Religulous scientists
So they turn to Jesus when it comes down to it. What percentage of creditable i.e published scientists actually believe in unprovable superstition?
shareAstronomers.
Theoretical Physicists.
Ask Michio Kaku.
MovieChat Forums > Don't Look Up (2021) Discussion > Religulous scientists
Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for a start, you think you're smarter than those 2? Lol.
FYI the person responsible for pushing the modern big bang theory was a Catholic priest.
Where did I claim to be smarter than Einstein? Never mentioned anything of the kind. You reckon he believed in Jesus?
shareEinstein explicitly rejected the notion of a personal god.
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
In other words, Einstein was not an atheist in the same sense that Neil deGrasse Tyson is not an atheist: he didn't like the label, as he defined "atheist" as something more than it actually is - same as Neil. But in form and function, certainly atheists both.
He believed in the possibility of God though, just not modern religion, which are 2 different things.
He definitely was not an atheist, even if you try to change to definition of it to try and include him?
He was more an agnostic.
He definitely was not an atheist, even if you try to change to definition of it to try and include him?
I'm not the one changing the definition, he was. Atheist simply means you don't believe in gods, and he actively rejected the notion of gods. But because he saw atheists as being proselytisers for their position, he did not feel he was one. The exact same reason, by the way, that deGrasse Tyson insists he is not an atheist, even though his views on gods mirror that of atheists exactly. "Agnostic" simply means you believe certain knowledge cannot be attained, and this is true for most atheists anyway.
Einstein also said this:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
There isn't much room for the supernatural there. "God", to Einstein, had taken on a meaning so abstract as to render it meaningless. share
He didn't believe in a 'personal god' - not that he didn't believe in the possibility of a kind of god at all.
He definitely was not an atheist.v
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
He described himself as agnostic, which makes more sense.
You're trying to say his concept for 'God' was meaningless because it doesn't suit your atheist narrative ... LOL!!! 🤦🏿♂️
He didn't believe in a 'personal god' - not that he didn't believe in the possibility of a kind of god at all.
How is that supposed to be a distinction? I believe in the possibility of gods existing as well, but I'm an atheist all the same.
He described himself as agnostic, which makes more sense.
And I explained why that's irrelevant. He went by a faulty definition of atheism, which is why he went to the safe port of "agnostic". Agnosticism doesn't attract attention or offend anyone. But the vast majority of agnostics are, in fact, atheists. Just as most atheists are agnostics. share
I get that it's an issue if you cannot recruit one of the most intelligent people of all time into atheism lol.
Atheists are the exact type of moron that Bible bashers are btw, they just preach to a different cause but they do it in the exact same way lol.
Atheists are the exact type of moron that Bible bashers are btw, they just preach to a different cause but they do it in the exact same way lol.
Even you don't know what an atheist is, even though I just explained it to you a couple posts up. share
Agnostic means exactly that: he doesn't believe in the existence of a god but he doesn't exclude the existence of god. He doesn't KNOW if there is a god or not.
So no, he didn't have a concept for god.
Err .... it's somewhere in the middle.
He definitely wasn't religious but that's different than believing that some type of god is not impossible.
Do you have any sense of nuance whatsoever? Don't be so fucking literal.
I'm an "atheist" in the sense that I was indoctrinated to believe in the Judeo-Christian god described in the Bible, but I don't believe in it. I literally can't believe in it. As soon as I was old enough to think for myself, I instantly realized how obvious it was that was a load of complete bullshit dreamed up by ignorant idiots who lived thousands of years ago and literally didn't know any better.
But I'm "agnostic" in the sense that I'm humble enough to admit I don't know everything about this universe for a flat fact. I'm open to the remote possibility of some "higher power" of some kind. But good luck convincing me that any of the earthly religions created by humans over the last 100,000 years have anything to do with it.
What are the chances that one of them are, just by luck, mostly right?
Also that if they were right and there was a big dude in the sky that created our minds and subsequently our capacity for reasoning, that he would punish, not reward, those that blindly believed in him without questioning his existence and looking for evidence?
[deleted]
Religious in what way?
shareThe comical part of this "logic" is that you think one precludes the other. Non-believers love to paint themselves as the enlightened ones, while those with faith are uneducated trailer park dwellers who don't wear shoes to town. All it really shows is how ignorant and narrow minded YOU are.
shareIt really does preclude the other though. Scientists are supposed to follow scientific method of proving something. Religious beliefs have failed the scientific method every single time. Thus, religion is by definition unscientific. However humans are wonderful creatures and are perfectly capable of living with multiple internal inconsistencies in their psychology.
shareNo, it doesn't. The answer above is in the question itself. There is NOTHING in science that proves God does not exist.
shareThats irrelevant. Unless you can prove god exists, it does not exist.
shareUnless you can prove God doesn't exist, you have no argument. That's why they call it faith, dummy. You really don't think there are things in this universe we don't know? Does't that make you sound like a so-called "science denier" from virtually any time in history? You people think yourselves enlightened?
shareThere is no need to prove something does not exist. It does not exist until proven otherwise. Welcome to scientific method.
