"there is a cabal and trend out there today to discourage any scientist to be a believer of GOD almighty. In order to be "a good scientist you must be an atheist" and they promote this unacceptable position whenever they can through media... we see this everyday."

Where for God's sake do you see this attitude? I believe in God, however I don't mix theology and science. You see, if instead of serching the nature we would say that every natural phenomenon is "will of God", we couldn't have science.

Any domain of science consists in experiments from which we draw a couple of axiomes, and build theories. For checking the theories we perform new experiments and eventally improve the axiomes, etc.

In all this process there is no component named "will of God".

As to religion, we are all children of God, no matter how we name God, no matter what is the particular tradition we follow. The belief in God imposes us a code of morality, of behavior with respect to other people, for the common good of the mankind and for the preserving of the genesis.

"Greek philosophers 2,000 years ago knew that you can not get apart faith form logic and the one drives the other. They are complementary. Denying faith is the same thing as closing the door to logic."

This is not rigorous. The belief in God generated a code of laws (e.g. the 10 commendments) to restrict the human behavior. In short, you cannot do whatever you like. In general from such a code, a legislation was derived for the human society.

"THIS HAS TO STOP NOW... AND STOP THESE SCIENTISTS OF MAKING PUBLICLY A mockery of themselves and science by behaving more like PRIESTS THAN SCIENTISTS!! "

You go too far. If a person believes in God or not, that's his/her business, not yours. There are people wo accept all the social laws, harm nobody, respect everybody be he/she atheist or religious, but do not adopt the concept of God. This is their right by the freedom of conscience.

Neither atheism, nor religion, can be imposed on people against their will.

Dear Sofia D. Wechsler ,

Your answer has exactly the same meaning, views and comes to the same conclusions as of my original question text and analysis but presented with different words.

However you present your answer as if your were arguing with me!...

I don't know what you were thinking but you've got me all wrong.

I quote SDW: " If a person believes in God or not, that's his/her business, not yours."

That is exactly the final conclusion of mine as well in my text question! I can't see where the argument is?...

Anyway, thank you for sharing your views on this matter. And believe me there are many top scientists and scientific boards out there who are not sharing and promoting these humanitarian views of yours and mine.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Dear @Emmanouil Markoulakis ,

I was born in a socialist country. The authorities there were against religion. I was very young and with no precise position on the topic, which in fact didn't interest me.

As a mature person, and living now in a liberal country, my views are as I told above. In genral, the human view about God is as about a father. We have to love Him, respect Him, and follow his commendment : BE GOOD! We all are His children.

Dear Sophia

But this may be about such father you have never seen, no one knows where he is and he never helped you.

As a scientist I cannot say if he exists or not. Sometimes it feels that God is the best explanation but on the other hand it is usual way to throw all the unknown under one umbrella. Manifesting one's religious beliefs in the context of Science is often linked with fundamentalism so this can cause people try to stay away from this kind of situation.

Personally, I don't give gender to God. Not really on the Biblical religion side. Let's say he/she/... is an ENTITY ABOVE US.

The problem is that no one can make any assertion about God other than "it may exist", Why above us? why male? or "why not female" or neutral? These statements are relative to the collection of beliefs different to different groups of people and therefore not universal. Science is by its nature a method to explain nature other than by God's intervention and it may not necessary be related to beliefs of the scientist.

I agree. However, the problem arises when God is replaced by science via propaganda. This action has nothing to do with science and is an ill based new age scientism dogma. Because these scientism priests media TV personalities are promoted and are forcing they scientism atheist religion to the general public with unproven theories presented as facts. How unscientific and deceptive is that?

Because they are not able to prove creation through science without avoiding intelligent design which would mean a higher entity intervening, what they did was to discard creation all together and choose pure chance and possibilities to explain these ultimate questions. How convenient is that?

All these because it is against their new scientism religion, beliefs and agenda. So these people are dogma driven , the atheist cabal Vatican infused Copernicus principle, and act more like dogma scientism priests than scientists. This is NOT SCIENCE. Darwin is not proven, big bang is not proven. The rabbit hole is too deep and we barely stand on its trim.

