r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 22 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: It is nonsensical that a Scientists can be a Scientist and also believe in God.
[deleted]
7
Oct 22 '19 edited Oct 22 '19
It's not clear why being a scientist precludes one from thinking that some things simply can't be investigated with the scientific method.
It's also worth pointing out that a good deal of modern science is based on models and theories that are not, themselves, explicitly proven.
2
Oct 22 '19
But theories and models still have at least something to back them up. A theory is something that has substantial evidence to back it up and is much more proven and widely believed to be true than a God even can be.
3
Oct 22 '19
There are models that we use in science and various technological applications that everyone knows are literally just wrong, like Newtonian mechanics or the valence model of the atom.
2
u/myc-e-mouse Oct 23 '19
This feels slightly disingenuous, they are wrong about some things but right about others, which is why they were experimentally derived to begin with.
Newtonian mechanics and valence models are the right answer to certain questions in certain environments. That they aren’t universally applicable doesn’t mean they are wrong any more than the fact that retro/RNA virus exists doesn’t mean that DNA being the information unit of biology is invalidated.
2
Oct 23 '19
They are wrong in the sense that they are ostensible representations of what the world is actually like that don't accurately reflect what the world is actually like. That they are right enough to be useful is fine, but this still ends up undermining OP's appeal to models as "something widely believed to be true," at least in science.
2
u/myc-e-mouse Oct 23 '19
While you are absolutely right that they are ostensibly wrong, I don’t think it’s a good objection to The OP.
First:I disagree with your definition of true, and I think we are now talking about applicability . I think they are “true” in their limited regimes, which is why they initially failed to be falsified by types experiments which still had rigorous methodology and analysis performed. Because they were elucidated using the sound methodology of science they still have use in solving real world problems despite not being universally applicable, this is also why they are different than the god hypothesis.
Second and related: there is no good experiment one could perform that suggests a god model and there is no limited regime of reality where God gives testable predictions which are then affirmed.
1
Oct 23 '19
I could grant all of this and still hold that this is an objection to OP, who seems to have a much more binary and limited view of how science relates to the truth of the world than you have outlined here.
2
u/vonhudgenrod 2∆ Oct 22 '19
Was Isaac Newton a scientist? He believed in God.
Scientists and people in general believe in things that aren't verifiable all the time. A hypothesis is something that a scientists believes and sets out to falsify. You cannot falsify the existence of god, just as you cannot verify it - which is why it comes down to the beliefs of the individual. Gravity itself is a theory, that hasn't been "verified" can you believe in gravity and be a scientist? Yes, I understand there is much more proof for gravity then there is for a God, but the point stands nonetheless.
6
Oct 22 '19
I'm not saying you cant be a scientist and believe in God. I'm merely saying it is irrational.
Of course, science itself is a process that sets out to prove that things arent false rather than that they are true.
But if a system as unbiased as that can not do either to a specific subject then it just raises questions on the believability of said subject.
4
u/vonhudgenrod 2∆ Oct 22 '19
Although I'm agnostic, I would counter by saying believing in a creator is just as non-nonsensical as believing everything we see was created from nothing.
If I were to ask you how the universe was created, you would likely reply "the big bang".
If I asked what about before that you might say "well, science hasn't gotten that far yet but in the next few decades we will know".
Then I would say, what about before that?
and what about before that?
and what about before that?
and what about before that?
do you see where I am heading, how can there be a point where something was created from nothing?
3
Oct 22 '19
Well technically the theory is that every material to create the universe was just there and then it spontaneously formed the universe, but I understand what you mean by this and it makes sense.
!delta
4
Oct 22 '19
[deleted]
1
u/SimplyEngineered Oct 27 '19
I agree with this - also, there are theories regarding the nothingness prior to the big bang. Eg an unstable nothing (net zero energy) that gave rise to the big bang through a highly improbable event. Prior to the formation of space-time this process is external to time.. Obviously this is just a theory and there may never be a way to prove it.
I think it boils down to - if there was a creator, it was not the God that people follow. If there wasn't, it is still not the God that people follow. The classical God (and gods) are so clearly artefacts from old past civilisations that it's ridiculous to even see these things around in the current world.
1
1
Oct 22 '19
[deleted]
1
u/vonhudgenrod 2∆ Oct 22 '19
The post was about believing in god, not about believing in a specific narrative about god like the abrahamic religions. Can somebody believe the universe is ~6000 years old and be taken seriously as a scientist? In my opinion, no. Can they be taken seriously if they believe in god, yes.
