When scientists make the news for something they say about religion, it often comes across as if all scientists are atheists or at least committed agnostics.
Stephen Hawking made waves when he stated that God isn't needed to explain the universe, and Richard Dawkins seems to
constantly be in the news spouting off about the evils of religion and the glories of atheistic science. From my department's roughly 50 graduate students I have heard maybe a dozen disdainful tirades against religion but only two people (one of which was myself) openly profess any sort of religious affiliation. It can seem, at times, that serious research science is a religion-free zone.
That's why I was fascinated to learn about a fellow named
Eric Priest (holding the sun to the right). Dr. Priest is an emeritus professor of mathematics at St. Andrews University in Scotland, a solar physicist, a winner of prizes from the American Astronomical Society and the Institute of Physics, a fellow of the Royal Society, and an honorary lecturer at Harvard, the University of Oslo, and a number of other places around the globe. He's a serious scientist who has had a long and productive career at the forefront of his field. He's also quite religious.
From
a sermon he delivered at University Chapel at St. Andrews:
So should we trust science or God? My answer is clearly both – but in different ways. Science & Religion are much closer in approach than perhaps you realised. We all need Science to learn more of nature God’s universe and to tackle problems of 21st century. we are each on a journey of discovery in this life, in company of the communities of which we are part and with the guidance & support right at core of reality of a God whose Holy Spirit cares for each one of us.
So let us pray:
Lord Jesus, we pray that you will continue to guide and inspire us, as we learn more of the nature of your incredible universe, and as we seek to follow you in our journeying all the days of our lives. Amen
It warmed my heart to read that, not only for the sentiments but for the source.
That's a great quote. I had an interesting experience recently. I was on a graduate student committee to evaluate potential dept. chair candidates. We interviewed each one. One of them, in his bio he gave talked about his dedication to God, spirituality, and how he felt it helped him in his life. I was duly impressed (he's my favorite candidate so far).
ReplyDeleteI agree it's a problem that the culture in scientific and academic circles tends to discourage and maybe even belittle religious folks. It's unfortunate. The opposite is true in most religious sects as well (including Mormonism and it's tenuous relationship with "intellectuals"). I find it very unfortunate in both instances and wish we could broaden the tent to be more accepting of those who don't see things as we do in whatever group we're a part of.
Hopefully we're doing all we can in both areas to more fully embrace those of differing viewpoints.
Yet another example of an award-winning scientist who is openly religious. It always cracks me up when people suggest "if you only understood science you would realize how religion is garbage". However... there are few people who both understand and can do serious science as well as people like this. (Fellow of the Royal Society!)
ReplyDeleteAnyways, while the anti-religion polemics, most of whom are not and never will be scientific researchers of this caliber, do their ranting, people like me will go back to getting some real scientific research to be published in respected journals done.
NN,
ReplyDeleteReligion is myopic; religious scientist is an oxymoron, because, a scientist is a seeker.
To seek god (not lowercase g) is scientific; however advocacy of an unverified and unverifiable hypothesis such as God of any book is myopic.
I'm very glad to see this. Honestly, I think that there are a lot more deeply religious people who are exceptional scientists than we generally find out about. A lot of people feel uncomfortable sharing their faith publicly. Thank goodness for people like Dr. Priest (appropriate name ;) ) who appropriately share their faith along with providing exceptional science. They prove by example that, no matter what they nay-sayers might think, "religious scientist" is not an oxymoron.
ReplyDeleteRecently I have been reading a book entitled Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology by Erich Robert Paul which has been particularly interesting. One of the things he points out in his book is that Mormon theology fundamentally accepts (as in we have it recorded in our scriptures) the epistemological realism that is fundamental to science (D&C does use different language, but it is there). What this means is that Mormons, as a whole, are more accepting a receptive to scientific principles than most other Christian religions. In fact most Protestant churches hold a diametrically opposite view (epistemological idealism), which of course puts them at odds with the basic scientific approach. And this creates what we know as "the conflict between science and religion".