I don't have anything against these people as long they don't present through propaganda their believes as SCIENCE to the public and force public opinion and mislead academia and editorial boards by muting and discriminating and not giving the same rate and chance of success to fellow scientists who don't necessarily agree with their views. They are not practicing science by doing so. For example how many papers are on top journals published each year on creationism and intelligent design compared to evolution. How can science progress without debate. Monopoly is bad for science and can be dangerous turning it to dogma.

For me as long they can not prove to me that this text here I wrote was not by intelligence but by chance alone and If I wait long enough it can turn into a snake, their theories are just that and frankly illogical, thus, unscientific.

Unfortunately, many scientists have bought into the idea that there is a long war between science and religion, which now presumably extends to philosophy because there are good philosophical arguments for God's existence which use scientific premises (like "The universe began to exist" and "The universe's initial conditions and quantities fall into an extraordinary narrow life-permitting range"). So these scientists see themselves in a turf war with philosophy. However, scholars who work on the science-religion dialogue recognize that the war model is revisionist history introduced at the end of the nineteenth century by John William Draper and Andrew D. White. Historically, science and philosophy have not been enemies and, to do science well, one needs to understand its philosophical underpinnings. Philosophy--especially logic--provides the turf on which science is carried out, regardless of whether or not scientists realize this fact.

I would like to keep up with this discussion, so I'll say just a few words here and hopefully make a tiny contribution. First of all, I really enjoy reading Kirk MacGregor's comments on various topics. You sir provide a lot of wisdom and insight, IMHO.

The original argument, as presented by Mr. Emmanouil Markoulakis, is absolutely correct in stating the origins of science and how there is a trend to segregate science from philosophy. However, he states his case so passionately that some readers (ie. true scientists) may have an initial reaction to respond against his statement in like manner, possibly misinterpreting what he is actually claiming. I do think he is correct, though, and you can tell he feels very strongly about this.

So how do we convince the everyday citizen that many modern claims from the "science community" do not come from true scientific rigor? How many scientists will readily acknowledge that philosophy is the mother of all sciences, and that logic is the solid ground upon which all scientific advancement must be built? These are questions that I struggle with in my daily interactions. This may not be the appropriate place to ask them, but I feel that they are related to the original topic that started this thread.

Thanks everyone, for your contributions to the discussion, and for taking the time to hear my own thoughts on the matter.

Dear Emmanouil,

I have read the your question and the answers with great interest.

Like you I observe, that sometimes scientists use scientific theories or observations to reach conclusions like "God does not exist" or "The universe does not need a creator". Examples for these are statements of Steven Hawking.

However, if you take a closer look on these statements, you see that they are not founded but a kind of belief - a kind of atheistic faith.

If God exists and God is -- among other important aspects -- the complete truth, the observations we make can not be against the existence of God. Any religion which is "true" can not be in conflict with observable facts.

In fact, neither the Big Bang nor the biological evolution speak against the existence of God. For example, the Roman Catholic Church accepts the Big Bang as well as the biological evolution as ways in which God acted as creator.

Actually I am trying to document that the well founded theories we have (Big Bang and the biological evolution) speak not against the existence of God. In the contrary, believing in God gives a deep sense to this all.

Concerning this I wrote a short document which can be downloaded from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315654521

Furthermore I started to write a small book on Christianity, evolution and related topics in German language. The English summaries of each chapter will be posted in my Researchgate project: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Christianity-and-Evolution

Best wishes,

Andreas May

Dear Professor Andreas May ,

Thank you for your input.

quote: "In fact, neither the Big Bang nor the biological evolution speak against the existence of God. For example, the Roman Catholic Church accepts the Big Bang as well as the biological evolution as ways in which God acted as creator."

I do not believe that most of the atheists scientists follow the above notion. Also, in response to John Eulenfeld's comment on my very passionate presentation style, he is right, maybe I was too emotionally responsive, but I urge you to follow their public statements and presentations during the last years, made even more intensely, and sometimes even become at least bizarre.

I mean for example what is the purpose of this article? :

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists

These top influential scientists people are actually monopolizing publicity in their solo appearances and supposedly represent modern science and its official proposition on that matter to the general public. What gives them the right on behalf of every scientist to do that and why? Without even asked for? what is their motivation of doing so, do they feel threatened somehow by the existence of God?

