When Are Scientists Not True Scientists?
I had an interesting conversation with an atheist friend on mine over IM the other day. They were arguing that scientists who had religious beliefs couldn’t be “full” scientists because of their irrational belief systems. I pointed out that this accusation was bordering on the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy, because it doesn’t properly consider the definitions involved.
Firstly, a scientist is someone who furthers human knowledge by experimentation and observation. Of course this definition does not quite cover it, as it can also mean someone who uses the scientific method (observing, forming hypothesis, testing, forming theories etc.). The question remains is how some people can fit religion into this picture.
I argued that the majority of theistic scientists find ways to separate their religious beliefs from their science. They understand that their work reflects the observable world, and maintain that their religion reflects the unobservable. Others hold that without their religious beliefs, none of what they do would make any sense. They claim that the world just makes more sense with a God in the picture. I can understand this viewpoint, although obviously I disagree with them.
My friend countered that there were also scientists who did not fit in the above category. People like Michael Behe or Guillermo Gonzalez certainly do not hide their religious beliefs, even if they try desperately to in order to force I.D into public schools in America. However, even in these cricumstances I would say Behe and Gonzalez are “true” scientists. Sure, they might contribute some wacky ideas to the scientific community, but they have in the past contributed some good ideas (in order to get to where they are in the first place). Anyway, the whole point of science is to separate the wrong ideas from the right ones. Of course both Behe and Gonzalez are very unscientific in their denial that I.D is all but dead and buried in terms of actual scientific accuracy.
In the end, we agreed to disagree on the subject. My friend couldn’t see how scientists can be so rational at work and so irrational in their own time, but I guess you’d have to ask a theistic scientist that. I know Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic, so I guess that means he thinks God sent his son down in the form of the most advanced species on Earth. To me (and all atheists I presume) this makes absolutely no logical sense, but it does make for interesting conversation.
Contact Adrian Hayter
My Facebook
My Atheist Nexus Page
My Twitter
My Reddit
My Atheist Spot
My FriendFeed
My Technorati
Atheist Forums
Loading ...
I understand your friends view very well. I work for a BioTech company and I have an extremely hard time understanding how individuals with degrees in biology and the various offshoots can still have very strong, almost fundamentalist, viewpoints about their religion. We have here Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus and how they can have a strong understanding of evolution and still believe in ID (or whatever their religious equivalent) is, to me, living an intellectual lie.
There's that guy, I think his name is Collins, who was the lead scientist in the genome project. He's completely theistic, he believes in the virgin mary and all that nonsense, and yet, I don't think there's anyone insane enough to say he isn't one of the most competent and brilliant bio-medical scientists out there.
To be atheist, ok, to be religiously and blindly atheist, another altogether. Nice try though, Adrian.
"My friend couldn’t see how scientists can be so rational at work and so irrational in their own time, but I guess you’d have to ask a theistic scientist that."
I can see how: Compartmentalization.
Look at this:
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/compartmentalizatio...
It is also helpful to keep in mind that the idea that there is an inherent conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis) between science and religion is just one historiographical interpretation of the relationship between the two. Many religious people think that science and religion can not only exist together in harmony, but science can even be helpful to religious faith and theology by performing its traditional role as handmaiden or servant (this was the view of Augustine and Aquinas). Ken Miller is apparently one who thinks this way: science may actually complement religious belief. According to this approach, the Galileo affair was not an example of a clash between science and religion, but a fight between two different ideas of how Science ought to be serving her mistress.
I agree that theists can be scientists. To me however, on some level, their work is suspect because of their rationality.
Stephen Meyer's a philosopher, not a scientist.
Thanks for pointing that out. I've changed his references to Guillermo Gonzalez (the astronomer in the Expelled movie).
Its hard to not believe in something…wonder why that is? We're born with to many traits, feelings and desires that couldn't have evolved from an explosion or an original cell, that has no logic to it at all! The biggest argument for a God is LOVE. Why do we naturally draw to another? Why do we care for each other? Why do we choose to be with one person for the rest of our lives? Some say we are cultured that way, but who put that thought in the original guys head? Love can't be created from basic matter of cells and evolution. Disprove that and you will disprove God.
The problem I perhaps have is…if a theistic scientist instead of believing in one of the usual religions, – genuinely believed in Zeus or even The FSM or the IPU?
I somehow don't think they'd be taken as seriously then….
Why not?
I think that logically, either Zeus, FSM and IPU believers etc should all be treated equally to Christians and other theistic believing scientists… – or they should be laughed at or simply not given any time like a Zeus, FSM or IPU believer would. Or a believer in – fill in the blank . Some crazy supernatural entity…that's also very rare and CONSIDERED very unusual to believe in.
Even though normal Gods are absurd too.
And of course if your more usual theist scientists were to be discredited. I do NOT mean all at once! I Mean over time….
But personally….should they really be considered scientists? Or rather, if they are. An Zeus FSM, IPU believer etc should be considered scientists too….
But hopefully in the end all the theistic and FSM etc believers will either lose some of their more deluded ideas and even become deists. OR even become atheists….Over time…..
Just wondering.
Evf
Issac Newton was also a supporter of alchemy, but I don't see you using that particular piece of information, perhaps because it shows that any person can be wrong about things. Likewise, Einstein opposed a non-static universe, going so far to invent the "cosmological constant" which he later admitted to be the "biggest blunder of [his] career".
What people say doesn't automatically make it true, even if they are scientists. If you build a case against atheism purely on the quotes of scientists (long dead) then you are making a logical fallacy known as the "appeal to authority".
Intelligent Design people are not legitimate scientists though. Their hypothesis isn't falsifiable, and it doesn't explain the evidence for Evolution (which it must do to replace the theory). Furthermore, ID doesn't have any evidence that cannot be explained through Evolutionary theory.