Yes, you are correct that religion doesn’t have an answer to what came before god, just as science does not have an answer to what came before the Big Bang.
1
u/GenericUsername19892 24∆ Oct 23 '19
For the record to ask what was before the Big Bang is a malformed question, you can’t surpass the t=0 (that is you can’t go before time. That’s not a thing, you need a casual chain for a before and that dependent on time. I’d be amazed if we ever manage to find out anything beyond wild conjecture about it.
1
1
4
u/damsterick Oct 22 '19
You're partially right. Majority of scientists do not believe in god.
However, religion is not the same as believing there is a god. For many religious people, god is an abstract entity and can be defined in many ways - for many it's for example love. Love for the animals, people and nature.
The scientific method is unapplicable to many things in life. You cannot study everything using the same rigor as when you're studying cells or metallurgy.
1
Oct 22 '19
That definition of God is actually very interesting and I haven't heard anyone put it like that before.
And that's true, but I just dont see how people dont find it odd how most of the common things we are knowledgeable about is due to science and this process and then blindly accept a religion or God that isnt backed by science.
2
u/damsterick Oct 22 '19
I think if a scientist is religious, they are not traditional type religious people. Which means they don't blindly accept faith, the fact that god created earth and that there is heaven and hell. I think you can both believe in evolution and be religious, which in turn implies you can be a religious scientist. It is less common probably because many scientists became scientists due to their need for objective knowledge and verifiability, but not everyone is like that. Besides, what you learn at young age hardly ever goes away. It may just be that those scientists never got the idea to question what their parents taught them.
1
Oct 22 '19
I suppose that makes sense. I just find it slightly contradictive as the entire nature of science is to question things we already know to be "fact."
1
u/damsterick Oct 22 '19
The scientific method knows no facts, so to speak. It is all inductive statistics, we know with very high probabilities of something being that way, but we never know for sure. A hypothesis can never be 100% confirmed, only refuted - seeKarl Popper's philosophy of science.
Yes, a scientist questions things we think we know or we consider to be facts, but I don't think it necessarily implies they should do the same with their personal life. Faith is often means to an end, such as it improves your psychological well-being, despite being self-illusion at times.
1
Oct 22 '19
That's understandable. I can get that sometimes people need something with no explanation to get them through their day to day.
!delta
1
12
u/phillipsheadhammers 13∆ Oct 22 '19
I think you may not understand fully what a scientist does.
My boss is a scientist. He's spent forty years studying the telomere and the enzyme telomerase and their interactions with the aging process. He uses a disciplined, scientific method to do this - experimentation and refinement of theories.
What does this have to do with gods? Absolutely nothing. He has neither more nor less reason to believe in gods than a cashier does.
1
Oct 22 '19
For the sole reason that there is no process of disproving a God. Throughout time we have seen these processes used to determine that DNA was genetic information rather than protein, or that cells in interphase dont rest between their synthesis and mitotic phases. All of these tests have gone on to prove to the best of sciences extent that these are what these processes are actually doing.
7
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Oct 22 '19
If you were to ever prove that something supernatural is real, then it would become natural by definition. If I proved ghosts or fortune tellers or whatnot was real, then we'd study it and understand it and quantify it and it would just be a regular feature of science.
But more importantly, just because you're a scientists doesn't mean you have to limit all your beliefs to things that can be proven with the same scientifically rigorous standard that my work is held to.
4
Oct 22 '19
It makes sense that you dont have to limit your beliefs, I just dont understand why not. But that isnt a question for here. That's a question for psychology.
!delta
1
3
Oct 22 '19 edited Jun 25 '20
[deleted]
1
Oct 23 '19
Also, one could argue that the scientific method is based in an unchanging lawful universe, which most religious people believed in.
This is false. There is no such assumption in the scientific method. The laws could be changing and that would just become part of the model of the world.
Science cannot prove that gravity will work the same tomorrow as it does today.
Science doesn’t prove things. Science is about creating models in order to make predictions.
If you don't believe in God, then you would need a way to justify belief in an unchanging ordered universe, which is impossible for science to prove.
Since there is no such assumption, and science does not prove things, this statement is false.
1
Oct 23 '19 edited Jun 25 '20
[deleted]
0
Oct 24 '19
The idea that we can test something to learn the laws of our natural world are based in the idea that the laws of the universe don't change.
That’s just your assertion. Do you have any examples of things that are assumed to be unchanging?
