19 Answers

  1. Easily. Lomonosov, for example, was a deep believer, but this did not prevent him from becoming one of the greatest scientists in Russia.

    The problem here is not the religion itself, but the way people interpret the Holy Scriptures. The main subject of the Bible and the Gospel is the concepts of good and evil, which are described through parables, metaphors and riddles. Therefore, studying the history and structure of the universe according to the Bible is, sorry, the same as looking for the law of God in a scientific monograph about ground beetles of the Volgograd region.

    It is a pity that the vast majority of believers do not understand this. Why, most of the so-called ” believers “do not even open these books, relying on candles, icons and other religious tinsel, and they draw information about life from the TV and all sorts of pseudo-religious books, such as” 500 deadly sins for repentance “or”How to protect yourself from vaccinations and chipping”…

  2. To the question it is customary to answer in the affirmative about the religiosity of scientists, starting with the name of Copernicus and further down the list. This is a deception of the church. Similarly, it can be argued that most Academicians in the USSR were Communists because they believed in communism. Both communist scientists and church scientists were forced to be such in order to survive and do what they loved. Nothing has ruined science more than the Church and the CPSU. For more than 15 centuries, science outside the church was considered heresy.

    But the interesting thing is thatThe gods of the ancient Greeks did not interfere with the study of science. All modern science sits on the shoulders of such giants as Plato, Aristotle, etc … Ptolemy. In the 200s BC, Eratosthenes not only knew that the Earth was round, but also calculated the radius of the Earth. And the laugh is that the accuracy of his estimate of the Earth's radius was significantly better than the accuracy of the Catholic canon Copernicus ' estimate of the Earth's radius, 17 centuries later.

    Religiosity (superstition) this is a derivative of the feeling of fear of death. This is typical of a person (and not only) a feeling developed over millions of years of evolution. Epicurus in the 300s BC showed the senselessness of the fear of death with statements: “Death is nothing to us. While we are there, it is not there. When it's there, we're gone.” Christianity used the natural fear of death — the fear of eternal torment of hell, manipulating people for more than 20 centuries.

    The situation changed dramatically only when France at the beginning of the 20th century separated the church from the state and all developed countries followed suit. Teaching religion in universities is no longer mandatory. That's when science finally straightened its shoulders and the boom of great discoveries began: quantum physics, relativity, nuclear physics, genetics, astrophysics … It is even difficult to imagine what humanity would be like today if the church did not interfere with science.

    In the afterword — Pascal's law from Murphy's Theory: There is enough light for those who want to see, and enough darkness for those who don't.

  3. What is the contradiction? Is it even correct to contrast natural sciences with moral and ethical postulates? Isn't it appropriate for a physicist to have a sense of compassion, mercy, love for loved ones and maybe even for strangers? After all, the entire Bible is about this. But everyone is clinging to the first chapter of creation and arguing. Although what is the contradiction? The fact that everything happened in nesk . days? Well, the Scripture also says that God has one day as a thousand and a thousand as one. That is, we are not talking about days, but about certain stages, periods in the process of creation.
    And so everything goes from simple to more complex. First plants, then fish, birds, etc. In addition, the ancients put a broader meaning in some words. For example, the Earth is matter in general, and the Sky is space. So it turns out that in a modern way it sounds like: In the beginning, God created Space (sky) and Matter (earth)…
    There is only one chapter in the Bible devoted to this. The Bible is not a natural science or historical treatise. The Bible is a book about the Spirit of God. About how people relate to each other..For the most part, the Old Testament is a mixture of legal and moral decrees or commandments supported by chronicles. What sideways physics or chemistry can be here? Yes, nothing..
    Moses, so to speak, created for the Jews his own Constitution and a set of normative legal documents regulating the life of ancient Jewish society. This has nothing to do with the natural sciences. To legal science, yes-it has, but not to physics.
    Yes, Moses made quite a lot of slyamzil from the code of King Hamurappi, who lived about 800 years before that…But for the first time in the world, I emphasize – for the first time, a moral and ethical justification for these laws was created, namely the Decalogue. The Ten Commandments. This was a real revolution in the social life of the people. That was 3,000 years ago. This is practically a primitive world in terms of morals, ethics and morals. People were sacrificed, male and female prostitution flourished in the temples of Baal, etc. These are practically the same Barmalei from the modern Isis were, in their mores and actions.
    Read the Ten Commandments. Where are we talking about the subtleties of the universe? The Bible is an inspired book and it is about the Spirit of God!!! This is what humanity was in dire need of at that time. No one cared about the subtleties of the universe at the level of photons, bosons and muons…

  4. Modern physics, biology, medicine, and astronomy were also created by religious people. Someone was Orthodox, like the founder of purulent surgery Voino-Yasenetsky, someone was a Catholic, like the father of genetics Mendel, someone was a Protestant, like the great Faraday.

    It didn't bother them. Even the devoutly religious Alessandro Volta could be remembered in the history of science for truly outstanding achievements.

  5. And why not?

    Korolev never conducted rocket launches on Mondays.

    Scientists in Israel do not do scientific work on Saturdays.

