23 Famous Scientists Who Are Not Atheists

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Many atheists are of the opinion that you cannot be a good scientist if you are deluded by religious faith.
Let’s put the kibosh to that opinion by relating the religious beliefs of eminent scientists. In the early history of science, great scientists—Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Pascal—all had a deep religious faith. But suppose the atheist responds, “That was then, this is now; we know more now to justify that believing in God is a delusion.” My response to this canard is to cite the theistic credo of present day eminent scientists, many of them Nobel Prize winners.
Most of these seem to be in the “hard” sciences, physics and chemistry, rather than in biology or medical sciences. If any of you readers have ideas about the reason why physicists are more likely to be theists than are biologists, I’d like to hear them.

Most of the information given below is drawn from “Cosmos, Bios and Theos,” by Henry Margenau, a Yale mathematical physicist, and Roy Varghese. Not all of the scientists listed in the book believe in some specific religion, or even a personal God. Many are deistic, believing in a Creator, but not necessarily a God immanent in the universe.

To read more:

https://magiscenter.com/23-famous-scientists-who-are-not-atheists/

The Magis Center was founded by a Jesuit priest.

One opinion from the article:

Professor D.H.R. Barton*** (Nobel Prize for Chemistry, conformational analysis in organic chemistry, Texas A&M University): “God is Truth. There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth.”

[Orrex]

1. Not one of them has any better idea about it than I do.

Not one. In fact, no one in recorded history, present company included, has any better idea about it than I do.

I do not believe in a creator entity because there is no real evidence that one exists. None.

At best, we have inference, wishful thinking, and the dubious claims of personal revelation.

If someone chooses to believe, then that's their business, but they haven't actually encountered any real evidence, either.

And if anyone disputes this point, I invite them to present such evidence for review (with the disclaimer that "personal revelation" is absolutely not evidence.

[Major Nikon]

4. I have a red phone to the Almighty

I just spoke to Him and surprisingly He says you are correct.

[Orrex]

9. He's cool like that.

[Doodley]

7. What evidence do you have that you ever fell in love with anyone, other than personal revelation?

[Orrex]

8. Your question is irrelevant to the discussion at hand

If you want to make the question relevant, here's how to phrase it:
what evidence do I have that the person I love or loved actually exists or existed?

To answer, I can present things such as photographs, handwriting samples, audio/video recording, and other physical evidence of the person (perhaps including the actual person) sufficient to establish that person's existence with a fair degree of certainty (except to deliberate contrarians, I suppose).

Your question, as phrased, seeks to conflate the actual existence of an unverified, transcendent entity with a mundane human's personal experience of another mundane human, and that's an intellectually dishonest comparison.

Assuming that I exist and am of competent mental faculty, then I am an acceptable judge of my own emotions, and my own perceptions are sufficient to justify my own personal assessment of those emotions.

However, even assuming that I exist and am of competent mental faculty, my own perceptions are simply not adequate to assess the existence of a unique, transcendent divine being for whom no other verifiable evidence exists--and to that end, others' testimony of experience does not add to mine, unless I can evaluate that testimony independent of their experience.

I can choose to believe in such a magical entity, but absent corroborating evidence of that entity's existence, then my belief is not sufficient to demonstrate its existence.


That type of verbal trickery, of equating transcendent phenomena to everyday occurrences, is a favorite tactic of religionists, by the way, but it's a crock.

[Doodley]

15. This is no verbal trickery. You ASSUME you are capable of accurately judging if you are/were

in love?

What makes you think you are a competent judge of the accuracy own perceptions and your emotions? You think you are, but not those that use that same argument to say they are capable of experiencing God?

Don't you accept that perception is fallible? If you do, then you should know that witness testimony can also be fallible. Witnesses could say they saw a miracle. Does that make it real? Witnesses could say they saw David Copperfield fly above the stage. Does that make it real?

