mormonsandscience

Yes, it is true. These men were both some of the greatest science minds ever, as well as devoutly religious.

Here are some interesting points that you've not included.

1- Most if not all of these early scientists went through a great deal of mental and emotional anguish as they saw their discoveries conflict with their religion. Some chose to quit science and pursue a strictly religious path. Some were forced to quit or were sent into exile in more tolerant and secular countries. Some were burned at the stake.

2- The progress of science was slowed because some significant works were delayed, hidden and never published or even tossed out due to fear of the church or the effect on the devout. See "Descartes's Secret Notebook: A True Tale of Mathematics, Mysticism, and the Quest to Understand the Universe" and even Darwin's "Origin" was delayed many years because he didn't want to hurt his devout wife. Of course we know what happened to Galileo and Bruno. Galileo attempted to soften the blow to the church by hiding his findings as a hypothetical conversation rather than a clear statement of facts. Newton seemed to abandon true science late in life to follow his mystical beliefs.

3- While these men were devout, their work laid the very foundation of secularism.

4- They lived in a time where scepticism, no matter how mild, got you killed or at least discredited.

5- The prevailing religious beliefs for 1500 years hindered the very thought, let alone a rigorous inquiry of the nature of the world. Imagine where science would be if the original ideas of the Aristotle and Heraclides were pursued without being discouraged or dashed by religious belief.

So, turning your point on its head, it seems clear to me that the devotion of these great men, others like them, those that could have been like them and the ruling religious governments hindered the progress of science. Even today we see religious, political and economic influences struggling to hinder science. Stem cells, global warming and, alas, after 200 years and piles upon piles of solid science, evolution is still being fought by religion.

In this light I can understand why science today is held strictly as a secular endeavor.

Don't lump all scientists in the atheistic dustbin. Many -- not just LDS -- are believers. And among those who say they are not, a great many are actually agnostic. Part of the problem, I would submit, is bad theology, not bad science or other hundrances.

Stan,

Thanks for your comment.

Let’s not confuse these men’s religious convictions with the Catholic Church. Their personal religious beliefs did not hinder their science or ability to carry out science in a rigorous fashion. The Church did hinder their work did espouse doctrines and opinions that contradicted some of their personal views – this created some headaches at least for Galileo, Newton and, Descartes.

But it is important to note that these men were very comfortable with the relationship between their belief in God and their science. There was no real conflict between their personal beliefs and science.

These men are called pioneers of the scientific revolution because they revolutionized science from the way it was being done during the so called dark ages. They rejected church sponsored neo-platonism and artistotelian scholasticism. They pioneered a rigorous science that continues to this day. The only major difference between what they did and what we do today is that modern science has expunged God completely. They would not be comfortable with the godless face of science today.

I'd like to hear what Mr Faux has to say on this topic since he is himself a devout scientist... kindof a modern day Newton or DesCartes. =:)

Dave, I know you are in a science related field, but I don't know what. =:(

Btw, the book I referenced earlier, DesCartes Secret Notebook... read it!

Thank you, Stan, for referring to me as "kind of" a modern day Newton or Descartes. Wow, I wish that were true. (Or, maybe I am not the "Mr. Faux" to whom he refers).

I half agree with Dave C., but I do appreciate his enthusiasm for God.

And, yes, I am irritated by Dawkins, not because he is an atheist, but because he misuses science to promote his cause.

Science needs to be neutral about those realms where it knows nothing. But, the scientist can and often does go to religious services. Religion is NOT an intellectual deficiency in the scientific character. But, theology has no role in science.

Can we look to nature and be religiously inspired? Sure. But, science has to be about the pursuit of naturalistic explanation.

I have no problem if a Henry Eyring-like scientist recognizes God in his or her life. Such is a good thing. I only have a problem if the scientist starts building "God" into his or her equations.

Dave C. says, " these [famous scientific] men would disagree with the claim that allowing supernatural beliefs into science will hinder the latter." Dave C. needs to give me a specific example where the supernatural has played any role in a scientific explanation. I cannot think of a single one.

All this aside, I do find myself wishing that Charles Darwin had gone to Church with his sweet wife Emma. Scientific data give no basis for rejecting fundamental religious ideas.

Dave C:

I believe that you are NOT arguing for theistic science. But, sometimes your language is ambiguous, as if advocating a Paley-like natural theology. Is this intentional?

My experience with science (the art of making systematic observations) is that we can learn a lot about nature but very little or nothing about God. In any case, science is an extremely inefficient method for doing theology.

In fact, I just tell my college students: "If you want to learn about God, then study theology."

Dave C:

So, I wonder if Richard Dawkins is ever going to be giving plenary speeches at major scientific conferences on atheism. If he ever does, I am going to resign my membership in that organization. I hope it never happens.

One problem with your argument of "a more open recognition of God within the scientific community" is that it opens the doors to the atheists to spout their venom. If we scientists open the door to God, then we also open the door to lots of other positions as well.

But, maybe you have a larger vision than me. How would a international or national scientific conference operate than has opened its doors to God? (I am NOT being flippant; I am sincerely curious as to how you would see the operation of such an open science.) Do we muzzle the atheists?

From my perspective, it is best in the long-run to keep science neutral to theology.