You call it faith because you believe it despite there being no proof for it. Faith is entirely unscientific concept.
There are plenty of things in the universe we dont know. We will learn about them by applying a scientific method, not having faith in ramblings of a mentally ill person.
So you admit that there are things we do not know exist, but somehow you know God is not one of them? Are you clairvoyant? Or just a pseudo-intellectual? I know people like you need to believe that those who believe in God are ignorant and backward. You think faith is a weakness but that just simply isn't congruent with reality. You're blinded by your belief in "science" and nowhere near as enlightened as you 'think' you are.
shareIf your god of the gaps exist in a form that is not provable now then it is not in a form of any religion on the planet and as such any such religion can be dismissed as mental illness.
Arrogance and ignorance, powerful combination.
shareA religious person should be well familiar with both.
shareLOL, true story Straz
shareAs usual, no shortage of judgment and stereotyping from the “tolerant” left. The fact that you really think one precludes the other is proof of how ignorant and narrow minded you are.
shareI am neither tolerant nor a left winger. But that does not stop you fingerpointing and making assumptions. No need to stereotype here however, you have proven the statement true yourself.
shareYou are certainly not tolerant and as I said, ignorant and narrow minded. I'm not the one on here attacking peoples' faith. Which is about the most arrogant, childish and vile things a person can do but you do you.
shareJust because i explained how faith works does not mean i attacked it. But you clearly took it personal just because you're religiuos and could not accept that its contrary to science.
shareAs I said, it isn't. It's almost comical that you think it does but you're blinded by your hatred of religious faith. I know this is difficult for you to comprehend so maybe you should think about it for a while. The main difference between you and I? That I'm smart enough to recognize how ignorant I am. You are not smart enough to know how dumb you are. Which is a common trait among liberals, sorry.
shareNo, it doesn't. The answer above is in the question itself. There is NOTHING in science that proves God does not exist.
There is nothing in science that proves Santa Claus doesn't exist, either. This is not a very high bar. share
That's brilliant. Pretty sure we've been to the North Pole. He wasn't there.
shareThat's brilliant. Pretty sure we've been to the North Pole. He wasn't there.
Where they looking for him? Can't find him if you're not looking for him. And Santa's good at hiding. He's even got an invisibility cloak. Prove me wrong. share
I think religions in general response to an emotional need. Intellect has nothing to do with it, science has nothing to do with it.
People believe in religions because they want to.
Its a mental illness.
shareIf you think majority of population is mentally ill, then you might want to examine yourself a bit more closely.
shareMajority of population is not religiuos though. They just got indoctrinated into the rituals when they were children and continue to perpetuate the charade. How many islamists eat pork and drink alcohol? How many christians work on sundays? Etc.
shareIf you think you are a rational person of science then do you think you could convince people of your point by calling them mentally ill?
Either way what you are doing is neither smart nor rational.
I didnt call "people" mentally ill. Only religiuos fanatics. Theres no point trying to convince fanatics. You dont convince mentally ill people, you help them.
shareReligious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
shareIgnorance is bliss...apparently.
Actually look shit up before posting. That way, you won't look like an idiot.
I just find it hard to believe that physicists, who understand the age of the universe would lean in to Judeo/Christian theology. You do you.
sharethe same applies to evolutionary biologists. It is really very strange for me when evolutionary biologists, physicists astrophysicists, understanding how the universe and the world around them works, continue to believe in God. On the website https://paperap.com/free-papers/faith/ I read several articles about faith, about atheism and the impact of these phenomena on our modern world.
shareI think childhood has a lot to do with that. What we get indoctrinated into in our childhood often forms our beliefs for the rest of our lives.
shareThere is quite a significant number of "convenient religious" people in science. I call them convenient religious because they are only religious when it is convenient to them.
But yes, as one pastor told me, jesus is the god of desperate people.
If you mean just Christianity I've got no idea or any of the other main religions , something I find interesting is that even Charles Darwin belived in a greater power just not one singular faith or mainstream faith. He was active in his local parish church but wouldn't worship there, I guess he wanted to help his local community and that was a way of doing it. Anyway I guess like him a lot of scientists believe in god just not one worshipped on a mass scale.
share