'Dear Einstein, Do Scientists Pray?' Asks Sixth Grader -- Huffington Post

[DriftingCrow]

'Dear Einstein, Do Scientists Pray?' Asks Sixth Grader -- See His Amazing Response
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/30/einstein-scientists-pray_n_4697814.html?utm_source=concierge&utm_medium=onsite&utm_campaign=sailthru%2Bslider%2B
Huffington Post; no author listed

A young girl named Phyllis penned a polite and inquisitive note to the great physicist [in January 1936], and she was probably surprised to receive a considerate reply. The exchange was published in the book "Dear Professor Einstein: Albert Einstein's Letters to and from Children," edited by Alice Calaprice.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I came across a revived old thread here in Atheism and this article seemed to relate to it. I thought Einstein's response  [the "some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe" part] would probably be jumped on by some of those who posted there.

So, has Atheism (though Einstein did label himself as an agnostic from what I've read elsewhere) changed to be more staunch on its separation of any sort of spiritual source, or do many scientists and Atheists feel the same way as Einstein did in his reply? 

Do some who are staunchly opposed to any sort of mixing of the two just aren't "seriously involved in the pursuit of science" enough? (Like any religion/belief system/lack-of-belief system, there are those who aren't as knowledgeable as they could be or others are. I've talked to people of some religions who are very defensive and can't engage in friendly conversations because it seems like they're insecure and don't know enough to engage in dialogue, while others who are very knowledgeable have the ability to engage since they know enough and are confident enough to listen to the other side.)

[Jenna Stannis]

...do many scientists and Atheists feel the same way as Einstein did in his reply? 

I think many, if not all, scientists express a similar sense of wonder at the universe akin to that of Einstein's poetic, "religious feeling of a special sort". Einstein and other scientists, such as Stephen Hawking, use "God" as a metaphor for the beauty and wonder of the universe. As Carl Sagan once said, "[If] by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity".

Also, Einstein is actually stating that gaps in scientific knowledge are commonly filled with spiritualism.

[JLT1]

That is a very reasonable question.  Learned Hand, I have posted what I do previously.  I am a scientist in  the field of Chemistry/molecular toxicology.  I have found that most of us in that field believe in a God.  Many of us are Christian and we pray.

I have also found that the further one gets away from an experimental science, the lower the percentage of those who believe in a God.  In chemistry, I can say "I synthesized this by doing this" and other scientists need to be able to reproduce that synthesis.  I can say "I theorize this" but it needs to be experimentally verifiable before it gets widely accepted.  Too many "sciences" seem to be a popularity contest. 

Many of us who believe tend to do so because the options (i.e. evolution) are so totally out there.  I have seen so many theories in fields other than chemistry totally crash as additional evidence came to light.  Science based on pure theory really isn't science.

Hugs,

Jen

[Jenna Stannis]

Science based on pure theory really isn't science.

What? 

[Hikari]

What? 

Lol think about what she said it isn't that crazy. The scientific method really does require more than theory. When you do science you need proper controls, the ability of reproduce results etc, yet as much as I get intrigued by theoretical physics, without a hypothesis getting tested and being proven or not those theories are just theories not science.

For example Steven Hawking just wrote a paper online about how black holes as we understood them don't exist and there were some key differences that factor in quantum mechanics. People are commenting on his theory and taking it seriously because he is popular they are not  waiting on peer review or experimental results, and I think it is valid to be critical of that.

[Jenna Stannis]

Lol think about what she said it isn't that crazy.

I don't think you understand what a scientific theory is and what goes into forming one.

Btw, Hawking isn't saying that black holes don't exist. Nor has he formulated a new theory, but has rather added his opinion with regard to a long-running discussion.

Are there many leading scientists who believe in a personal God? According to this 1998 study, only 7-percent believe in a personal God: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

[JLT1]

Hi!

I am following the definition that can be easily found on Wikipedia and is well referenced:
"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." (Bold – mine).
Admittedly, there is a lot out there that we accept as fact that is actually theory.  However, there is a key point there dealing with being able to test the explanation.

I cannot test and prove that God exists as and is indeed the "uncaused cause" of everything.  I do believe that to be more probable than any other proposed explanation.

