>>18220733
>Inventions: warm milk

>>18220738
henry v died from runny shit

>>18220753
Maybe if he was white he could have tolerated the lactose

>can only cite someone from the 1800s

Real scientists thinks it true that a man walked on water 2000 years ago

>trad_west
Did he get exposed during the vpn reveals?

>>18220733
>trad_west_
it's bleak

>>18220853
I've done. It just have faith bro

>scientists(who we shouldn’t trust btw) believe in “God”
>it’s a vague, new-age, platonic, deist le clock maker
>this validates Hebrew mythology

>>18221111
>it's deist to say God is greater than man
then call me George Washington
>this validates Hebrew mythology
Hebrew mythology is just how they explained God in hebrew times, your ability to derive the same meaning is less important than whether you want to accept or reject the knowledge of past people. If you want to reject it, correctness is beside the point.

>>18221111
>(who we shouldn’t trust btw)
Evangelicals are not the ones using Christian scientists as an argument

>>18220738
>>18220733
the guy who discovered genetics and the guy who discovered the big bang were both catholic priests

>>18220733
really deeply internalizing and processing reality, including yourself, as some sort of continuous system can very readily and logically lead you to a sort of monistic pantheism

>>18220733
Louis is indirectly stating that pure randomness and naturistic nihilism is cringe.

>>18220733
He is full of shit, blathering drivel like any other religious but that always moves the goal posts

Being a scientist doesn't remove the psychological need to cope about your inevitable death

File: the-god-of-spinoza-and-ei(...).jpg (61 KB, 640x640)

61 KB JPG

>>18222106
?

>>18220810
The original quote was actually from Francis Bacon, who lived in the 16th century, and brought up philosophy, not science (since there was no clear, marked distinction between empirical science and philosophy until after his death).

>>18222107
I believe that whenever most scientists talk about God or creation, they use it in an entirely metaphorical to describe the universe and the total set of laws that govern it. Isaac Newton was unable to be ordained as an Anglican priest for his heterodox religious beliefs, so it makes sense to me to say that for actual scientists, God is simply a byword for the primal source of stuff in the universe, that which everything is caused by, or the accumulating series of rounding errors and uncertainty values in measurements.
This is not to say that there are no scientists who do actually literally believe in the God of the Bible (or the Quran/Vedas/Gathas), but I believe that a person who thinks of the universe as operating by rational principles and in an ordinary fashion will expect that every level of it will ultimately obey such a system of rules, so that means that a miracle would either be impossible or it would instead be a natural occurence (in which case it wouldn't be a miracle).

>>18222146
Scientists are just aware that no construct of words can ever contain whole reality. Their precise terminology is no closer to the absolute truth than mythology both are optimized for a special task, but the layperson can't understand that. To him, science and religion are both opaque authorities in conflict with one another.

>>18221380
Also the guy who created the concept of the Dyson Sphere:
>Technology is a gift of God. After the gift of life it is perhaps the greatest of God's gifts. It is the mother of civilizations, of arts and of sciences.
The best scientists more often than not believe in God in one way or another, they are capable to perceive the evident contradictions within religious dogma and will have the intellectual courage to question what they perceive as wrong yet will perceive there is a transcendent pattern across reality which goes beyond what science can explain or justify, and yes, this also includes great evil, disasters and injustice, it all belong to a grand system and even the capability of sensing injustice hints to something far beyond the mere animal.

Scientists may say this because there are things they don't understand yet. The things that seem incomprehensible, they ascribe to "God". And yet, with each iteration of humanity, we understand more, and this "God" shrinks further and further back, with such sentiments becoming increasingly rare as time goes on. Prehistorical people thought stuff like a lightning bolt was a god throwing it from the clouds because they were ignorant. Now God is just some amorphous concept, still used for the same purpose of explaining what people don't know yet, but the concept has retreated so far back it's basically irrelevant.

>>18222300
People are no closer to transcending death or individuality, time or space. Those are the fundamental building blocks of human insignificance. If you were correct, God would be a petty figure of some dark matter or the unseen cause of the universe, but God is merely that which is greater.

>>18222106
>>18222107
So many people seem to have a pathological need to believe in a system like Karma, where a divine being punishes the evil and rewards the just. People in the West just default to Christianity, even if they don't believe in the Bible, besides it's promise of eternal punishment for everyone you hate.

>>18220733

The sciences play an important role in our epistemology, as they offer us a stable basis for interpretation grounded in the scientific method.
It is predictable—and even human—to become blinded by this scientific outlook and assume that God is merely the representation of what physics has not yet been able to explain.
However, as human beings genuinely understand and internalize their learning in the sciences, they begin to realize that science is limited to studying and explaining the work rather than the director. Our reason can provide us with a clear perspective of what energy is, for example. It can even lead us to define it mathematically with great precision. Yet science does not aim to reveal its purpose or role in the work.
If curiosity leads a person to seek answers where physics does not even attempt to inquire, they eventually arrive at philosophy and—whether supported by a religion or not—at the concept of God they deem appropriate.
I believe the struggle for many deeply involved scientists is not about whether God exists or not, but about the characteristics, attributes, and human-like responsibilities that we have assigned to Him