Why do many scientists dislike religion?

I know the goal of scientists is to be objective so they don't want anything subjective like religion within their research. However, I believe that religion is not such a silly thing as many scientists believe in it, and I do like the morals that religion teaches, and I think that scientists don't like religion because they don't feel comforted by the principles that religion teaches. The problem I believe lies within the fact that MANY scientists are VERY literal. They take what I like to call a plain text approach. They don't like seeing anything unless it can be proven. Then they try to have some explanation for it. They don't like to believe that there are things that exist that are unseen (like faith, UFO's, god, destiny). Is it just that scientists have come to dislike religion based on the history of religion not accepting science's ideas? Is that why many scientists are against letting religion within their works? Could it be that this issue stems from a long time ago... where the church... denounced a lot of scientific claims because it interfered with their beliefs?

If that is the case then why are there scientists that still feel that way today? I see nothing wrong with religion and the values that it teaches. Yet there are scientists out there that feel like they want to "prove religion wrong" in a sense. It is my personal opinion that scientists shouldn't have the final say on these matters as if they were to have an opinion on religion they would have to be subjective, and, that is something they cannot do, so, they would rather be objective and disbelieve religion. But why do they want to prove religion wrong? What would they have against religion-- which-- in the right cases-- can be very beneficial to many people?

Science and religion are two ways of looking at the world. I just think scientists should be more tolerable toward religion and other ways of thinking.

What are your thoughts?

I believe having a little faith in life is necessary. Sure I don't believe some things in religion but there are so many things out there that even science can't even explain. I would though find it hypocritical if scientist didn't believe in religion but believed in faith to even a certain degree.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Science and religion are two ways of looking at the world. I just think scientists should be more tolerable toward religion and other ways of thinking.

What are your thoughts?

What?

At the same time, religion bashes science. They have been bashing it ever since the first sciences were investigated.

Take Galileo for example, he ended up being under house arrest and was forbidden to teach his findings because they did not fit in with the Catholic churches beliefs. He was called a heretic for simply discovering that the Earth was not the centre of the universe and it rotated around the sun

And who can forget all the flack Darwin has copped. Religion hates him to due to the fact that he provided an alternative theory to creationism.

In my opinion it seems as though religion was trying to suppress science......starting to understand scientists views yet?

Anyway, religion should respect science and science should respect religion, but we all know that members from both areas will never do this, so next time why dont you try and see it from the opposite view point too

[edit on 20/7/2008 by OzWeatherman]

reply to post by Frankidealist35


The great E.O. Wilson, who (I think) coined the term "sociobiology", was an ardent atheist throughout most of his career. Lately though, he has made an abrupt 180 degree turn and accepted religion provisionally.

This subject is really broad, and if you have an interest, I would recommend watching the interviews on meaningoflife.tv. There are many scientists, of a variety of religious or irreligious attitudes, who weigh in on some of the topics where science and religion converge.

Here is a portion of the interview of E.O. Wilson, where he discusses science and religion.

meaningoflife.tv...

Albert Einstein once said, "Religion without science is ignorant; Science without religion is blind."

Many sceptical scientists have become believers in a Creator after they have studied, because of the beauty and complexity of our existance. Many believers have been turned away from their belief, because of the random and meaningless picture of the universe that science paints.

It all depends on what you build your house on I guess... two legs or one? I just prefer to lay a thick slab of love for my foundation, and then the argument between science and religion doesn't seem that important anymore.

[edit on 21/7/2008 by sollie]

Religious beliefs result from religious mental conditioning. Without mental conditioning there are no beliefs. If you doubt this, seek cult deprogrammers and ask them if deprogramming cult members is easy or difficult.

Religions were created by man to subjugate man. Since the christian religion was instigated by Constantine and since there is no historical evidence for the reality of jesus then it stands to reason that only the mentally-conditioned are the religious believers.

Those that are not mentally-conditioned are called atheists, or without beliefs.

You cannot have a cult of individuals.

It seems to me as though there are plenty of scientists who have faith - just as there are plenty of scientists lacking faith. Scientists are people, just like the rest of us - they don't come in a one-size-fits-all package.

And honestly, I think this - the stereotype that scientists are set against religion - is yet another way to provide mindless controversy. Keep the masses angry at everyone else for the slightest imaginary offenses, and they won't actually be angry about anything at all. Bread and circus. Divide and conquer.

There is such a thing as a "mystical experience", which is ineffable and completely unquantifiable. Sure, you can take MRIs or measure heart rate, or galvanic response, but none of that gets an observer any closer to the experience itself.

The experience is such that the subject/object dichotomy inherent in normal consciousness is dissolved. This makes pure scientific study of it impossible. Most scientists are rigidly conditioned to be dispassionate and detached, and so doing what it takes to precipitate a religious experience is entirely anathema to modern scientists.

