

Banned
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
5,211
Well I think that the title sums it up quite succinctly.

The idea that science is a religion is ludicrous, science is an extremely useful internally self consistent system, a vital tool for understanding how the universe works. Religion is an attempt at changing peoples thought systems, some might say, a sycophantic type of moral law. No religion is consistant with one another in most regards. And you have to balance all the positive effects individuals get (church's, spiritual guidance, etc) against the mass atrocities that have happened over the years due to religion. And still do. Most religious leaders are slightly bigoted, due to their dated beliefs.

Now we have the average scientist. They go to work, do their research, go to a lecture, and then they come home from all that, to whats important, their family and wife/husband. I've noticed that those people that have religious type convictions about scientific areas will tend to not have partners, or instead strained relationships, as they are so vehemently engrossed in their subject they have time for little else. Some get the balance right and can carry on happily seeking their subconscious god whilst keeping things in order. Lots end up as crackpots too however.

Now we have a hypothetical religious scientist. Since a kid he was always fascinated with time and where the universe came from and decided this was his career path. After studying the literature in depth he understands the theory, but to him its more than a theory, its a blueprint that can reveal to him the secret of the creation of the universe, or the answer to philosophical matters, like the argument from universal causation. And this is what he's always looking for in the data, better explanations of a creation event. To him data and time periods can reveal special information, for example the exact millisecond the universe was created, the Planck time 10-43s can be deduced, and many other figures and times. These numbers, to a normal scientist are just data, but to the religious scientist its more like a revelation from the universe. You will often hear the mathematicians saying the theory is "beautiful" and "mystical" or words to that effect at this point. The apparent accuracy of the models results makes the person loose sight that this is one data set out of many, the error bounds on the figures are enormous, new better equipment is made all the time, and many other reasons.

A normal scientist may get new data that shows the old data to be wrong, and he will just forget about the previous results. The religious scientist tries his hardest to keep the figures he previously worked out were significant in some way in the literature. And thus starts the downward spiral into crackpot-en-dom. After finding his religious revelation he has no intention of loosing it. To him its the secret of the universe that can be used for boundless purposes. So he'll probably invent something metaphysical like Aether Quantum Dynamics to explain why hes right and everyone else is wrong.


I guess what I'm saying in a roundabout way is that scientists that distance themselves from their work and the meaning of it all (maybe in exchange for a happy family life) always seem to end up inadvertently finding much better scientific discoveries than the religious type of scientist. They also have the ability to admit openly when their theory is falsified, and they move on. A religious scientist would NEVER let that happen.


The way I see it is that normal scientists are doing a great job at expanding our understanding of the universe and consciousness. All the theories seem to fit ..... kinda nicely at the moment, and there are new branches like epigenetics and nano technology which look very interesting.

And the religious scientists? Well, most of them are mad as a hatter and completely wrong about all their work. Their contributions to the literature hold back progress of other areas. However, this thinking outside the box (outside the internally self consistent scientific model) is bound to come up with some gems in the future. Think of Hoyle and the "Big Bang", which he said in jest, but later evidence pointed towards him being correct. He was also correct about many other things too, and a very religious man.


After slagging off religious scientists so much I should end by saying that not all religious scientists are bad for scientific progress, there's the occasional gem that shines bright enough to catch the eye of the people working on their internally self consistent theories, and many times over the years these ideas have been picked up.

Rant rant rant.
 
Actually Hoyle supported the Steady State, and Big Bang was a derisive term he used about the conflicting theory which turned out to be the more correct one. Georges Lemaître, a priest, was the one to suggest the expanding universe theory based on observations by Slipher and his team.

After reading your rant, it seemed to be appropriate to suggest this article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
 
Last edited:
So , who are these religous scientists Zeuzzz, where is one that says that they can deduce something prior to t<=10-36 seconds?

So where are these people holding back the exploration of science Zeuzzz, any particular fields or people you are thinking about?

Or was this just a rant in no particular sense?

