Religious Scientists: An Oxymoron?

Yes, yes, and yes: many scientists have God-beliefs. If you argue that this is evidence for a God, you are committing the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad populum (Argument from numbers), which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so (Wikipedia).

An Oxymoron is a figure of speech that juxtaposes concepts with opposing meanings within a word or phrase that creates an ostensible self-contradiction (Wikipedia). I hold that a religious scientist is inconsistent with his/her/they thinking, as is reflected in my image below. Thus, I hold that the two words together are an oxymoron. If you disagree, as most religious scientists would, let's just agree to disagree. 

I have posted on this subject a few times before and this will be my last post on the unfortunate situation.

Scientist vs. Science: A Reminder

"Professor Avi Loeb has had a pioneering career in astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology. He's authored hundreds of academic papers on topics like black holes and the early days of the universe, collaborated on projects with the legendary Stephen Hawking and helmed Harvard's astronomy department for almost a decade, longer than anyone in the department's history.

 
"But despite an impressive resume that runs deep inside some of the world's most revered institutions, Loeb has found himself at odds with the mainstream of science in recent years over his most controversial hypothesis. He's become increasingly convinced a space object many other astronomers assume is just a peculiar space rock is really a piece of alien technology sent in our direction by some sort of extraterrestrial civilization."

This is a classical example of accepting an unsupported hypothesis, and it's a shame that such a noted scientist, who SPECIALIZES in this area of science, has firm views outside of supporting evidence. It is no different than the more common "Black Knight" conspiracy theory, or a religious scientist.

Click on the link below:

Harvard's Avi Loeb more sure than ever we were visited by alien spacecraft

Scientific Consensus

Religious apologists frequently will point to religious scientists, either in the past or present, and use the fallacy of numbers to support the notion that science and religion are compatible. However, they ignore the fact that members of the ELITE scientific organizations in the USA (National Academy of Sciences) and the UK (the Royal Society) overwhelmingly reject the claims for the supernatural and a God because of the lack of evidence. The fact that some scientists personally accept these unsupported claims is much different than science as a discipline accepting them: it doesn't (full-stop).

These religious people misunderstand the concept of Scientific Consensus, which is nicely and concisely presented in this link, some of which is below:

"I like to imagine the scientific method as resembling the solar system. The planets, traveling in perfect orbits, represent the pillars of the scientific method: Observations, hypotheses, predictions/experiments, and continuous refinements.

"What holds all of this together -- the inward tug of gravity in this analogy -- is consensus. We often call it "theory," but that's just a different word for consensus. Every scientific field has a unifying theory: for biology, it is evolution; for chemistry, atomic theory; and for physics, quantum mechanics and general relativity. We could replace the word "theory" with "consensus," and the meaning would essentially be the same."

Listen To Science, NOT Some Scientists

One common obfuscation by religious apologists is to hold up particular scientists as examples of the falsehood that religion and science are compatible. Below are three examples of noted scientists not using their science skills in understanding reality:

• "Why do some scientists believe in God? Has science proven God's existence? Here, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, Dr. John Lennox, and Dr. Francis Collins use science and religious apologetics to argue for God. Lennox defends Christianity against the problem of evil, Collins uses the fine-tuning argument, and Schroeder "proves" the Biblical God using a creative argument of his own. He claims you will "believe in God in 5 minutes." These men are smart, but even smart people believe weird things sometimes. My atheism and skepticism still feel unchallenged for now."

Click on the link below:

3 Scientists, 3 Awful Arguments

Even Many Scientists Compartmentalize

Unfortunately, it is not only the public-at-large that thinks science and religion are compatible.  Many scientists also are religious.  You may ask, why do I have a problem with this?  Simple: science has falsified all interventionist religions.  Thus, what religious scientists are doing is compartmentalizing. Even some members of elite scientific organizations of the "hard" sciences are religious (link).

All of this sad state of affairs is why I promote science-based thinking and do not look at individuals' views on religion.  I urge that one not look at individual scientist's views on reality but what science itself is actually saying about it.