ReplyDeleteSo to say "religious scientist is an oxymoron", first assumes something about God and the cosmos, and then assumes that the "religious scientist" holds to that view of God and the cosmos. The only way someone can get away with saying "religious scientist is an oxymoron" (or even will think of saying it on in semi-public forum) is because there are so many other people that surround them in their society that make the same fundamental assumptions about God and the cosmos that they thereby assume that everyone must have the same view of God. Essentially they cannot think of it possibly being any other way. This always makes it difficult for people like us who must consistently insist that it "is not an oxymoron", because in order to make our case we must first have the other person realize that there could just possibly be another way to conceive of God and the cosmos that is not fundamentally at odds with the scientific approach. This is perhaps the most difficult part of the conversation, because usually it stops there with out any further understanding or resolution. But the question, debate and conflict only arises because most people take a particular view of how God must be, and also how we must learn and gain knowledge about the world. If we change one or the other then the conflict does not exist.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteSo if Priest were to be named Dimon, he would not be acceptable as an oxymoronic religious scientist?
Here is the crux of the problem: Priest can pray to his heart content; he can not ask others to join him, if he wants to be a scientist. So he is a oxymoron.
QL42/Bill
ReplyDeleteBy deleting the response further demonstrates your myopic vision. If you intentionally deleted the response you should not be in science.
Again, D&C is awailable at Wiki.
In my previous comment, I provided a reasoned process why "religious scientist" is an oxymoron. Again, religion is myopic, if it were not, you would not have stoning of women in many Islamic countries.
By the way, I have nothing against Mormons; every year, we provide nice cold water bottles to (usually) two young mormons who do their year in faith stuff. I tell them I can be a good person with out any religion. I wish them happiness in their life, and, they bike away in hot noon sun.
Scientist has to keep beliefs in check, including believing in all the (mostly) proven theories of sciences. I hope both of you would keep from being oxymorons.
QL42 -- Very well put. It is certain that, as we've discussed before on this blog, the existence of a supposed "conflict" between religion and science is highly dependent on your worldview and presupposed ideas about the nature of the Divine.
ReplyDeleteA1 -- I guess I don't understand what you're saying. First, I'm not familiar with Dimon. Could you please elaborate?
Second, I don't understand how Dr. Priest asking others to pray with him makes him any less of a scientist. It seems to me to be as natural as a climate scientist asking others to join him or her in cutting back on carbon emissions or as a biologist asking others to join him or her in trying to preserve a rain forest. How do you view it? In what way do you view his practice as non-scientific?
Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "he is an oxymoron." I take it that you mean either that he is not really religious or he is not a real scientist. Is this the case? To say he is not religious seems quite unfounded, so I assume that is not what you meant. To say he is not a true scientist seems similarly hard to justify. Could you please explain? He is certainly well-recognized by national and international scientific bodies as a scientist. Hie work appears to be well-respected as genuine science. (I'm not a solar physicist, so I cannot comment directly on the quality of his work.) He certainly appears to have all the characteristics of a scientist. In what way do you view him as lacking? In your view, are there certain philosophies to which a person must subscribe to qualify as a true "scientist"?
I am not trying to be antagonistic here. I admit, I strongly disagree with your stance as I understand it, but I do not wish to be disagreeable. Please help me (1) make sure I am understanding your stance correctly and (2) understand how you justify that stance when there appears to be so much evidence to the contrary. Thanks for your comments, and I look forward to hearing your reply.
A1 -- Sorry, my previous response was written before I read your comment from 12:05 pm PST.
ReplyDeleteTo say "religion is myopic" by citing certain inexcusable practices among one religious sect is a strawman argument, or at very least an unjustified over-generalization. If the stoning of women were a fundamental precept among all religions, you might have a point. However, that practice is neither fundamental nor universal, so the argument does not hold.
I am very glad that you treat the missionaries you come in contact with well. Being kind to those who hold views contrary from our own is a very important trait that we all ought to try and develop. I applaud your efforts.
If by a "Scientist has to keep beliefs in check," you mean that a scientist must maintain a healthy level of skepticism and continually re-evaluate his assumptions and be willing to modify them if new evidence arises, I agree completely. I do not, however, see how this conflicts with religion. The second part of that statement said "including believing in all the (mostly) proven theories of sciences." Does this mean that a scientist must always believe the current scientific theories of the day? This seems contradictory to the first half of the sentence. Please elaborate. I would really like to see where you are coming from here.
As I said before, to say that a belief in religion is non-scientific seems unjustified. I can understand if you take the stance that religious faith precludes skepticism, but that has not been my experience with either religion or science. To say that a scientist must believe all the current scientific theories seems almost as dogmatic as the stereotypical view of religion that most scientists are so opposed to. Again, I would really like to understand your position here. Thank you again for your reasoned responses.
