Is this possible or is the sentence a paradox?
2007-01-04 19:44:18 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Hey technical, scientists can certainly see pain. Not with the plain eye though, but under brain analyzers. Thats how we know certain animals don't feel pain.
2007-01-05 20:46:46 · update #1
a scientist cannot fundamentally have "faith" or any dogmatic belief which has no fundamental proof of existence... at the same time a scientist also deals with paranormal forces and phenomenon which at times transcends logic and reasoning... but a scientific mind will not readily attribute such phenomenon to divine behaviour as that would be the end of science!
its in the nature of science to discover the logic and rationale behind events and to practically apply that knowledge for a defined purpose..
a priest cannot be a scientist! a priest believes man is a creation of god (god created adam & eve) ... science proves it its evolution (darwin's theory).. you can either believe darwin or the priest!
the real question is can a scientist be an artist? science deals with facts... and art is abstract!
and as history proves, its art which has been the basis of scientific evolution, art is imagination and science is pragmatic... a man first dreamt of flying (imagination)... and then he used knowledge (science) to practically apply his imagination...
the point is this... though a scientist can have an imagination and deal with abstract reality and paranormal phenomenon, it has to be "intellectually" valid! so in conclusion, a scientist cannot be a believer in god... a scientist would rather percieve this universe as a cosmic phenomenon... and not as a divine creation.
2007-01-04 20:03:58 · answer #1 · answered by x 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
LOL @ intelligent design! I.D. is hardly science, it's the unverifiable idea that certain structures are irreducibly complex (too complex to have evolved because they only function in their completed form). The thoery cannot be tested, and has been disproven on many occasions. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Intelligent design is the religious rights attempt to mislead the public and misrepresent science in order to convince the undereducated to question the validity of the theory of evolution. You can be a scientist and believe in a god, afterall, where did everything come from to begin with? You cannot, however, be a scientist and accept the Genesis version of creation as fact.
2007-01-05 02:18:55 · answer #2 · answered by People eating tasty animals 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don'tknow how "firmly" this is but surprising none the less.
Albert Einstein did...
"In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." Note that Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words. Spinoza was a naturalistic pantheist."
"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand." Albert Einstein
2007-01-04 19:57:05 · answer #3 · answered by RichArtist 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i think a scientist would be more a believer when investigating all the wondrous things around us. God is a belief . And the more science I learn the more I have to believe.Miracle of birth that's the Big one
2007-01-04 19:57:30 · answer #4 · answered by jdc117101 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
scientist always thinks about theory of a living things. Gods are beyond an existence thats why we found scientist very hard to believe god when it comes to this term.
2007-01-04 19:54:51 · answer #5 · answered by Shr| 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well there is the idea of "intelligent design" which I believe myself. It simply states that all the things we see in the world (DNA strands, planetary movement, cell structure, instincts in animals etc) are just the way God made things work. Saying God and science can't exist is like saying a radio manufacturer and a kid who takes apart said radio to see how it works can't co-exist. God made these complex things...we just take em apart to see how they work and how he did it all.
2007-01-04 19:50:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Scientists dont see pain, nor they can prove the existance of pain.
Still they believe in pain.
So
A scientist should believe in God.
2007-01-04 21:07:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do you have a computer in front of you? Why? Because it was created. Do you believe that the universe exists? (I perceive it) If it does exist, the existence of a Creator is implied. Now, I don't personally believe that our "Creator" listens to prayers or performs miracles. But we came from something...
2007-01-04 20:35:41 · answer #8 · answered by navig8r 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Certainly
There had to be a begining and since that event has yet to be understood the possible existance of a Diety will always be present.
2007-01-04 19:52:45 · answer #9 · answered by Norton N 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure, if science is the laws of God and creation is by intelligent design.
2007-01-04 19:53:18 · answer #10 · answered by too_live_forever 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