It sometimes helps to read a Christian apologetics discussion that uses misinformation or baldly states they will not consider information that is contrary to their creed, and mentally substitute another belief system wherever we read “Christian,”–Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, for example. If we feel the other system is dishonest or dismissive of facts–if we think they will be held responsible before God for this–then we can not only see our own errors, but how others look at us.
In memory of John Bartley, a geology teacher in my community college who kindly, respectfully, and patiently responded to my earnest YEC objections in my sophomore year in 1991, I looked up what had happened to him. He unfortunately passed away in 2011, but he is remembered for being an excellent teacher. May we all learn to discuss difficult subjects with humility and patience as he did, recognizing the difficulty of overcoming fears to discuss accurate weights and measures. I am even more confident now than I had been before, that God is patient, as we all need that to learn.
I was intrigued by what 45% might look like so I did a bit of quick Googling:
In 2015, an estimated 6.4 million college graduates were employed in S&E [science and engineering] occupations in the United States. The largest S&E occupations were computer and mathematical sciences (3.1 million), followed by engineering (1.7 million). Occupations in life sciences (631,000), social sciences (570,000), and physical sciences (331,000) combined to about the size of the engineering component. (Source, pg 6)
So, based on the PEW figure of 45% that’s still around 2,970,000 people, which according to ChatGPT is comparable to the population of Chicago.
First of all that’s not the numbers. I was apparently mistaken. It’s actually 51% religious lol. Quite interesting.
Secondly
Do you really think PEW took sample of ALL the scientists in the world? Comon ow.
Currently there are roughly 8 million scientists in the world. If PEW did take questions from ALL of them apparently 4 million of them are theists. Which is unlikely to believe
I’ll respond further later when I got time with some further studies and graphs
Also take note that in many countries religion and tradition are one and the same.
90% of Greeks consider themselves Greek Orthodox. Go to any church and you can see even the most “religious” there behaving with an atheistic behaviour even inside there.
I have heard people actually blaspheme inside the church while ATTENDING liturgy.
Apparently there are people in countries that lack the intellectual capability of actually separating religion and tradition. And there are many of them.
In the US not so much and it makes me glad. But in some other Christian countries that are historically tied with this or Italy and here Greece these are inseparable. So some scientists might have answered possitive by this logic. And I trust there would be many of them
There are Greeks who haven’t even read the Gospel. Never ever. Period.
There are many who don’t even know about the trinity. 40% of religious Greeks if youll ask them they will think The Father and The Son are not even the same. The will say The Father is God but The Son is not. They are literally sectarians without even knowing lol
We would expect to find detectable levels of carbon 14 in dinosaur bones that are millions of years old. We would also expect to find radiohaloes in metamorphic rock that is millions of years old due to the mobility of radioactive elements.
Because they haven’t any hands-on practical experience of how science actually works perhaps?
This is another thing that everyone needs to remember when talking to scientists. Remember that science is a very practical and hands-on activity that they do for a living. In other words, make sure that you properly understand the mechanics of science before you attempt to tackle the philosophy of science.
This is something that never ceases to amaze me. In discussions about science and faith, evangelists and apologists always seem very keen to wax lyrical about the philosophy of science while being absolutely tone deaf to the mechanics of science. They’ll all too happily talk the hind legs off a donkey about such things as assumptions, presuppositions, worldviews, methodological versus philosophical naturalism, falsifiability, Karl Popper, and all the rest of it, but they don’t seem to have the slightest bit of awareness that science is actually conducted in laboratories, that it involves measuring things, that it starts off with studying evidence, that it is constrained by basic rules and principles, that it is mathematical and technical in nature, or that you learn these things through actually putting them into practice.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard the expression “methodological naturalism” used in any context where people are actually doing anything science related in any way, shape or form. I can’t even remember having heard it when I was studying science at university. It only ever seems to crop up when people are arguing about creationism or Intelligent Design. Certainly you never hear such discussions in software engineering forums. A search of Hacker News for “methodological naturalism” returns a grand total of zero hits. Zero. A search of Physics Forums turns up two pages of results, but almost every single one of them is on a post discussing creation versus evolution. Physics Stack Exchange? Again—bupkis. Ditto Biology Stack Exchange, Earth Science Stack Exchange, Astronomy Stack Exchange. The silence is deafening.
It always seems that this is the very first thing that I have to address when discussing science and faith. But it also seems to be the one thing that evangelists and apologists seem to be the least able—or the least willing—to actually get to grips with. It seems at times that when they talk about science and when everyone else talks about science, it’s almost as if we’re talking about two completely different subjects.
A Physics 101 class and lab would cure a lot of YECs’ misconceptions about science. They talk a lot about science without ever having done even the most rudimentary bit of it.
I have always felt that psychological projection plays a large role. People from the evangelist/apologist ranks come to the discussion with theological and ideological baggage, so they assume others are in the same position. They view science as an institution that is pushing some sort of worldview or ideology in the same way they are. This just isn’t the case. They are quick to label all scientists as atheists, all the while forgetting about the many scientists who are believers. It’s the old tactic of dragging something down in the mud with you, and beating it by being the better mud wrestler.
No kidding. It’s like scientists want to pretend philosophy has nothing to contribute to understanding reality.
I thought I asked you a good question about whether it’s a good or bad idea to talk with scientists about the possible statements that can explain the universe.
Weinberg appears truly naive that reality could be a great paradox. Which is why it is helpful to consider what the possible statements for the universe are.
“Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories. But this has been learned through the experience of scientific research and rarely from the teachings of philosophers.”
–Steven Weinberg
And what frame of mind can look at the cosmic web and not suppose it is part of a larger structure or the beginning of a new life form?
Then there is philosophy, while not being able to provide an ultimate answer, “we do not seem to be able to see the path to the truth from the heights of philosophy.” It still frames the discussion of that which is most paradoxical.
I can only imagine what happens when those big guns ricochet off the nothingness. And how long before a real philosopher or physicist grabs hold of what reason can and cannot tell about the world?
“This is not to deny all value to philosophy, much of which has nothing to do with science. I do not even mean to deny all value to the philosophy of science, which at its best seems to me a pleasing gloss on the history and discoveries of science. But we should not expect it to provide today’s scientists with any useful guidance about how to go about their work or about what they are likely to find.”
–Steven Weinberg, “Against Philosophy”
If you want to learn stuff about the universe I would suggest science journals, not philosophy journals.