Unless they think of atheism as a religion and they act as its prophets but then again this is contradictory to the very definition of atheism. And what this all has to do with practicing science?

Do they like to turn science into a dogma and to the new 21st century religion?

Maybe they can step here in and enlighten us?

Kind Regards,

Emmannouil

Speaking as a "lay" scientist, I am more a theologian than scientist under today's understandings of the terms, I cannot imagine one field without the other. Now I know that there are very vocal minorities on both sides of the issue of the supposed dichotomy, but I hope that, while extremely vocal, they remain minorities.

Now when I examine the evidence presented by both sides, I can see an argument for both sides. Creation without a god is possible if certain criteria are met, but if these criteria are not met then it seems that a god is required. I tend towards belief that a god is require, but I can see the other side. That is what I call "intellectual honesty"

What I would call for is for what I hope to be the majority from theology and science to stand together against the "isms" (creationism and scientism) that seek to divide us and to publically, and if necessary forcefully, affirm that there is no necessary conflict between belief in god and belief in science. Both approaches seek the same answers, just via outwardly different means.

quote:

" ...I hope that, while extremely vocal, they remain minorities."

With all this media fanfare they get I don't think this is the case.

Dear Peter Griepink,

I agree 99,9% with you. However, accusations for priori believes we hear today is 99,9% coming from science against religion and theology and phylosophy in general and not the other way.

However, this disposition of science from all the rest, is hypocritical since, science itself believes in priori. It all started 500 years ago with the the absolute and and determinism Copernican Principle which all modern science is based off and which is ironically, a priori believe.

I mean how can anyone absolute determine by inconclusive accepting "that since we observe so many stars and planets WE AND EARTH are nothing SPECIAL". This is a false pseudo philosophical and pseudo science childish assumption and ill based axiom and made 500 years ago and surprisingly adapted my modern science although all scientific evidence today proves otherwise.

We are not SPECIAL?! Really?...How any serious scientist can say that today. IF we are not special what is then the scientific evidence of other life existing in the universe?

Our location in the universe is nothing SPECIAL!...Really?.... so why then it is verified by two separate satellite launches science experiments so far that the "axes of evil" are true in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) image of the universe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Dear Emmanouil,

I liked your question because it is well justified, but I had a little shock from your conclusion of discrimination due to religion status of an author.

Can you give us a clear example of such a practice?

As for the core of your question:

• Science today is constituted by many smaller dogmas, doctrines or mainstream theories: one per discipline. For example Physics can be considered as the worship of relativity theories, if you reject them, then you are a heretic (OK, they will not burn you on fire, but no money-no honey!)

So I agree with you but I rephrase your question under a more sophisticated way as next:

• Why does Science argue that 'killed God' since it has created a bundle of 'local gods'?

Dear Peter,

Copernicus, has not claimed the Copernican Principle. It was implied and formalized by science later, by the work he left behind.

If modern natural sciences arose from a power opposition with religion 500 years ago then it is time this fight to stop here. Both should respect each other and harmonically coexist for the betterment of humanity. Both are needed because each can not provide all the answers alone. They are complementary to each other for human civilization.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

I’m not sure personally if there are scientists out there who are ridiculed (I have pre-supposed discriminate is meant to be negative) for believing in god. I would imagine it must be non-believers who are doing the ridiculing and not people having different opinions on who/what god is, at least that’s how I understood the question. I have not known of atheists or at least those who are well known like the late Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dwarkins or even Lance Krauss and Steven Hawkings who would consider ‘believing scientists’ with ridicule. But I do believe that ridicule is leveled against scientists who ignore scientific evidence because it is inconsistent with religious teachings/books. More so these scientists are at the forefront of research and publications and charged, I suppose, with building on the body of theory. It is after all theory that propels humans forward in our endevour toward betterment. If religious views that are held and shared in particularly public settings within earshot of susceptible young minds that are contrary to proven scientific facts then such criticism I would imagine is justified. We cannot teach young people that evolution is untrue nor more than we can afford to hold views that the earth is fixed or that man and dinosaurs co-existed at one point. Perhaps it was the earlier church’s bad rap in the wake of Galileo’s ideas being advanced that ridicule/discrimination may stem, and rightly so I may add. As scientists we really ought not to distort scientific evidence or even ignore it because it is inconsistent with religious convictions. Such scientists are worthy of criticism. But where this is not that case, then a scientist’s religious beliefs are hers to be respected, and certainly worthy of our respect.