    The contradiction is in our minds when we contrast Science and God.

    Each of us, to a greater or lesser extent, is subject to superstition, fixing inexplicable harbingers and signs.

    Not everyone is capable of admitting that someone warns you against a catastrophe.

  6. Most Soviet and Russian scientists confuse faith and knowledge. Faith is what allows you to gather strength and win when knowledge fails to succeed.
    Religion does not contradict science, just as the methods of a psychologist do not contradict the methods of a dentist.

  7. science scientists may be religious but I like the ones who aren't.such as Zhores Alferov.religious people are semi-scientists.opportunists

  8. It doesn't contradict, but only a highly spiritual scholar can be religious.

    It is better for average people to adhere to the dogmas of an atheistic faith.

    There are nuances of thinking that not everyone notices.

  9. Contradictions exist only in our imperfect consciousness (mind). Both scientists and religion do the same thing – they create a human being out of an animal. The scientist takes tiny steps in the direction that God has commanded. It doesn't matter if he's an atheist or an idealist. In any case, there is a “principle of faith” in it – one believes that God exists, the other believes that God does not exist, but in striving for knowledge both inevitably go on the path of truth. And since humanity has always developed under the guidance of the principles: GOD-TRUTH-LOVE, there can be no contradictions between science and God.

  10. Can.
    It should be understood that science is free because it is collective and methodological(that is, it has its own ideology)
    The personality of a scientist has little influence on his work. There are plenty of examples of religious scientists, but it is precisely the methodological barrier and the requirement to verify the theory that prevent conditional Planck from declaring a quantum god, and Lukasevich from declaring the divinity of logic.
    Or rather, they did, but it wasn't accepted as a scientific theory.
    The peculiarity of the scientific approach is an assessment of what the scientist has done for the community, and not what he is.

  11. It is logical, because the best way to understand the divine plan is to be a scientist, a researcher, at the forefront of human knowledge.

    Well, studying life, in the same biology, I think it's easy to become a believer, it's all so wonderful.

  12. In the comments to the question, I clarified what exactly interests you:

    “Specifically religious? That is, not just believers, but those who pay special attention to the cult?”

    I think that in general, scientists are not characterized by attention to the cult, they simply should not have enough time for this, even if they are believers.

    And there are a lot of religious scientists.

    Max Planck has a lecture on this subject: “Religion and Natural Science” astronet.ru

    Max Planck-Nobel laureate, one of the founders of quantum physics wikipedia.org

    From right now living and formulating their position on this issue publicly, a physicist from the team of Nobel laureate Geim, Mikhail Katsnelson wikipedia.org

    the interview liveinternet.ru the book lib.ru

    And this is a sociological study specifically on natural scientists, the original: rice.edu briefly in Russian: moya-planeta.ru membrana.ru

    Interestingly, the study showed that psychologists, not natural scientists, are the least religious: Psychologists are less religious people?

  13. Of course it can. And there is no contradiction here.

    The scientific approach as a historical phenomenon is often associated with the name of Francis Bacon https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD,_%D0%A4%D1%80%D1%8D%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81 . Who was a philosopher and theologian.�

    Well, the wording, and therefore the train of thought of such classics as Einstein and Bohr in their classic dispute about quantum mechanics –

    • “The old man doesn't play dice”

    • “Don't tell the old man how and what to play”

    It also says a lot about the compatibility of scientific and religious worldviews in our heads.

  14. I had a physics teacher who used to say something about divine design right here in his lectures (like, ” look how complicated the atom and the universe are-it's the will of the creator!”) and even looked like a priest, only without clothes. that is, probably not just a believer, but even a pious one.

    but the subject behaved well)

  15. Of course there is. Among his contemporaries, for example, a theoretical physicistMikhail Iosifovich Katsnelson is an Orthodox Christian. Quite a few outstanding mathematicians were adherents of Judaism. There is no contradiction in this, because science answers the question ” How?”, leaving a yawning void for”Why?” and “Why?”.

  16. As much as you want. Religion does not interfere with science in the least, nor does the science of religion.

    Do you need any examples? You are welcome. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Euler, Mendel, Faraday, Einstein, Lomonosov, Lemaitre. And many,many more.

  17. Because no one has yet proved that God does not exist. In this they are absolutely equal to atheists — both of them believe in the unprovable. Darwin was a little smarter and chose to become agnostic. They say that he repented on his deathbed, but posterity claims that this is nothing more than a rumor.

  18. I was also very concerned about this issue for a very long time. Here is a personal example: my friend's father taught physics at school all his life; my mother is a med student.she worked as a nurse in the hospital. Both are now retired. And on Sundays, and even on weekdays, they must go to the service in the church. Everything in the house is covered with all sorts of icons and religious things.

  19. Of course, they can. The sphere of science and the sphere of religion are on completely different planes. Religion touches on the so-called “eternal questions” – about the purpose of man, the immortality of the soul… Science does not do this, since hypotheses about the existence of God, the other world, and other supernatural buns are unfalsifiable, and therefore lie outside the field of science. The most famous example of a religious natural scientist is Francis Collins.

Leave a Reply