Collecting physical evidence, letters, etc., does not confirm that you are in love either. For example, one individual may shower another with "evidence" of love--romantic gestures, kisses, poetry, whatever--and actually be driven by money for example.

You seem to argue that there is some kind of proof that love is a real, and that it isn't an illusion. If it is real, it would also involve free will, and you seem to assume that your perception is not fallible.

Love, free will, self-certainty -- it all sounds very spiritual.

[Orrex]

22. Meh

The same applies to you; if you're going to dismiss the assumption that a mundane human can assess mundane human perceptions, then you must certainly reject any hope that a mundane human can accurately assess the existence of a transcendent entity.

You seem to argue that there is some kind of proof that love is a real, and that it isn't an illusion. If it is real, it would also involve free will, and you seem to assume that your perception is not fallible.

For purposes of the discussion, I am willing to assume the correctness of my perceptions as they pertain to mundane matters. That's a much, much smaller assumption than "a transcendent spiritual entity exists, and my own perceptions confirm that existence in spite of the lack of any verifiable evidence."

Love, free will, self-certainty -- it all sounds very spiritual.

LOL, sure, if you're willing to assume your conclusion, as religionists generally are.

In contrast to that assumption, emotions (like love and self-certainty) are a function of neurochemical reactions, and "free will" is at best a nebulous concept.

[Doodley]

29. "...if you're willing to assume your conclusion, as religionists generally are." I'm an atheist.

However, I accept I am fallible. I accept I am an unreliable witness, as other are. I accept I am able to be deceived by my own perceptions and my own conclusions. I don't see God and science as being mutually exclusive. For a start, I don't know what God is. It may be science.

[Orrex]

31. None of that contradicts any of what I wrote

Atheist or not, you assumed your conclusion as religionists generally do.

For a start, I don't know what God is. It may be science.

If you mean that "God" is a human construct offered up as an explanation for observable phenomena, then fine. Have at it. In so doing, you reduce this "God" to a weak synonym.

[Voltaire2]

69. Neuroscience could probably identify the

functional brain state correlates of the experience of love.

[Doodley]

81. Or a religious experience or the belief of seeing a ghost.

[Voltaire2]

85. Sure, but an emotion is an internal

brain state. Ghosts beliefs are assertions about external reality.

[exboyfil]

76. Love and affection can be detected in brain scans

as well as a change in brain chemistry.

Here is just one study exploring this phenomenon.

The difference between this and a similar response in a worshiper is that the individual who have fallen in love with can be verified to actually exist (see the other excellent posts on this point).

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140206155244.htm

"Falling in love causes our body to release a flood of feel-good chemicals that trigger specific physical reactions," said Pat Mumby, PhD, co-director of the Loyola Sexual Wellness Clinic and professor, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Neurosciences, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine (SSOM). "This internal elixir of love is responsible for making our cheeks flush, our palms sweat and our hearts race."

Levels of these substances, which include dopamine, adrenaline and norepinephrine, increase when two people fall in love. Dopamine creates feelings of euphoria while adrenaline and norepinephrine are responsible for the pitter-patter of the heart, restlessness and overall preoccupation that go along with experiencing love.

MRI scans indicate that love lights up the pleasure center of the brain. When we fall in love, blood flow increases in this area, which is the same part of the brain implicated in obsessive-compulsive behaviors.

[Doodley]

80. It is still a human construct. A man might have similar physical reactions when praying - not proof

of God, is it?

[trotsky]

82. I can totally agree that "love" and "god" have the same amount of evidence of existing...

outside of a person's brain.

Can you?

[Doodley]

83. Absolutely. There is no evidence that love is any more real than God.

[Voltaire2]

86. Love is an internal brain state, an emotion,

and there is evidence it exists. You keep conflating the experience of belief in gods with assertions that gods exist in order to equate “love” and “the existence of gods”. It is an old worn out equivocation fallacy. It isn’t clever and it isn’t original.

Love and religious experiences are both internal brain states that can be measured and shown to exist. That says nothing about the existence of gods.

