.

Dear David,

.

[«Is being a scientist compatible with believing in God?» is the title of your (George’s) article. I am satisfied that they are compatible »]

.

I am surprised by your conclusion, David, particularly since I am in agreement with just about everything you have posted on this thread.

And yet, on the basis of your arguments, I arrive at exactly the opposite conclusion than that expressed above. How can that be?

What I have understood is that science will not admit a hypothesis as valid unless there is general acceptance of it in the scientific community following a falsifiable process of examination, verification and repetition, by independent scientists, producing the same results, or the observance by independent scientists of various phenomena explainable by that particular hypothesis and tending to validate.

If what I have understood is correct, on the basis of the current state of the art of science, there is no way science could validate the hypothesis of God.

.

Being a scientist would therefore appear incompatible with believing in God. Being a butcher, a baker, or a candle-stick maker are all compatible with believing in God, but not being a scientist.

The pursuit of scientific endeavour with God as a given appears totally incongruous.

However, I see no reason why science and belief in God could not coexist harmoniously in our societies, each in its own sphere. Like potassium and mineral acid, there would be no problem as long as they never mix.

According to my Oxford English Dictionary, compatible means “consistent, able to coexist, (with); mutually tolerant; (of equipment etc.) able to be used in combination”. I think this is possible between the branch of knowledge (as a whole) that we call science and the doctrine of believing in God. However, I consider that it is not possible at the level of the individual, so-called “scientist”, who pursues scientific endeavour with God as a given.

If he is capable of not considering God as a given in his scientific endeavour , then he is not a true believer and vice versa.

.

<If what I have understood is correct, on the basis of the current state of the art of science, there is no way science could validate the hypothesis of God.>

Dear Banjo,

I agree with the above, but that was not the question.

The question was “Is being a scientist compatible with believing in God?”

Since the great scientist, Isaac Newton, believed in God it is obviously compatible to be a scientist and believe in God.

banjo..<<>.on/the..basis of..the current..state/of the art..of science,..there is..no way science..could validate..the hypothesis of God.>>

im..presuming..george..feels..much the same
i..disagree..both..of you..of course.

to validate..the/existance..of/the unseen..of spirit..
is a further step..to-wards confirming..the holistic unseen cause..[singular]..cause of causes.

http://new-birth.net/booklet/30_years_among_the_dead.PDF

pick..a point..refute it
and..its case..closed..

but..thats too difficult
why..because..that needs/science..to refute..the science..
and no..scientist..can afford the rejection..of his peers[betters]..and..their benefits..

<<..I see.;.no reason..why science..and belief..in God..could not..coexist harmoniousl..in/our..societies,..each..in its/own sphere>>..

yet..in..heaven..it works..just fine
banjo..we arnt..dependent..upon science/peer funding
we can read..the proof..with an..open_mind..and judge..the thesis..for ourselves.

<<..compatible means..“consistent,..>>

please..help find..the inconsistencies?
or point..them out..to help..with..constructive_inquiry..to settle this issue..once..and for all..

<<..the doctrine..of believing..in God..>>

contains many..facets..
[probable..falsifiable's..if you will]

who..has refuted..what..?..
what..remains consistent..>..constant..with..our latest/knowings?

<<..However,..I consider..that/it
is..not possible/at..the level..of..the individual,..>>

i feel..thats the..only level..that needs work
who cares..what..societies/churches/sinner-gogs..say?

they..cant speak..for me..nor you..
nor jesus nor god..without their versions..of falsity..[revelatory falsification]..pun..intended

<<..so-called..“scientist”,..>>
the so-called priest?..so-called theist..so called atheist..
[all..shall/must..present proof..or exposed..as fraud?]

just..the names..used
indicates..the bias..or pre judgment?

<<..who..pursues/scientific..endeavour...with God..as a given.>>

lets..try/a..hypothetical

what if..EVERY SCIENTIST..every artist..
every butcher..every blogger..has god..within..them..
[take that..as given..]..even-if..only hypothetically..

how..do you..make..*your dna.cells..to divide..produce rna
how..do you..make*..your heart-beat..how*..do you..send your blood..around..*your body..?

