This is a very good question... it seems that in the realm of SCIENCE, being a strong believer in God completely discredits anything that you have to say about scientific topics, so I can only assume that it is the same within the scientific community. And likewise... Being a scientist carries with it a stigmata of sorts among believers... it seems that science and God are opponents these days. But that's fine with me... I'm disgusted with this world and how it operates in general, and I am SO happy that "the end is near" I'm ready to go, but it just can't come soon enough it seems.

~ PSYKO ~

This is a very interesting question. I work in a biomedical company and hence deal everyday with scientists-doctors-physicians, and I did happen to have some talks about religion with some of them. Let aside those among them who are atheists, one of them I remember told me that his unconditional passion and commitment for science wasn't against his religion (Catholic) because God has given him the skills to save lives and hence for him science and religion could live together harmoniously. As simple as that.

\"There is no way to happiness...Happiness is the Way...\"(Buddha)

Of course. Why not? Depends on how fanatic you choose to be. If you believe in god's creation, no problem there. If you think the world has been created last thursday you might just stumble upon some trouble.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labour. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~ Albert Einstein

I met a physicist that he believes in God, but not in the same way catholics do. He thinks that the universe is so beautiful and complex, that it couldn't be created by nothing else than God. He really thinks that BigBang happened but was God who made it happen.

ah... the on the fence type... I love those... they are the peace keeping type... the people who want to say God did it, but science knows what they are talking about, even though the popular scientific theories go against even an existence of God, at the same time so as not to step on anyone's toes. It's funny though, that RARELY works out.

~ PSYKO ~

Well no one holds the truth, although some would say they do . In my opinion doesn't matter if someone believes in god, but if they do good things.
Believe only in science is not something bad, it's just another way of thinking,
Here is a piece of an article written by Albert Einstein that I found on wikipedia:
"He argued that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." "[E]ven though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies … science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind … a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." "
I don't think he lost he credibility because of that

I know his ideas were not orthodox, but Isaac Newton believed in God.

Personal;ly I hav met people in some walks of life including science that are believers too. Its just down to the person. I had for instance a very good Anthropology teacher who was very good at what he did and supported Evolution etc... but explained there was a dividing line between what science was able to stufy and what religion could study and was able to work that division.

"I pity people who don't drink. When they wake up feeling good in the morning, that is the best they are going to feel" Frank Sinatra

edbrazil wrote:

Well no one holds the truth, although some would say they do . In my opinion doesn't matter if someone believes in god, but if they do good things.
Believe only in science is not something bad, it's just another way of thinking,
Here is a piece of an article written by Albert Einstein that I found on wikipedia:
"He argued that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." "[E]ven though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies … science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind … a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." "
I don't think he lost he credibility because of that :)

This is not a bad piece of research... but keep in mind that you rarely hear about these types of statements in discussions about Albert Einstein. The fact that HE believed in God does not discredit his work, but at the same time, it is a fact that very few people ever hear about.

~ PSYKO ~

People think (and the nonsense that happens in this channel strengthens this erroneous judgement) there is this never ending conflict between science and religion. But the truth of the matter is, the vast majority of people are very comfortable with the two.

For example, there are a significant number of scientists who are firm believers in God. They wouldn't number as many as there are who are agnostic, atheist or something else, but they exist happily with their coworkers and nobody gives a stuff what their beliefs might be, because at the coal face of scientific research it simply doesn't matter whether or not you have Godly beliefs.

What is belief? It simply means that you do not know from your own experience and are not willing to say "I do not know". If you know then you do not have to believe.
Doctors and scientists work with their mind. It is an intellectual thing. Mind functions in beliefs because the inner knowing or experience does not belong to the mind. It is beyond its capacity to comprehend.
If someone has come to an understanding and experience of that which is beyond mind then he will know what part still belongs to past beliefs and what is the reality.

"Once you accept all your responsibilities in its totality,
you become mature.
You stop throwing tantrums and
you stop seeking messiahs.
Then there is no need for any Jesus to save you.
Nor can any Jesus save you -
he was exploiting your situation." --- Osho

Israel has absolutely hoards and hordes of scientists,a very high percentage of them devout.. I asked one of them about research along the lines we have been hearing about ,combining humans with other animals..He said hey man here we are theists we don't touch that profanation,if its happenning at all in israel it is the atheists..No conflict!!