So where is this data being ignored, where are the bounds of science being held back by these people?
 
Last edited:
So now you can call anyone disagreeing with your pet theory a 'religious scientist' AKA a raving lunatic holding back the progress of science with his close minded hate filled ways, and also his soul is black as night and fueled by the tears of beaten children.
 
Well lets have a look at some quotes then straight from the horses mouth, directly from leading scientific cosmologists:

http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/religion.html
Every culture has had myths about how the world began. In modern times, we are very technological and we have our scientific version. And it turns out that science's version is more incredible than any myth anyone ever made.

Then, last week, American scientists announced the discovery of radiation patterns in space that may mark the beginning of time itself. Said astrophysicist George Smoot, leader of the research team: "If you're religious, it's like looking at God. The order is so beautiful and the symmetry so beautiful that you think there is some design behind it."

Whatever caused the rapid expansion of the universe following the Big Bang--the same forces caused tiny ripples. Because if you try to do something too fast, you shake a little. God might be the designer.
--Maclean's, May 4, 1992 (the three above quotes are by George Smoot).


"It is a mystical experience, like a religious experience," Smoot said, reflecting the unscientific thoughts he had allowed himself in recent days, after the rigorous analysis of data was well behind him. "It really is like finding the driving mechanism for the universe, and isn't that what God is?" --(San Jose Mercury News, May 12, 1992. Story by John Noble Wilford of the New York Times.)


"By studying the way objects attract each other," Lange goes on, "we can come to the conclusion that there must be something [in the universe] that isn't normal matter, something that's some new form of matter. And any particle that exists--that God put in from the beginning--if it's stable, would still be around in great abundance.” --Andrew Lange (April 26, 1991 issue of the East Bay Express: "The Revenge of the WIMPS" an article by Steve Heimoff on current cosmology. This article centers on the U.C. Berkeley Lange Group, "a group of instructors, graduate students, and department assistants, organized under assistant professor of physics Andrew Lange.”)


The evolution of the universe from nothing is described by the big bang theory.
--astrophysicists Fang Li Zhi and Li Shu Xian, (Creation of the Universe, World Scientific, 1989)


What is the ultimate solution to the origin of the Universe? The answers provided by the astronomers are disconcerting and remarkable. Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation.
--astronomer Robert Jastrow, (Until the Sun Dies, 1977) p


Should I go on?

....

To the contrary, "creation out of nothing" is a concept unique to Western religions. In traditional Western religious thought, the conception of a creator of the world is a conception of God. Indeed, creation of the world "out of nothing" is the ultimate religious statement because God is the only actor....
--Rev. Bill McLean, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Arkansas Board of Education, et al., Defendants. No. LR C 81 322., United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, W.D., January 5, 1982.

Concepts concerning...a supreme being of some sort are manifestly religious....These concepts do not shed that religiosity merely because they are presented as philosophy or as a science... Malnak v. Yogi, 440 F.Supp. 1284, 1322 (D.N.J. 1977); aff’d per curiam, 592 F.2d 197 (3d Cir. 1979).


Mr. Wouk also raises an interesting issue regarding creationism. My complaint that fundamentalist creationism is inspired by big bang creationism (Physics Today, April 1983) was echoed recently by John Maddox, who writes in his August 10, 1989, Nature editorial, "Creationists and those of similar persuasions seeking support for their opinions have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang”. --Anthony Peratt (The Sciences, July/August 1990)


The Astronomy Book Club interviews the author of The Mind of God, the book by Professor Paul Davies:

Q: At one point in THE MIND OF GOD you ask, "If we can never get a handle on the laws [of nature] except through their manifestation in physical phenomena, what right have we got to attribute to them an independent [transcendent] existence?" What's the answer?

A: It's clear that at a certain point one has to take a metaphysical position. We're never going to tell from our investigations of the world whether these laws have an independent existence or not. But if the laws don't have an independent existence, then we can never appeal to them to explain how the Universe came into existence, because it's only if there are transcendent, independent laws capable of bringing the Universe into being and sustaining its existence through time that we can even conceive of an explanation for the origin of the Universe.

