[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 96 KB, 300x459, asmc9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4932747 No.4932747 [Reply] [Original]

My dear /sci/,

We have brought up the question: Do scientists pray? in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men, to try and have our own question answered.

We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?

We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis's class.

Respectfully yours,

Phyllis

>> No.4932762

Take your shitty non-/sci/ posting elsewhere you faggot.

>> No.4932775

once there was a professor who was in class with a lecture and he say to the class if there is a god may he strike me off this stage now and i will fall off the man waited and waited but nothing happened eventually a young man walked down from audience and punched professor in the face and say god was busy saving chldren in africa

the young man name?

alber eistein.

>> No.4932779
File: 62 KB, 199x253, dexbg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4932779

Dear Phyllis,

I am afraid there is no simple answer to your question. There are many different kind of people with many different kinds of beliefs in the world, and scientists are no exception. Some scientists are religious, some are not. What is important to realize is that science and faith are not mutually exclusive.

We understand a great deal about how the world works and are learning more every day. Whether you believe the beautiful and complex systems and phenomena that surround us are connected to some higher power or purpose or are merely the nature of things - what matters is that we are all just trying to figure out how the Universe works and what our place in it is.

Sincerely,
/sci/

>> No.4932780

>in sixth grade
>asking about the beliefs of scientists
>on 4chan
Phyllis, how the hell did you get here (/sci/, specifically)?
I hope you realize that kids your age shouldn't be browzing here, and that there are better collective resources for topics like this throughout the internet.
You're not trying to troll us, are you?

>> No.4932793
File: 14 KB, 320x350, varg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4932793

>>4932747
Scientists pray to Richard Dawkings. Hes the founder of modern science.


picture related: Its the famous Richard Dawkings

>> No.4932818
File: 100 KB, 366x500, Albert__Einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4932818

/sci/, OP here. I'm teasing with you, wanted to hear your calls on this. I liked this one: >>4932779 .

The letter is pretty much real and addressed to no less than Albert Einstein.

Source: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/05/dear-einstein-do-scientists-pray.html

His answer:

---

January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

>> No.4932820

>>4932747
I don't see any conflict with religion and science.
They have different domains of concern.

Scripture, however, where it describes reality, might have conflicts. But scripture can be interpreted in more than one way, so people can make sense of it often.

>> No.4932824

>>4932820

>I don't see any conflict with religion and science.
They have different domains of concern.

Stem Cells.

Oh hey, lookit that, a conflict because one says that a magic soul is stamped onto the unborn fetus, and the other says that the cells can be used to save current lives.

Are you really this stupid?

>> No.4932825

>>4932779
Wow... someone actually attempted to post a serious, mature response.I'm surprised anyone on /sci/ is still capable of that kind of restraint.

>>4932820
Interesting thread OP, how about segueing this into a general discussion of reconciliation of science and faith (or not) among posters?

>> No.4932832

Some do and some don't.

I've only ever gotten into one religion discussion with a scientist. He said that he views God as the greatest scientist alive, always obeying the laws he created, but finding the most ingenious ways to work them to his will.

Interesting stuff, even if I botched it up in summary.

>> No.4932836

>>4932824
>They have different domains of concern.
I guess that's a good reason for them not to get into a conflict.

I guess ethics and morals is the place in which both science and religion wants to have a saying. The common domain that ends up being fucked up by this unnecessary conflict.

But you are missing >>4932820 point. The scriptures are the ones that describes these things, that's where the conflict begins, not religion.

>> No.4932860

Science and faith can coexist
Science and dogma cannot

>> No.4932867

>>4932860
>implying science isnt revered and treated the same as dogma these days

>> No.4932885

>>4932867
SOME scientists are dogmatic about science. Science is not dogmatic.

Not him, btw.

Anyway, I think science deals with the known and its inner relationships and then try to expand to the unknown as well, to discover more things. Faith on the other hand only deals with the unknown, on what we think there is after is after what you know. And there will always be a bit of knowledge and a bit of mystery.

I think the problem with dogmas is that if you get trapped, you don't accept the work of science into the unknown (because you feel you have an answer for it, you think you know what's there). Some scientists can be dogmatic when they answer "it's nothing" just because it is unknown and sabotage themselves into ignoring this new information, or new interpretation.

