Re: Materialistic Science

Wayne Dawson (
Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:30:00 +0900 (JST)

[James Behnke,wrote:]
>Is good theology necessary to do good science? Can an unbeliever do science
>just as well as a believer? (If so, some form of naturalism is part of
>science.) [snip]

[Glenn Morton wrote:]
> It has been my observation that Christians do not do as good in
> science as nonbelievers.... Those sometimes with the strongest religious
beliefs are those who are not rigorous enough--they don't question facts
like they should..... [snip ]

It seems to me that we all suffer from some form of bias --- atheist
*and* theist. If we have opinions, we will tend to find that they
cloud our research in as much as we fail to keep tabs on them.
Extreme positions are the most likely to lead to carelessness.

To be a good scientist is probably to be *agnostic*, but that's neither
"hot nor cold" and provides little incentive to search or defend one's
views of life truth and everything. To have faith in something is to
have a passion and an interest in the outcome.

So my answer is no, I would be better off agnostic if I want to play
the "scientific superiority" game over my fellow collegues.

Taken further, a good scientist probably feels no reason to defend
his/her research. Outside of "religion", consider physics and quest
for the mechanism underlying high temperature superconductivity. No
politics? no religion? no bias? Eventually, I expect that science
will trumph, but don't expect it any time soon or that everything is
"pure unbiased scientific investigation": irrespective of who finally
wins the prize.