Can someone have faith in a personal god and still lead a scientific life?

[TJ in Oregon]

Duh, as long as you're willing to compromise your faith with what the scientific evidence says.  A majority of scientists are not atheists based on most studies I've seen (that doesn't mean they believe in a personal God, mind you), so it's not only possible, it's quite possibly prevalent.

The bolded statement assumes already that there is an inherent contradiction between faith and reason. I believe rather that faith and reason describe reality in fundamental different ways such that it's not necessary to compromise one or the other yet believe that both are important tools in determining the truth. I imagine most people who believe in God and in science (as opposed to those who believe in only one or the other) hold something similar to that view.

I'm a grad student who spends most of his days doing scientific research (not sure if that qualifies as a "scientific life") and I believe in a personal God. I know numerous other grad students who also do. Perhaps a majority of the folks in my lab, certainly a majority who come from cultures where belief in a personal God is common do. I know numerous faculty who do scientific research who believe in God. I'd certainly agree a lower percentage of scientific researchers do than the general US population, but it's not hard at all to find people of faith in scientific studies.

[RFayette]

Also, one can flat out reject parts of science and still lead a scientific life.  A fantastic experimental chemist could be a young-Earth creationist, as the domains are separate.  This doesn't excuse the silliness of YECism, but the idea that a person's belief about X disqualifies them from success/achievement in Y is ludicrous.

[RINO Tom]

Duh, as long as you're willing to compromise your faith with what the scientific evidence says.  A majority of scientists are not atheists based on most studies I've seen (that doesn't mean they believe in a personal God, mind you), so it's not only possible, it's quite possibly prevalent.

The bolded statement assumes already that there is an inherent contradiction between faith and reason. I believe rather that faith and reason describe reality in fundamental different ways such that it's not necessary to compromise one or the other yet believe that both are important tools in determining the truth. I imagine most people who believe in God and in science (as opposed to those who believe in only one or the other) hold something similar to that view.

I'm a grad student who spends most of his days doing scientific research (not sure if that qualifies as a "scientific life") and I believe in a personal God. I know numerous other grad students who also do. Perhaps a majority of the folks in my lab, certainly a majority who come from cultures where belief in a personal God is common do. I know numerous faculty who do scientific research who believe in God. I'd certainly agree a lower percentage of scientific researchers do than the general US population, but it's not hard at all to find people of faith in scientific studies.

I was more thinking of specific examples.  For example, if you are a Biblical literalist and you believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, but you find geological evidence that contradicts that belief (this is, of course, assuming that you are sufficiently convinced that the evidence you find contradicts your previously held belief) and refuse to accept it out of an allegiance to "faith," then I think you're being an irresponsible scientist.  I was not trying to say that people can't be very scientifically minded and have faith and view them both as different, equally important ways to discover the Universe; in fact, I would say that describes me pretty well.

[TJ in Oregon]

Duh, as long as you're willing to compromise your faith with what the scientific evidence says.  A majority of scientists are not atheists based on most studies I've seen (that doesn't mean they believe in a personal God, mind you), so it's not only possible, it's quite possibly prevalent.

The bolded statement assumes already that there is an inherent contradiction between faith and reason. I believe rather that faith and reason describe reality in fundamental different ways such that it's not necessary to compromise one or the other yet believe that both are important tools in determining the truth. I imagine most people who believe in God and in science (as opposed to those who believe in only one or the other) hold something similar to that view.

I'm a grad student who spends most of his days doing scientific research (not sure if that qualifies as a "scientific life") and I believe in a personal God. I know numerous other grad students who also do. Perhaps a majority of the folks in my lab, certainly a majority who come from cultures where belief in a personal God is common do. I know numerous faculty who do scientific research who believe in God. I'd certainly agree a lower percentage of scientific researchers do than the general US population, but it's not hard at all to find people of faith in scientific studies.

I was more thinking of specific examples.  For example, if you are a Biblical literalist and you believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, but you find geological evidence that contradicts that belief (this is, of course, assuming that you are sufficiently convinced that the evidence you find contradicts your previously held belief) and refuse to accept it out of an allegiance to "faith," then I think you're being an irresponsible scientist.  I was not trying to say that people can't be very scientifically minded and have faith and view them both as different, equally important ways to discover the Universe; in fact, I would say that describes me pretty well.