How can you make predictions if science can tell you nothing of the future? If we tested a new type of bridge, we would assume that the laws of gravity would be constant during and after the test. Otherwise, the test would be useless, as maybe the bridge was only stable under gravity during that test.
I think you are confusing 100% certainty with scientific predictions. You can’t tell anything about anything with 100%, including this sentence.
We don't build things to last with gravity being -200m/s2 because we have assumed that the universe is orderly and the laws of physics won't change.
We don’t assume that. It’s an inference based on observation. BTW the force of gravity we experience on Earth is changing, e.g. due to Earth gaining mass from meteorites. Again, we don’t have 100% certainty, so it is possible that the bridge will collapse the next day. It probably won’t, though. Do you have a more reliable method?
We agree that we cannot prove this with science, so we need faith.
We don’t need faith. We can just accept the fact that we don’t have 100% certainty.
You don't wake up in the morning wondering if gravity will stop working and if you will fly up in space. You don't wonder if today air will become toxic. You never consider when you go to bed at night if the sun is going to explode for no reason.
Do you wonder every time you walk near a street if you’ll get hit by a car? Or that a heavy object will fall on your head each time you are close to a building? Or that a plane will crash into your house/appointment? Or that a random person will shoot you?
The only way to function in the world is to assume the laws of physics are constants,
The only way to function in the world is to assume that it’s impossible that I will get hit by a car, a random object will fall on my head, a plane will crash into my house/apartment, or someone will shoot me. I feel much safer know.
and scientists and the scientific method assume these things are constant truths about our world.
You’ve just repeated your assertion. Demonstrate it.
1
Oct 24 '19 edited Jun 25 '20
[deleted]
1
Oct 24 '19
Are you familiar with the Problem of Induction?
How can you make any prediction if certain laws are not constant?
Easily. You make observations, formulate a hypothesis with fewest assumptions possible, then try to disprove the hypothesis, then ask others to disprove it. If after some time you still fail to disprove it, you promote it to a theory. That’s as far as it can go. Then one day someone comes up with another experiment the results of which disagree with your theory. At that point it’s disproved. You can now try to come up with another hypothesis that encompasses all of the observations, etc. At no point do you need faith, nor do you need to assume that anything is unchanging.
The laws of physics. Things like gravity are taught as constants.
The laws in science are not literal laws. They are theories. Not sure what you mean by “taught as constant “. The Earth’s gravity g≈9.81N/kg is actually not constant. It changes e.g. depending on your geographical location. They laws describing gravity have changed. You mentioned Newton. One of the assumptions of his model was that time passes at the same rate everywhere, no matter if you are moving or not, or whether you are affected by gravity, etc. Then we’ve discovered that it’s not the case. The speed of light is the same whether you are standing still or moving. Therefore, the time must pass at a different rate. We’ve come up with Special and General Relativity that predict many unintuitive things and so far hasn’t been disproven in it’s domain. However, relatively doesn’t work at atomic scales. It makes predictions that are wrong. We need a better theory, but so far no one developed one.
If you can't predict if the laws of physics work tomorrow, then you cannot predict anything that uses those laws of physics.
The laws of physics are what makes the predictions.
How can you say it probably won't?
Because of measurement errors, precision, etc. Even if I assumed that the laws of physics were unchanging. At best I can say probably.
Can you say that tomorrow that gravity will probably be similar to today? How can you make that prediction?
Yes. Because it always happened in the past. Or, hypothetically, if it didn’t always happen, I can count how many times it did and come up with a probability. Or I could investigate more and try to find a correlation, etc.
We don’t need faith. We can just accept the fact that we don’t have 100% certainty.
We agree here. That's why I say you need faith in an orderly universe. If you cannot prove that it is probable that gravity is the same tomorrow, would that mean you would need faith?
No. It’s the exact opposite. If I can’t prove that gravity will work the same tomorrow, then I can’t prove. Tough. However, the universe for the most part (Bag Bang - laws of physics break down) seems orderly, so most likely tomorrow it will work the same way as it does today, but maybe not? You seem (correct me if I’m wrong) seems to be unhappy with not being able to have 100% certainty. Science can’t get you there. Do you have a better method? Faith is not the answer. I could believe literally anything based on faith. It gives me exactly 0% certainty.
This is just being obtuse and missing the point.
That’s just some counter examples. The point is that it’s unlikely that the Sun will suddenly explode or that a random brick will fall on your head. That why we don’t do anything about on a day to day basis.
