Can you be a scientist and hold religious beliefs at the same time?

[Dr B]

There is an interesting philosophical debate within science and skepticism that many may want to comment on.

The quesiton is, is it possible to be truly scientific and hold religious and spiritual beliefs at the same time?

Some might argue that you cannot claim to be a scientist and only be interested in observable, measurable phenomena AND be religous at the same time. For these positions this is a contradiction - and a serious one at that.

Others offer a different perspective. For instance, people like Steve Donnelly say that as religion and belief has no bearing on science, and no implications for it, it is of no consequence to the scientist at all - as long as the scientist does not recruit this perspective into his / her scientific model. So by this account you can be both, but they must be kept separate (see people like Mott, 1991 for similar views).

For me, I tend to favor this second view as my general position. What do you think? Can a scientist up hold the scientific tradition and also be a religious believer? :-\

[Cuddles]

There are two points really. The first is the one you mention, that belief has no bearing on science. As long as the god you believe in is one that doesn't generally intefere with the day-to-day running of the world, as seems most common, then it will not affect the science in any way. Most people have retreated to either a vaguely theistic view or a god of the gaps, neither of which have anything to do with science and which are therefore perfectly compatible with it. It is only a small, although vocal, minority (creationists for example) that actually have a problem with science and religion.

The other point is that it is perfectly possible to be a scienctist in just one area while being completely unscientific in others. If a quantum physicist believes in faries, homeopathy and psychics they are still a scientist, although certainly not a skeptic. In fact, it is even possible to be a scientist in an area you don't believe in at all, as the creationists have demonstrated. As long as the work is done properly the science will stand on its own, regardless of the person conducting it and their beliefs.

[median]

The quesiton is, is it possible to be truly scientific and hold religious and spiritual beliefs at the same time?


Depending on an individuals interpretation of what 'God' etc actually is then the two terms need not necessarily be mutually exclusive.

For example; Henry Eyring


History
Eyring was reared on a cattle ranch in Colonia Juarez, Mexico, for the first 11 years of his life. In July 1912, the Eyrings and about 4,200 other immigrants were driven out of Mexico by violent insurgents during the Mexican Revolution and moved to El Paso, Texas. After living in El Paso for approximately one year, the Eyrings relocated to Pima, Arizona, where Henry completed high school and showed a special aptitude for mathematics and science. He also studied at Gila College in Safford, Arizona, now College of Eastern Arizona, where one of the pillars at the front of the main building still bears his name, along with that of his brother-in-law, Spencer W. Kimball, later president and prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

By 1919, Eyring had received a state fellowship to the University of Arizona, where he received degrees in mining engineering, metallurgy, and chemistry. He subsequently pursued and received his doctoral degree in Chemistry from the University of California, Berkeley.

After a review of his dissertation, Princeton University recruited Eyring as an instructor in 1931. He would continue his work at Princeton until 1949 when he was offered a position as dean of the graduate school at the University of Utah. The chemistry building on the University campus is now named in his honor.


[edit] Religious Beliefs
Professor Eyring was a devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout his life. His views of science and religion were captured in this quote: "Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men"(Reflections of a Scientist, pg. 2).

He had three sons with his wife, Mildred Bennion. The oldest, Edward M. "Ted" Eyring is a chemistry professor at the University of Utah. Henry B. Eyring, is currently an LDS Apostle. Harden B. Eyring, is a higher education administrator for the State of Utah.



Providing one's science is open to public scrutiny then there shouldn't be a problem.

Question: Could a xenophobe make an effective travel agent?:cheesy:

[Corpse Cruncher]

I still fail to see or be convinced you can be both. Both are extremes of the other. You would laugh if a person claimed to be a vegetarian but ate some meat. Or even worked in an abattoir.

[Araneus]

Or even worked in an abattoir.

Actually I imagine working in an abbatoir might be a very strong influence in turning somebody vegetarian.

[Cuddles]

I still fail to see or be convinced you can be both. Both are extremes of the other. You would laugh if a person claimed to be a vegetarian but ate some meat.

You'd be surprised how many people do. Ignoring the more extreme cases (I know someone who is a vegetarian but eats bacon), a significant amount of vegetarians eat fish, and many even eat white meat.

That aside, it is not the same thing at all. Vegetarianism is defined as not eating meat. That means if you eat meat you are not a vegetarian. Science does not have a similar definition. It is defined as making observations, coming up with a hypothesis to explain them, predicting new ones and then testing them. At no point do beliefs, or lack of them, come in to it. You can believe in gods, invisible pink unicorns and fairies, but as long as you follow the scientific method when dropping weights off the Leaning Tower then you are doing science.

The question of whether you can be a skeptic and still believe in things is a different one, and can be more difficult to answer. Most people agree that to be a "true" skeptic you shouldn't have any faith-based beliefs, however, as with all things, it is not simply a black and white matter. Many people are skeptical to a large extent, but have beliefs in a few areas. Is it fair to label them all as believers or woos? Or are they just skeptics who aren't quite as skeptical in a few areas? To further complicate the issue there are many beliefs, epecially religious ones, that aren't really open to skepticism since they are inherently unproveable. Much of spiritualty and the "god of the gaps" lies here. While most skeptics agree that the lack of any evidence or any reason to suppose they exist means that the default position is that they do not exist, the general description of a skeptic is someone who reasons about things based on the evidence, which is entirely compatible with many of these beliefs.

[Jocky]

You'd be surprised how many people do. Ignoring the more extreme cases (I know someone who is a vegetarian but eats bacon), a significant amount of vegetarians eat fish, and many even eat white meat ... Vegetarianism is defined as not eating meat. That means if you eat meat you are not a vegetarian.

[OT rant]
The word vegetarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegetarian) is a deeply abused one. It seems clear that if you eat the flesh of living creatures you are not entitled to call yourself a vegetarian and that is that.

I have not eaten meat (in the sense of mammal flesh) for over twenty years. However, I have eaten fish for the past sixteen years. Therefore I am not now a vegetarian, and I never claim to be so.

IMO, there is absolutely no such thing as a vegetarian who eats bacon, or white meat! It is not a self-defined word, so this is a contradiction in terms.

There's also a debate about whether the term embraces non-flesh animal products such as milk and eggs (i.e. lacto-vegetarian vs. vegan). however, the jury is still out on that one!
[/OT rant]

[Woodchopper]

I agree with Cuddles. Science and Religion only come into conflict if you believe that God intervenes in the physical world; or that every word in the bible is literally true. If you presume that god is a much more abstract being, and that the bible is made up of metaphores, then I can't see how religion would stop anyone applying the scientific method.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Actually I imagine working in an abbatoir might be a very strong influence in turning somebody vegetarian.

Quite the opposite for me. I had a summer job in one, and the sight of all that fresh meat increased my appetite tenfold. You do become immune to the killing part, much as I imagine doctors and nurses in hospitals deal with trauma victims for instance.

Sorry for offence to any animal lovers....:tongue:

[Woodchopper]

I had a summer job in one, and the sight of all that fresh meat increased my appetite tenfold.

I had a similar experience. I read Fast Food Nation while on a camping holiday. It made me obsessively think about burgers. I had one as soon as I got home.

So much for getting back in touch with nature.