Any prominant Christian scientists? [non religion debate]

[Anonymous No.11117504]

What are some famous or your guys' favorite scientists from the faith?

I remember someone in /sci/ mention a scientist responsible for sending mankind to the moon, but I can't remember his name.

I also remember hearing that the inventors for the first computer and radio were also scientists of faith.

[Anonymous No.11117519]

Mary Baker Eddy, the founder and discoverer of Christian science

[Anonymous No.11117529]

Michael Faraday/James clerk Maxwell and Leonhard Euler

[Anonymous No.11117540]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists

Reminder, semen retention is the only path to greatness. Otherwise, you're just a cumbrain obsessed with getting off and are going to be distracted by any passing sexual thought, image or creature.

[Anonymous No.11117546]

>>11117519
>Michael Faraday/James clerk Maxwell and Leonhard Euler

On that note, I guess Francis Collins (the director of the human genome project and also the founder of biologos) would also fit this category.

[Anonymous No.11117557]

>>11117529
I find it fascinating that a lot of scientific terms like pasteurization, planck, faraday, etc. etc. all come from these men of faith.

[Anonymous No.11117804]

>>11117557
No surprise there.

[Anonymous No.11117808]

>>11117540
damn imagine how much more based those men would have been if they weren't the followers of a rapist cult

[Anonymous No.11117842]

>>11117804
about the chemtrail thing, idk about that one, I mean it seems to be already made public knowledge, except it goes by another name (damn those UN globalists!)

but yeah that's besides the point of this thread

[Anonymous No.11117917]

The Christian religion had a much tighter grip over western society than it has today. Everybody would claim to be part of the faith, and academic institutions were more focused theology and training clergy. Anybody who would come out as an unbeliever would be socially ostracized at best. Newton himself kept some of views private out of fear, not because he was atheist, but merely because he disagreed with some common theological points.

So go ahead, pick any scientist in the 1800s or before, they would claim to be at least nominally Christian. Try to pick some today and your job becomes harder.

[Anonymous No.11117924]

>>11117504
>Throughout the nineteenth century the French educational system struggled over the separation of Church and State. After losing control of the public education system, the Catholic Church sought to establish its own branch of education and found in Cauchy a staunch and illustrious ally. He lent his prestige and knowledge to the École Normale Écclésiastique, a school in Paris run by Jesuits, for training teachers for their colleges. He also took part in the founding of the Institut Catholique. The purpose of this institute was to counter the effects of the absence of Catholic university education in France. These activities did not make Cauchy popular with his colleagues who, on the whole, supported the Enlightenment ideals of the French Revolution.
>In any event, he inherited his father's staunch royalism and refused to take oaths to any government after Charles X.
>He was an equally staunch Catholic and a member of the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul. He also had links to the Society of Jesus and defended them at the Academy when it was politically unwise to do so. His zeal for his faith may have led to his caring for Charles Hermite during his illness and leading Hermite to become a faithful Catholic. It also inspired Cauchy to plead on behalf of the Irish during the Potato Famine.
>His opponents felt he intentionally provoked people by berating them over religious matters or by defending the Jesuits after they had been suppressed.
>Niels Henrik Abel called him a "bigoted Catholic"[23] and added he was "mad and there is nothing that can be done about him", but at the same time praised him as a mathematician.

[Anonymous No.11117928]

>>11117917
>When a chair of mathematics became vacant at the Collège de France in 1843, Cauchy applied for it, but got just three out of 45 votes.
>Cauchy's views were widely unpopular among mathematicians and when Guglielmo Libri Carucci dalla Sommaja was made chair in mathematics before him he, and many others, felt his views were the cause.

[Anonymous No.11117939]

>>11117917
not really, when you focus on the hard sciences. Actually you would be hard pressed to find any atheists in the hard sciences, even einstein or others that didn't believe in christianity did however see it as essential for society (in terms of it providing the right metaphysical framework through which science could be operated with the proper axioms rather than a animistic or world operating on separate forces and laws). btw all the so called atheists you find in the hard sciences are actually deists or pantheists or something like that, only in biology or in the social sciences do you see atheists in great numbers. But I don't know why atheists are always trying to show the world that everyone are atheists or have to come to threads to spread an anti-christian ideology, like you guys are the most insufferable group out there.

[Anonymous No.11117942]

>>11117924
Jesuits used to be extremely based. Extremely.

[Anonymous No.11117970]

>>11117939
>like you guys
What do you mean by "you guys"? I didn't support atheism or claim to be atheist in my post. Stop reading posts wrong while claiming other people are insufferable.