Most of the major religions have some form of mystical influence, which is to say that the founders of major religions seem to be aware of the experience, and have developed iconographies which are informed by it, but the experience itself is not so very common among people. Religions as practiced by people who have no first-hand knowledge of the Godhead, are little more than myth at best, and bludgeons at worst.

So, you have two groups who are typically equally ignorant in regards to some certain fundamental facts. Religionists like to say "You scientists have your realm, and we have our own." The scientist likes to say "No, your beliefs affect things like politics, culture, economies, technology, and so forth, and therefore your realm is subject to our measurements." And then the fights start.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by applebiter]

Not really dislike

Mostly they do not believe.


Well they have their reasons and justifications

So one can say - This is BS - if god exists god would prove itself and not keep us in the dark


THere are thousands of things people can say to disbelieve in religion or a god.

Originally posted by Kontagion
It seems to me as though there are plenty of scientists who have faith - just as there are plenty of scientists lacking faith. Scientists are people, just like the rest of us - they don't come in a one-size-fits-all package.

And honestly, I think this - the stereotype that scientists are set against religion - is yet another way to provide mindless controversy. Keep the masses angry at everyone else for the slightest imaginary offenses, and they won't actually be angry about anything at all. Bread and circus. Divide and conquer.

You speak some truth which baffles me. Since scientists depend on evidence to come to their conclusions, it is sort-of strange that there are some scientists who believe in a deity, especially the judeo/christian deity, or god. There are no gods 'cause if there were we'd have to deal with Egyptian gods, jewish god (thou shall have no other gods before me[!]), and all of the ancient Greek, Roman, etc., gods.

Obviously, the scientists that "have faith" have not done any religious research for if they had they would see that, in reality, there are no gods, only those created by humans. I do not think that scientists are "against religion." Some atheist scientists may be outspoken at the mindless set of religion but I haven't read anything along these lines.

Originally posted by applebiter
There is such a thing as a "mystical experience", which is ineffable and completely unquantifiable. Sure, you can take MRIs or measure heart rate, or galvanic response, but none of that gets an observer any closer to the experience itself.

The experience is such that the subject/object dichotomy inherent in normal consciousness is dissolved. This makes pure scientific study of it impossible. Most scientists are rigidly conditioned to be dispassionate and detached, and so doing what it takes to precipitate a religious experience is entirely anathema to modern scientists.

Most of the major religions have some form of mystical influence, which is to say that the founders of major religions seem to be aware of the experience, and have developed iconographies which are informed by it, but the experience itself is not so very common among people. Religions as practiced by people who have no first-hand knowledge of the Godhead, are little more than myth at best, and bludgeons at worst.

So, you have two groups who are typically equally ignorant in regards to some certain fundamental facts. Religionists like to say "You scientists have your realm, and we have our own." The scientist likes to say "No, your beliefs affect things like politics, culture, economies, technology, and so forth, and therefore your realm is subject to our measurements." And then the fights start.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by applebiter]

As I found out during my period of psychedelics back in the '60s, the brain is quite capable of creating "mystical experiences" without the need to resort to religion. At the time it was said that once you had even one psychedelic experience, you didn't need to ingest anything to have a repeat. I "tripped" hundreds of times and always required taking something for the brain to be activated for whatever came.

Religions like to claim that they have some sort of in with the gods which gift them with "mystical experience." There is nothing as a religious experience except to those that are mentally conditioned to create their religious experiences. One never knows if the ancient "mystics" ingested something that made them think they contacted the gods and everyone else around them thought that the "mystic" or experiencer really had some connection they didn't. First priest!

Originally posted by Crystalbaraland

As I found out during my period of psychedelics back in the '60s, the brain is quite capable of creating "mystical experiences" without the need to resort to religion. At the time it was said that once you had even one psychedelic experience, you didn't need to ingest anything to have a repeat. I "tripped" hundreds of times and always required taking something for the brain to be activated for whatever came.

Religions like to claim that they have some sort of in with the gods which gift them with "mystical experience." There is nothing as a religious experience except to those that are mentally conditioned to create their religious experiences. One never knows if the ancient "mystics" ingested something that made them think they contacted the gods and everyone else around them thought that the "mystic" or experiencer really had some connection they didn't. First priest!

I wonder whether you are too quick to judge religion harshly. I've had two drugless experiences, and yes, I precipitated them from a kind of self-guided obsession with ontology, metaphysics, and some hard science.

There is a principle behind the formation of religion, I think, that is true and real, and not just an artifact of brain chemicals. So I'm saying that the mystical experience might turn on your radio receiver, but if it is drug-induced, there isn't any signal to follow.

