6 Answers

  1. A believing scientist is closer to the truth than an atheist scientist, because there is no chaos, that is, randomness, within the walls of the universe. Therefore, there is an accurate mathematical calculation. Therefore idea is primary, and matter is secondary. In addition, the very fact of the historicity of matter is proved by the same scientists. This means that there was a time when there was no matter. Not until the Big Bang, anyway.

  2. Yes. First of all, if we remember the history of science, we will understand that a huge number of discoveries were made by religious people or believers. From Aristotle, who laid the foundations of logic and economics, to at least Newton (most of whose writings are imbued with mysticism or religiosity). To call Pascal, Descartes, or Copernicus unscientific would be at least strange. Often this was dictated simply by the lack of an alternative, because for a significant part of human history, being an atheist was shameful. But even up to now, it is impossible to talk about the atheism of the scientific community (the share of believers in this field in this case does not matter).�

    Second, faith and science are not mutually exclusive. Religious dogmatism conflicts with science, but not faith. There is always a place for faith, as well as a field of activity: without faith, that is, the adoption of certain propositions without proof, for example, aesthetics and especially ethics are unimaginable. It is not without reason that Kant called the belief in the immortality of the soul a necessary condition of morality. Science does not provide a basis for any kind of worldview, positioning yourself in the world. However, a full-fledged rational scientific worldview is impossible, because building a worldview requires answers to such questions that go beyond science.

    And finally, science itself is based on certain assumptions that do not require and do not have evidence. For example, the belief in the reality of the world and its relative knowability.

  3. Not too, but just a scientist. Faith does not determine a person's contribution to science. Because usually science does not go so deep and high that it begins to need religious ideas. In most cases, scientific problems do not require discussion of questions of faith, God, or religion

  4. Imho. A scientist is always agnostic. This does not prevent him from being either a believer or an atheist. He admits that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved. And in his work, he assumes that this is unknown.

    And to believe or not to believe is a matter of his free choice. Faith and religion are addressed to the individual and thus do not overlap with science, which is interested in global patterns. Except, perhaps, for psychology. Psycholgy is also interested in the individual.

    But just as psychology was formed within the framework of the scientific method, the scientist-psychologist acts in the same logic of scientifically established facts. However, it is also a fact that religion shows no less impressive results of spiritual influence than psychology. Therefore, the scientific approach itself does not reject the recognition of religious practices in the field of the psyche. In other words, although these areas overlap, they do not contradict each other. Here the atheist scientist has just as much reason to make the cognitive mistake of denying, for example, the effect of meditation or a psychoanalytic session based, if you think about it, on the same principles as confession.

  5. If a scientist believes in God, then he is studying everything related to this topic. All religions and beliefs, everything that is directly or indirectly related to spirituality and practice. It's just a doctor of spiritual sciences.

Leave a Reply