Dr. Priest is obviously not alone in being both a high performing scientist and religious.
ReplyDeleteBut he is in the minority.
The most cited work comes from the late 90s:
3% of the Royal Society and 7% of the National Academy of Science believe in God.
If you open it up to all levels of scientists in America the proportion is higher at around a third that believe in God.
Obviously this is much lower than in the general US population.
There is also some evidence that scientific knowledge in the general population is inversely correlated with religiosity .
Effectively this is epidemiological data so can not separate causation from correlation.
But the consistency of these findings does indicate that there is something about religion which prevents science education or something about science education that reduces religion.
A very popular hypothesis regards the critical evaluation of evidence.
If you are trained to do that professionally and you look at your religion in the same way you see gaps and flaws you did not perceive before.
I don't, and can't, know if that's universally true.
But it does fit my own loss of faith.
Bill,
ReplyDelete“Religion is myopic” is my observation based on practices of all religions, including my own. If you dissect the word “religion”, mostly broadly accepted meaning is to connect with the past. And, the “past” means practices of an extinct civilization, which includes stoning people, ex-communication, polygamy, animal and human sacrifices, I could go on. So, I reject “religion”.
Before I move on, let me add – faith is not “religion”. One’s faith is one’s own calling, and it has no labels. It is in our evolution; I have travelled the world, and I have met strangest of our kind all over the world, yet, I was always helped. We never talked about “religion”, or “labeled faith”, but we reciprocated through each’s faith as acts.
When I start speaking of “faith” in detail, I am articulating my beliefs. Beliefs are unverified and unverifiable. Let me say this: in one culture, Moon is considered as a round disc like a plate, not round sphere, and phases were created by the edge of disc not being in the same plane, which can be so out of plane that disc can approach to be a hemispheric bowl.
Similarly, a scientist must keep beliefs in check, especially, those that are unverified and unverifiable. A scientist is not a skeptic, but knower of limits of knowledge. How do we describe our “limits of knowledge”? By beliefs!
So, I am happy to know my limits of my knowledge and I strive to extend the limit ever so more; but I do not need to “believe” nor do I need “religion”. I march in my faith, that must remain unlabeled.
I hope this clarifies why I assert that a religious scientist is an oxymoron.
David Bennett,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point about correlations. I will point you to the famous study on the subject for it causes me to conclude a couple of things:
1. If we are going to play the "how does intelligence correlate with religious views" game, we need to admit Jews and Episcopals appear smarter on average than Atheist. (If you are in academic science this would not be very surprising as there are many amazing Jewish scientists.)
2. If I were going to adopt a worldview purely on the basis of what religious/non-religious group appeared the smartest, I would convert to Judaism.
3. I do agree that something in the training of scientists makes them more prone to atheism. But how sure are you that whatever that thing is, be it questioning everything or demanding evidence etc..., how do you know they are more likely to be right in answering questions like: does God exist? when there are many reasons to believe that question is not scientific.
My point being: why should I trust that scientists, and or their methods, do a better job at answering questions that aren't scientific in nature?
4. Now, you might assume #3 is a pointless issue because the only meaningful questions are those that can be addressed by science. If so I encourage you to read a book on Godel who rigorously showed, and I will blog about this later, that true statements exist that are not provable using the methods of math and science.
And they may not trivial things either and went on further to demonstrate things like the continuum hypothesis cannot be proven true or false from any known system of logic and postulated Goldbach's conjecture may be unprovable as well. (But like transcendental numbers, it is easier to know there are uncountably many of them then to be able to list a bunch of them. How many transcendental numbers can you list. :)
What is my point: it is hard for me to accept a "the only meaningful questions are those that can be addressed by science" when our own math has produced a theorem demonstrating the existence of an infinitude of truth that is beyond the ability for math or science to declare true or false.
4. Still, I think good scientists will always be willing to thoroughly test and falsify all scientific questions. Everything that is in the reach of science needs to be rigorously tested.
So how can I have confidence that tools I learn from science make me more likely to understand that infinitude of truth out of science's reach? If having the higher IQ is most helpful, I think I had better become Jewish. But, I am not sure science and IQ are all that matters when it comes to this stuff.
