Scientists who believe in God

[reasonvemotion]

Scientists Who Believe in God........................

1.Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

2.Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

3.Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity.

4.Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

5.Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith.

6.Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."

7.Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

and there are more.

It is said that the "scoffers" of God, in their last days on earth, change their opinion and choose to seek God.

These men above were geniuses in their own right and could easily disprove intellectually that God does not exist, yet they chose to believe he does. Why?

[ForgedinHell]

Scientists Who Believe in God........................

1.Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

2.Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

3.Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity.

4.Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

5.Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith.

6.Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."

7.Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

and there are more.

It is said there are "scoffers" of God, but in a man's last days on earth, you will see a change. He will seek God.

These men were geniuses in their own right and could easily disprove intellectual that God does not exist, yet they chose to believe. Why?

Your argument is weak. First, these individuals lived a long time ago, and now, a young child knows more about the universe than any of these geniuses in the past. It is, therefore, impossible to state that any of them would have the same views had they had access to today's information. Second, there are people on your list that you are taking out of context. The use of force and threats should not count as belief. Third, even those who mentioned god, did not necessarily believe in any Christian conception of god. Fourth, I can name numerous scientists who did not believe, and in fact, the trend is that the higher educated a scientist is the more likely they are to be an atheist. Fifth, even if we assumed that all scientists thought god was real, it wouldn't make any of them right. In science, the first thing a person learns is that there are no authorities. What matters is the evidence, not whose talking.

[reasonvemotion]

. In science, the first thing a person learns is that there are no authorities. What matters is the evidence, not whose talking.

That is my question. There is no hard evidence, yet they chose to believe.

Your response is weak.

[ForgedinHell]

. In science, the first thing a person learns is that there are no authorities. What matters is the evidence, not whose talking.

That is my question. There is no hard evidence, yet they chose to believe.

I'm not so sure Galileo chose to believe. The threat of the rack taints his choice. Newton became a certifiable whackjob at the end, so who knows, maybe he was insane? But, my first point is the main reason, they didn't know a lot back then. How many on your list knew about DNA, the Bing Bang, quantum mechanics, etc.? For them, the "god of the gaps" was a far more likely figure than what we have today.

[Jonathan.s]

There does not need to be any conflict between religion and science, although there is bound to be conflict between religious fundamentalism and scientific materialism.

And the more science discovers about the nature of reality, the more mysterious it appears to be. The so-called 'Big Bang' theory states that the Universe expanded from a single, infinitesmally-small point in a fraction of a second. When this theory was first suggested, many scientists resisted the idea, because it sounds very much like the Christian idea of 'creation ex nihilo' (creation out of nothing). But now the evidence is sufficiently strong to support the idea, which has now been generally accepted.

As for evolution, the fact that species evolved does not even begin to address the question of why life began in the first place, or why it has continued to develop to the point of producing a species who is capable of understanding the very processes which gave rise to their existence. Many scientists assume that evolutionary theory 'explains' life, but life has a very elusive quality which is quite impossible to explain in wholly scientific terms. You don't have to dispute any of the facts of evolution to get this point. The facts of evolution is one thing, but what it all means is something else again.

It's a big and mysterious universe. There are plenty of things in it of which our philosophy has never dreamed, and room for all different kinds of outlooks, religious and scientific.

[chaz wyman]

Scientists Who Believe in God........................

1.Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)

.....


and there are more.

It is said that the "scoffers" of God, in their last days on earth, change their opinion and choose to seek God.

These men above were geniuses in their own right and could easily disprove intellectually that God does not exist, yet they chose to believe he does. Why?

First thing to note; atheism was fatal. Galileo was imprisoned for disagreeing with the church and Giordano Bruno was put to death in Galileo's lifetime.
Copernicus withheld publication of his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, until he was facing death, because he knew how the church would react. And whilst he could argue that it was not in conflict with the bible, he knew there were keys passages in the bible that would cause him problems. Until the mid to late 18thC all thinkers paid due respect to the notion of god as a means of self preservation.

