God-Worshipping Scientists?

[kmfdm]

I don't understand this notion. A whole faction devoted to scientists and intellectual elite who at the same time believe in souls, god, and other superstition? Throughout the human history, science and religion were in a very strong opposition, and none of the current or recent leading scientists believe in any sort of soul or god, including Albert Einstein, Heinsberg, Ed Witten, Christopher Koch, Stephen Hawking, Max Tegmark, Leonard Susskind, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, etc (and all the leading neuroscientists and inventors or string theory and M-theory and holographic principle).

It seems extremely unlikely and illogical to have scientists and technocrats believing in souls and gods at the same time. It is a very shallow design and inconsistent part of this - otherwise - very nice game.

[hyperion]

Diposting pertama kali oleh F4 = TOGGLE READY:

Diposting pertama kali oleh hyperion:

So you're saying that if a scientist observes a religion, then regardless of the work they do, they are not a real scientist? Wow, I know plenty of scientists who are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc, and work in some of the top research facilities in the world. Have you ever even been around any scientists?

I wouldnt go so far as to not call them real scientists, but I do question their stance and which side of the fence they are really on. How can you work in a field that is based solely on proven facts and statements that are backed by data and then turn around and say you believe in something that is compeltely based on faith. Faith being the complete belief in something that cant be proven. Completely opposite sides of the spectrum, but thats just my opinion.
I guess a better way to put it is, How can you believe in Science and believe in 'miracles' simultaneously?

Well, I'm not religious. All I know is that there are real scientists who are. Just because we've advanced so much in science in the last few hundred years doesn't mean that people have suddenly turned into Spock from Star Trek. I try not to question what people believe as far as this goes. If anyone wants to talk about it, I will. But I generally try to avoid it because some people will get very offended if they think you are questioning their faith. It's probably the single worst topic to bring up around people you work with or friends and family.

[kmfdm]

Diposting pertama kali oleh hyperion:

The big bang theory is not a proven fact, it's just a theory

If you deny Big Bang and inflation, you can as well deny evolution.

[Shrapnel]

Diposting pertama kali oleh hyperion:

Diposting pertama kali oleh F4 = TOGGLE READY:

I wouldnt go so far as to not call them real scientists, but I do question their stance and which side of the fence they are really on. How can you work in a field that is based solely on proven facts and statements that are backed by data and then turn around and say you believe in something that is compeltely based on faith. Faith being the complete belief in something that cant be proven. Completely opposite sides of the spectrum, but thats just my opinion.
I guess a better way to put it is, How can you believe in Science and believe in 'miracles' simultaneously?

Well, I'm not religious. All I know is that there are real scientists who are. Just because we've advanced so much in science in the last few hundred years doesn't mean that people have suddenly turned into Spock from Star Trek. I try not to question what people believe as far as this goes. If anyone wants to talk about it, I will. But I generally try to avoid it because some people will get very offended if they think you are questioning their faith. It's probably the single worst topic to bring up around people you work with or friends and family.

Would never bring it up in the workdplace, but with a bunch of strangers in a game forums, sure I'll test the waters :) I dont question their faith, I just question religion in general, so no offense to any religious people or their Gods. And to wrap this conversation up on an upnote, I wont even elaborate on that last statement.

[kmfdm]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Eisberg:

Not going to give you real names because they are closely associated to me, that is to close for comfort of revealing who I am on the internet, I dont even use social media.

Have I missed a sarcasm?

[Shrapnel]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Eisberg:

Diposting pertama kali oleh kmfdm:

Have I missed a sarcasm?

No.
Since religion is irrelevant to science, I don't go looking to find out if a scientist is religious or not, cause it does not matter if they are or not. So the only scientist that I know the names of who are religious are ones who are closely associated to myself. Heck, I know some of these guys you wouldn't even know they are religious since they don't bring up religion in anything they do in their work.

Sorry, but did you grow said scientists in an undergroundlab to the point where their only affiliations on earth are you and themselves? Its a bit of a reach to say that naming one or two people can directly trace them right back to you, don you think?

[Shadow]

It's a mixed bag.
I will be a little bad with the wording here so sorry if anything is confusing or hard to understand.

Basically there are some things with some religions there at the current moment, doesn't do well with a more scientific view.
But there is also those there actually do.

For instance, there is some people out there, who believe creating things and discovering new things are all part of communing with god.

Some people do believe in a god, not nessecarily the white bearded man in the sky from the bible. But there is a being of higher intelect who created us, similarly to how for instance we are slowly coming closer to making AI and in the future able to make things of our own from genetic engineering.

Those two I remember well because they to me make the most sense.
That and I remember Wolfenstein and Andromeda, for better or worse, having said points of view presented in them.

[Salamimann]

OP i loled hard =D

not that i support religion in any way, but it DOES make a LOT of sense in the game.
Just play it, join clerics and find out about their god!
have fun good luck, think before you speak. Play the game before bashing it.
Thank you, stupid.

[kaay]

The differences between science and religion are not as big as you might think.
Science is based on accepting certain theories and on the belief that said theories are true.
These scientific beliefs changed over time and are still changing today, one paradigm shift at a time.

Its kinda ironic the blind faith that some people have in everything that has the "scientific" tag attached to it, and the unfounded belief that science has solved (or can solve) the misteries of our universe, or even the misteries of our existence, which is very similar to the blind belief other people place on religion....they both claim to have answers but its easy to see how neither of them provide the answers, just a different set of questions....and problems.