[guillaumeb]

19. Faith does not ask for proof.

But many scientists can accommodate faith and science. These scientists accept that the NOMA applies.

[Orrex]

23. Then faith is of no value to me.

It answers no questions and provides no comfort.

I will happily accept that NOMA applies here, once you get all of the world's religious leaders to state clearly that their faith has nothing to do with worldly matters.

[trotsky]

24. Nor is faith of value for the pursuit of knowledge.

Since it "does not ask for proof," as guillaumeb says, then it is indistinguishable from fiction.

Good to see you around, Orrex!

[guillaumeb]

27. If that is your opinion, and it works for you, good. eom

[Orrex]

32. I appreciate that, but it's not that simple

My opinion works for me, in part because I don't force it on others. Organized religion absolutely forces its opinion on others, generally to the detriment of women, children, non-white males, and the LGBT community as a whole.

[guillaumeb]

33. Many in the hierarchies of the various religions do advocate for their own views.

Abortion is one example of that, where some feel that they have the right to determine what all women can do with their own bodies.

And that is one reason for the Founders desire for separation of Church and State.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. 'Many' in this case is 'infintestmally small' compared to the population.

When you're down in the single-digit percentages of a given population, it's unwise to tout the members as somehow proving a point.
Also, eyeballing the ones I recognize, you're talking a mean of 70+ years old. These people are from a very different era.

[edhopper]

65. Shhh!

Don't ruin the narrative.

[Harker]

2. On a personal note...

may I add my pal Dr. Robert Bakker? Bobs a paleontologist and a minister.

There's room for all.

[guillaumeb]

28. Yes, you may add him.

There is room for all.

[alittlelark]

3. Quantum physics is changing reality as we 'knew it'

Scientists who are not personally invested in concrete thinking see new and amazing possibilities.

This is an amazing time to be alive.

[ret5hd]

5. Quantum!!!

Tell us of these quantum/religious possibilities!

[alittlelark]

6. Sounds like u have 'concrete' beliefs

..... only those with open minds should try to enter the realms of CERN

[Orrex]

13. LOL. Sure.

[ret5hd]

16. So you got nothin'.

[Major Nikon]

10. No, reality remains constant

Our understanding of that reality progresses forward as it always has in spite of the efforts of organized religion to return to a regressive mindset where the inevitable answer to ignorance on questions about our physical world is hocus pocus metaphysical babble.

[alittlelark]

11. I recognize that there is great fear

Concerning 'Change". Organized religion is not involved. These are FUNDAMENTAL changes to previously accepted RULES.

Many are scared because they built their reality around 'rules' that are being broken by experiments and research.

[Major Nikon]

12. Which is more or less exactly how it should work

We should approach new ideas with skepticism, but embrace those ideas when the preponderance of evidence favors them.

[Orrex]

14. But! But! But CERN!

And did you forget about Quantum? It's all things to all people!

[guillaumeb]

17. Never confuse "reality" with one person's perceptions and unprovable assertions.

And that seems to be a problem for some here.

[trotsky]

21. Yes, the unprovable assertion that gods exist.

We know.

We also know that atheism is the rejection of god claims, and not necessarily the assertion that no gods exist.

But then again, that destroys YOUR entire narrative, so you'll continue to misrepresent others.

Watch, you'll do it right here.

[Major Nikon]

30. Yes, "we" does not mean all of us

Some will continue with their strawman bullshit that rejection of an unprovable assertion MUST include another unprovable assertion.

The interesting part is regardless of how often they are cold hard busted on their fallacy, they will continue to repeat it. It’s almost like the propaganda technique employed by the orange man where a lie will somehow magically become truth if it’s repeated enough. I suppose some simply have no other choice but to play to their fan club.

[trotsky]

39. Well, to be honest, it's literally their last, best defense.

"I know you are but what am I."

[guillaumeb]

18. One frequent poster here asked if there are any scientists who are theists.

So I provided this link.