Whilst there was a secret police across Europe and a network of spies willing to initiate an inquisition to burn witches and heretics, offering platitudinous quotes in support of a claim that scientists believed in god is somewhat empty. These guys were not Theists of the normal stamp, but (some at least were) Deists. In the absence of a reliable theory of evolution the notion that the universe was not is some way conceived or designed was tricky.

Spinoza came to this question by postulating 'god' as the organising impersonal force; Deus sive Natura. According to Jonathan Israel (Radical Enlightenment) Spinoza's philosophy laid the ground for a clandestine enlightenment of intellectuals that were able to operate a parallel game looking into the book of nature whilst ignoring dangerous entanglements from the church authorities.

The long and the short of all this is that whatever these scientists took to mean 'god' was not the same as the church's.

[Grendel]

This whole debate is based on new atheist pseudo history.

Science isn't the champion of atheism and never was, its philosophy that always challenged religion. Philosophy that produced the first athiests, philosophy that opposed that challenged it for 3000 years and philosophy that eventually overcame religion.

Science on the other hand was religion's bedfellow till very recently (post Darwin), much scientific work done, not the spectacular stuff of the great scientists but the more mundane cataloging was done by local vicars in the 18th and 19th century largely because they didn't have a job and had the free time to do it mid week. As for the aforementioned scientists Copernicus and Gallilei were more religious heretics than atheists. Their idea and motivation was to prove God with science, they saw science as a new method of doing religion, the church being hostile to science saw this as a threat. Gallilei vs the inquisition has as much to do with atheism and the Pope vs the Cathars.

[chaz wyman]

This whole debate is based on new atheist pseudo history.

Science isn't the champion of atheism and never was, its philosophy that always challenged religion. Philosophy that produced the first athiests, philosophy that opposed that challenged it for 3000 years and philosophy that eventually overcame religion.

Science on the other hand was religion's bedfellow till very recently (post Darwin), much scientific work done, not the spectacular stuff of the great scientists but the more mundane cataloging was done by local vicars in the 18th and 19th century largely because they didn't have a job and had the free time to do it mid week. As for the aforementioned scientists Copernicus and Gallilei were more religious heretics than atheists. Their idea and motivation was to prove God with science, they saw science as a new method of doing religion, the church being hostile to science saw this as a threat. Gallilei vs the inquisition has as much to do with atheism and the Pope vs the Cathars.

No, your stuff is based on a new religious pseudo-history, that denies the persecution and censorship suffered by thinkers for 2000 years.
Galileo and Copernicus were not heretics, they had no special interest in religion. Copernicus might have been a Canon, but even Darwin had to be ordained to get access to education.
They were not interested in proving god with science, god was a given. They were interested in the truth, and eventually that truth made god null and void; the church knew that and that is why they censored and persecuted great thinkers.

[ForgedinHell]

There does not need to be any conflict between religion and science, although there is bound to be conflict between religious fundamentalism and scientific materialism.

And the more science discovers about the nature of reality, the more mysterious it appears to be. The so-called 'Big Bang' theory states that the Universe expanded from a single, infinitesmally-small point in a fraction of a second. When this theory was first suggested, many scientists resisted the idea, because it sounds very much like the Christian idea of 'creation ex nihilo' (creation out of nothing). But now the evidence is sufficiently strong to support the idea, which has now been generally accepted.

As for evolution, the fact that species evolved does not even begin to address the question of why life began in the first place, or why it has continued to develop to the point of producing a species who is capable of understanding the very processes which gave rise to their existence. Many scientists assume that evolutionary theory 'explains' life, but life has a very elusive quality which is quite impossible to explain in wholly scientific terms. You don't have to dispute any of the facts of evolution to get this point. The facts of evolution is one thing, but what it all means is something else again.

It's a big and mysterious universe. There are plenty of things in it of which our philosophy has never dreamed, and room for all different kinds of outlooks, religious and scientific.