[you..not your..blood-circularity/system..]

how/do..YOU..make*..it work..
how..would you even..begin..to restart..it..if it..ever/stops?

how did..your body..build itself..
till..you can show..how..by you doing it..[or..by making life..from nothing..you have prejudged..god unfairly..

till science..puts up..*its falsifiable..on..evolution..
its deceived you..just by..not giving them..

and by..you..not giving them..either
who..will you..deceive..by prejudging..sans proof

<<..If he/is capable..of not/considering God..as..a given..in his scientific endeavour..then he/is not..a true believer..and vice versa>>

thats both sad..and pathetic
are you..better capable?..of judging other?..in error..without proof?

please present..proof..then you..can act aloof
till then..lets sing..the french-drinking song..feme/le busche..
till..you can/give proof..you seem willing..to demand..from other..yet cant present yourself

sorry..if..that sounds harsh..
but..if not answers..at least keep..putting the questions..
and avoid pre judging..[judgment still's..the inner voices..but that dont mean-it..was judged right..or fairly

would..you be judged..by the same measure?

.

Dear Davcid,

.

« Since the great scientist, Isaac Newton, believed in God it is obviously compatible to be a scientist and believe in God. »

.

I think you will find that the personality of Newton is much more complex than that. This is what Wikipedia has to say on the question:

« In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin. Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says of Newton, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But ... he never made a public declaration of his private faith—which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs." In an age notable for its religious intolerance, there are few public expressions of Newton's radical views, most notably his refusal to receive holy orders and his refusal, on his death bed, to receive the sacrament when it was offered to him."

Voltaire was present at his funeral and praised the British for honouring a scientist of heretical religious beliefs with burial at Westminster Abbey.

After his death, Newton's hair was examined and found to contain mercury, probably resulting from his alchemical pursuits. He was known to have been crafty and secretive, hiding his works, not always publishing them, sometimes publishing them only many years after their completion.

In the second edition of the Principia (1713), Newton coined the term “hypotheses non fingo”, explaining:

“I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.”

I don’t think anybody can pretend to know what Newton’s religious beliefs really were – if, indeed, he had any at all and, if he did, to what extent they were the basis of his scientific endeavour.

.

concise awareness..people_assume..the breakthrough..is a..result/of..their thought process..the-consciousness..is not/fully..centered..in/the Atman..(Self).
http://auromere.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/the-exchange-of-vital-forces-during-social-interactions/

Thus,..the/vital-forces..which..are being..continuously exchanged/between./.human-beings..during..all..social-interactions.

Human_beings..function./.as..visible..conduits for/the..interchange of..the baser emotions..hurt/fear/anger,.sex-drive..and even.depression,..

..when..our inner-being..opens up..we discover..the/rich..and voluminous nature..through..the higher vital..(pranamaya/kosha)..and 7..mental sheaths.(manomaya/kosha)..with-in..lies..the human consciousness.

http://auromere.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/all-thoughts-come-from-outside/
<<..All..thoughts vibrate..eternally..in/the cosmos-mind...

<<..Thoughts..are universally..and not..individually/rooted..inthe/material brain..;..a truth..cannot be created,..but..only perceived...The erroneous/thoughts..of man..result from..imperfections..in/his..discernment.[bias]

In/a..certain sense..we are nothing..but/a..complex mass..of mental, nervous..and..physical habits..held together..by a few..ruling-ideas, desires..and associations–creating..an amalga.. of many..small self-repeating/forces..reverberating..with a..few major-sympathetic vibrations.

at..certain times..and for..certain_purposes..to separate..the two parts/of..the mind,..the active part,..[conscious]..which..is a factory/of..thoughts..and/

the quiet..masterful part[awarness]..which is at..once a Witness..and a Will,..observing..judging/rejecting,/eliminating,/accepting,/ordering..revelations..into miracles/corrections..and..changes,..

http://auromere.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/brain-not-mind-yoga-psycho/
The/brain..is not/the seat..of thinking.
It is..the mind..that thinks,..the brain/only..reacts..*to it.