And yes, some here are invested in their own narrative that includes the idea that theism=delusional thinking.

[trotsky]

20. Who asked that?

And you do realize, that a person can be delusional about one thing, yet completely competent in their career, right?

[Voltaire2]

25. Yes but because quantum reasons gods!

[guillaumeb]

26. MM. reply #82

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=319887

And do you realize that this applies to you as well?

[trotsky]

37. Technically you're not answering the question that was asked.

But regardless, Mariana's reply to you in the other thread (why oh why do you insist on starting a new thread to answer a question in a different one, anyway?) is the only one needed.

[Mariana]

42. There's no need for you to lie about MineralMan's post, Gil.

MineralMan did not ask if there are any scientists who are theists. He asked you to name some. Lying about other people's posts is not conducive to dialogue, Gil.

[guillaumeb]

45. An interesting way of reframing what MM said.

And my response to him.

He asked, I answered.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. You are wildly misconstruing that thread.

Bernardo de La Paz post #76 was DIRECTLY in reference to scientists of faith on the subject of global warming.
Your response to that was imprecise, but MM could fairly assume you meant scientists that have something to do with climate.

None of your '25' are climate-related to my knowledge. None. Not a single one. You've basically referenced random people with no expertise here, in a thread that was clearly about climate science.

[Major Nikon]

66. Misframing!

You have no proof that he has no proof he didn't duplicitously misrepresent that entire conversation to hell and back in another thread of his creation specifically intended for that purpose.

Checkmate atheists!

[MineralMan]

55. Wrong. I asked you to name some.

Last edited Fri Nov 1, 2019, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

So, you started a new thread to remove your response from the thread in which I asked that question, because you wanted to change what I asked to a more convenient question. I won't play. Oh, well...

[Coleman]

34. Newton was also an alchemist

Does that mean alchemy is true?
Also Newton was a religious nutjob. He wrote more about religion than physics. For him to become the Lucasian Professor of Mathmatics at Cambridge he had to get a waiver because he was not a member of the Church of England. You see he did not accept the trinity.

[guillaumeb]

35. When did Isaac Newton live?

What is considered to be science has evolved.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Look at the ages of the 25 you cited. Freeman Dyson is 95 years old.

When he was born, alcohol was illegal and women had just won the right to vote.

[guillaumeb]

36. Welcome to DU, and the conversation.

This post was triggered by a question in another post.

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. Do you not see how insulting this shit is?

Or is it that you just don't care?

[trotsky]

40. Gil loves to shine attention on the majority.

There's always gonna be some in the crowd who need to have their "white history month" or "straight pride parade."

[Act_of_Reparation]

41. Yeah, but you can martyr yourself without directly tearing other people down.

Like, the author could have just said, "Here's 23 Scientists of Faith" and left it at that.

But no, the author had to add, "These guys aren't ATHEISTS". It's obvious the intent was to take something away from us. Something we never had in the first place. Like mugging a naked man.

[Mariana]

43. When You're Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression.

Gil can always be counted upon to illustrate the truth of that quote.

[guillaumeb]

47. A nice slogan.

Does privilege apply to you as well?

[Act_of_Reparation]

53. Tu quoque.

Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

[guillaumeb]

63. I recognize my own.

But some seem to feel they have none.

[Act_of_Reparation]

71. If you did, you wouldn't be posting half of what you post.

[guillaumeb]

74. Do you recognize your own? eom

[Act_of_Reparation]

75. More than somewhat.

I presume you've devised some metric by which to test my self-awareness?

[guillaumeb]

84. Not at all.

But your own answer shows that you are indeed well aware.

[Major Nikon]

67. When cold hard busted on employing intellectually dishonest fallacies...

the true propagandist will simply double down.

[trotsky]

44. Well, the same staff apparently also runs the parent site "Credible Catholic."

https://www.crediblecatholic.com/about-us/

And those folks are worried.