I do note that the Nature article does not mention or note chemists.  They do not give the definition of "scientists" that was used nor do they show that they had a statistical representation from each field.  They do not define what makes someone a "leading scientist".  Based on what is given, it is little more than a random opinion backed up by some type of survery.  In general, when talking about science and belief, people do not talk to chemists as it is much more convenient to ignore them. 

Jen

(edit as first post missed the bold portion)

[Hikari]

I don't think you understand what a scientific theory is and what goes into forming one.

Btw, Hawking isn't saying that black holes don't exist. Nor has he formulated a new theory, but has rather added his opinion with regard to a long-running discussion.

I understand just fine what goes into a scientific theory. My point is it isn't a stretch to think like our jlt1 does.

And I never said at all that he said they didn't exist, I said that he said they didn't exist as we knew them to. No one in the community would give an unknown scientist any real discussion who said what hawking said without peer review or being published. Hawking puts a post online and people treat it with lots of credibility because HE said it, it may be his comments have merit but to assume that someone's work merits consideration due to being popular or right in the past isn't very scientific, and in the past lots of ideas that later turned out to be incorrect we're driven largely by popularity.

[Jenna Stannis]

Hi!

I am following the definition that can be easily found on Wikipedia and is well referenced:
"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." (Bold – mine).
Admittedly, there is a lot out there that we accept as fact that is actually theory.  However, there is a key point there dealing with being able to test the explanation.

What exactly do you think a scientific theory is?

I do note that the Nature article does not mention or note chemists. They do not give the definition of "scientists" that was used nor do they show that they had a statistical representation from each field.

The actual study might (I only linked to a follow-up reference to it by one of the authors), but I'm not sure what difference it makes with regard to the level of religiousity/spirituality among scientists (as this thread seems to be concerned with).

The study focused on American scientists elected to the National Academy of Sciences. There was also another study conducted by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, who found that "among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiousity, as compared to the populations they came from". Admittedly, it's true that the further you moved away from the higher levels of respected scientists the more religious scientists you could find, but their numbers are still low compared to that of the general populations they live amongst.

In general, when talking about science and belief, people do not talk to chemists as it is much more convenient to ignore them. 

What are you basing this belief on? From what I've seen, biochemists get a look in regarding the ongoing evolution vs creationism "debate". In reality, I think most scientists don't entertain question on religion, because the questions posed to them on the subject are incomprehensible.

I cannot test and prove that God exists as and is indeed the "uncaused cause" of everything.  I do believe that to be more probable than any other proposed explanation.

What is the explanation for God -- do you have a God hypothesis? If not, how can you compare it to any of the available cosmological theories?

[/quote]

[Jenna Stannis]

I understand just fine what goes into a scientific theory.

Based on what you've said, I don't think you do. It's a very common mistake, though.

And I never said at all that he said they didn't exist, I said that he said they didn't exist as we knew them to.

So you did.

No one in the community would give an unknown scientist any real discussion who said what hawking said without peer review or being published.

Actually, that happens more than you'd think. You don't need to be peer-reviewed to express an opinion, which is what Hawking did. Hawking will attract more publicity, but that's because he has a long history with black holes. But discussions like this go on all the time.

[MadeleineG]

There's an old expression that God is a synonym for the equals sign.

[DriftingCrow]

*sigh* I was hoping this wouldn't become an "I am smarter than thou" thread which it seems like this is leading to.

Thanks for the replies.

[JLT1]

Learned Hand:

I did not mean to turn this into a battle of intellects.  That is not a battle that I would choose as it gets us nowhere.  And let's face it: I'd probably loose.  My strength is a solid work ethic and tenacity, not a stellar IQ.  Nevertheless, I am a senior PhD scientist in what is arguably the top research based company in the world. That wasn't easy.  I am also a devout Christian.  I am also a transgendered woman.  I think that makes me a walking contradiction but I am what I am.

