Comments on: How Scientists Misunderstand Religious People http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/10/21/how-scientists-misunderstand-religious-people/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:22:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Robert http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/10/21/how-scientists-misunderstand-religious-people/comment-page-1/#comment-7358 Robert Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:01:59 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=5361#comment-7358 "Most religious people believe in religion and science" and vice verse - that is really true. And this believe doesn't hurt them. Even many famous scientists were religious but did their discoveries. “Most religious people believe in religion and science” and vice verse – that is really true. And this believe doesn’t hurt them. Even many famous scientists were religious but did their discoveries.

]]> By: Philip Elder http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/10/21/how-scientists-misunderstand-religious-people/comment-page-1/#comment-4989 Philip Elder Mon, 09 Aug 2010 22:13:59 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=5361#comment-4989 I have no intention of discussing the historical reasons for the so-called division between science and religion. One of the biggest problem today is that people on both sides of the 'divide' are not listening to and therefore don't understand the others' point of view. Both sides are actually asking different questions and therefore shouldn't be surprised when they get different answers. Another cause of the problem between the 'sides' is that many people of faith often treat their texts, eg the Bible, as scientific manuals while many scientists often approach their subject with more faith than it deserves. John Polkinghorn is a wonderful writer and definitely worth reading for anyone who is serious about learning more about the relationship between science and faith. Unfortunately, too many are blinkered and are too scared to consider other people's points of view. I am a follower of Jesus or you may like to classify me as a Christian and I believe in the Bible as God's Word to humanity but I am also committed to the scientific approach to understanding ourselves and the world around us. I see very little conflict between them and where there seems to be, I am happy to reserve judgement as I don't believe we will ever have all the answers. Truth is important but humility and the possibility of being wrong is also vital if dialogue and understanding is to be promoted between any 2 parties and that includes the paths of science and faith. I have no intention of discussing the historical reasons for the so-called division between science and religion. One of the biggest problem today is that people on both sides of the ‘divide’ are not listening to and therefore don’t understand the others’ point of view. Both sides are actually asking different questions and therefore shouldn’t be surprised when they get different answers.

Another cause of the problem between the ’sides’ is that many people of faith often treat their texts, eg the Bible, as scientific manuals while many scientists often approach their subject with more faith than it deserves.

John Polkinghorn is a wonderful writer and definitely worth reading for anyone who is serious about learning more about the relationship between science and faith. Unfortunately, too many are blinkered and are too scared to consider other people’s points of view. I am a follower of Jesus or you may like to classify me as a Christian and I believe in the Bible as God’s Word to humanity but I am also committed to the scientific approach to understanding ourselves and the world around us. I see very little conflict between them and where there seems to be, I am happy to reserve judgement as I don’t believe we will ever have all the answers. Truth is important but humility and the possibility of being wrong is also vital if dialogue and understanding is to be promoted between any 2 parties and that includes the paths of science and faith.

]]> By: dimitar zdravkov http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/10/21/how-scientists-misunderstand-religious-people/comment-page-1/#comment-4767 dimitar zdravkov Sat, 10 Jul 2010 12:45:28 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=5361#comment-4767 RELIGION & SCIENCE CONNECT!BIBLE CODE UNLOCKED!-According to the Bible the world has been created in six days,but according to the Science this process has taken billions of years.If we exclude the difference in time and we pay attention to the SEQUENCE,we will see that there is no contradiction between both,but only the question-why in the Bible things happened so fast?There is an answer and it`s in the Bible itself.Moses described the Creation from his own sight as an eyewitness.Where and when he saw It,how could he have seen something happen before his existence?Answer:For forty days he has been at the mount Sinai where he got information about the past,present and future.The Creation had been REcreated to him in six days there,he had seen how the already existing world had been made.The long process of evolution had been shown to him in the first six days and the SEVENTH day had been dedicated to human`s appearing.After that he had seen the difference between Adam`s origin and Eve`s one.Adam comes from the dirt in the process of evolution,but Eve comes from DNA material out his body,which marks another jump for the evolution or in other words-the"missing link" which Science is looking for.The Creation continue and The Next Jump Is Coming...2012 ?! RELIGION & SCIENCE CONNECT!BIBLE CODE UNLOCKED!-According to the Bible the world has been created in six days,but according to the Science this process has taken billions of years.If we exclude the difference in time and we pay attention to the SEQUENCE,we will see that there is no contradiction between both,but only the question-why in the Bible things happened so fast?There is an answer and it`s in the Bible itself.Moses described the Creation from his own sight as an eyewitness.Where and when he saw It,how could he have seen something happen before his existence?Answer:For forty days he has been at the mount Sinai where he got information about the past,present and future.The Creation had been REcreated to him in six days there,he had seen how the already existing world had been made.The long process of evolution had been shown to him in the first six days and the SEVENTH day had been dedicated to human`s appearing.After that he had seen the difference between Adam`s origin and Eve`s one.Adam comes from the dirt in the process of evolution,but Eve comes from DNA material out his body,which marks another jump for the evolution or in other words-the”missing link” which Science is looking for.The Creation continue and The Next Jump Is Coming…2012 ?!