Please... KNOWING is nothing more than someone BELIEVING what has not been adequately proven wrong in that someone's eyes. Once something it proven wrong, what they KNOW is changed to something new.

For instance, at one time, EVERYONE knew that the earth was flat, yet once that was proven to be wrong, everyone NOW knows that it is round.

~ PSYKO ~

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

As for you, ONE...well, you're plunging one more into a largely unintelligible trail of New Age thoughts.

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

When you get right down to it, science is no different to any other discipline trying to make sense of stuff. Science searches for truth, and it achieves this through the attainment of knowledge that is believed to be a correct account.

The funny thing about science is the way it evolves. The science from 200 years ago is today viewed for the most part as worthless, and in 200 years hence the same will be said about much of todays scientific knowledge. It's very strength is also it's achilles heel, and it's a brave man indeed to stand in a pulpit expressing their opinion that science is the best way to understand the world today when we know in the not too distant future, todays knowledge will be discarded as being incorrect by the science of tomorrow.

That doesn't mean science is wrong... It just means it isn't yet right, and there are no guarantees it ever will prove all the answers we need. And scientists know this. They are aware of sciences limitations. They understand there will always be questions that it will most probably never answer. And so if they want to find answers to these questions they need to look elsewhere. It doesn't mean God... it can mean the bottom of a tequila bottle. But the important this is while science is science, scientists are people. Sure they might look at the world in a different way, have poor grooming skills and a bad taste in music, but underneath their lab coats they are just as human as the rest of us. And as such they end up pondering the very same questions everyone else does about life the universe and everything, and quite often they will turn to the same things as the rest of us for the answer.

There are scientists who believe in God, and that's no problem for them or their career. Whether science and Godly beliefs are compatible or not, is a matter of personal outlook.

It is said human beings are complex. I say it's a complex challenge to be a human.

Yeah and what's more some of those scientists with all their ability to prove things take off their lab coats and go home to hear,yeah but you don't REALLY love me.Hahashahahaahh.

LMAO @ Shaka...

Hey bro, you might wanna take a MUCH closer look at some of the OTHER things Mr. Einstein had been known to utter before he died if THIS is what you believe. LOL

~ PSYKO ~

:shaka:
I did not really expect you to understand. You always like to put labels on something that you cannot comprehend.
All I will say is that knowing is not of the mind. We have the whole universe within us. Just by being in contact or aligned with that which is within us we can know anything that is necessary. Even if we lived in a cave and nobody told us that the earth was flat or the rotation of the earth or whatsoever, we would just realize it. When we are made of the same stuff as the universe, nothing is impossible or unaccessable.
Where have all the great discoveries and inventions come from? Out of thin air? No. These discoveries could have happened thousands of years ago because it is already present within us. It just took time because man has to evolve to a certain degree so these things can enter his consciousnes and he is able to grasp it. Then he can make use of this in the right way and at the right time.
Whatsoever we need to know is available, if only we will put our mind aside and just be in-tune with who we really are.
It is very easy to believe and it usually involves knowledge from someone or someplace else. Knowing tru our own understanding and experiencing something that is beyond the five senses is something else.

"Once you accept all your responsibilities in its totality,
you become mature.
You stop throwing tantrums and
you stop seeking messiahs.
Then there is no need for any Jesus to save you.
Nor can any Jesus save you -
he was exploiting your situation." --- Osho

I think one that just because we cannot tie it down with string and force it into a shape ,does not mean that somthing does not exist..These 5 senses,i see no reason to limit it to 5..For a long time i have been experimenting with friends in communication..Many people belive primitive man to have been very limited in his vocal range but he servived but hunting to gether,this takes communication..Now take your kid,and project to him love but you must be behind him or you will trigger a partial visual response..When you get good at it,it could have been used in hunting..Nothin audable to they prey ,and nothing visual but aech hunter knows when to move forward in the dark to maintain the line..It's fun and astonishing..