It is pretty transparent that Davies’ "transcendent, independent laws" are his words for God. p


More?

They sure seem keen to bring god into science. Which I think is most unscientific. A minority of Genealogists I've noticed also share the same thought system, and similar quotes can be found for them. There are probably a few religious scientists in every profession.
 
Well I think that the title sums it up quite succinctly.

...

Rant rant rant.
I agree - this is a "Rant rant rant" about the obvious.
In any group of people sharing a common world view there will always be individuals in that group who are "religious" abut the world view.
 
This. Most certainly. He was a lucky one whose unorthodox theories actually had big effects.

Bzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong. He was the one inside the box. Hoyle clung to Steady State well beyond the confirmation of the cosmic microwave background information... Hence why I pointed out your mistake in citing him. The outside of the box guy was Georges Lemaître. ;)

Just saying. :D
 
So, how is this holding science back Zeuzzz, so somebody somehwere said something silly.

And Fred Hoyle was wrong about the BBt his steady state theory was way wrong.
 
Well lets have a look at some quotes then straight from the horses mouth, directly from leading scientific cosmologists:

Should I go on?


More?

They sure seem keen to bring god into science. Which I think is most unscientific. A minority of Genealogists I've noticed also share the same thought system, and similar quotes can be found for them. There are probably a few religious scientists in every profession.
Yes go on - please quote every scientist who ever referred to god in any context.

Meanwhile I will start to quote every statement in science that does not refer to god. Lets start with Newton:
Every body will persist in its state of rest or of uniform motion (constant velocity) in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.
Hmmm ... no god there :D .

The fact is that there are scientists who are Christians, Muslims and even Buddists and they may make statements that use religoius language. So what?
 
So, I'm a bit confused about what this thread is supposed to be about. Religious scientists are those that cling to falsified theories, right? So are we talking about the crackpots who believe in electric universe theories?
 
So, I'm a bit confused about what this thread is supposed to be about. Religious scientists are those that cling to falsified theories, right? So are we talking about the crackpots who believe in electric universe theories?
You are not alone in the confusion.
My impression was that Zeuzzz wants to talk about the use of religious language in science. That is a fairly easy topic but short - people use the language of the culture that they are raised in.

But ...
  • the opening post includes a straw man type argument where he creates a hypothetical stereotyped "scientist" from what looks like his own (mis)conceptions about them.
  • he seems to think that using any religuous language (god, creation, etc) in a quote invalidates any science in that quote.
 
What is the point in this thread? If someone wanted to pick an instance where religion had been detrimental to scientific progress then fair enough. But all I see is various bits of quote mining of people who've said things scientific whilst using the language of religion. No evidence that these quote have been detrimental and no acknowledgement that most of the quotes seem to be similes and metaphors.
 
Why do people even bother to respond to this nonsense posted by Zeuzzz any more? It's even lost its entertainment value, by this stage :rolleyes:
 
Ironically, if there is any theory that actually has a religious background its plasma cosmology.
 
Last edited:
Ironically, if there is any theory that actually has a religious background its plasma cosmology.


Find me the same plethora of quotes about "god" from plasma cosmology advocates in the literature then.

I've found that they seldom, if ever, need to resort to god, to explain away aspects of their theories or the brilliance of their models.

I'm waiting.
 
Find me the same plethora of quotes about "god" from plasma cosmology advocates in the literature then.

I've found that they seldom, if ever, need to resort to god, to explain away aspects of their theories or the brilliance of their models.