David Bennett and others,
ReplyDeleteSorry to beat a dead horse, but I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article on the continuum hypothesis as the statement is either true or false and yet we know by rigor proof that its truth or falsity cannot be known by any known formal system of logic.
How many other statements are either true or false and math and science can never tell us either way: uncountably many using the diagonalization argument.
Apparently, and this does not bother me, truth is like a big Venn diagram where true statements that can be addressed by math and science are only a comparatively small subset of the whole thing. And examples like the continuum hypothesis and possibly Goldbach's conjecture hint these unprovable true statements may be highly non-trivial.
So, pardon me if I don't jump on the chance to adopt a worldview that the only meaningful questions in life are those that can be addressed by science. Does this prove everyone should Christian? Absolutely not! But it does show science is not enough and so you either remain forever limited in what you can know to be true or you adopt a worldview that transcends *only* science having faith that you have picked the right one. :)
David Bennett and others,
ReplyDeleteLast thing and I will go away until I write some proper blog posts on the subject. I also encourage you to read about the Halting problem on the Wikipedia. There you will find computer scientists have found another non-trivial issue that cannot be solved algorithmically and hence scientifically.
Without going through the details, doing science is an analogous things as being a turing machine since we are trying to come up with a chain of logical reason based on evidence (algorithm) from which we can know the truth or falsity of something. And (From Wikipedia): "Since the negative answer to the halting problem shows that there are problems that cannot be solved by a Turing machine, the Church–Turing thesis limits what can be accomplished by any machine that implements effective methods."
Interestingly enough "Not all theoretically possible machines are subject to the Church–Turing thesis (e.g. oracle machines are not)." which is to say: We can rigorously show taking an algorithmic approach to understanding the truth and falsity of all things in the universe *does* fail. (Which is the scientific approach. A darn good one but limited nevertheless.)
Does this mean you should accept God? No! But given we can also rigorously show that a God "oracle machine" does not fail in its ability to know the truth or falsity of all things, at least He is a viable option. :)
Hello again Joseph.
ReplyDeleteI think that your points 1 & 2 are facetious (by intention) enough in nature for me to skip over.
But there is plenty in 3 and 4 to interest me.
I would be very interested in a blog post (if you're taking requests) of the many reasons why the existence of God is not a scientific one.
My limited experience with religious "apologists" (if you'll forgive the term) is for them to frame a "hypothetical" god in such a way to render it unprovable by modern methods.
This I can't abide.
I'm strongly of the opinion that the existence of god is a question that can, in principle, be answered scientifically.
It might be beyond our technical limitations at present but this leaves it no different from some aspects of string theory, for example.
In this regard I'd be careful deputising things like the Continuum hypothesis in your argument.
My own, admittedly limited, knowledge of the Continuum hypothesis is as part of Hilbert's problems.
And in this context, it's worth remembering that half of these problems have been solved, often using mathematical axioms unknown when the problems were set.
JS,
ReplyDeleteThe problem of truth only arises because of limits of language. Computers running on 0 1 have no problem of "truth".
In principle, Watson should never be wrong; but, it is the language that leads him on wrong path. So it does you, and me.
One does not find truth in words.
JS,
ReplyDeleteAlso, all science can do is displace the beliefs a bit further out, and that is why most of you can plan to work for most of your life! As a scientist! Try that with religion.
Also, when are you going to become a Jew?! (Ha! Ha!)
David Bennett,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your cordial response. Though I can promise the blog posts will come they will not be immediate as I first want to carefully work through a textbook treatment of these issues, An Introduction to Gödel's Theorems if you must know, so that I don't post garbage. (At least not complete garbage. :)) So it may be a while but I hope it will be worth the wait in that the claims will be ligament concerns.
As for the definition of a "watered-down" God, I can promise that one attribute the God I will defend will have is omniscience as the whole point is to be someone who can know the truth of all things without having to resort to algorithms or science alone. (Again science is good but the point is it can't go all the way.) I admittedly can *never* prove such a being exists as much as give reasons to believe He is a viable option.
So at this point, let me do some research before I say too much that first needs to be more rigorously analyzed. But thus far, let me just say from what I am understanding thus far:
1. Science is the very best tool we have to solve a wide variety of questions. Including the ones I work on on a daily basis. I love science!
2. Science, and formal logical systems in general, can never prove or disprove the truth of all things. The Venn diagram of *true* things is larger than the Venn diagram of things that can be proven or refuted using science.
