Um, not all, as noted above and you just cited? Shall we talk about dead horses?
ChatGPT can be your friend, if you let it. 
It failed to note that some inspectors in industry are scientists with more specialized training than technicians, using scientific tools and instrumentation in their jobs. How about the IAEA?
So can someone be forgiven for praising God for his scientist-like attributes? (But only in similes, right? ;Ā -Ā )
Scientists do research because they are ignorant of how the natural world works. That would seem to be a poor descriptor for an omniscient being. If you already know everything thereās no reason to hypothesize, much less test that hypothesis.
Perhaps God would more of an engineer?
2 Likes
I would not describe God as scientist OR engineer. I think these are Deist notions of God. It reminds me of other notions of God which are more about human interests and obsessions.
God as the divine dictator and ruler which is more about human obsessions with power, authority, and control.
God as the purist who cannot associate with sin, which is more about religious people fighting their own sin.
God as the judge delivering condemnation and punishment to the evil people, which is more about human desires for retribution and justice.
God as the jealous demander of worship and devotion, which is more about religious people exaggerating their own importance.
This is not to say there is no truth to any of these once you remove the human interests and obsessions. God certainly has the greatest power and authority which is exactly why He doesnāt care much about these things. God will not accept sin because it is capable of destroying everything which is good in us. God does provide perfect justice by allowing us to reap the consequences of our own choices. God is the only place we can find eternal life - that which will make an eternal existence worthwhile. And God made the universe operate according to natural laws for a reason and there is no good reason for God to violate them, especially not for the lame reason of impressing savages who clearly wouldnāt know the difference anyway.
But the most important describing qualities of any person is in the things they value most and to which they devote themselves, and for God this is love, goodness, and relationships. For this reason God is much better described according to these values as a shepherd, teacher, and parent.
1 Like
R.C. Sproul brought out a helpful understanding of Godās job for Adam to name the animals as the task for a scientific understanding and naming of creation. Whether God is a scientist is not so cool as that God appreciates good science.
We are talking about metaphors and similes, analogies. There are some ways they are applicable to God and in some ways they are not. God is a river and like a river of grace and patience. I can doxologize him for that (and I can doxologize a hymn for that too. ;Ā -Ā )
I agree 100% that there is no 1:1 correlation between God and a scientist. However, when we are talking about doxology weāre talking primarily about poetry. Connecting similarities between two objects for the purpose of making the reader think, or evoke a certain mood, emotion, or feeling.
For example, consider this haiku by renowned master Matsuo Basho:
The craneās legs
have gotten shorter
in the spring rain.
In my opinion, it does violence to the poem to say that Bashoās haiku is factually incorrect because spring rain canāt actually make a craneās legs shorter. Scientifically, Bashoās poem is junk. Poetically, it is an incredibly clever haiku, not because of what is said, but because of what is not said. In doing so, it invites the reader to complete the haiku in their mindās eye as they imagine Bashoās craneās legs getting shorter as the spring rains swell the river the bird is standing in. In a short poem, it implies the passing of a long period of time.
Similarly, whether we describe God as a Father, a Rock, a Husband, a King, a Hiding Place, a Shepherd, a Physician, an Engineer, a Mighty Fortress, a Light, a High Priest, an Artist, or a Scientist, the issue is not whether these titles have an accurate correlation in the real world. What matters more is what they evoke poetically.
For me, calling God the Great Scientist evokes one who delights in his creation, its magnificence, complexities, and (from our perspective) its mysteries. It evokes the image of one who values factual knowledge and delights with us as we delight in discovering more about the universe. [EDIT: It brings to mind a God cares about accuracy, especially accurate measurements (as JammyCakes is (rightly) keen to remind us). I think calling God a scientist invites us to imagine not what a scientist does, but what a scientist is like, and what they value, and locate the source of that goodness in God. Or at least invite us to imagine, what a perfect scientist would be like, what a perfect scientist might value, and in turn to increase our appreciation for the work and contribution of scientists everywhere.]
1 Like
Good points.
Of course, for me the mental image of a scienist is of a frazzled middle age guy cursing at lab equipment that likes to break down at just the wrong time. 
2 Likes
Are you telling us you have mirrors by lab equipment? (That way when you hear āscientistā away from the lab you have a more precise mental image. ;Ā -Ā )
The main role of a scientist is doing research. How do you graduate with a PhD in science without doing research?
One day ago you were bowing out of this conversation. What gives?