1) A scientists starts with choosing a topic to study on. The choice of that topic is influenced by interest, belief, backround, politics, natural environment, money, investors, earlyer learned knowledge... is a liberal allowed to do social science? A democrate? A republican? A socialist? Someone born in a poor family? One born in a rich family?
2) Once chosen the topic, the scientist just has to be honest, and leave all opinion aside. Opinion is no science.

Daar is de lente, daar is de zon
bijna, maar ik denk dat ze weldra zal komen.
De fallus impudicus staat al in bloei
En de blaadjes krijgen bomen.
M'n vrouw en m'n kat zijn allebei krols
en de klokken vertrekken naar Rome

Yes deng and no predetermined result.

so is stating that god doesn't exist stating a fact or opinion?

You see.. if we cannot find proof within the CURRENT limitations that God exists, does that mean that God does not, just because we can't prove that He does inside our current scientific limitations?

And what about science proving that particles in light exist... there was a time when they COULD NOT prove that with the limitations that they had, but now, it has been proven...

The funny thing though, is we're talking about God here... and by the time that science DOES have the resources and strong enough evidence to prove the God in fact DOES exist.. will it be too late to benefit from that discovery?

the absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence.

~ PSYKO ~

You seem to have forgotten to insert in the equation a very important factor, namely the strength of such evidence. If everything seems to point to the fact that the existence of an almighty creator would not answer any question but, rather, raise more of them, and if science is able to offer an explanation of how the physical reality we live in - and which is, as far as anyone can tell, the only reality there is - then we can safely assume that, for all practical purposes, there is no creator. Of course you can cling to the idea of a god of the gaps, if you wish to.

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

About the STRENGTH of such evidence... you know... what if God just happened to show up, coming in from the clouds in front of everyone for all to see? (and ALL would see, it would be breaking news on hundreds of channels globally)

That, in my opinion, would be UNDENIABLE proof of His existence... but WHY would He do something like that? Do we have any clues to suggest that if in fact He DOES exist, that He just might show himself to everyone at some time??? Of course we do, if in fact, He does exist, and the Bible is an accurate account of His Story, then that would mean that Armageddon in Revelations will indeed take place(you know, where God Himself descends from the clouds to annihilate the rest of mankind and their wickedness?)

That's when the proof would be UNDENIABLE... it's just too bad that thats when it will be too late to benefit from such a discovery. Sure... we don't have undeniable PROOF that God exists right now, but we have MANY clues that suggest that the assumption that a Divine Creator is at least partially responsible for the existence of everything in the universe. Many in the scientific community have accepted this assumption, why can't Atheists accept it with all of their superior wisdom yada yada? Sounds like a game of Russian Roulette to me... but that's just my opinion.

The existence of an almighty creator does not raise more questions, unless of course one were to Inquire of that creator... but that's just the easy way out of discovery.

Anyway, if there were to be proof that this Creator exists... could YOU possibly dig within yourself and offer us up some examples of what questions it would ANSWER for you, and also, while you are at it, what questions would it RAISE for you personally? (of course... adding in the WHY category is something that you would have to inquire of that Creator on your own)

Having nothing but MAPS to outline what the earth looks like... It would be safe to assume that the earth is actually flat... but what happened to THAT particular assumption?

By the way... as I have already pointed out... many in the SCIENTIFIC community have accepted the evidence which suggests that a Divine Creator is as least partially responsible for the existence of everything in the universe. (why is it called Uni-Verse by the way?) In fact, many who are not given to religion have accepted this evidence... but then again, we should ignore that because it is still not what the MAJORITY feels comfortable admitting right?

~ PSYKO ~

Again... the absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

I don't know about you, but I only put all of MY chips on a sure winner. One has nothing to lose by accepting God and the outlines of life in the Bible, but they have much to gain, both in this life and the next(if the next, in fact, does exist) however, if one lives without accepting God, there is a chance they are wrong (since no one has provided proof that He does NOT exist) it looks like a 50/50 gamble with nothing to gain for winning and everything to lose for losing. Check out the odds:

Without God = 50/50 chance of losing big time with nothing to win.
With God = 50/50 chance of huge gain with nothing to lose.

