I have worked at a National Lab for nearly 30 years and we have quite a rainbow of religious and philosophical views represented. Generally speaking the people I have known from whichever of these backgrounds are all competent and good at what they do.
Steve Allison | Homepage | 01.20.08 - 2:01 pm | #

Good idea!
Martin LaBar | Homepage | 01.21.08 - 1:36 pm | #

"Others backed away, admitting that Christians could be good scientists, but they had to "compartmentalize." ...
But this is meaningless."

I disagree that it's meaningless; it's certainly interesting. The compartmentalization refers to something that was brought up in the thread, that you can't justify your religious beliefs using the same methods or epistemology used in science. To me, science as an epistemology and method seems based on ideas of parsimony and critical thinking that specific religious beliefs cannot withstand on their own with just scientific evidence. I think the money quote was one Mr. Heddle provided: "We can leave it at (a) I see evidence and (b) you would dispute that evidence." That may be true, but it sure doesn't sound like a statement one would use in a scientific discussion.

I think implicit in the topic of compartmentalizing is that since science has been incredibly useful for ascertaining the truth, and since scientists understand that better than anyone, that they must be 'dissonant' in that they apply a different standard or method for truth to their religious beliefs. Couple that with the rejection of truth claims derived by faiths other than their own, then yes, there seems to be some incongruence between the two approaches.

I don't think it's dissonant for the same reasons the post mentioned, and I don't see it is any kind of handicap, but there do seem to be different 'compartments' for how religious scientists determine if something is true.
Dave L | 01.21.08 - 8:05 pm | #

I have to wonder how many people espousing this view are scientists themselves. When I was in physics grad school, my wife and I visited several area churches to find one to join. Over those couple of months of visits, we ran across at least 3 physics professors. This was a small department and only had about a dozen professors.

One of my standard counter arguments against the idea that Christians can't be real scientsts is that Isaac Newton left a larger body of theological writings than scientific ones.
Greg V | 01.22.08 - 5:37 pm | #

David,
How about the converse situation? Does your training as a scientist affect the way you approach Scripture?
John | 01.27.08 - 9:20 pm | #

John,

Possibly--I am probably more analytical when it comes to interpreting scripture. But I think that is a good thing--the rules of logic should be applied.
heddle | 01.28.08 - 9:07 pm | #

Great post. I especially like the part about cognitive dissonance. "Cognitive dissonance is when I simultaneously hold two beliefs that I recognize as being in opposition or in tension. It is not holding to two beliefs that someone else thinks are in tension." This is a great point. And certainly, Christians should approach science with a different worldview and epistemology than non-Christians.
Sam | Homepage | 01.31.08 - 8:26 pm | #

I spend much time thinking in regards to all the stuff written here. My approach to my belief is based more on experience & logic than blind faith. But, the blind faith was a requirement for the belief system that I now have. I have a friend that is 100% Christian. The bible is the word & the only word, and of course his belief system has me going to hell.(my subject matter hear is a little off topic, but at the same time on topic) I have been spending about the last year in much conversation with him in regards to his belief, man,logic & science. From a scientific & logical point of view, all things are created by some force or another meaning they have a creator, so common logic points to a higher intelligence, an infinite source of some kind. My brain, being finite can only go so far with that, it has an ending in understanding. While my friend agrees as a Christian that God(this source) is infinite ect.... the bible states what the rules are. Jesus, the only true son of God ect...heaven & hell, God cursing man as a result of eating the wrong fruit. My "life experience", logic and small scientific mind cannot grasp this belief of my friends. It seems though that through science, we prove there are "rules" to the universe. In order for one thing to happen there must be another thing ect..... I find myself reading these articles more & more to try & disprove his belief and more prove mine. But the problem seems to me that the whole basis of a belief in a higher power, after life, is based on emotion. i know in my life that emotion has caused a great many errors in judgment, and also has caused a great many good decisions too. However, the older I become, the less I see the importance to rely upon emotion.
This could go on forever. What do you guys think?
Jeff | 02.05.08 - 1:57 pm | #

Great Blog.
I've found a militant atheist if you want to try and help him; he's at:

www.whyihatejesus.blogspot.com/

GBWY, James
Anon. | Homepage | 04.05.08 - 9:45 am | #