Saturday, February 21, 2009

Leading scientists still reject God

"You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge."

Eventually we must stop the stupid blabber about how religion and science are compatible, and just admit that they are not.


NS said...

There was that guy named Planck :)

Actually, I'm beginning to think that atheism - generally, an ability to accept and understand world based on reason, not beliefs - is a genetic trait. It's either there or not, arguing with people who do not have it is like arguing with a brick wall.

You talk to somebody, and a first impression is that the guy is dishonest. You dig deeper, and then it's clear that his dishonesty is not intentional, it's just the way his (or her, for that matter) brain is functioning. Obviously, there's enough dishonesty among those people, too, but that's easier to understand and explain.

DzembuGaijin said...

"Science and Religion are not like banana and apple, they are more like banana and sewing machine"


We should also separate the stupid ultimate of "explaining or understanding the universe/God" and applying either religion or science for some specific purpose : controlling minds with say just a words and say rockets and nukes :-) We can clearly see that both disciplines are very effective in that using their own ways.

Now, "way" or TAO would say:

"The Tao that can be told
is not eternal Tao.
The name that can be named
is not eternal name.

The Tao is both named and nameless.
As nameless it is the origin of all things;
as named it is the Mother of 10,000 things."

In a nut shell when we see God as an old dude with beard or electron as a small blue ball we will grossly oversimplify things :-)

So nether religion or science can provide a real answer till they use "A IS B" pattern or label things. I also believe that getting an answer may be fundamentally impossible , but I am very sure that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE with our current language ( English ) and state of brain development: nature is too fucking complex :-)

That does not mean science is invalid: it is very useful when used as applied discipline. But there is not "laws" of physics: it is more like "applied local observations", not a fundamental "laws", just what our gross approximation gave us to be useful as practical tools. The so called "laws" does not explain shit :-)

Note that both religion and science can be used for good or for bad very effectively. It can be used for peace and fun or it can be used for cultivating hatred, Earth pollution and weapons.

As I already mentioned, it is very complicated and interrelated subject, that we could not fully comprehend. It is a great mystery :-)

"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery;
ever desiring, one sees only the manifestations.
And the mystery itself is the doorway
to all understanding"

Love and Peace! :-)

Unknown said...

Sergey, I recommend you the recent long publication of Yuri Afanasiev (hope you remember who this guy is)

He also touches the issue of bashing the religion by the french enlightenment and their followers.

I agree that there're a lot of arguable points in his long paper, but besides that there is also a strong rational core.

BadTux said...

The main problem I have with religion is the insistence of religious persons that there are some subjects which are not subject to scientific validation because the only answer to those questions is "The Great Penguin dunnit" (substitute deity or deities of choice for "The Great Penguin"). I have absolutely no problem with them chewing their flat bread and drinking their bad wine while pretending they're eating human flesh and blood, or sitting in circles staring at their navels while going OHMMMM, or singing gospel hymns while swaying to and fro, or participating in the Sacrament of the Herring or whatever silly religious belief makes them feel good about themselves in the world. It's when they try to tell scientists that there are questions that Must Not Be Asked or Cannot Be Explored that I get irritated with religious folks.

As for the compatibility of religious thought and science, to make them compatible requires a good dose of Orwellian double-think, i.e., the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in one's head at the same time. Religion says there are questions that cannot be answered via reason (read the entire Book of Job for a drastic example of religious thought). Science says that all questions can and must be explored via reason to the extent possible given current tools and knowledge. I suppose you can hold both thoughts in your head at the same time, but George Orwell's Ministry of Truth would certainly be proud of you for doing so.