In that case it depends what you mean by a Biblical literalist(Biblical literalism can refer to taking literally only those parts of the Bible that are meant to be taken literally; the question is which are and which aren't. Regardless of the standard, that question is inevitable really when you make a text your standard). If your definition of Biblical literalism includes a 6-day creation, then indeed you have a problem if you believe scientific evidence contradicts that belief. Typically, when one believes in something, they think it is actually true. Thus evidence that goes so far as to outright contradict it (which in the case of evolution I don't think we quite have; although the probability of YEC essentially converges to zero) poses a real problem. But the problem isn't the faith; it's the particular interpretation of Biblical literalism (which wasn't necessarily held by the Church fathers; see my sig for St. Augustine's views on creationism or example).

The idea of having to "compromise" the faith in the name of science reveals an unraveled view of the interplay between faith and reason, which if we think the things we believe are actually true, ought to together describe reality. If they do not, then either our faith or our reason is lacking in some way.

Anyway, I think we agree. I just take umbrage with using the word "compromise" in that way. I guess I think of the word "compromise" as acting for the sake of expediency, especially in the context of a religious belief. Like, the blood of the martyrs sewn the seeds of Christendom by refusing to compromise their faith. Things like the existence of a person God, the Resurrection, the virtue of chastity, etc. have historically fallen under that sort of characterization. A literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis does not; it was never a tenet of the faith in the first place (though absent a coherent theory of transmutation many certainly believed in it).

[ilikeverin]

re: thread title, I like to think I do.

[muon2]

re: thread title, I like to think I do.

Or I might say, I believe I do. Scientific knowledge and religious faith are not mutually exclusive.

[The Mikado]

Could someone please explain what a scientific life is? I still don't get it. Science is a career path and a field of knowledge, not a lifestyle.

[muon2]

Could someone please explain what a scientific life is? I still don't get it. Science is a career path and a field of knowledge, not a lifestyle.

I can't speak for the OP, but the scientific method is also a philosophy of gaining knowledge about one's world. In general, one can build a way of life around a philosophy. So I presume that a scientific lifestyle applies the philosophy of science to areas of one's life outside of a scientific career. I do that.

[DemPGH]

"Scientific rationalism" is probably the term that applies here. You can certainly "live" that outlook outside the laboratory. Like when you hear a bump in the night, need to figure out how something works, or if you happen to be a police detective. You emphasize natural agency and cause and effect. It's certainly how I look at the world.

[pbrower2a]

It depends upon how much one wants to attribute to God. If one defines God as the One who established mathematical and scientific laws that underpin all reality one has few if any cont4radictions. Thus the answer to the question "What existed before the Big Bang?" might have the answer "God".

Once one starts discussing miracles one gets into contradictions between God and science. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

There is no good reason why they can't.

[RFayette]

When we talk about miracles, we are talking about God operating outside natural law because he, well, controls it.

Since this is by definition not the norm, there's no contradiction between being a scientist and believing in miracles.  Philosophies like rationalism, which I once was more in favor of but have recently eschewed in favor of a more religious worldview, may preclude a God that operates supernaturally, but this is the difference between science and scientism.  If one applies scientific principles to every aspect of life, including religious spheres, then perhaps a personal god would be near impossible to rationalize.  But this is irrelevant, because every person's life has many facets, including scientists - including as a parent, volunteer, friend, etc. One's job doesn't define the person.

[Leinad]

They certainly can, although it depends on what "scientific life" means, I guess.

I would say that if you can't believe anything you can't decisively prove, Atheism would be just as silly as any form of Theism, since you can't disprove God either, and Agnosticism would be the only reasonable religion.

Personally, I think it makes more sense for there to be a God. Existence having a beginning with God outside of existence makes more sense to me than existence being finite. The scientific consensus that the Big Bang started it all still leaves questions unanswered, and to me, existence of a God answers those questions. But you can draw your own conclusions, of course, using your own reasoning, and unless it's too crazy I'll respect it. What religion/belief system is true is an impossible question to answer without doubt, which is why people have been asking it for all of history.