LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Katganistan wrote:
I disagree. I'm Catholic, yet that has very little to do with what I decide where others are involved. It gives me a moral set to work within, but I am still very much for birth control, abortion, physics, carbon dating, et cetera.
People don't need religion to be good people or ethical, but being religious does not mean you need to become a dumbass who sticks their fingers in their ears, closes their eyes, and goes LA LA LA NOT LISTENING TO SCIENCE.
Take a look at any map of which US states are more religious.
Now look at which states elected the climate-change-denialist anti-vaxxer Trump.
Notice any pattern?
You, as an individual, being an exception, proves nothing. The pattern is what matters.
What does that have to do with scientists? You're the one who posits that one cannot be religious and a scientist, that you can't compartmentalize. That's false. Why? Because many of the scientists who contributed to our understanding of how the world works WERE religious.
Are you about to say that every person who lives in those states are scientists?
No?
But you want to know scientists who were religious and contributed to our understanding of the world?
Charles Darwin, the father of the theory of evolution.
Isaac Newton.
Albert Einstein.
Galileo.
Marie Curie (though she lost faith later).
You know who else?
Copernicus.
Kepler.
Bacon.
Not to mention the ancient Greeks who gave us geometry and maths, and Muslim scientists who gave us maths and medicines as well.
So, given my set has actual scientists in it rather than a large random set that numbers who knows how many non-scientists and who knows how many non-religious people and who knows how many religious people that believe in science but have school boards that don't as proof that scientists can't be religious and still scientists, I think it's your assertion that doesn't prove anything.