You also haven't proved me wrong in any way. This thread is full of examples from over 150 years ago. Your claim that the hard scientists are filled with deists and pantheists don't counter my claims. If they don't explicitly support specific religious doctrines, they don't count as Christians. Some of those types can still be found, but as a smaller proportion of the scientific community.

[Anonymous No.11117971]

>>11117942
Clement XIV's decision was very regrettable, but trust in providence.
I think part of the Jesuit problem now is that the population is much larger. Jesuit priests outnumber Dominican priests 3 to 1, so if you take CDF(Jesuits left of any given position) vs CDF(Dominicans left of any given position), you would have a lot more just because of their size. Even more so if Jesuits were even slightly more to the doctrinal left. Fr. Hardon however is very good.
If I were pastorally allowed to and could pass the psychological profile, I would have liked to enter a Jesuit seminary, but nah.

[Anonymous No.11117995]

>>11117970
your claiming me wrong by standards that contradict and prove yourself wrong. There are many Christian scientists and mathematicians, like Godel, Georges Lemaître, Heisenberg, Planck, Hugh Ross, Francis Collins, John Polkinghorn, Luke Barnes, I mean the list goes on and on. Most of the most influential scientists are Christians, and the rest maybe deists or pantheists, in either the most significant nobel prize achievements, or inventors of the most significant technology/ scientific theories like computers, radio technology, quantum mechanics, etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.11118009]

>>11117971
Pope Francis blamed free mason infiltration as a further problem.

[Anonymous No.11118057]

>>11117995
Where did I say there aren't "many Christian" scientists? Neither did I say that they don't make heavy contributions to science. If you actually read you'd see that I only claimed that Christians make up a smaller proportion of the community than a few hundred years ago, and on this point you have not presented any contrary evidence. Instead you're getting offended that I said that they don't exist anymore, which I did not say, or that they don't make great contributions, which I also did not say. Frankly I don't see any more point to this discussion.

[Anonymous No.11118108]

>>11118057
You haven't proved at all in this discussion how in the hard sciences, that Christians make up a small portion of these areas of science. Also, you wanted to narrow the discussion by limiting christianity to those who believe in all of the doctrinal points, which isn't what christianity is, I mean you would have to familiar with Christian theology to make a more accurate statement. Btw, your original point that there are only a few Christian scientists today is irrelevant either way, and is false when you examine the specific beliefs of all the scientists in the hard sciences,I mean your statement would be true if we included all sciences like psychology, biology, etc. but that's not the point of this thread.

[Anonymous No.11118165]

>>11118108
I'm going to clarify my point one last time, and make it as plainly as possible. If you don't get it then, there's really no point in me talking to you.
>only a few
I literally did not use the word "few", at all, except the phrase "few hundred years ago".
>make up a small portion
I only used the term "smaller", a relative term, not "small". Do a ctrl-f to prove me right
>Try to pick some today and your job becomes harder.
>harder
>but as a smaller proportion
>smaller
Relative statements, as in a relative decrease from a few hundred years ago. Not absolute statements.

[Anonymous No.11118195]

>>11117504
>Later in life, Planck's views on God were that of a deist.[43] For example, six months before his death a rumour started that he had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God."[44]

[Anonymous No.11118201]

>>11118195
Yes, the opposite of the brainlet masses
>I'm spiritual but not religious
He was religious but not spiritual. It doesn't matter if it is ultimately metaphysically false, because it served to elevate man's mind to a higher state and fixed it on higher things instead of MUST COOOOM OOOOAH AHHHHH BOOOBIES.

[Anonymous No.11118207]

>>11118165
Yeah I already understood your points in the beginning, but there's no point to your original post if when you said that today's Christian scientists are smaller in number compared to a few hundred years ago when the catholic church was the dominant political force, and you said that I would be hard pressed to find any Christian scientists today meaning that their numbers are small today. Even if you didn't mean that or imply that, your open ended statement and posting a non-relevant statement to the main point of this thread implies that you were trying to attack this thread. Any ways, there's no point on continuing this specific point, I'm not that pedantic on irrelevant issues.

[Anonymous No.11118216]

>>11118201
>He was religious but not spiritual.

There are many scientists that are like this, or even physicalist or materialist christians that don't believe in supernaturalism, but that God is and operates within the confines of purely physical forces and laws.

[Anonymous No.11118222]

>>11118207
>I would be hard pressed
FFS I made multiple posts clarifying that this was never my point, in extreme detail. Have fun trying to read scientific papers with this level of care.

No shit a lot of scientists are still religious. Up to a few years ago, if not currently, most of the Western world identifies as Christian, so of course many scientists would too.