Maybe less arrogance on both sides might help, because personally i believe that today, the questionable direction of scientific progress that is controlled by profit alone, might be in need of the moral and ethical questioning that religion could provide.

Would like to add a little quote from Stephen Hawking:
"Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve."

Added this quote because it stresses the relative nature of science and not for religious reasons, as God in the above quote does not have a religious meaning.

[kmfdm]

Diposting pertama kali oleh kaay:

Would like to add a little quote from Stephen Hawking:
"Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve."

Added this quote because it stresses the relative nature of science and not for religious reasons, as God in the above quote does not have a religious meaning.

Yes, as you say. Stephen Hawking is a pure atheist https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/im-atheist-stephen-hawking-god-space-travel-n210076

When scientists say God, they mean the nature or the existence. What he meant by that quote is that determinism might not be true and referred to the random nature of QM.

I dont agree that the difference between science and religion is not that big as it seems. Science relies on experiments giving the same results and proven theories in practice. If something new comes up, it doesnt mean the previous theory was wrong, it just means that it was not complete, and more detailed one exist. Newton was not wrong, just not accurate enough, QM is far more accurate.

That is absolutely nothing like religion. Religion relies on no evidence, no facts, no experiments, no proven or disproven theories, nothing like that. It thrives in places with little or no scientific knowledge, religion loves non-understanding, thats where it lurks, but once science kicks in, the explanation that gods are behind it just becomes obsolete and redundant.

[Shrapnel]

Some people like cold hard facts, some people like to believe in old bearded white men floating on cloudtops. To each his own.

[Shadow]

Diposting pertama kali oleh kmfdm:

Diposting pertama kali oleh kaay:

Would like to add a little quote from Stephen Hawking:
"Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve."

Added this quote because it stresses the relative nature of science and not for religious reasons, as God in the above quote does not have a religious meaning.

Yes, as you say. Stephen Hawking is a pure atheist https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/im-atheist-stephen-hawking-god-space-travel-n210076

When scientists say God, they mean the nature or the existence. What he meant by that quote is that determinism might not be true and referred to the random nature of QM.

I dont agree that the difference between science and religion is not that big as it seems. Science relies on experiments giving the same results and proven theories in practice. If something new comes up, it doesnt mean the previous theory was wrong, it just means that it was not complete, and more detailed one exist. Newton was not wrong, just not accurate enough, QM is far more accurate.

That is absolutely nothing like religion. Religion relies on no evidence, no facts, no experiments, no proven or disproven theories, nothing like that. It thrives in places with little or no scientific knowledge, religion loves non-understanding, thats where it lurks, but once science kicks in, the explanation that gods are behind it just becomes obsolete and redundant.

No, religion is pretty much just believing in something or someone.
Whether that someone or something is true or not, can be proven or not, is up to the believer.

We will become the god, the creator, of the future robots we end up building.
They can literally prove their gods and creators exist.

With our god, we have yet to find out if ours are real and if they are we have yet to find them or proof of them.

[Velodon]

Many of scientists are religious, and even if you believe in science, u can believe in god because it's kind of metaphoric, and the metaphysics things are the things we can't see or explain.

[Shrapnel]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Shinichi Levrizumi:

Many of scientists are religious

proof?

[Shadow]

Diposting pertama kali oleh F4 = TOGGLE READY:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Shinichi Levrizumi:

Many of scientists are religious

proof?

Disprove?

[kmfdm]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Lusetifan Shadow Drako:

Diposting pertama kali oleh kmfdm:

Yes, as you say. Stephen Hawking is a pure atheist https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/im-atheist-stephen-hawking-god-space-travel-n210076

When scientists say God, they mean the nature or the existence. What he meant by that quote is that determinism might not be true and referred to the random nature of QM.

I dont agree that the difference between science and religion is not that big as it seems. Science relies on experiments giving the same results and proven theories in practice. If something new comes up, it doesnt mean the previous theory was wrong, it just means that it was not complete, and more detailed one exist. Newton was not wrong, just not accurate enough, QM is far more accurate.

That is absolutely nothing like religion. Religion relies on no evidence, no facts, no experiments, no proven or disproven theories, nothing like that. It thrives in places with little or no scientific knowledge, religion loves non-understanding, thats where it lurks, but once science kicks in, the explanation that gods are behind it just becomes obsolete and redundant.

No, religion is pretty much just believing in something or someone.
Whether that someone or something is true or not, can be proven or not, is up to the believer.

We will become the god, the creator, of the future robots we end up building.
They can literally prove their gods and creators exist.

With our god, we have yet to find out if ours are real and if they are we have yet to find them or proof of them.

Yes, but back to the topic. Scientists just dont believe in made-up things. Scientific method is not hypothesis first - evidence later. It is the other way around. Scientists are usually trying to make something from evidence and experiments they find, and then search for evidence against that hypothesis. And if they cant find any, then it starts to become relevant.

But souls and gods are not even there yet, no evidence points towards "souls" or "gods", so it is kinda irrelevant. If these Clerics were technocracts believeing in technology, and their God were to be some super advanced AI, that would be fine. But they believe in science and souls simultaneously. One thing is real, the other superstition. One thing requires evidence, experiments, and mathematics; the other just blind faith.