Successive PEW surveys have shown that religion is on a steep decline. Our youth is particularly hard hit. In 2016, those aged 18 – 29 selected “none” as their religious affiliation 39% of the time (hence the nickname “nones”). This is up from 23% in 2006. This will grow to 50% by 2023 if left unabated. This mass exodus is being driven by secular myths that misstate the facts.

Very scientific reasoning there. Certainly can't be anything unappealing about our religion or its views on equality, sexuality, or reproduction - it must be those cursed secular myths!

[Mariana]

59. LOL, did you see what they listed as "secular myths"?

Briefly stated, the four primary myths that need to be addressed are:

1) Science has proven God does not exist.

I don't think anyone, anywhere believes this.

2) Suffering proves God does not exist. If God was all loving and all powerful he would and could stop suffering.

This is not a myth - a god that inflicts suffering isn't all loving, by any definition of the word "love".

3) Humans are just like other animals – a bunch of conglomerated atoms and molecules – there is no proof of any transcendent “soul” within us.

This is not a myth - there is no proof of any transcendent "soul" within us.

4) There is no proof at all that Jesus was anything special and certainly not divine. There is no real proof of his existence or resurrection – just myths.

This is not a myth - there is no real proof of Jesus's existence or resurrection.

[trotsky]

60. Ain't straw men grand? n/t

[Major Nikon]

68. It would be funny enough if that's all there was to it

Example of secular myth:

3) Humans are just like other animals – a bunch of conglomerated atoms and molecules – there is no proof of any transcendent “soul” within us.

I'd love to hear an explanation of how this is anything but delusional.

[exboyfil]

77. Humans are not just like other animals

Evolution has resulted in us having, in general, greater intelligence and abstract thinking.

On the other hand physiologically we are made up the same building blocks as other life. Also looking at our great ape cousins and the fossil record, when were imbued with a soul? The difference between us and a chimp is in degree and not kind. Who else has a soul: Neanderthal, Australopithecus, Habilis, or Erectus?

[MineralMan]

78. A soul? Please describe the human soul.

Where is it located? How do you know it even exists?

[exboyfil]

79. I can't

I don't think consciousness exists after the brain chemistry ends. I don't think humans are privileged with anything transcendental beyond other animals.

[guillaumeb]

46. Nonsense.

Do you realize how insulting the constant replies equating theism with delusion are?

Or is it that you simply do not care?

[Bretton Garcia]

49. Or perhaps we are following Freud.

A very smart and hugely influential doctor. Who said that "all religion is delusion."

[guillaumeb]

50. Could Dunning Kruger apply also to Freud's assertion? eom

[edhopper]

51. You still haven't grasped

the D-K effect.

[Voltaire2]

61. I'm sure he meant the Dunder Mifflin effect.

[guillaumeb]

62. Some here obviously have not. eom

[edhopper]

64. Especially you

as was explained ad nasium to you on your D-K thread.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

52. Swing and a miss.

You might want to take up a different sport.

[Bretton Garcia]

48. Why so many in the.hard sciences among believers? There's a reason.

The author says he'd like to hear why; but his blog does not allow comments.

But the explanation is all too easy; academics in the hard sciences don't know much about human biology, and human culture studies. Which are often all too clearly telling us where religion is coming from; in an all too concrete - and highly disillusioning - ways. Religion coming from flawed human social institutions, etc..

[Act_of_Reparation]

54. "Scientists" are humans.

Most humans are theists. Most scientists are theists. In my experience, their being theists has little to do with their occupations. They were brought up theist, like most of us.

[Voltaire2]

70. Pew says 33% are theists.

And that was 10 years ago. Likely lower now.

[Act_of_Reparation]

72. 51%

33% believe in God.

18% don't believe in God, but believe in a "universal spirit or higher power"... which means they believe in God.

[Voltaire2]

73. 51 some form of higher power, 33 theists.

Pew (deliberately?) makes this more complicated than it needs to be.