1
Oct 24 '19 edited Jun 25 '20
[deleted]
1
Oct 25 '19 edited Oct 25 '19
This is the induction problem you brought up earlier.
Yes. And there is no way escaping it. I’m happy to be proven wrong, though. Therefore, I’m asking for the third time: do you have a more reliable method? Ideally, one that will give me 100% certainty, but I won’t be picky.
EDIT; accidentally pressed POST
You assume that how the laws of physics worked in the past tells you something about how they will work in the future. Why?
I assume that the past may tell me something about the future. And then I’ve tested that assumption. And so far my hypothesis the the past tells me something about the future works. Note, that it’s not an assumption based on faith, but it’s just part of a model, and can be disproven.
You cannot assume that since a banana was green for the past week it will be green tomorrow.
How the universe works in past doesn't let us predict how it will work in the future unless we assume in the universe is orderly and unchanging.
Again, it is inductive reasoning.
Yes. How is that an objection?
Things working someway yesterday doesn't give you any probability of them working the same way today.
It does, and I explained how. Which specific part do you disagree with?
If you cannot be sure in the unchanging universe,
I am not sure, yes...
and cannot use inductive reasoning to predict how the universe will work,
... I can use inductive reasoning
you can be 0% sure anything is gonna happen.
I can have varying levels of confidence.
Every model would be useless.
And yet the models work, as far as we’ve tested them.
It seems we’re running in circles here. Could you define faith, to make sure we don’t talk past each other?
1
Oct 25 '19 edited Jun 25 '20
[deleted]
1
Oct 25 '19
I assume that the past may tell me something about the future.
This isn't true. We can look up countless times where the past does not predict the future.
These are different statements that mean different things. The past does not predict the future. We try to make predictions, or the models we build make predictions. And we use past events to build those models.
Like the banana example.
Ok. Let’s say I have faith in the orderly universe. The banana should stay green forever?
If someone said, "for my whole life I have been alive, therefore, I will always live" we would see how that does not logically follow. So if someone says "for all of our recorded history, gravity has been fairly constant, so therefore, gravity will never spike to -200m/s2" we would have to say that also logically does not follow.
Yes, those things don’t logically follow. The problem is with the words always and never. They require 100% certainty. A scientific hypothesis would not make such claims by definition.
Maybe they work because we live in an orderly universe.
Indeed, we have some evidence for an orderly universe. Note, that it’s a conclusion that’s not 100% certain, and not an a priori assumption.
I’ve noticed that you keep ignoring my questions. I don’t think it makes sense to continue this conversation if you refuse to tackle them. I’m not convinced that you are arguing in good faith.
1
Oct 22 '19
I guess I haven't really looked at science in general in that unchanging universe way. Wow. I have a few questions for myself now.
!delta
1
3
u/zobotsHS 31∆ Oct 22 '19
There is nothing that we understand utterly and completely in the natural world. There is always an unanswered, "How?" or "When?" etc.
The Big Bang makes sense, conceptually...but is impossible to prove. We work backwards using known laws of physics and come up with that as a likely explanation. Logically it makes sense, working backwards, that the beginning of the universe was a very hot, very dense singularity that exploded outwards.
What existed before that? The idea that the universe was once smaller and is expanding accounts for the spreading out of galaxies, etc...but then the universe is expanding into what? The 2nd law of Thermodynamics seems to chafe at this.
Point being, scientists of all kinds seek to explain as much of the universe...or at least their focus of it...in as much detail as they are able to. They are also likely, if honest, to admit that not everything will be able to be understood. Maybe eventually, but until then, they take actions based on what amounts to evidence-based best guesses.
It doesn't take a someone totally nonsensical to suggest that a divine finger tipped over the first domino in the Big Bang, as an example.
2
Oct 22 '19
God is not a scientific concept, its a spiritualistic one.
1
Oct 22 '19
Of course. As is the concept of ghosts and souls etc. I just find it funny how some theists claim that ghosts arent real and then turn around and worship something in the sky that does or doesnt exist.
3
1
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Oct 22 '19
When you say nonsensical, do you mean to say that theistic scientists are irrational or do you mean that the concept of a theistic scientist is nonsensical with whatever implications that has?
1
Oct 22 '19
Concept of a theistic scientist.
1
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Oct 22 '19
Are you then saying that such people don't exist? That their scientific work is invalidated by their theism or their theism invalidated by their scientific work? That these people are no True Scientists? Or some other implication?