Human communication is not arbitrary. Civilizations do not rise and fall just because everyone is as ignorant as you used to be. Religions are more than accidents; they're guideposts on the map of human understanding, writ large by brilliant human beings who came before us, who knew what we know, and more.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by applebiter]

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
... They don't like to believe that there are things that exist that are unseen (like faith, UFO's, god, destiny).

I'd be willing to bet that more scientists would believe UFO/Alien existence then that of religion.

I see nothing wrong with religion and the values that it teaches.

Values such as intolerance?

Science and religion are two ways of looking at the world.

Yes, one of those views has been the cause of almost every war this planet has ever seen, the other advances our civilization.





[edit on 21-7-2008 by johneboy]

I'd like to say that I'm not saying that all scientists are against science. I just believe that many scientists are too objective, and, there are quite a few scientists that want to shed light on religion... but there are also many other scientists who try to make theories that just are made to outrage Christian people or people of other religion... yet they don't try to make sense of many of the valid points that religion brings up... like with genetics... it's like they think we're animals... but we're actually much smarter than any other animal. We aren't just a bunch of codes. We've evolved beyond that. We have our own moral codes. Animals do not. Yet there are scientists that think of us as animals.

Originally posted by johneboy
Yes, one of those views has been the cause of almost every war this planet has ever seen, the other advances our civilization.

I've looked at that perspective. I dwelt there for a while. Science is a tool. Any craftsman will tell you that one should always try to use the right tool for the job.

If it's your will to apply science, then do it with rigor. Know the method. Understand all the steps. Be parsimonious, by all means, and careful. Science as a micro-culture has every bit as much potential to become an example of alienation. That is, a creation of humans that begins to act upon them as if outside of their control.

Isn't that the problem with religion?

Originally posted by applebiter
Science is a tool. Any craftsman will tell you that one should always try to use the right tool for the job.

Isn't that the problem with religion?

I won't argue that science can be used for good, or evil. My issue with religion is that, it serves no good.



[edit on 22-7-2008 by johneboy]

Originally posted by applebiter

Originally posted by Crystalbaraland

As I found out during my period of psychedelics back in the '60s, the brain is quite capable of creating "mystical experiences" without the need to resort to religion. At the time it was said that once you had even one psychedelic experience, you didn't need to ingest anything to have a repeat. I "tripped" hundreds of times and always required taking something for the brain to be activated for whatever came.

Religions like to claim that they have some sort of in with the gods which gift them with "mystical experience." There is nothing as a religious experience except to those that are mentally conditioned to create their religious experiences. One never knows if the ancient "mystics" ingested something that made them think they contacted the gods and everyone else around them thought that the "mystic" or experiencer really had some connection they didn't. First priest!

I wonder whether you are too quick to judge religion harshly. I've had two drugless experiences, and yes, I precipitated them from a kind of self-guided obsession with ontology, metaphysics, and some hard science.

There is a principle behind the formation of religion, I think, that is true and real, and not just an artifact of brain chemicals. So I'm saying that the mystical experience might turn on your radio receiver, but if it is drug-induced, there isn't any signal to follow.

Human communication is not arbitrary. Civilizations do not rise and fall just because everyone is as ignorant as you used to be. Religions are more than accidents; they're guideposts on the map of human understanding, writ large by brilliant human beings who came before us, who knew what we know, and more.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by applebiter]

Religion is the worst concept perpetrated by humans upon humans. Religions require fear and wars. There are no gods, every single one was created by humans. The judeo/christian concept of a god is as flawed as can be imagined. Religion stunted progress on this planet. Without religion we would have developed far more than we have.

No one can say a good word about religion.

Religion is based on faith that something is true, and science deals with proving it.

Religious fanatics have mental illness I think and *need* to believe in something else. Science shows it doesn't exist, and so they bash it.

Other people can't handle the idea that it's just us down here on Earth, and that when we die - well, we go back to something.

Science is cold and hard - either it exists or it doesn't.

Me personally - I think religion is completely fabricated. If only one religion was correct in its assertions, we wouldn't have the 100 or so religions out there, and "faith" wouldn't be required as we'd have (scientific) proof.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


There is no such thing as "scientific proof." Scientist interpret evidence and reach a consensus. Scientific proof changes daily as scientist learn more about the evidence they are seeking to interpret. Some scientist fall into the trap of refusing to believe any interpretaion that challenges their scientic beliefs. This IMHO is ignorance. Science has and continues to teach us much about the world in which we live. But we must be willing to challenge their interpretaions just as we challenge all beliefs systems. Evidence is not proof, it is only an observation. Interpretation is not proof, it is only an opinion.

Many religions create walls where none should be.