There is/a..parallelism..between/the resonating-movements..of the brain/neurons..with those..of the/higher/mind...

*..But..the-brain..is only/a,,communicating-channel;
it is..only a supporting/means..for the..higher..simuli-activity.

when..the mind..is passive/it..receives..sympathetic..to mind/impression/e,motion..and other denotive-things..and passes/them on-to..the brain.

the mind..is not/an instrument[means]..of knowledge..but..[the way]..only..as..an organizer/of..imputed-knowledge,..and that knowledge..comes from..external/elsewhere.*..

[thinklike..the cloud..holding innfo
you acces,..by synching..up..with same/vibe]

When the/mind..is..silent,..words come,..speech comes,..action comes, everything comes,..automatically,..with striking/exactness..and speed..immediately..live time..all/the time.

In-this..silent/transparency,..we..will/soon..make another..discovery,..that not..only do other/thoughts come to us..from the outside,..but our..own thoughts/feelings reverberate.., too,..from outside.[cloud/mind]

What..we had/felt at..the periphery..of our being..
was a sympathetic-thought..in its.pure form,..or rather..a marrage..of synpthetic-mental vibration..it enters us..and comes to the surface..of our being..clad in..a personal-form,..sympathetic..with..our-present..emotive mind..enabling us to claim:..“This is/my thought.”

It is just..that the process..is not perceptible..to the ordinary man,..firstly,..because he lives..in constant tumult,of simultude/sameness.. and secondly..because the..*process through which vibrations..are appropriated[synchronized]..is almost instantaneous..and automatic-reactive..[reductive-proces..of causes attributations]...

Through..his education..and environment,..a person/becomes..accustomed to.selecting..from the..[cloud]..Universal Mind..a given,..narrow range..of ego specific sympathetic-vibrations with..which he has..a particular affinity.

For the..rest of his life..his mind/will pic- up..the same wavelength,..repeating the/same vibratory mode..in more..or less high-sounding words-formations..and with more..or less innovative turns..of phrase;..traits..mannerisms and experiences..unique in synchrony..with the being..we are being.

[deliberative..notes..The best thing..to/do is..to occupy yourself with something practical which will compel..you to concentrate specially:..and specifically..on specific-studies,...attentive occupation[work]..or some other..physical occupation..

for..the body which demands-attention..as well..as obsessive clear/focus.. anything at all..that forces you..to fixate/the minds missioning

concentrate on what..you are doing..RIGHT..now..in the live-time..living moment..and..no longer..be a prey..fearless/love..is the key*
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=haunted+organ+transplant

Dear Banjo,

From what I have read of Newton’s religious beliefs he rejected Christianity. Christianity is not a monotheistic religion. Monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam and Bahai’i proclaim the unity of God. Worshiping Christ as God and belief in a Trinity is heresy to those religions and to strict monotheists.

I gathered from reading about Newton’s religious beliefs that he rejected Christianity in favour of monotheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

“Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. Nevertheless he rejected Leibniz' thesis that God would necessarily make a perfect world which requires no intervention from the creator. In Query 31 of the Opticks, Newton simultaneously made an argument from design and for the necessity of intervention:

For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.”

I think Leibniz was a religious skeptic, and Newton was a religious crank but a believer.

Leibniz told a story about himself. He was on a ship when a sudden storm came up, and the Catholic crew discussed throwing him overboard. As he was a Protestant they thought God might be creating the storm (See Jonah). Leibniz pulled a rosary out of his pocket and prayed over it.

Linnaeus and Francis Collins of the genome project are both scientists and also Christians. As long as we can find a scientist who also is a believer in God it is evidence that the two are compatible.

I personally think being a scientist is inconsistent with believing in God since there is no evidence for the existence of a God. However, all of us, scientists included, live compartmented lives, and one part of our lives may be inconsistent with another part of our lives.

Inconsistency is not the same as incompatibility.