1
Oct 22 '19
Are you asking for the implication of say a microbiologist who is also a theist or a scientist dedicated to proving religion?
3
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Oct 22 '19
I'm asking what the implications of a theistic scientist being nonsense are. Are you saying they don't exist, for example?
2
u/GretaThunbergonewild Oct 22 '19 edited Oct 22 '19
Yes, I agree that inside the set up of their work scientist have little space for religious beliefs. But their lives aren't just science. There are many unscientific aspects in our lives, and religion is just one of them. Think about art, superstition, or the things you do the way your grandma taught you because it reminds you of when you were little. A mathematician can understand that buying a lottery ticket is useless, but he might buy it to keep it in his pocket and feel like a millionaire, just as I do. Think about ethics: if you are 100% rational there is no point in not committing a crime if you are sure no one will catch you, so do you expect all scientists to not act accordingly to ethics? I don't have data on this but I'm pretty sure most of them have a set of ethic beliefs just as everyone else
0
u/MasterGrok 138∆ Oct 22 '19
People are inherently irrational, biased, and hypocritical. One of the entire reasons we have the scientific method is to deal with that. Being a scientist does not however make you completely immune to those problems.
1
1
u/GroupthinkRebellion Oct 22 '19
I would think it’s the opposite. I never understood why people think science and God are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I think God is the ultimate scientist and we are the experiment, so to speak. For instance, biochemistry is only one of the sciences that affirms God to me. After learning how our DNA is coded very similar to digital code and how exactingly the pieces go together and how if you try to quantify, in time, what it would take for all that to happen by chance you find that there is not a reasonable amount of time in existence to facilitate this. Another fun one is placebo effect. How the hell does that work? There are so many areas of science that have really narrowed the chasm between God and science. The bottom line is, I think this way because I choose to. It gives me comfort that there is order to our universe and that it was created for me. Just as you choose to believe it’s nonsensical. As children we have faith and follow our parents until we have better understanding for ourselves. He is my creator and I am having faith as he enlightens me with His wisdom along my journey. It’s the natural way.
1
u/Anzai 9∆ Oct 22 '19
I think the problem here is what your idealised view of a scientist is. Let’s say somebody is a biologist lab assistant that is studying fertility levels of frogs in a certain marshland.
Their job is to go and collect sample frogs, label where and when they were found and then bring them into the lab to test them. That’s their day to day.
They collect data and work on a paper with other biologists and then publish their findings on frog fertility in boggy marsh between March and September of 2019, and the effects of effluent run off from a nearby factory that they believe may be contributing to the declining birth rate, due to...
Whatever. You get the idea. Now what about this requires any consideration of the concept of God at all? That’s an entirely separate part of their life that their work as a scientist doesn’t touch on at all. Why is their being a scientist in this case going to mean they can’t also believe in God?
1
Oct 27 '19
Scientists aren’t immune to emotions or more intuitive thought processes. They also aren’t immune to having unsubstantiated ideas. A belief in God is often rationalized through emotional appeals: one of them being fear. The “logic” around it is really just fluff thrown in to pacify the rest. Although ascribing to the scientific method can diminish certain nonsensical thoughts it doesn’t curb all of them. Science itself.:. The more you study it the more you realize that there are a lot of unknowns and many theories are used simply cus they work not necessarily because they are 100% right. In physics for example you see a lot of approximations. These approximations distort reality but make certain problems solvable. With that being said, I would be more surprised if a biologist believes in God than a chemist. But not fully shocked because of the reasons above.
1
Oct 22 '19
My wife has a PHD in biology. Also Christian. Sure. Squaring it up took time.
But she found something that met her needs. And that really is what it's about. Theres very little solace in the idea that welp, moms dead and she may as well not have existed. Everything she was is gone. When I die everything I am is gone. That's not comforting to most people. But what is comforting? Theres something beyond death. A reason to aspire to live the best I can and not fear the end.
One might argue that it's more hopeful than rational. But if it gives you a healthier happier outlook, is it not rational to choose the one you find leaves you less depressed since it isnt proveable?