]]> By: Olugbenga Daramola http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/10/21/how-scientists-misunderstand-religious-people/comment-page-1/#comment-3124 Olugbenga Daramola Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:30:41 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=5361#comment-3124 science and religion can indeed be very great allies. This is the message we need to preach science and religion can indeed be very great allies. This is the message we need to preach

]]> By: T M Davidson http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/10/21/how-scientists-misunderstand-religious-people/comment-page-1/#comment-2072 T M Davidson Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:32:03 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=5361#comment-2072 John Polkinghorn has long been at the front of the effort to show how sciene and religion can be reconciled. And "God and the new physics" by Paul Davies is a wnderfull read on this subject. Both authors are outstanding. John Polkinghorn has long been at the front of the effort to show how sciene and religion can be reconciled.
And “God and the new physics” by Paul Davies is a wnderfull read on this subject. Both authors are outstanding.

]]> By: Julie Simon Lakehomer http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/10/21/how-scientists-misunderstand-religious-people/comment-page-1/#comment-1741 Julie Simon Lakehomer Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:41:50 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=5361#comment-1741 This is an excellent summary of what I keep coming across, particularly the part about the public's ongoing interest in science. I think the most important message in this post is about continuing to communicate in respectful ways. The more all-encompassing publicity these matters receive, the better off we'll all be. This is an excellent summary of what I keep coming across, particularly the part about the public’s ongoing interest in science. I think the most important message in this post is about continuing to communicate in respectful ways. The more all-encompassing publicity these matters receive, the better off we’ll all be.

]]> By: Karl Giberson http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/10/21/how-scientists-misunderstand-religious-people/comment-page-1/#comment-1549 Karl Giberson Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:03:00 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=5361#comment-1549 This is a really critical question that needs more research. There seems to also be a very strong correlation between having Jewish influences and being a top ranked scientist. This is a really critical question that needs more research. There seems to also be a very strong correlation between having Jewish influences and being a top ranked scientist.

]]> By: Brint Montgomery http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/10/21/how-scientists-misunderstand-religious-people/comment-page-1/#comment-1543 Brint Montgomery Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:45:36 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=5361#comment-1543 Thanks for responding. But now I am somewhat struck by your finding that "scientists tend to be a bit more likely to be raised in homes where religion was practiced weakly or not at all." What then should one make of the study in Nature[1] which reports on the National Academy of Sciences--namely, that 72% of its members are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God? I would be most surprised to find that there just happened to be a strong correlation between (1) a childhood home life of weakly practiced religion and (2) prestigious membership in the NAS! This would be especially so, given the average age of an NAS member, and the standard home life of the culture of the/their childhood upraising. So I'm skeptical such a correlation is to be found there; but, it is, afterall, an empirical issue--one that might tell advocates of religion something they may not want to know. ~b __________ [1] "Leading Scientists Still Reject God" Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998 Thanks for responding. But now I am somewhat struck by your finding that “scientists tend to be a bit more likely to be raised in homes where religion was practiced weakly or not at all.”

What then should one make of the study in Nature[1] which reports on the National Academy of Sciences–namely, that 72% of its members are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God?

I would be most surprised to find that there just happened to be a strong correlation between (1) a childhood home life of weakly practiced religion and (2) prestigious membership in the NAS! This would be especially so, given the average age of an NAS member, and the standard home life of the culture of the/their childhood upraising. So I’m skeptical such a correlation is to be found there; but, it is, afterall, an empirical issue–one that might tell advocates of religion something they may not want to know.

~b

__________
[1] “Leading Scientists Still Reject God” Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

]]> By: Elaine Howard Ecklund http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/10/21/how-scientists-misunderstand-religious-people/comment-page-1/#comment-1531 Elaine Howard Ecklund Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:02:21 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=5361#comment-1531 This is a good question. We would need to follow scientists over time to really know the answer. My broader research shows that that scientists tend to be a bit more likely to be raised in homes where religion was practiced weakly or not at all. This is a good question. We would need to follow scientists over time to really know the answer. My broader research shows that that scientists tend to be a bit more likely to be raised in homes where religion was practiced weakly or not at all.

]]> By: Brint Montgomery http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/10/21/how-scientists-misunderstand-religious-people/comment-page-1/#comment-1494 Brint Montgomery Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:11:28 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=5361#comment-1494 You write that, "my survey also revealed that nearly half of scientists self-identify as religious." This is a troublesome statistic, since far more than half of the U.S. population self-identifies as religious. Is there something about science training that makes people less likely to be religious, or is it that people who are already less religious more often go into science? You write that, “my survey also revealed that nearly half of scientists self-identify as religious.” This is a troublesome statistic, since far more than half of the U.S. population self-identifies as religious. Is there something about science training that makes people less likely to be religious, or is it that people who are already less religious more often go into science?

]]>