I donāt need to be schooled about poetry. We are fortunate to have occasional classes on poetry (and art) in theology class. Our latest class was given by Dr. David Mahan, of the Institute of Sacred Music at Yale, who offered a workshop in poetry as a way of attentiveness. He teaches Christian poetry. A good guy!
I think that metaphors and similes do need an accurate correlation with things in the real world. Shouldnāt have to dance around to get the meaning.
The main role of many scientists is doing research. NOT ALL.
Not all scientists are PhDs? Besides, you can do research before obtaining the degree and then still be doing non-research scientific work after. Then if you are not doing research, youāre not a scientist? Check back at what our friendly AI chatbot said. (Iām pretty sure my PhD organic chem prof was not doing active research, so he was primarily a science educator at that point in his career. Would he appreciate you saying he was not a scientist? I donāt think so.) The reason we use research as an adjective is guess what, not all scientists do research.
[Removed by Moderator]
It bears repeating, especially if you donāt get it the first time. (Repetition is good for senior memories.)
Are the scientists in the NRC doing research? Some of them are writing regulations. And they need to be qualified scientists to do it, but not at all necessarily having gotten their education and qualification by doing research.
Ok. Well, if youād really like an answer, I actually just dropped out of the conversation with you but didnāt want to say that since you appeared set on reading everything Iād written in the worst possible light. For example, my last response was directed to T, yet you appear to have taken this as a veiled strike against you. I assure you, it wasnāt, I really donāt care enough to go to such tragic levels of effort. I actually just wanted to have a conversation about three subjects Iām interested in that rarely cross over at the same time: science, theology, and poetry.
I wasnāt, and never said you did. I let this slide last time, but whilst weāre on the subject, I believe that the motives youāve attributed to me are uncalled for and out of line. If you think I have treated you ungraciously, please flag the relevant posts for review. Otherwise, Iāll remind you that attributing motives is a breach of forum guidelines:
- Focus on discussing other peopleās ideas, not on evaluating their character, faith, communication style, or perceived ātone.ā Please avoid attributing beliefs, motivations, or attitudes to others.
Iām pleased for you, genuinely. Many churches, including the one I attend, would kill for such an opportunity. But if weāre going to play knowledge and experience Top Trumps, Iām an editor for the worldās fourth-largest English language Haiku journal. Not a doctorate or professorship at Yale, Iāll grant, but Iām hardly unschooled myself.
Sure, you can hold that opinion if you want to.
1 Like
Okay, my final argument and I think itās a gotcha. There are theoretical physicists and there are research physicists. According to you, the theoretical physicists are not scientists because they donāt do research. 
And at least ātheoreticallyā 
since I have not been involved with physicists that closely in academia to know any better, therefore someone can be awarded an advanced degree in physics, theoretical physics, without ever having done any research.
Also, academic scientists, scientific educators, do real science in laboratory classes when they do demonstrations ā chemists, physicists, biologists, medicine, even cosmology. Cosmology?! Explaining and demonstrating how their particular universityās telescope works and is operated, a telescope that may not be routinely used for research but typically only for observation and education. (We have one in our town.)
Iām sure many academic scientists enjoy doing research, for instance, when they get an opportunity to participate in a summer research program, but that certainly would not include all scientists and for a large variety of reasons including personal ones ā disabilities perhaps, physical or financial.
Iām curious if my take on physicists and research is in the ballpark, so calling three here, anyway, who have either graduate or advanced degrees or have studied in the field: @pevaquark, @glipsnort and @mitchellmckain. Any others (and other scientists) want to chime in?
(Or am I out in left field? But thatās still in the ballparkā¦ language is fun. ;Ā -Ā )
In the biological sciences, my impression is nearly all graduate school students have to participate in research. Publishing 3 peer review papers is equivalent to a thesis from the good olā days. There may be specialized degrees in biology that donāt require research (education degrees?), but the mainline degrees do. The standard first job out of graduate school is a post-doctoral position, and you will be expected to have research experience and publications under your belt.
2 Likes
Iām not following this discussion, but theoretical physicists do research ā theoretical research. They donāt do experiments, but thatās not the only kind of research.
I would call that science education rather than science.
1 Like
Yes, that has been my understanding as well, so thanks for confirming it. Thatās why I picked on physicists.
Itās hard to be a theoretical biologist without being either in the research lab or in the field doing research, right? Maybe once the degree is obtained, mathematical or computational biologists can ābe at their desksā all the time, but it still involves research.