Why aren t all scientists atheist?

There's an ole saying here in America. To each her or his own & this means each of us can choose what we want. Mike

The mind has compartments, so one person can be wise in some areas and foolish in others. Some intelligent men allow immature emotions to overpower mature Reason when it comes to religion. Dr. Carl Gustav Jung pointed out that a man who is strong in the Thinking endopsychic function is weak in situations in which Feelings prevail. The professor may fall for the chambermaid, and the scientist may be religious.

Science (as it is practiced today) evolved from the work of people of the Church. The first basic rule of science (for testing theories) came from a Friar (William of Ockham) who popularized Lex Parcimoinae (the modern version being: if you have more than one explanation for something, begin with the simplest that can be verified).

For many centuries after that, only the Church had the resources (people and money) to open centres of research and understanding (ancestors to universities) in many countries, and to link them with a communication system (courriers - the ancestor of mail).

Which brings us to the theory that came from the mathematical model by Father Lemaitre had a hard time against the Steady State theory by a famous atheist. From the publication of the theory from the priest's idea (1948), we had to wait until 1964 until better radiotelescopes started showing the evidence that favored the theory that came from the priest's idea.

Until that time, Lex Parcimoniae guided scientists towards the atheist theory (simpler and it did not require some kind of "creation" of the universe).

Now that evidence disproved what had been, until then, the preferred theory (Steady State), we are left with the priest's idea (the theory nicknamed "Big Bang") as a way to explain how God wanted the universe to evolve.

Father Lemaitre said, of the theory, that it was based on scientific principles so that it should work, even for atheists.

And because of this, many scientists are wary of using science as a tool to determine whether there exists a god or not. We stick to explain how things work.

IF (a big if) things were set in motion by the creation of a god, then what science does is explain HOW that god makes it work. Science does not get into the WHY She would have done it that way.

Science has little to say about morals, ethics and how to live life. That is the field of religion. Most scientists, and sensible religionists understand this.

The problem only arises where a small minority of mad religionists insist that the Bible, usually Genesis, is literally true. That creates conflict with scientific explanations of the creation of the universe and Earth. Unfortunately these loonies are very, very noisy and create conflict where no conflict is necessary.

There is nothing incompatible between being a scientist and believing in God. Some scientists believe that the laws of nature were created by God, and those laws of natures can be understood using a scientific methodology. Where most scientists draw the line are the ridiculous bliblical ideas of Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark, great flood, Ad nauseam, all of which are nonsensical violations of physical laws.

Because, while people are capable of rational thought, our brains have evolved for quick, accurate decisions from insufficient data. We make our decisions on emotional reactions, with most recent information given highest priority and negative associations rated more important that positive ones.

Because logic can neither prove nor disprove the existence of any god, be it Jehovah or the flying spaghetti monster. That leads to agnosticism, which, I think, is the most popular "religion" among biologists. Astronomers and physicists seem to be the most likely to be theists.

Think of it this way. Why do most people follow a religion? It is because it was the religion of their parents. My parents were Catholic and that is how they brought me up. We were never a devote or pious family and did not go to church every Sunday. Therefore, I grew up labelled Catholic but with no real sense of devotion or religious conviction. I think when I became a scientist and understood that evidence is the life blood of science I became an atheist. I had no particular devotion or attachment to the Catholic Church. Once I realised there is no evidence for the existence of any gods I easily became an atheist.

Other scientists may have grown up in a household where religion played a much more important role. During their most formative and impressionable years they "learnt" their religion from the people they trusted the most - their parents. Even though these men and women understand the importance of science they cannot give up their religion. I have not experienced it and sometimes imagine it is like following your family's traditions at Christmas.

I believe a good example in Kenneth Miller. Prof Miller is a professor of Cell Biology at Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. He was a leading expert witness for the plaintiff (i.e. supporting evolution) in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Yet, every Sunday he goes to Mass in a Catholic church and believes that small, thin, round wafers of unleavened bread and a volume of wine actually, really, truly become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus the Christ. I am afraid I cannot explain this!

It is quite simple. Science is about how nature works. It does not address the question of the supernatural or the spiritual. The one is not incompatible with the other UNLESS you wish to claim that the supernatural or spirit is acting on nature in ways that are not consistent with reality.

This is where the main conflict arises between science and religion. Science shows us that things work in a certain way. The religious who are offended that science was unable to confirm what they were taught, then argue that reality as revealed by scientific investigations is wrong.

But it is not a requirement that one denies god to accept science (or the reverse). The one is often a confirmation of the other, for many people. Not me, personally, but I know many who are both religious and excellent scientists.

The existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved. God, if He exists, is outside what can be resolved by the Scientific Method. Thus, it is a matter of belief (faith). You must believe one or the other without a shred of evidence to support your belief. So, believe what you wish.