Dear Demetris Christopoulos,

quote:

"I liked your question because it is well justified, but I had a little shock from your conclusion of discrimination due to religion status of an author.

Can you give us a clear example of such a practice?"

Maybe not in the physics department so much but do you deny the general trend of a majority of papers in the faculty of Biology and Genetics opposing with scientific method, analysis, proves and well written, Darwinian evolution in favor of Intelligent Design to be rejected as soon they reach the editorial office of top very influential science journals?

Do you deny that almost all the papers on Machian Universe are put aside by these top journals?

Do you deny that your finished from a physicist international carrier or the smallest chance of becoming a future Nobel laureate when you scientifically oppose parts of general or special relativity or quantum standard model ? as you also stated.

Do you deny that these people are are not getting even the slightest chance of success and recognition and they are discriminated by top journals and marked down for every new paper they submit?

Do we need to talk about founding?...

Do you deny that scientists knowing all the above are abandoning any opposition and stick to the "mainstream" to avoid ridicule and gain success?

Do you deny that these asphyxiation doctrine of the last decades is struggling and inhibits the discovery of new breakthroughs of theoretical science? What was the last apocalyptic theory we discovered the last decades?

It is not because we discovered everything there is but because we are stuck in an endless loop called "MAINSTREAM SCIENCE" (ironically this is not the case for the black projects, mainstream is the chains for all us the rest) .

For god sake we can't even explain yet truly what the damn Bloch region is doing in a magnet!...?

Why is it that almost all breakthroughs were really made during 17th, 18th and 19th century... I tell you why...because this doctrine was not in place yet and gave place for free research and exploration, opposition, debates and discoveries that's why.

All we do the last years is refining technology and applications but technology alone without new theoretical breakthroughs to be applied will not get you to the stars.

For me every well written paper which is scientifically sound (scientific method is applied) should be published, this is not for editorial boards to decide but rather by the science community to be rejected if false, by replication and post peer review. No restrictions put, dogmas and taboos.

Science can not operate without freedom.

We reached a point that they tell us that mainstream is not falsifiable! This automatically means no more real scientific progress.

Who are these people who are putting out and enforcing this doctrine? and why? Inhibiting human kind from reaching the stars.

SCIENCE BE FREE...

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind," said Einstein in his 1954 essay on science and religion (http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm).

So here you have it Einstein was a genius as well as a wise man.

Thank you Professor George Efthimiou for you valuable input.

genau

Personally, I believe the world did not come into existence out of no where (i.e. the big bang theory). I believe there is a bigger force behind it. Look around you. How is the moon hanging there without any explained reason, the sun, the oceans, all of the creatures around you. Who created all?

The Quran, for instance, contains a lot of verses explaining how the world came into existence, and some scientific breakthroughs. I truly believe that everyone, regardless of their beliefs, should have the right to believe whatever they want to without fear of judgement or discrimination!!!

In addition, seeking knowledge is a type/form of worship in Islam. One of prophet Mohamed's sayings: "Seek knowledge, even if you go to China." It's possibly because of the long distances they needed to travel to obtain certain knowledge (e.g. medicine).

``Because these scientism priests media TV personalities are promoted and are forcing they scientism atheist religion to the general public with unproven theories presented as facts.''

Some concrete example, please? Or are you simply raving blindly against science, which has in fact never found any argument suggesting the existence of non-physical entities having influence on the physical world (I do not use the word ``god'' as I fail to understand its meaning. I will gladly argue for or against existence, as soon as someone is kind enough to describe what is supposed to exist or not).

Dear Professor Francois Leyvraz,

It is an honor having you here Sir.

This is not a debate of who is conceptually wrong or right but if there is professional discrimination among the science community about this matter, not given the same chances and promotion for success and most importantly if this affects science progress today since some brilliant minds are suppressed and debate silenced. What they mean by heretics in science? Heretics are good for science and dispute is opening the way for progress. unless modern science is today's new dogma! Is that really what we want?