I have been in my field for over 30 years. I have been a Christian for just slightly less. Being a Christian who is also a scientist is hard.  So many people have decided that to believe means to set aside reason. That is wrong. I go to conferences and hear Christians ridiculed.  I keep quiet but I shouldn't. It hurts.  I see the same pain in some of those with whom I work.  It is widely viewed as being settled that real scientists don't believe in God.  That is so totally wrong in the real world. However, that does seem to be true in academia. On the other hand, the same rule seems to apply in church: to be a scientist means that you do not believe:  I was asked to essentially leave my church because I was a chemist.  In reality, so many of us who have to make things that work rather than thinking thoughts and publishing BS actually know there is a God.  Selective test group to poll, but there are far more scientists in industry than teach at a University.  Besides, making things work is hard.

I hope that the discussion you wanted comes.

Hugs,

Jen

[Jenna Stannis]

Well, there you go, the following bit of research shows that, compared to other scientific fields, there does appear to be higher religiousity among chemists.

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion (Pew Research Center)
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

Religious belief among scientists varies somewhat by sex, age and scientific specialty. Younger scientists are substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God. In addition, more chemists than those in other specialties say they believe in God. More men (44%) than women (36%) say they believe neither in God nor a higher power; belief in God is comparable for men and women scientists, but more women than men profess belief in a different supreme being or higher power.

Generally speaking, however, there's significantly less religiousity among US scientists than the general population. I imagine it would be even less in countries like Australia and the UK.

The United States is a highly religious nation, especially by comparison with most Western industrialized democracies. Most Americans profess a belief in God (83%), and 82% are affiliated with a religious tradition. Scientists are different. Just a third (33%) say they believe in God, while 18% say they believe in a universal spirit or higher power and 41% say they don't believe in either.

The following comment struck me as odd for many reasons. But in this instance, I was left wondering whether the author considers "thinking thoughts" and "publishing BS" applies to the entire theological canon?

"...so many of us who have to make things that work rather than thinking thoughts and publishing BS actually know there is a God"

[JLT1]

The following comment struck me as odd for many reasons. But in this instance, I was left wondering whether the author considers "thinking thoughts" and "publishing BS" applies to the entire theological canon?

My thought on this part of my post was very the summary of so many problems I have with so many "scientists" and so many publications.  It did not have anything to do with the theological cannon.  I apologize that I wasn't clearer.

An example near to many of us on Susan's: I had just started researching the literature on the long term effects of estrogen on the health of trans-women when I read an article summarizing 30 years of data for FTMs and MTFs  from I think Norway.  The authors were very thorough.  They presented the data, they arrived at statistically relevant conclusions and they did not over-interpret the data.  Really, it was a well done publication of that type.  Over the next couple hours I read several papers that twisted, mis-quoted and generally distorted data from that paper.  If I hadn't read that first publication I would have been a little worried.  Virtually all of what followed in other publications was negative and warned of danger.  They totally twisted the study.  Yet, the warnings from those distorted papers influences HRT treatment for every MTF and FTM.   We can do so much better on HRT.  I always read YMMV about HRT here on Susan's. Yep, that is true.  However, there is no reason that it varies as much as it does. 

Another example not quite as near....  A company is looking to develop a new drug.  They isolate a compound from a plant that shows some activity and therefore could, with modification, be a possible treatment.  The plan extract just isn't potent enough.  So, in a computer, the company arrives at several hundred derivatives.  Then, they narrow it down to 60 or so that all show high levels of activity and therefore, in theory, all should work.  In some fields, at this point, derivation of a successful theory, so many scientists stop, publish the theory and run off congratulating themselves on being so smart.  However, statistics have shown that most or even all of the 60 odd compounds will be mutagens, carcinogens, toxic, tetragons, or are just nasty in so many ways.  Now, in reality, is when the hard part of science starts. Theories and insight go only so far.  At some point, they have to be tested.  And at some point, most fail.  It is the learning from the failures that often drives things forward.

I just get so tired of so much really bad science that I see published in the literature.

Jen

[JLT1]

What is the explanation for God -- do you have a God hypothesis? If not, how can you compare it to any of the available cosmological theories?

In the original post, I referenced and "uncaused cause".  That argument is a long and hard one to get to.  If you would like more, I'm going to defer to the writings on this subject by a theologian named Norman Geisler.  He may even still be alive.  He did a really good job arguing the existence of God and identified Him as the uncaused cause.  It was difficult reading for me.  However, people with a more philosophical tilt may find it interesting. 

Jen