I'm waiting.
  1. Plasma cosmology does not exist (see the Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not thread) except as fairly arbitrary collection of mostly mutually exclusive and easily debunked theories. Thus there are no such things as "plasma cosmology advocates".
  2. No one in any scientific literature is using god to explain aspects of cosmological theories. They are using science.
  3. I have no idea why you think that a religious person who believes in a god crediting that god with the brilliance of their models says anything about the science or even correctness of the model.
    As an atheist I credit the brilliance of their models to the people who created it.
  4. The "brilliance" of a scientific model states nothing about the correctness of the model. The ancient Greeks four elements model was brilliant and wrong.
Tubbythin said it best:
What is the point in this thread? If someone wanted to pick an instance where religion had been detrimental to scientific progress then fair enough. But all I see is various bits of quote mining of people who've said things scientific whilst using the language of religion. No evidence that these quote have been detrimental and no acknowledgement that most of the quotes seem to be similes and metaphors.

Zeuzzz:
Do you know what a simile is?
Do you know what a metaphor is?
Do you think that only atheists can do science?

I am waiting for your quote from a cosmologist stating that "god did it" (creationists do not count).

ETA
The cited above thread is very long so here is the relevant post
Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered since the middle of 2008:
The "plasma cosmology" as defined by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

Zeuzzz gave one definition which resulted in "a collection of scientific theories with a common thread" definition. This common thread seems to be that the theory emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe and/or is a steady state cosmological theory. This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection.

He then seemed to retract that definition (despite having contributed several theories to the collection) in favor of another (Lerner's?) definition which is hidden somewhere in the thread. I think that it is this post from 3rd July 2008. It is similar to the first definition, i.e. defines itself as non-science. Science fits theories to the data. Science does not assume that a theory is correct and go looking for data to confirm this (ignoring data that does not match or theories that better match the data).


Contrast this to the definition of the Big Bang theory:
  • General Relativity (Hubble's Law, etc. which lead to an hot dense state of the universe)
  • Dark matter (motion of galaxies in galactic clusters, mass distribution from gravitational lensing, etc.).
  • Dark energy (measured accelerating expansion of the universe)
  • Inflation (large-scale structure of the universe).
This is a consistent set of theories that best match the data.
 
Last edited:
Dude.
That's like so deep dude.
It's like so much stuff dude.
It's like someone trying to blame others for how much of a failure they are.
...that's actually kind of pathetic dude.
 
A normal scientist may get new data that shows the old data to be wrong, and he will just forget about the previous results. The religious scientist tries his hardest to keep the figures he previously worked out were significant in some way in the literature.

By that definition, all scientists are religious.
 
I give up on this forum.

Too many people holding too many stupid arrogant grudges for me to make any sort of productive conversation possible on any subject.
 
Find me the same plethora of quotes about "god" from plasma cosmology advocates in the literature then.

I've found that they seldom, if ever, need to resort to god, to explain away aspects of their theories or the brilliance of their models.

I'm waiting.

Yes but as I recall the strong assertions that EM forces are capable of doing things that they can not do, due to the strengths of the forces as measured, is rather dogmatic. Now does that mean it is religous, no, is it dogmatic, yes.

So where is the detriment to science you were talking about?
 
I give up on this forum.

Too many people holding too many stupid arrogant grudges for me to make any sort of productive conversation possible on any subject.

Why> because you were wrong about Fred Hoyle, or because you were asked to support your assertion that some dogma is holding back science?
 
Find me the same plethora of quotes about "god" from plasma cosmology advocates in the literature then.

I've found that they seldom, if ever, need to resort to god, to explain away aspects of their theories or the brilliance of their models.

I'm waiting.

Why bother? Quote mining doesn't mean anything. This is a science forum.
 
I give up on this forum.

Too many people holding too many stupid arrogant grudges for me to make any sort of productive conversation possible on any subject.

Who's being arrogant?
As far as I can see, rather than use science to show why you don't like certain scientific theories you chose to make up some strawman religious scientist to bash, quote mine a load of similes and metaphors from proponents of said theories and then unjustifiably conclude that said scientists (and by proxy said science) was hampered by religious dogma. And you wonder why the thread lacks productive conversation?
 