>> No.4932891

>>4932885
not SOME but MOST. there are hardly any nondogmatic thinking in science.

>> No.4932892

>>4932824

I'm not that guy, but I was thinking that if we found a religion that didn't conflict with science then we could use it to strengthen the argument against those that do. The question is, do all religions have souls? Right now most that come to mind have some sort of afterlife or reincarnation. What about Tao? I don't know anything about Tao.

>> No.4932893

>>4932885
science doesnt deal with known and unknown, but unknown knowns and unknown.

>> No.4932945

>>4932891
Meh, maybe you are just right. Feyerabend opened my eyes to the dogma of science. But I still think it's not most, I think it's just some scientists. The problem is that they usually shout louder than anyone else.

>>4932893
Yes, I agree with you. I think I should have expressed myself better.

>>4932892
Not all religions have souls, most eastern religions reject the idea of a soul. That's why they use the term "rebirth" instead of "reincarnate", there is nothing to incarnate but from your death new things are born. Tao means roughly "the way things are", but it is by definition something you can't define without missing the point. It's the eternal flow from nothingness to something and then back again. The thing is, these are all words which can be interpreted in a lot of ways. These religions work on aphorisms, just ideas and phrases that you have to dig yourself. So for instance, they say the Tao comes from nature, flows into heaven and back onto nature in the ten thousand things. "Heaven" here is just a word for the impalpable, it could mean Platonic ideas for all we know. Even "soul" is debatable and some people will use that word without being dualistic at all.

>> No.4932993

>>4932747
Prayer is a way of communicating with one's self in a way that focuses the person.
When you talk to yourself, pump yourself up, reprimand yourself, ask yourself questions, or just "think out loud" this is where the value of "prayer" come from. By saying these things in your mind or with your words you solidify the ideas. So if a scientist 'prays' it's to talk to anyone who is listening - usually themselves. When prayer is tied to worship, then the focus of the prayer changes, but the purpose is the same, saying an idea to make it solid in the mind.
It's quite useful.

>> No.4933009

>>4932945
actually its not most eastern religion, only buddhism. hindu/jain/taoism has belief about souls.

>> No.4933029

dear phyllis

the vast majority of scientists are atheists so they do not pray to anyone or anything.

>> No.4933066

> Generalizations.
> Generalizations everywhere.

>> No.4933085

>>4933066
I think everyone in this thread is having the decency to say "most" or "some" to whatever they are saying. Do you propose some other approach?

>> No.4933401

>>4932824
Could you elaborate at the conflict in play here,please?
'stem cells contain souls' 'stem cells can rebuild limbs' still does seem like two different points of interest.

>> No.4933403
File: 57 KB, 600x431, Scientists_Religion.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4933403

>"most" or "some"

Wikipedia: .. about 1/3 are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example).[69][93][94] This is in contrast to the more than roughly 3/4 of the general population that believe in some God in the United States. Belief also varies by field: psychologists, physicists and engineers are less likely to believe in God than mathematicians, biologists and chemists.[95][96] Doctors in the United States are much more likely to believe in God (76%).[97]

>> No.4933421

>>4932775
is this legit?
too lazy to intensively google, didn't find on first page

>> No.4933432

>>4933421

Instead of Googling, try using common sense.

>> No.4933440

>>4932747 Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?
How do you distinguish scientists from academicians? If any person who passed the tests in theology or gender studies is a scientist to you, then the answer is yes, they pray.

If you look on the Elite Scientists on the other side, the number is almost Zero. The real question is: Why is it not exactly Zero?

>> No.4933441

>>4933421 is this legit?
Nope, it is a pathetic lie by a person whose worldviews needs such. Or it is a lame attempt at trolling. Not even mad.

>> No.4933445

>>4933440

Mathematicians have a much higher rate than the empirical sciences because for us there's no inconsistency involved. We don't deal with the world, so we can believe anything we want about it.

As for the rest of you gits, you really have no excuse.

>> No.4933446

yeah, before every exam. never fails.

>> No.4933452

I think one of the guys who discovered DNA believes in talking snakes, you can find it in religulous.

>> No.4933463

>>4933445 We don't deal with the world, so we can believe anything we want about it.
Technically, the accepted math is based on empirical data. You do not divide differently on Mondays because experience shows that this would not correspond to Real Life.