Is science revenging its suppression by religion 500 years ago?

A short review of vast numbers of repeatable theme documentaries and TV appearances produced, almost a propaganda, will suffice. This has become a monopoly. Also they present these as they would be facts. These are all accepted theories not facts, there are no facts in science which would make these theories in-falsifiable. Also why are all these TV personalities asked if they believe in God?...who cares! A scientist is the last man you should publicly ask for his believes to the supernatural.

I myself don't believe in the long bearded but that a higher ENTITY exists above our universe and we are part off THIS and you can call it as well as GOD.

About a specific example you asked for:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/17/scientist-alleges-religious-discrimination-ky.html

My Respects,

Mr. Emmanouil Markoulakis

Just to keep the record (a little bit) straight: the following is what Einstein said immediately after his ``science without religion is lame...'' remark:

``Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.''

So putting Einstein among those who would argue in favor of a role of gods in Science is clearly more than a bit misleadiing.

... And what about the God not playing dice?...

Dear Emmanouil,

Now I caught the core of your thoughts.

Frankly I don't find many paragraphs of your extended reply where I fully disagree.

However I have the impression that what you call 'mainstream' is not different from what they call in politics as a 'new order'.

If you carefully read under the lines of almost every candidate US President you'll find that such a 'new' is repeatedly given, it seems that every candidate who respect his/herself has to declare his/her acceptance of that 'new'.

I don't think that discrimination has to do precisely on 'God believe'.

On the contrary, I tend to believe that:

• Science is divided more and more in two district sections:

• the mainstream doctrines cannot stand without an external political support: Look LIGO and CERN projects: the first detected its self injected signals (to show the general relativity validity) and the latter is hunting its tail by accelerating charged particles (and only charged particles) in order to convince us for the special relativity validity.

Probably the objective function is just next:

• Establish a set of theories that will forbid humanity to travel towards other stellar systems...

Maybe we are just slaves my friend...

" The Grand design, however, can now be scientifically refuted "

Of course there is micro evolution in nature through adaptation to the environment and passed to the DNA of future generations.

However, this process has its limits. There is an serious scientific argument against evolution 100% responsible for the existence of species that of Irreducible complexity, thus, that some biological mechanisms must had been there from the beginning in order an organism to perform its absolutely essential functions for live to exist and therefore this could only be through intelligent design.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840

For example it turns out that Blood Clotting is one of the most complicated biological mechanism and unless it was there from the beginning, all spices would eventually bleed to death.

Dear Professor Demetris Christopoulos,

I couldn't agree more with you. Yes I believe you have identified the cause of the problem at its source, namely science used as a pone of today's politics (control of masses) and as a new world order propaganda machine.

Thank you for leading me to express all what I meant with just 2 sentences.

You must be an excellent adviser-supervisor. Your students are very lucky having you!

My Respects,

Emmanouil

Dear Aleš Kralj ,

Thank for you input. I will take your valuable information into considerations specially this one:

"So, Irreducible complexity argument is valid only for mutation based part of evolution but not to the evolution in general (including all fancy information exchange mechanisms). "

And will come back to you.

Thank you. Not my discipline nevertheless I will include them in my reading list.

I must say I am impressed from why you avoid the DNA?

The fact alone of writing genetic information in the DNA using a form of code from my informatics discipline point of view, is not possible without intelligent design. This single fact alone is all the prove actually needed.

I totally agree that there is a lot of propaganda regarding science and religion. Opinion that scientist should be an atheist makes me smile. Somebody wants to state that science is done only or mostly by atheists but this is lie. I think that it is easier to prove that birth of modern science was possible due to religion, not despite of it. We know now that fundamental laws (conservation of momentum and energy) follow from the statements of the symmetry of the laws of nature against transpositions in time and in space. I think it was religion and faith in God that stimulated belief that laws of nature should be the same in all places of the Universe and equally the same in past and future. Only such views allowed discovering law of gravity, and all other.

Should I stop believing in God, I would immediately commit suicide. I never felt discriminated because of that.

Where I feel strongly discriminated is in moral sense, which is lacking in scientists even more than in politicians.