:confused:
Some scientists cling to their pet theories in spite of new discoveries?
Well, yes that sounds human/unprofessional.

And your point is???
 
Who's being arrogant?
As far as I can see, rather than use science to show why you don't like certain scientific theories you chose to make up some strawman religious scientist to bash, quote mine a load of similes and metaphors from proponents of said theories and then unjustifiably conclude that said scientists (and by proxy said science) was hampered by religious dogma. And you wonder why the thread lacks productive conversation?

Welcome to a Zeuzzz thread. I don't participate, I just read, and sigh, and leave.

Why do I even read them? To be educated by the people spanking him (see Zeuzzz, it's a metaphor.)
 
You hope too much complexity.

And people mentioning straw mans or a stereotyped "scientist" need to pay special attention to the word "hypothetical".

@ Zeuzzz

Have you ever actually met a scientist? :confused:


Yes. All ace people, even the ones I thought were slightly eccentric or using science for religious reasons. They don't seem anything like a lot of people on this forum, at all, however. Having currently re-sat my last year of my degree in physics, I will be one myself soon if all goes to plan.


I started this (nearly) same thread on 4 other forums to see the difference in reactions. They all largely agreed with me and said it was a good point. These were similar science forums.

Besides I actually held some of you in high regard until you jumped on the bandwagon too recently. You, complexity, have always been (to me at least) a particularly nasty derisionary insulant individual, if your on a hitchenesque crusade for science against all dissenting vioces then go ahead, but your no worse than the religous zealots that try to enforce their world view on the rest of the worlds population. Your a fundamentalist.

I've said Im done with this forum about 100 times. Its turning into an abusive relationship. At the moment some of you just make me want to top myslelf. Which I would not, of course, ever do, thats no threat; but really, the conduct towards some members here is on occasions nothing more than chronic bullying done, often under the guise of "education and science".

Unfortunately though, complexity,

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--- George Bernard Shaw


And some else of you could do well to take in these two quotes;

—Jonathan Sacks
"Well I define fundamentalism as the attempt to impose a single 'truth' on a plural world. And what really lies behind it is fear, a profound insecurity that makes you feel when you meet someone who is not like you, or doesn't agree with you, that that challenge is a threat against your very being. Aggression is always a sign of insecurity. And insecurity is always, at bottom, a lack of faith, not a presence of faith"

Proff Sir Anston Winston.
The Fundamentalist Christians have told me that I am a slave of Satan and should have the demons expelled with an exorcism. The Fundamentalist Materialists inform me that I am a liar, a charlatan, fraud and scoundrel. Aside from this minor difference, the letters are astoundingly similar. Both groups share in the same crusading zeal and the same total lack of humor, charity, and common human decency.


Im done.

(for now)

PS. Thx david and realitycheck for actually trying to keep this thread on topic, you were nearly completely civil to me too, like you used to be.
 
I started this (nearly) same thread on 4 other forums to see the difference in reactions. They all largely agreed with me and said it was a good point. These were similar science forums.
Wow. I must read these forums.
You shouldn't have any issue with linking to these threads...do you?
 
Mmmhm? A person can also be "religiously" anti-religious I suppose. Nothing noteworthy about it, even so I do not agree with the frame or your (OP's) psychological "taxonomy" of 'the scientist' like so. Not at all. Or, I just didn't get it.
 
So where was the deteriment to science?

Detrimental to its reputation to have top scientists keep explaining things as gods work.

And also detrimental to the science itself no doubt, as for example the person who said "It really is like finding the driving mechanism for the universe, and isn't that what God is?" has created a religous/spiritual attatchment to his findings. So when they are proved wrong in a few years, either from analysis or new data, hes going to want to keep his special findings in the limelight for as long as possible. Even though its now wrong. Thus he is pushing bad science for religous reasons. Or as people on this forum that so like stereotyping people would say, is a crackpot; an awful personal and pejorative habit that even I've picked up now when posting here.
 

Back
Top Bottom