But I have never met a Mathematician who was aware of that. The few I encountered blindly believed in axioms without ever questioning where they came from. They even seemed insulted and enraged at the idea that Mathematics might be based on Real Life instead of - what, divine revelation?

>> No.4933470

>>4933463
>Technically, the accepted math is based on empirical data.
Technically, it's not. People were doing non-Euclidean geometry long before anyone observed the effects of Einstein's theory and recognized them as such. And I'd like to see what empirical data intuitionistic logic is derived from.

>> No.4933484

>>4933470
> implying that drawing logical conclusions were independent from empirical evidence

All of math follows from simple counting with pebbles, reflecting empirical experience. So of course you can derive forms of math that prove their usability later, as long as you do it logically. Try to invent a new math with entirely new rules not based on reality, and you end up with nonsense.

For comparison: When Pauli predicted a particle that would only be found decades later, he was strongly relying on empirical evidence as well. If he had instead randomly made stuff up instead of using the given knowledge and confirmed data, that would have been of no use.

>> No.4933549

>>4933484

>So of course you can derive forms of math that prove their usability later, as long as you do it logically

Logic is not empirical.

>Try to invent a new math with entirely new rules not based on reality, and you end up with nonsense.

Try calculus.

Any observation made in reality is fundamentally finite. Therefore any branch of mathematics that deals with the infinite is necessarily based on rules that in no way correspond to reality.

>> No.4933740

>>4933549 Logic is not empirical.
Of course it is. Reality follows the rules of Logic. That is where we got them from in the first place. What did you think where we obtained them?

>>4933549 Try calculus.
Funny that you mention that after I wrote "All of math follows from simple counting with pebbles". Do you know what "Calculus" literally means?

>> No.4933837

>>4933440
It's not that close to zero
>>4933403

Not sure why some people get freaked out over the fact that some scientists are able to reconcile their beliefs with science.

>> No.4933916

>>4933740
The literal meaning of the word 'calculus' has essentially nothing to do with its mathematical content/formulation.
Also, if logic is empirical, is set theory also?
If so, how do you explain different models of set theory and results such as the independence of the axiom of choice?

>> No.4933930

No. Now take your religion and separate it from my /sci/.

>> No.4933969

>>4933740
that's not what empirical means. and there's no reason to think reality follows logic. logic was derived by what makes sense to us. something in the universe might not make sense. think of anselm's onthological argument. what is wrong logically with it? yet we know it's wrong.

>> No.4934036

>>4933969 anselm's onthological argument
It is circular and could come from a teenager who craves to be laid.

> I can imagine the perfect woman
> The perfect woman would not be perfect if she did not exist
> Therefor, the perfect woman must exist

Which becomes especially ridiculous if you imagine the perfect woman as a girl who turns into a six-pack of beer after sex.

>> No.4934050

>>4933837 It's not that close to zero
True, I think the number was 15%.

>>4933837 Not sure why some people get freaked out over the fact that some scientists are able to reconcile their beliefs with science.
Calmly rejecting superstition is not "freaking out". Also, these people never reconciled their beliefs with science. Instead, they are ignoring science whenever the facts are inconvenient for them.

The exception of course is if you construct your belief in a way that makes it irrelevant. Russell's Teapot and Science can coexist, for example. At least unless you start making demands in the name of the teapot.

>> No.4934057

>>4933403
Does that go against "most" or "some"?

>> No.4934059

>>4933440
>Elite Scientists
AKA "Scientists I like"

>> No.4934081

>>4933916 The literal meaning of the word 'calculus' has essentially nothing to do with its mathematical content/formulation.
Well, if you refuse to see the empirical content of math, I will not try to convince you. You can easily apply methods without understanding where they come from or why they are valid. Just like you can learn to drive a car regardless of whether you consider it a product of engineering or magic.

You can also create any model you want. Consider them tools or speculation which might turn out to be useful or they might not. Are you trying to point out that not all models turn out to be congruent with reality? And if so, what is the deal?

When talking about mere categories, you enjoy even more freedom. Since they are entirely man-made, feel free to lump anything together that you want. Whether that helps with a problem at hand is a different question though.

>> No.4934088

>>4934059 AKA "Scientists I like"
Nope, Members of the National Academy of Scientists. See at 9:28:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1te01rfEF0g