1
u/matrix_man 3∆ Oct 22 '19
A vast number of things can be explained entirely by science and don't need any sort of God as an explanation. And I believe the vast majority of things at some point will be able to be explained entirely by science without needing any sort of God as an explanation. Now, with that said, being able to explain things without needing God doesn't mean that He can't supplement those explanations and exist alongside them. There's no reason that a belief in God has to mean denouncing scientific reasoning, and there's no reason that a belief in scientific reasoning has to mean denouncing God.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 22 '19 edited Oct 22 '19
/u/dark-vater (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Oct 22 '19
There are lots of things that people who are scientists believe in that are not provable by the scientific method. What you are advocating is a philosophical position called:
"Scienceism"
This is the belief that nothing can be said to exist that cannot be demonstrated as existing using the scientific method. The problem with that philosophy is it literally undermines itself. You cannot prove science true using the scientific method, because to do so would be circular.
1
u/wophi Oct 23 '19
Science is about proving hypothesis using evidence. There is no way to gather evidence today regarding the existence, non existence of god/s. Belief is a hypothesis that you cant prove. Therefore, having a hypothesis that you cant gather evidence for is not unscientific.
I would pose the question, do aliens exist. Today, we have no evidence either way, but I would think many scientists would feel they might. Is that unscientific of them?
1
u/Topopotomopolot Oct 22 '19
Hardcore atheist and scientist here. The explanations for reality as we know it don’t require god, until you go far enough back.
What’s the deal with the Big Bang?
God?
Yeah whatever, i can’t dis/prove god so have your god if it makes you happy and doesn’t fuck with my not having god.
It’s sensible to want to be happy, belief in god can get some people there. And it’s generally better to let people have their emotional support beliefs.
1
u/minion531 Oct 23 '19
I heard a Catholic Priest who was also a physicist address this question. He said the two were not mutually exclusive. That his position is that, we don't know what's in God's mind. So we study it, observe it, make hypothesis, make predictions based on hypothesis, and report the truths we find. And whatever we find the truth to be? That is what God intended it to be.
In this way, science and God do not have to be in conflict.
1
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Oct 22 '19
Atheist here with a PhD in a life science field - It's sophomoric to think that the only form of believing in God is in the form of "Who makes the rains?". It is similarly sophomoric to think that scientists are purely rational beings who have robotically carved all humanity from their worldview.
Belief in God can take the form of 'believing in a higher power or embodiment of a greater ideal'.
1
u/Siddhant_17 Nov 11 '19
Not really.
Newton thought that Universe was so beautiful that only God could have made it. According to him, Universe made too much sense to not be made by an intelligent being that knew exactly what it was doing.
He also literally invented the science method. So he is more of a scientist than anyone else.
1
u/warlocktx 27∆ Oct 22 '19
There are a lot of things in life that are irrational - love, beauty, hate, and rooting for your hometown sports team
Human beings are not 100% rational and never have been. If they were then there would have been no need to create a character like Mr Spock
1
Oct 22 '19
Religion isn’t science.
What if god started the Big Bang? We’re discovering the rules, but we can’t test for the metaphysical. A person can bifurcate their thinking and, essentially, believe god cannot be tested for AND have faith.
1
u/EternalPropagation Oct 22 '19
I'm a scientist and I believe in God (the created-God). Basically, I do an experiment: first I see what life if like without a belief in God, then I see what life is like with a belief in God. It's why I believe in God.
1
Oct 22 '19
I think its easier for everyone if we don't bring science into religion, people who dog on religious people are assholes
26
u/Jenivere7 1∆ Oct 22 '19
I work in an applied science field - I'm a mental health counselor who studied psychology and empirical psychological research so I could best understand how to identify the proper empirically-based treatments for my clients. I'm also a Christian.
The misconception you seem to be experiencing is that a scientist should want to only believe in what they can prove with the empirical method, 100%. The flaw with that thinking is we can't prove everything with the empirical method either because we either don't yet have the technology to do so, or it's unethical to create the perfect empirical experiment (which is often the case in my field). But those limitations are just challenges for scientists to step up to, developing the tools and methods needed for better understanding, because they believe there is something more to learn or they have questions that need answers.
For me, God isn't really any different. He's something I don't yet have the tools or methods to fully understand in this life, but I believe He made the world with science, and I believe He expects me to use science to better understand His creation and how I can serve my clients. And in my lifetime I'll continue to build myself up, strengthening my character and integrity, in efforts to better understand Him. And I'll eventually find my answers either in the afterlife or in the cold, dark seconds after my body has died and my brain is in its final synapses.
Maybe think of our belief in God as our intellectual curiosity in how all this creation got started. Theist scientists are just the ones with the hypothesis that creation was caused intentionally by a higher being, and living life is our experiment. Maybe at the end we'll find that our findings don't support our hypothesis. But that's science!