Before Newton: Robert Grosseteste

Originally posted by humy

For instance was Einstein religious?

NO NO NO he was not religious -at least not in that way! He was an agnostic and when he spoke of “God”, he simply used the word to refer to “everything” or “the laws of physics” and NOT a supernatural conscious entity! He never ever said there exists a true God and in fact said:

http://atheism.about ...[text shortened]... theist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

It is strange how Einstein's opinions on religion have such massive importance, when I do not see that religion was his area of expertise. He could have been a born again Baptist or a conservative Catholic or a practising Muslim or an expert Hindu without that altering in any way my opinions on the topic. As it happens, I had always understood he was a Deist, and one representative quote from him is as follows:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

That quote demonstrates to me a very brilliant and lucid mind expressing totally confused and meandering rambling thoughts on a topic he has no terms to handle more effectively because it is outside his field of expertise. There are too many scientists who think they can do philosophy without learning how.

Originally posted by finnegan
Firstly, are we going to allow that a psychologist is a "real" scientist and not a "yuck" one, as implied above? This may influence the weight we place on the results of this research.

Secondly, I want to question a sentence in the reference (the final one) as follows: [quote]"There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religiou ...[text shortened]... f its conclusion, and most science is not even interested in religion, never mind hostile to it.

"many", in this case, happens to be a minority of them.

I tried hard to get some more statistics on this but found it surprisingly difficult ( perhaps very little research is done on this? ) although I did manage to find this:

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

if you look at the pie charts there, they also indicate that most scientists are none theist (what I mean by "none theist" here is those that explicitly say they disbelieve there exists a "God" )
However, and more relevant to your above post, if you scroll down below that you will see a diagram (Source: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, conducted in May and June 2009 ) showing how many physicists and astronomer scientists are none theist and the answer is more than half of them. The same goes for biology and medical scientists and, to my surprise, the group of scientists studied there with the highest percentage of theists was chemists with 41% being theist which is higher than that for the other categories of scientists studied there.

There wasn't much difference between men and women scientists with women being on average only very slightly more religiously inclined.

Originally posted by humy
"many", in this case, happens to be a minority of them.

I tried hard to get some more statistics on this but found it surprisingly difficult ( perhaps very little research is done on this? ) although I did manage to find this:
.....There wasn't much difference between men and women scientists with women being on average only very slightly more religiously inclined.

"many", in this case, happens to be a minority of them.

In my example above, "many" comprised 5.5% of biologists. I think we can agree that would be a minority. Why do we need more statistics on this? Are we in dispute and if so, about what?

Originally posted by finnegan

"many", in this case, happens to be a minority of them.

In my example above, "many" comprised 5.5% of biologists. I think we can agree that would be a minority. Why do we need more statistics on this? Are we in dispute and if so, about what?

I don't think there is a particular "need" for more statistics on this -just personally curious to know the percentages of theists and atheist and agnostics among different groups of scientists.

Originally posted by humy
I don't think there is a particular "need" for more statistics on this -just personally curious to know the percentages of theists and atheist and agnostics among different groups of scientists.

I know all you "Scientist" exclude Engineers from your elite circle, but is anything said about them and their religious beliefs, do they even count?

Originally posted by joe shmo
I know all you "Scientist" exclude Engineers from your elite circle, but is anything said about them and their religious beliefs, do they even count?

Don't know what you are saying here.

I know all you "Scientist" exclude Engineers from your elite circle

what on earth are you talking about? OF COURSE we scientists count any scientists that is also an engineers as being a scientist! WHY would we NOT do so? that makes not sense whatsoever! MANY albeit not all scientists ARE engineers for the two do often greatly complement each other. Scientists that are also engineers are often needed to design and make various lab equipment and other machines.

, but is anything said about them and their religious beliefs,

Are you saying here that all engineers are religious? if so, that is also clearly false although I am aware that, at least in the USA, there is a disproportionately high number of theists among engineers although this may not be generally true elsewhere in the world. Why would there not be many engineers that are NOT religious? -I know of a few!

Originally posted by humy
Don't know what you are saying here.

I know all you "Scientist" exclude Engineers from your elite circle

what on earth are you talking about? OF COURSE we scientists count any scientists that is also an engineers as being a scientist! WHY would we NOT do so? that makes not sense whatsoever! MANY albeit not all scientists ARE engineers for t ...[text shortened]... re in the world. Why would there not be many engineers that are NOT religious? -I know of a few!

I gather from the wording of your response that you believe engineers are subservient to scientists, as you never mentioned that engineers are themselves scientists, only that scientists could be engineers. Just throwing that out there.

To the point... I would expect the amount of engineers that are religious in some way is greater, because they are in the business of creation themselves.

Are Mathematicians as a group more religious in some way? I suspect so, due to the nature of there work. Either way, neither group as a whole are slouches in the intellectual gene pool. However, I have heard it many times before in these threads that religious/spiritual people are unintelligent. So what do you say to someone with a potentially greater intellect than yourself that has an irrational belief in something? I would suspect that you would say that no such person exists, but I am willing to bet that you would be wrong!

Originally posted by joe shmo
I gather from the wording of your response that you believe engineers are subservient to scientists, as you never mentioned that engineers are themselves scientists, only that scientists could be engineers. Just throwing that out there.

To the point... I would expect the amount of engineers that are religious in some way is greater, because they are in t ...[text shortened]... that you would say that no such person exists, but I am willing to bet that you would be wrong!

I gather from the wording of your response that you believe engineers are subservient to scientists,

Nope. Engineers are NOT subservient to scientists. If fact, many scientists are also engineers and I have already said that.

as you never mentioned that engineers are themselves scientists, only that scientists could be engineers.

that is because I don't lie. Engineers generally make and maintain and repair machines while scientists generally do research and, although there is frequently applications with considerable overlap and blurring between the two functions in practice, nevertheless, one is not exactly the other thus not all engineers are scientists. Would you say all car mechanics are scientists?

I also wouldn't mention that teachers are themselves scientists, only that scientists could be teachers. But not mentioning that falsehood doesn't imply that I believe that teachers are subservient to scientists -because I don't. And this is also despite the occasional application with considerable overlap and blurring between the two functions ( just think science professor ) .

I would expect the amount of engineers that are religious in some way is greater, because they are in the business of creation themselves.

this is clearly a false inference. More engineers might be more religious than scientists (not sure if that is true globally ) but they don't use magic or something supernatural to create something and they are not gods and they are not choosing to be supernatural gods merely by creating something and they are not religious BECAUSE they are engineers. I create software -so why am I not religious?
Pregnant women are also “ in the business of creation” -so does that mean they are more likely to be religious than those that are not pregnant BECAUSE they are pregnant?

So what do you say to someone with a potentially greater intellect than yourself that has an irrational belief in something? I would suspect that you would say that no such person exists,

Nope. Of course a person can have an irrational belief AND be MORE intelligent than me. In fact, I bet there are huge numbers of such people existing right now and this would be a totally unsurprising fact. Why would you think I would believe this to be false? -you make some very weird baseless irrational assumptions about what I believe! You are NOT a mind reader so I advise you to first ASK me what I believe BEFORE shooting your mouth off about what I believe and making a complete foul of yourself like you have just done here.

Originally posted by humy

I gather from the wording of your response that you believe engineers are subservient to scientists,

Nope. Engineers are NOT subservient to scientists. If fact, many scientists are also engineers and I have already said that.
[quote] as you never mentioned that engineers are themselves scientists, only that scientists could be engineers ...[text shortened]... th off about what I believe and making a complete foul of yourself like you have just done here.

Would you say all car mechanics are scientists?

Yes, I would say that all car mechanics are scientists, they have to form and test hypothesis... is that not the fundemental basis for the scientific method?

I create software -so why am I not religious?

So you yourself are not a scientist? Surprising, because the content of your posts seem to be rather athuritarian in nature in reference to the field of science.

Pregnant women are also “ in the business of creation” -so does that mean they are more likely to be religious than those that are not pregnant BECAUSE they are pregnant?

I'm not sure...I doubt the experience of pregnancy makes all women more religious, but I would imagine that it causes them stress to bring a life into the universe without any reason. I suspect if they were polled in that state there would be a leaning toward something spiritual in the least.

Nope. Of course a person can have an irrational belief AND be MORE intelligent than me. In fact, I bet there are huge numbers of such people existing right now and this would be a totally unsurprising fact. Why would you think I would believe this to be false? -you make some very weird baseless irrational assumptions about what I believe! You are NOT a mind reader so I advise you to first ASK me what I believe BEFORE shooting your mouth off about what I believe and making a complete foul of yourself like you have just done here.

I would assume you believe that statement to be false, because you think your philosiphy on the matter to be absolute. If I was incorrect, I aplologize.

Originally posted by joe shmo

Would you say all car mechanics are scientists?

Yes, I would say that all car mechanics are scientists, they have to form and test hypothesis... is that not the fundemental basis for the scientific method?

I create software -so why am I not religious?

So you yourself are not a scientist? Surprising, because the conten ...[text shortened]... ecause you think your philosiphy on the matter to be absolute. If I was incorrect, I aplologize.

Yes, I would say that all car mechanics are scientists, they have to form and test hypothesis..

Then you are wrong because that it not quite what is meant by the word 'scientist' in everyday usage of the word by the vast majority of people. It is not sufficient for a person to merely “to form and test hypothesis” to be a scientist else virtually everyone can be a scientists even if they have absolutely no qualification! Also, the qualification must be typically classified as specifically being a science qualification in normal language and, more specifically, a science degree, else it will not make you formally qualified specifically as a “scientists”. This is why merely being an engineer or being a teacher ( which might form and test hypothesis about teaching methods ) doesn't equate with being a scientist.

I should also point out that the main purpose of a car mechanic is to repair the car, not form and test hypotheses even though a car mechanic would usually need to do that to repair the car. The car mechanic would make and test hypothesis not because that is his principle aim but because that is his secondary aim required to be achieved before he can achieve his principle aim which is to repair the car. Also, unlike that of a scientists, his hypotheses that he then tests are not normally generic because they only apply to the particular car he is trying to fix rather than all cars. In contrast, scientists usually has as his main purpose to form and test hypotheses ( unless his job is to just make observations and record the data and nothing else ) and that is usually the main job of a scientist. In addition, these hypothesis are normally more generic than that of a car mechanic; if a biological scientist makes a hypotheses about mice, it could apply to all mice, not just one mouse.
These are the reasons why car mechanics are not normally classified as being scientists while physicists, biologists etc are.

is that not the fundemental basis for the scientific method?

all true scientists use scientific method ( unless they are unemployed in which case they might not ) but not all people that use scientific method are scientists. You can, without logical contradiction, use scientific method and NOT be a scientist -and many people do so often. I for one did so before I did any physics or AI science university courses. Incidentally, why do you think a scientist cannot create software?

one of the first to absorb, teach and debate new texts on natural phenomena that were becoming available to western scholars. These texts, principally the natural science of the greek scholar Aristotle, were translated from Arabic into Latin during the course of the 12th and 13th centuries, along with a wonderful array of material from Islamic and Jewish commentators. They revolutionised the intellectual resources of western scholars, posing challenges to established ways of thinking.

Well I am interested in a few issues here. Firstly, since the "new texts" from the Greeks were so transformative and challenging to the established ways of thinking, it is curious to know why and by what means these texts had been hidden away for so long. The answer of course is that, as the Christians took advantage of their being tolerated in the Roman Empire to achieve increasing political power, they used that power to attack and destroy the academies and libraries in which Greek philosophy was taught and indeed continued to develop. They then actively suppressed all such learning. It was Jews and Muslims who kept the flame alight long enough to transmit it to the western Christians in the 12th Century. So the transformation was, in fact, a final collapse of the attempt at sustaining an exclusively Christian view of the cosmos, and a return to the earlier values of the Greeks.

Secondly, the Greeks were not atheist. They were pagans. However, they were able to pursue knowledge without being trapped by religious arguments when these were brought into question by rational investigation. If anything, they thought they were discovering greater truths about the works of the gods. That attitude was taken up by Renaissance scientists and advocated for example by Galileo. The purpose of Science was to examine the mysteries of creation. Galileo pointed out - not making himself too popular with the cardinals - that in any conflict between scientific evidence and religious dogma, the dogma was very likely to come out badly. It makes more sense to adapt religious thinking to new understanding.

Thirdly, it is fascinating to observe how science did in fact develop and to notice that Grosseteste had been able to use mathematics to develop concepts that were vastly ahead of his time. There is often a sense that mathematics can describe things for which language is otherwise unprepared, so that we can take a very long time to understand conceptually things that have long been described mathematically. Indeed, it may be that for those of us who must live without a decent working knowledge of mathematics, there are a lot of scientific propositions that will remain outside the scope of our imaginations.