Religion, at least the main-stream ones in western societies, e.g., Christianity, is incompatible with science. For the Christian, knowledge may be obtained through supernatural means. For the Christian, evidence is unimportant, as faith is simply used to fill in for any missing evidence, and even to rebut mountains and mountains of conflicting evidence. For the Christian, the bible is the word of god and the source of moral authority. On the other hand, for the scientist, supernatural methods cannot be used to obtain knowledge, the belief in unsubstantiated claims is irrational, the belief in claims contrary to mountains of evidence is irrational, and there are no authorities of any kind. All that matters is the evidence, and the best explanation for the evidence is what one accepts.

What we have is a conflict between a childish world-view of magical fairytales, versus those who want to find real knowledge.

[reasonvemotion]

Scientists' belief in God varies by discipline

"Study debunks notion that science is incompatible with religion

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.

"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.
.
Some stand-out statistics: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

In separate work at the University of Chicago, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

"Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."

[Grendel]

Scientists' belief in God varies by discipline

"Study debunks notion that science is incompatible with religion

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.

"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.
.
Some stand-out statistics: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

In separate work at the University of Chicago, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

"Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."

That's quite interesting, i've always suspected as much, but I bet the survey was only in America. I would guess Europe would be very different.

[chaz wyman]

Scientists' belief in God varies by discipline

"Study debunks notion that science is incompatible with religion

A scientist's belief in god, is like saying a plumber's cooking skills.
You don't get to god through science in any sense. Science is concerned with what is observable; god is not observable.
Study demands that science and religion are chalk and cheese.

[Grendel]

No, your stuff is based on a new religious pseudo-history, that denies the persecution and censorship suffered by thinkers for 2000 years.

Strawman

Galileo and Copernicus were not heretics, they had no special interest in religion. Copernicus might have been a Canon,

Galileo was a devout Catholic, Copernicus even argued God was compatible with his scientific views. (They were both heretics, the inquisitions decision, not yours. )

They were not interested in proving god with science, god was a given. They were interested in the truth, and eventually that truth made god null and void.

Scientism. No-one one since the 19th century has believed science is truth.

church knew that and that is why they censored and persecuted great thinkers.

You seem to be arguing religious people know God doesn't exist and are consciously lying he does. This shows no comprehension of the psychology of religion.

[reasonvemotion]

but I bet the survey was only in America.

Correct

[chaz wyman]

No, your stuff is based on a new religious pseudo-history, that denies the persecution and censorship suffered by thinkers for 2000 years.

Strawman.

Bullshit. I was only reflecting your own ridiculous statement.
Actually you don't know what a strawman is. Go and look it up.

Galileo and Copernicus were not heretics, they had no special interest in religion. Copernicus might have been a Canon,

Galileo was a devout Catholic, Copernicus even argued God was compatible with his scientific views. (They were both heretics, the inquisitions decision, not yours. )

Please cite! God was irrelevant. Copernicus was offered a view of the universe which described the motion of the planets in a different way - a view borrowed from Aristarchus.
The inquisition can call them what they like, you are only shooting yourself in the foot here.

They were not interested in proving god with science, god was a given. They were interested in the truth, and eventually that truth made god null and void.

Scientism. No-one one since the 19th century has believed science is truth.

You excel in irrelevance - neither of them worked after the 19thC.
FYI, most people still believe that science is about finding the truth.

church knew that and that is why they censored and persecuted great thinkers.

You seem to be arguing religious people know God doesn't exist and are consciously lying he does. This shows no comprehension of the psychology of religion.

Please stick to what I actually say and then we can have a conversation. By adding your own meaning to my words you are creating a "strawman" - because that is what a strawman is.
What I said was; "... church knew that and that is why they censored and persecuted great thinkers."
This is a fact, and that is why religion has been incompatible with science since Justinian shut down the Schools of Philosophy in Greece in the name of God.