3. A worldview restricted only to science is limiting. (And if you are fine with that... then fine.) And though this does not prove you should go out and accept the existence of an omniscient God, if you desire to accept a worldview that has the "potential" to not be limiting, faith in such an omniscient God is a viable option. (Like an the "oracle machine" discussed.)
4. And then there are spin-off questions like: Why does God work and science fail? (In terms of being able to "potentially" explain the truth of all things) Why does there seem to be true ideas beyond the reach of science and algorithms if the universe is just meaningless stuff following random laws like an algorithm? Etc....
I can promise you nobody's opinion is going to change but at least it will give people different stuff to think about. :)
Ancient1,
ReplyDelete"One does not find truth in words."
Interesting idea. I will have to think about it.
Let me clarify one thing. This is all very analogous to the irrational numbers being uncountable.
ReplyDeleteTrue, given any specific irrational number, we can always construct a list that will contain that specific irrational number. You give me a specific irrational number and I can add it to a list. Fine, but we know as a fact you can never construct a list that will contain *all* irrational numbers.
Likewise, I admit, just because things like the continuum hypothesis can't be proven or disproven given ZFC as well as all other known formal systems, this doesn't mean we cannot construct a system that cleverly proves the continuum hypothesis. In fact, trivially ZFC+the assumption CH is true does the job. :)
But the point is you can never construct a formal system that can prove *all* true statements. Just like by analogy with "listing irrationals".
JS,
ReplyDeletePlease don't limit science by saying: A worldview restricted only to science is limiting.
Science applies to all views. I bet you have never studied law, or encountered a sticky legal situation. I suggest you to read a few legal opinions and you will see that how logic works in the legal profession. And, if you read Scalia's opinion, how distortion of language works.
Ancient1,
ReplyDeleteI am personally not trying to limit science. The rigorous proof that no formal system of logic can prove or disprove the truth of all true things is what limits science. Math, and proof's like Godel's, are things that don't care about my personal views.
People may be interested in what Hawking had to say on the issue: http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/91
ReplyDeleteJoseph,
ReplyDeleteHave you thought about the possible limitations on God's knowledge introduced by diagonalization arguments (like those used by Cantor)? There is a very interesting exchange on this issue between Alvin Plantinga and Patrick Grim.
Quick remarks, being very late to the party:
Transcendental numbers aren't hard to list, since e^a is transcendental for all algebraic numbers a, according to the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem.
There are actually lots of axiom systems that philosophers and logicians play around with in which you can prove or disprove CH. The locus classicus here is Godel's paper, in which he shows that ZFC + V=L, the so-called "constructibility axiom," entails CH. I couldn't find a quick link to Godel's paper, but see here and here for some nice discussion.
Anyway, unlike V=L, ZFC is widely used by mathematicians, which is why Godel and Cohen's result that CH is independent of ZFC is pretty cool.
Jonathan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for setting the record straight about CH. As I said earlier I need to get a thorough understanding before I say too much.
Thank you for listing the exchange about limits to knowledge set by diagonalization arguments. I have actually thought about this very issue a lot and still am undecided on exactly where I stand. One thing is for sure, I don't think God could list all the irrationals on a list for the obvious, but maybe there is some unforeseen way to keep track of them all that doesn't involve something isomorphic to a list. Again, though I have thought about these issues I am still unsure what exactly to think. uncountability is very mind-bending.
Ancient1,
ReplyDelete"Science applies to all views.... I suggest you to read a few legal opinions and you will see that how logic works in the legal profession."
You've added some really interesting points to this discussion. I just have to point out that logic is not science. It's not a subset or superset of science. Logic is used with science, just as math is. Yes, the Scientific Method can be applied to legal situations, just as formal logic can but you can also apply the Scientific Method and formal logic to anything (although, not all applications are necessarily useful or valid).
Much of the problem comes down to epistemology and the philosophy of science. Our current scientific method is based upon particular philosophical assumptions (e.g., materialism, determinism, reductionism) that, while useful, are not the only useful and valid set of philosophical assumptions at the base of the pursuit of knowledge.
Quantumleap42 explains more of these general ideas (but much more too) in his related post: http://www.theeternaluniverse.com/2011/02/everyday-philosophy-epistemological.html
JS,
ReplyDeleteThe rigorous proof that no formal system of logic can prove or disprove the truth...
May be there is no absolute truth, and extending it further, there is no absolute god (God), but gods of many for many, and not just for humans, but for all life.
Take a step further: why do so many of us feel inadequate so that we need a god? Why is it that we externalize god-concept and appy to others but never to oneself?
Jared,
ReplyDeleteI can only relate to my personal experience of legal system, as I had to go pro-se and request the court for guidance in the legal process. On the book, it is exceptionally logical, methodical, procedural that accomodates all aspects of a case at hand and all viewpoints - rational and irrational. What I learned from the experience is much more than this: I can challenge the logic, I can contest the method and procedures and each will be addressed by the judge. I think legal profession is very logical and scientific, and so is politics, and much more capable of exploiting pathos, unlike computational sciences, which, most of us practice.
Science is what we are as life: philosophy, logic, god etc. are tools. Let us not put the cart before the horse.
Holy Cow! I'm so confused on this discussion. I think there are so many misunderstandings and ideological supposed certainties I don't even know where to begin (and I'm not a philosopher).
ReplyDeleteAncient 1, I think you make some good points. Clearly, throughout history religious has held back humanity, and been responsible for absolutely horrifying things. I frankly despise organized religion for this and its current role in our world.
Having said this, I think you bring up the best point - that faith is NOT the same as religion. I agree strongly with this and think this is the crux of the miscommunication between the neo-atheists and religious folk. I have, use, and try to grow my own faith using my religion of choice. To me, my religion is NOT an end - rather a tool - much like science. If my religion feeds me BS I reject that BS, but I embrace the good that it does teach.
Here's the problem as I see it, FWIW. Most religious people are NOT seekers, they're loyal line towers, certain in their beliefs and conflating them with absolute truth. Most Mormons don't have faith in Mormonism, they KNOW Mormonism to be true (which I find highly ironic). Many religious people take words from old books and assume a literal interpretation (hence the primary conflict).
Similarly, many scientists insist that the current scientific theory is absolute truth. Science has proven useful, but it's not all powerful. There is room in my life for my faith and my religion without clouding my judgment.
My conclusion is that the biggest problem is a misunderstanding of the role of religion and science in our lives. This misunderstanding leads to a Venn diagram in which religion overlaps with science to a degree that people feel they must choose a side. I simply reject that distinction as I maintain they are separate tools in a tool box.
Ancient1, you missed the classic chance for a pun! Instead of "not put the cart before the horse" it could have been "don't put Descartes before the horse!" :) In light of this philosophical discussion, it might even just have been appropriate. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
ReplyDeleteWow! I leave for two days, and the number of comments triples, plus a new follow-up post with its own massive collection of comments! I would love to keep in the conversation, because, from the brief look I've been able to give everything, it looks like some great and interesting points have been made, but I'm afraid it will take me a couple days to get caught up. I'll see if I have more to say at that point.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to
ReplyDelete"Here is the crux of the problem: Priest can pray to his heart content; he can not ask others to join him, if he wants to be a scientist. So he is a oxymoron."
I think this is irrelevant.
Priest can be a scientist and a religious person and not be an oxymoron as long as in his professional work he is using empirical observations (i.e. scientific method) and not resorting to prayer or revelation to find solutions to his work related problems. Science is just another tool, and a very handy one at that, which helps us make sense of the material universe.
Priest as a religious person can ask anyone to join him and still remain a scientist as long as he does not use the Bible (or another religious text) or prayer or revelation instead of his scientific work for he is employed as a scientist who must work according to the scientific method.
Of course religious faith is not relevant to scientific work itself, neither is love nor compassion nor hate or many other things. Likewise a doctor who is a Muslim remains a doctor as long as he practices medicine based on recommended guidelines (often derived from scientific research) and not the Koran or some other empirically unverified system. Of course there may be ethical/moral issues such as abortion but those issues stand separately and reasons to refuse to perform them would be conscientious objections. A scientist who is asked to develop a weapon of mass destruction may also refuse to do so if he feels its use would go against his conscience. He remains a scientist. He could also refuse the work because he finds it uninspiring or unsatisfactory in financial compensation.
It is surprise to see the most contemporary scientists hove no sciences, have no logical thinking in thier Great Universe & the Greatest Creator "ALLAH" the Only One God
ReplyDelete