With those odds, it is simply irrational to side with the loser.(without God)

Wait... didn't someone imply in another topic that atheists are more rational than those who believe in the existence of God on this particular topic? Hmmm... sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

~ PSYKO ~

Here we go again with Pascal's wager. You don't have faith, you're simply fishing for a free ride to heaven. Don't you think your almighty god will find that out and be a lil bit pissed off by such lack of genuine faith? Humour aside, Pascal's wager rests on the false assumption that unbelief and belief are equally justified, which is not the case as the strength of contrary evidence - which you so eagerly dismissed - clearly shows. As for your other assumption, that "many in the scientific community have accepted" the existence of a deity as a fact, statistics say quite the contrary, stating that about the majority of the world scientific community holds no belief in whatever deity.

For me personally the existence of your or whatever other god offers nothing but an easy way out of the problem of how the universe came to be. However, I do have a brain and I can't but go that little step forward which renders belief in god nothing but folklore. You clearly know what question I'm talking about, so there's no point in going there now. Not to mention the myriads of questions related to the inner contradictoriness of the countless religious beliefs which popped up and eventually died - or are in the process of doing so - throughout human history.

What happened to the assumption that the Earth is flat? It wasn't an assumption, it was a belief taken for granted. It was proved wrong, as countless others "facts" which were a result of religious belief. How does that work against science, exactly?

Again, believing scientists are quite a minority in the scientific community. And studies seem to suggest, if not prove, that belief in a god decreases as the level of education increases. I don't say that, researchers do. Michael Argyle was one of the first to show a clear inverse correlation between education and metaphysical belief. Given your astounding knowledge of psychology, you have probably heard of him.

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

Actually, belief and unbelief ARE equally justified... But this is a fact that YOU seem to dismiss. You see, there is actually more evidence that suggests the existence of a Divine Creator, then there is that suggests and absence of one. But that statement will never be accepted by you or many others, because it is just not comfortable. (my extensive knowledge of Psychology is where I get the authority to pass such a bold judgment on so many people collectively, if you would like me to go into details and form a debate on this statement, then please, start a topic in S & T)

Actually I'm not quite sure what question you are talking about.. please elaborate.

Actually, the belief (considered common KNOWLEDGE at the time) has actually been associated to the fact that there were only MAPS (flat pieces of paper) that people could use in order to see more of the earth than the EYE could see, rather than being associated with religion. This (common knowledge) was inaccurate, though it was accepted by the majority of the scientific community at the time. It wasn't until certain explorers went to the "Edge of the earth" (where no maps had outlined) that they discovered that something might be wrong about all of this.

Hence the reason a belief in a Divine Creator is written off by the majority of the scientific community, since there is no PROOF one way or the other, the majority decides what is true or false... this is a common problem in society in general... even if the majority says that the earth is flat, that does not make it a fact. And even if the majority accepts it AS fact, still does not make it a fact... but we are talking about something much more important than whether or not the earth is flat.

This is a perfect example of a point I made in another topic (if not channel) that an overload of Knowledge tends to cloud wisdom. But this is really kinda funny. you see, the belief in God decreases as levels of education increase because the omission of the possibility of God's existence increases exponentially as the level of education provided increases. It's not the people thinking for themselves that decreases their belief in God, it's the mental programming received through years of study which is responsible for this trend. This is the basic flaw with the system of research through statistics... the researchers tend to look for specifics rather than approach everything with an open mind which is why the results of statistical research (and the explanations of these results) are almost ALWAYS very narrow and biased.

Sure I have heard the name a few times, but I can see why I have filed him away in my mind under the category of "Useless Information"

Let me ask you a question... what value can one put on research that is so narrow and inconclusive other than a sense of empty hope?

~ PSYKO ~

But hey... I have an even better source for ya... it's from Albert Einstein, maybe you've heard of him.

~ PSYKO ~

Einstein was a bit of a rogue, both as a person and as a scientist, and he had always had a bad relationship with institutions, schools included. Geniuses often are. Hence, that statement. Doesn't quite prove your point. As for the rest, you're quite hopeless and I do not intend to indulge you any further, unless you care to present the astounding amount of evidence that supports your deity's existence.

As for Argyle, he simply analysed the results of research projects carried out by others. You can dismiss them, if you find them offensive, but the point stands.

Another point, of historical nature this time.

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen