Why some great scientists became atheist?

[rose_kelly]

I think the combination of two points made by others already in this thread probably explains why agnosticism and/or atheism are more common among noted scientists than among the general public. The exceptions - noted religious scientists, or at least noted scientists who truly respect religion - are those who share with all scientists a scientific approach to asking questions about the natural world, but also have enough facility in philosophy (or enough humility to recognize they don’t) to realize that the scientific approach alone is insufficient to handle some of the worthwhile questions in life.

The Vatican observatory has some great examples of noted religious scientists:

news.sciencemag.org/europe/2015/09/talking-science-and-god-popes-new-chief-astronomer

I recall watching a BBC science TV programme a few years ago that included a reference to the Vatican observatory.

For anyone interested there’s more information about the observatory here from wiki.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Observatory

A youtube video about the research in progress at the Vatican observatory, which includes interviews with Jesuit scientists. youtube.com/watch?v=7rXffwRP_YE

 

[Bradski]

So where is this inquisitive nature when it comes to the possibility of God?

Which one?

 

[Tim_D]

Which one?

Such a clever rebuttal…

If you would study the philosophical and theological aspects on the existence of God you would know “which one.”

 

[Bradski]

Such a clever rebuttal…

If you would study the philosophical and theological aspects on the existence of God you would know “which one.”

You must think that ‘atheist’ means ‘someone who doesn’t believe in God’.

What Patti should have said is that ‘scientists seem to have ruled out even the possibility of gods’.

I assume, in contrast, that at some point you must have actually entertained the possibility of gods before your study of the philosophical and theological aspects of various religions led you to the Catholic Church. Whereas my studies led me to become an atheist.

But you never know… All that book learnin’ and study and we could both be wrong.

 

[Tim_D]

You must think that ‘atheist’ means ‘someone who doesn’t believe in God’.

atheist

noun

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[Tim_D]

What Patti should have said is that ‘scientists seem to have ruled out even the possibility of gods’.

Most of the modern scientist/atheist being discussed here have not ruled out the possibility of God through philosophical arguments and logical reasoning; they have rule it out because it does not conform to their preconceived worldview. They are ignorant of and unopen to the arguments and discussions that in past centuries have led truly enlightened men to arrive at positive conclusions on the existence of God.

 

[Bradski]

atheist

noun

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Why are you posting something which confirms my point? Which was that you can’t define ‘atheist’ simply by reference to God. It has to include all gods. Which you just did above.

Most of the modern scientist/atheist being discussed here have not ruled out the possibility of God through philosophical arguments and logical reasoning; they have rule it out because it does not conform to their preconceived worldview. They are ignorant of and unopen to the arguments and discussions that in past centuries have led truly enlightened men to arrive at positive conclusions on the existence of God.

Such a sweeping statement. You must have talked to a lot of these scientists and atheists to make such a claim.

Here’s a question for you, Tim: Why have I ruled out the possibility of God? Am I like them, ignorant and not open to arguments? Not like you, who had no pre conceived idea of the world and was truly enlightened? Not someone like you who studied the philosophical arguments and logical reasoning before coming to a decision?

I’ll tell you what. I reckon you were a Christian well before you knew what a philosophical argument was. Tell me when you became a Christian and what logical arguments led you to your belief. Not those that you believe confirm your belief but actually led to it.

Tell me of the enlightened path you took which ended up up with Christianity.

 

[Tim_D]

Why are you posting something which confirms my point? Which was that you can’t define ‘atheist’ simply by reference to God. It has to include all gods. Which you just did above.

Such a sweeping statement. You must have talked to a lot of these scientists and atheists to make such a claim.

Here’s a question for you, Tim: Why have I ruled out the possibility of God? Am I like them, ignorant and not open to arguments? Not like you, who had no pre conceived idea of the world and was truly enlightened? Not someone like you who studied the philosophical arguments and logical reasoning before coming to a decision?

I’ll tell you what. I reckon you were a Christian well before you knew what a philosophical argument was. Tell me when you became a Christian and what logical arguments led you to your belief. Not those that you believe confirm your belief but actually led to it.

Tell me of the enlightened path you took which ended up up with Christianity.

The onus is not on me to provide the path to belief. The subject of the thread is why are so many of the “great” scientist atheist. I still maintain that these same scientist are ignorant of the philosophical and theological reasonings and proofs that explain the existence of God and the biggest problem is that they don’t care about the reasons and they do not look into it themselves. When was the last time Richard Dawkins quoted Thomas Aquinas or Saint Augustine in his objections to theism? Why does he not address the proofs that so many Western philosophers have developed over the centuries? Because he is intellectually lazy and isn’t interested enough in it because it doesn’t fit his worldview. He would rather paint some fundamentalist looney belief as typical Judeo-Christian thought because it is much easier to rebuff and ridicule. I’ve yet to see one of these guys address the subject from the scholastic viewpoint. There is a very good reason for this.

 

[Bradski]

The onus is not on me to provide the path to belief.

You already have provided it. I’m simply asking if you have followed the same path. Did you use philosophical arguments and reason to become a Christian? As was said, if one is open minded, one must allow for the existence of gods. Presumably you were and you did.

Which philosophical arguments led you to become a Christian? I’m assuming of course that you weren’t simply weren’t born into Christianity but followed many paths until you found the right one.

That’s what you seem to expect from ‘atheist scientists’.How do you compare to your own standards?

I still maintain that these same scientist are ignorant of the philosophical and theological reasonings and proofs that explain the existence of God and the biggest problem is that they don’t care about the reasons and they do not look into it themselves.

Can you name some that are ignorant of these things?

When was the last time Richard Dawkins quoted Thomas Aquinas or Saint Augustine in his objections to theism?

You haven’t read anything that Dawkins has written, have you. That is patently obvious from your comment. So on what basis did you make it? My guess is this:

You’ve always been a Christian. You poked around the periphery of some philosophical arguments for God and you have used them to bolster your belief. You then take a giant leap and assume that anyone who is an atheist either has not delved deeply into the matter (because they surely would have been convinced by the arguments!) or can’t be bothered. So these people aren’t as smart as you are (the arguments would have convinced them!) or as keen on knowing the truth as you are.

How’d I do?

 

[Tim_D]

You haven’t read anything that Dawkins has written, have you. That is patently obvious from your comment. So on what basis did you make it? My guess is this:

You’ve always been a Christian. You poked around the periphery of some philosophical arguments for God and you have used them to bolster your belief. You then take a giant leap and assume that anyone who is an atheist either has not delved deeply into the matter (because they surely would have been convinced by the arguments!) or can’t be bothered. So these people aren’t as smart as you are (the arguments would have convinced them!) or as keen on knowing the truth as you are.

How’d I do?

Pretty bad, actually. While I have never read one of Dawkin’s books (I’ve better things to do) I have watched hours worth of debates with him and many of the other “4 horsemen of atheism” and have repeatably noticed that they do not have a basic, fundamental understanding of what the Church teaches or what is contained in Judeo-Christian theology. They all seem to be “crummy philosophers” who think themselves above such beliefs and practices. Richard Dawkins, during a debate with the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, actually said to the audience that “we are intellectuals; we know it isn’t true,” which elicited a howl of condemnation from a sizable portion of the crowd. This was the same debate where he declared that he wasn’t an atheist but an agnostic, to which the befuddled moderator exclaimed “your hailed as the most famous atheist in the world!,” to which Dr. Dawkins replied “not by me.”

In another debate, Laurence Krauss expressed unrestrained contempt at a presentation of Leibniz’ ontological argument for the existence of God, not only mocking his conclusions but constantly interrupting the presentation with “yeah, but” objections. I do not need to read their works (indeed, Krauss’ book How Something Came From Nothing is front and center in the effort to redefine scientific terms in order to make them fit into a point of view that was previously untenable) to understand and know where they are coming from, the same way that I do not need to read a politically radical work to know that its ideas and solutions are off the mark.

 

[Bradski]

While I have never read one of Dawkin’s books (I’ve better things to do) I have watched hours worth of debates ot by me.

Ah, good ol’ YouTube, is it? It’s a good place for entertainment.

So I have to spend not an inconsiderable amount of time, effort and money reading and studying a variety of opinions, but you don’t bother because you ‘have better things to do’. Which is watch hours worth of YouTube apparently.

But you didn’t (and probably won’t) answer my question as to how you are different from all us unbelievers. How you started with a concept of gods, with no bias towards one belief system. And how your rigorous investigation of all the options (as you expect everyone else to do) led you to Christianity.

I was right about you not reading anything at all about Dawkins. What else am I right about? You were born into a Christian family?

 

[Tim_D]

Ah, good ol’ YouTube, is it? It’s a good place for entertainment.

So I have to spend not an inconsiderable amount of time, effort and money reading and studying a variety of opinions, but you don’t bother because you ‘have better things to do’. Which is watch hours worth of YouTube apparently.

But you didn’t (and probably won’t) answer my question as to how you are different from all us unbelievers. How you started with a concept of gods, with no bias towards one belief system. And how your rigorous investigation of all the options (as you expect everyone else to do) led you to Christianity.

I was right about you not reading anything at all about Dawkins. What else am I right about? You were born into a Christian family?

Yawn.

There is a myriad of books available that I will never read, either for lack of time or lack of interest. Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss etc. all fall in the latter category. For myself, I have seen enough debates, interviews, reviews and articles about Dawkins to know that he is a boob, much like the heralded Stephen Hawking, whose greatest claim to fame is the romanticized situation that he is a “great” mind trapped in a useless body. For Hawking to say, as he recently did, that “philosophy is dead” is more of a reflection of his own ignorance than any serious critique of a logical system of reason that extends for over 2,000 years and that has helped Western Civilization and the entire world come to some rather significant conclusions about ourselves, the world and our place in it.

If you are serious about the Catholic Faith, there is a near inexhaustible supply of reference for you. But just remember that faith is believing something that we cannot prove but we know to be true. To think that hard science is going to be able to prove or disprove the existence of God or the metaphysical is to expect more than it is capable of giving. And people like Richard Dawkins don’t help the situation.

 

[Sarcelle]

Hawking said philosophy is dead. He has repeatedly said philosophy is of no value. That itself is a philisophical claim. Hawking may be a good physicist, but his lack of understanding outside that expertise is appalling. I wouldn’t consider him a particularly smart man.

Hawking does have a Ph.D, Doctor of Philosophy degree right?

Having a Ph.D in Physics does not mean one knows everything. In fact one may know a lot about a narrow speciality but not much outside of that. There is a saying in academia which describes a Ph.D’s depth and breadth of knowledge.

A mile deep and an inch wide.

So apt.

 

[Bradski]

Yawn.

So again: if you claim that these atheist scientists have not allowed for the possibility of gods and have not studied the philosophical arguments that would lead to a belief in God, one must assume that you went through this process yourself. I mean, you didn’t wake up one morning and were suddenly a Christian without having investigated these arguments. You expect others to reach a belief in God by this route so it only seems logical that you went through this process yourself.

One, allow for the possibility of gods.
Two, study the various philosophical arguments for belief.
And three, reach the conclusion that Christianity is the answer.

My bet is…you didn’t. You are asking others to pursue a course of action that you didn’t even follow yourself.

 

[Tim_D]

My bet is…you didn’t. You are asking others to pursue a course of action that you didn’t even follow yourself.

The difference is that I know the basics of what I speak about. Richard Dawkins is quite an intellect when it comes to molecular biology but as a philosopher and an opinion on origin of life sciences he is rather pedestrian.

We all come to where we are in life through different means and directions. In the end, Truth is what matters. As a molecular biologist, Richard Dawkins declaration that there is no God holds as much water as my declarations on molecular biology. The difference is that I’m not sticking my nose in every instance and spending all of time my writing books, articles and giving debates on things I supposedly don’t believe in. And you, quite frankly, as a self-styled “atheist” on a Catholic Forum couldn’t have less influence on me or my beliefs. I find the atheist point of view to be nothing but a bore as it is usually nothing more than asking repeatably probing questions that try to reveal a contradiction. When one can dismiss or negate Aquinas, Augustine or even Aristotle for that matter, not to mention the ranks of theologians and philosophers who have paved our learning and understanding, then I’ll give a listen. As far as I’m concerned, Dawkins, Hitchens and Hawking ain’t cuttin’ it. I still maintain that it is their preconceived worldview that drives their direction.

 

[Bradski]

We all come to where we are in life through different means and directions. In the end, Truth is what matters.

Ah, so you didn’t do any philosophical investigation to become a Christian (otherwise you would have said so). So why then do you expect others to do it?

You are saying: ‘This what these people should do!’ but you didn’t do it yourself. And you go on to imply that if someone doesn’t hold the exact same views as you do then they are ignorant and lazy.

Quite a sweeping statement and one which doesn’t reflect well on you, Tim.

 

[Tim_D]

You are saying: ‘This what these people should do!’ but you didn’t do it yourself. And you go on to imply that if someone doesn’t hold the exact same views as you do then they are ignorant and lazy.

Uh, no.

It is the rabid group of atheists like Dawkins who are running around telling everyone else that we are “ignorant and lazy” because we do not share THEIR viewpoint.

Have you seen any books titles Science Is Not Great, or The Science Delusion? Your own attempts in trying to provoke a “gotcha!” moment relies on the same mentality that people like Dawkins implies, a sort of coddling indulgence for those of us who just don’t know better. Whatever.

As a notice, there is no need to reply because I will be promptly hitting the “unsubscribe” link. Going in broken circles is hardly my idea of amusement.

 

[Bradski]

It is the rabid group of atheists like Dawkins who are running around telling everyone else that we are “ignorant and lazy” because we do not share THEIR viewpoint.

I see…

It’s wrong if you think they do it, but this is OK:

They are ignorant of and unopen to the arguments and discussions…

I still maintain that these same scientist are ignorant…

he is intellectually lazy…

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[carn]

Hi

Why some great scientists like Hawking and Einstein became atheist?

My guess is that scientist are trained to, cherish and internalize the scientific method, which only accepts EMPIRICAL evidence or evidence/arguments derived from known true statements or empirical evidence as decent evidence/arguments, though often still lacking, and regards everything else as very unrealiable.

Which is the correct approach in science.

But as there is no empirical evidence for God or actually anything supernatural (*), they can see only “lesser” evidence/arguments in favor of God; considering that on the other hand God (or other gods or other supernatural stuff) is supposed to actively interact with the natural world, gives rise to suspicion, that most or all of the “lesser” evidence is artificat, error or faked.

Coupled with the fact, that those religious/supernatural claims, which included material which should be open to empirical investigation, always turned up to be false (e.g. the Zeus causes lightning, that sacrifices improve harvest output, that praying consitantly improves health outcomes during illness, …), they so to say “smell a rat” and consider it to be the most likely explanation, that all religious/supernatural claims are actually based on faulty evidence and therefore can be disregarded.

(* More precisely, for all supernatural claims so far attempted to be studied empirically, it was always true that the more precisely the issue was studied the more any potential empirical evidence turned out to be an error, artifact or just completely faked.)

The philosophical error some of them make in my opinion is that based on this approach on has to conclude that we are nothing but chemical and biological reactions; our feelings, pain, joy, hope, despair, dreams and horrors are nothing but chemical and biological reactions with in no relevant way different from whats going on in some microorganisms. Hence, one would have to conclude that the entire ethical basis of our western societies, e.g. that humans have rights, is just an arbitrary choice among a myriad of potential values with no evidence in favor of one choice over another; hence, there is no wrong with a group like IS that simply makes a different choice in this moral spectrum, as their different choice just leads to different biological and chemical reactions happening in their sphere of influence.

Or as Monthy Python put it quite shortly:
“You come from nothing, you go to nothing, what do you lose? Nothing.”
Which means there is absolutely no reason to let someone live or kill someone, in 200 years we are anyway all dead.

So effictively their deny their own right to life and taking them at their word, it would be ok to kill them or anyone else or kill no one, it just changes which reactions are happening on this piece of rock called earth.

They try to avoid this, by claiming that conscious creatures (e.g. humans, apes, maybe some other) deserve special privilege and claim without any EMPIRICAL evidence that the life of such creatures is somehow worthwhile, this based solely on the argument that the attitude spelled out above is cruel or inhuman or so, so just based on their personal disgust.

So their error is, that by only accepting empirical evidence in respect to issues pertaining the meaning of life, they end up with a philosophy that is based solely on feelings and whims.

 

[thistle]

I read that while Einstein did not believe in a personal God he rejected atheism and recognised the impossibility of a non-created universe.