[Anonymous No.11118254]

>>11118009
We must pray harder now than ever. Sante Padre Pio told us how wicked the world was in his time, how much more wicked are we now?

[Anonymous No.11118626]

>>11117504
Curiously enough, religiosity among academics positively correlates with working in the hard sciences. Least religious are social scientists and humanities.

[Anonymous No.11118974]

>>11118626
It's easier for the bolsheviks to infilterate in the softer areas where verification of said research is less ambiguous, which is why after studying in the hard sciences like physics and chemistry, as well as philosophy of science made me realize how brainwashed I was by my humanities and arts teachers, although academic journals do circumvent a lot of the trash, some pseudoscience does unfortunately infiltrate which is why there is a "irreproducibility" crises in a lot of studies today, especially in psychology, but because bezbozhnik propaganda is more easily refuted by empirical facts like when they try to show that gender is in the head and that there aren't two sexes, through the self correcting mechanism in the scientific method, which ultimately brings us closer to truth or at least eliminate subversive lies that atheism and psyop propaganda that subverters are attempting to implement, which the tools that science and philosophy provided me made me more effective in studying history and politics. As long as you understand motives and facts, the big picture is easy to see.

[Anonymous No.11118989]

Francis Bacon. He developed the inductive scientific method we use today.

[Anonymous No.11119003]

>>11118989
I find it fascinating on the fact on how Christian theology (queen of the sciences) birthed modern academia, including the scientific method, and a lot of the antecedents for the modern scientific method and a lot of the axioms that presupposes a lot of the truths which science depends on are seen in a lot of these confession from this era like the Belgic Confession of 1561, Article II

Here's this video that explains this point further,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfaYkxAY38Q

[Anonymous No.11119155]

>>11117804
(((science)))

[Anonymous No.11119236]

>>11117504
Gregor Mendel: Geneticist monk

[Anonymous No.11119256]

>>11117519
kek, I opened the thread to say this

[Anonymous No.11120238]

>>11119256
lol,
here are some quotes I found of einstein where if not he's a christian, at least he subscribes to a form of Jesusanity (maybe like the jesus seminar, or how Gandhi liked Jesus and not his organized church?)

(translated from German originally from Abraham Shalom Yahuda and currently at the Hebrew University)
>My Dear Yahuda, Newton's writings on biblical topics seem to me especially interesting, because they reveal a deep insight into the spiritual character and the working method of this significant man. For Newton, the divine origin of the Bible is unconditionally certain. From this belief arises the firm conviction that the parts of the bible that appear obscure must contain important revelations, which require only the decoding of the symbolic langauge used in them in order to be illuminated. Newton attempts this decoding or interpretation by means of his acute, systematic thinking, in which he carefully makes use of all the sources available to him... in this area of works on the Bible, we do possess his sketches and their repeated revisions. These writings, mostly unpublished, thus provide a highly interesting insight into the spiritual workshop of this unique thinker.

Signed: A Einstein, September 1940, Lake Saranac

P.S I consider it very desirable that the writings of Newton mentioned here to be collected in one place and there made available for research.

>Einstein said that Newton's belief and interest in the scriptures shed light on the origins of his creative genius in scientific discoveries. As Einstein himself discovered the order of the universe revealed within his equations he maintained this increased his faith in God and the divine origin of the universe.

>"I am a jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.... No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life" October 26, 1929

[Anonymous No.11120303]

>>11117804
why are americans so fat

[Anonymous No.11120312]

>>11117842
>about the chemtrail thing, idk about that one, I mean it seems to be already made public knowledge, except it goes by another name (damn those UN globalists!)

Aerosol geoengineering has not been implimented and has nothing to do with the chemtrails conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.11120314]

>>11118974
>classical liberalism
stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.11120320]

Not science or math. Delete the thread plz.

[Anonymous No.11120334]

>>11118201
>because it served to elevate man's mind to a higher state and fixed it on higher things instead of MUST COOOOM OOOOAH AHHHHH BOOOBIES

Pseudointellectualism is emitted from this post.

[Anonymous No.11120350]

>>11118216
I still don't understand how a scientist couldn't when you consider metaphysics as they exist today.

[Anonymous No.11120356]

>>11120320
Triggered atheists can't handle the facts of the origins of science.

[Anonymous No.11120365]

>>11120238
>Cherry-picking Einstein

"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?"

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

[Anonymous No.11120375]

>>11120356
The origins of science are unimportant. Only it’s utility matters.

[Anonymous No.11120385]

>>11120365
I never said he was a christian or subscribed to an organized church. You atheists always take him out of context and all I'm doing is taking a holistic approach rather than a one sided approach that I want to fit my revisionist narrative, which doesn't change the fact that he stated positive things about Christ and the fruits of Christianity.

If you want context on your last quote, here's a link to it,

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion

[Anonymous No.11120392]

>>11120375
If something can be learned by the oringins which gave rise to the success of science, I don't think this is irrelevant, especially considering the fact that the explosion of science and knowledge only happened in a certain context, a specific geographical location and time frame. All I'm doing is providing plausible explanations that are consistent with the data through a holistic approach.

[Anonymous No.11120408]

>>11120385
>I never said he was a christian or subscribed to an organized church. You atheists always take him out of context and all I'm doing is taking a holistic approach rather than a one sided approach that I want to fit my revisionist narrative, which doesn't change the fact that he stated positive things about Christ and the fruits of Christianity.

Who cares? He didn’t believe in God, only Spinoza’s pantheist “God” which isn’t even a person. He wasn’t a Jew, Muslim, or Christian, so looking to him for defense of religious beliefs is fruitless.

[Anonymous No.11120409]

>>11120365
Here's another link to read further in those quotes that you took him out of context.

http://www.deism.com/einsteingodletter.htm

[Anonymous No.11120422]

>>11120408
You do know that there are Panentheist or Monistic Theistic forms of Christianity and Judaism, right? You probably don't understand theology, nor what it means to be a believer in the Abrahamic God. Einstein may have believed him to be fictional, but there aren't strong proofs that he did, if anything he believed Jesus to be inspired and was a stronger believer of the God of nature rather than the bible, when you consider all of the quotes, and the context of your quote which he was referencing "Gutkind's book, Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt" or Gutkind's God rather than God in general. Einstein was a very nuanced individual.

[Anonymous No.11120448]

>>11120422
>You do know that there are Panentheist or Monistic Theistic forms of Christianity and Judaism, right?

Any and all forms of Christianity are retarded.

[Anonymous No.11120459]

>>11120448
says the uneducated retard that's brainwashed by Antireligioznik propaganda. Yeah your ideas are original and totally not spoon fed to you. Atheists and their inferiority complex and self projecting onto everyone their own disgusting nature.

[Anonymous No.11120517]

>>11120448
>Any and all forms of Christianity are retarded.

[Anonymous No.11120622]

>>11120459
>>11120517
I'm not him, but yeahh every form of Christianity epistemology is in some way flawed.
In the history of philosophy since San Anselmo until Francis bacon (Descartes, and others), an even Spinoza believed in God (but in one that was pantheistic totally contrary to the Christian belief).

They were men of science but they failed in the most basic logic with it..
Well you can't disprove God with science because it's an unfalsifiable claim, without value by itself, in the same category as "moral objectives postulates"
(the don't exist).

The origin of science was more about to try to resolve "the problem of knowledge", through reason or senses..

[Anonymous No.11120654]

>>11120622
This is besides the main point of this thread, but just to respond to some of your points, there are some epistemological approaches that are defective, especially in the traditional conception by non philosophers, but there are sophisticated epistemological positions that are consistent with both reality and the Christian conception (properly basic beliefs -> axioms)

Here are some examples of some like reformed epistemology and evidentialism,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPl9jQFnlzM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpdck8gce0Q&t=124s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahj3_skmWBY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH11Ur8cjwM

God in principle is "disprovable" depending on what one means by God, usually this means the first cause, from which all else comes from (contingency argument and the kalam argument), that has the properties sufficient enough to make sense of this reality, like the origin of consciousness, free will, order and the unreasonable application of mathematics, etc etc. which all of these thoughts can be traced in the early church fathers and rabbinic debaes, on the nature of God with reality, how reality emanated from an infinite being, how personal or how detached God is with reality, which may be pantheism, or panenetheism if God is related but not the universe, or theism if God created ex-nihilo literally from nothing and God it totally separate from creation, but that would go on to a debate of theology and exegesis of scripture, which are way off topic, but nonetheless important to consider.

[Anonymous No.11120671]

>>11120622
>The origin of science was more about to try to resolve "the problem of knowledge", through reason or senses..

This seems to be more on what philosophy is in general, specifically epistemology, science specifically deals with a type of knowledge, empiricism and the naturalistic principle in so far as it applies to the conception of the world (axioms) that is a closed system, with deterministic patterns that are detectable and predictable through physical means and approaches, and all relations between phenomena are somehow related to each other. There are other forms of logic and knowledge that are equally valid that apply to our experiences and are verifiable such as analytics, logic, maths, etc. but those are separate issues, unless one wanted to debate verificationism, positivism or scientism, which in scientific philosophical circles have been abandoned currently.