Really? Makes perfect sense to me.

@LucyLoohoo I agree.

@LimitedLight I don't know how far up your own backside you need to be to come with such a comment as 'I don't need you in the lab'.

@irascible See above, irascible.

@LimitedLight Or conversely, the unbelievers might look into a certain issue and enjoy the idea that everything boils down to the interaction of chemicals and end up only seeing the trees instead of the forest. A believing scientist might be a great help in readjusting their focus.

@brentan I want scientists to be critical thinks and analytical. I don't see a believer being a critical thinker.To be a believer of things you don't see and cannot prove tells me you have WILLINGLY turned off the critical thinking skills. Well, if I can't figure it out with science I will say god did it and no one can ever disprove it and I can keep my job. This is the not scientist I want working for me.

Truth does that.

@HippieChick58 I would hate to have everybody working with me all thinking the same way. And it is very common for aspiring scientists to absolutely have to hold the accepted views of mainstrean science to get and keep their jobs.
About critical thinking: I do see believers as analytical. They put forward a belief system which is a theory about the big questions. This belief system has been refined and redefined over centuries as great minds grappled with difficult questions. I would not dismiss them so hastily because I think if we do, when the times comes to see the overall picture of our existence, we will only have people who understand physics.

@irascible I probably think science should be practiced in a more holistic way. Your idea of searching for knowledge is very limited in my opinion.

@irascible i think you're talking more about ignorant religious people than Christian scientists.

@irascible You're right. I missed the main point about 'no longer looking'. I apologise.

Never lived, actually.

Darwin, Mendel, Newton, all men of faith. Catholic priest postulated the big bang.

No, believing in god does not mean you stop questioning, it just means you accept as a premise that some things were "done by god" and need no further explanation. The level to which you attribute things to god determines how much you'll question. Those men believed in a rational and ordered world created by a rational and ordered god, so they believed that science worked.

No. He means when you accept "god did it" as an explanation; you've given up on finding actual answers.

His example was Isaac Newton. Newton was perhaps the most brilliant man who ever lived, according to NdGT and made great strides in science; but once he accepted god as an explanation for natural phenomena his days of advancing human understanding of the universe came to an end.

In my opinion, GreatNani, the most important thing about being a scientist is accepting that i'll always NOT know more than i know. I never stop questioning or analyzing the data which enters my head, because, as you so accurately wrote, "Everything is a theory so to speak." In the context of our emotional, intellectual, and scientific evolution, our limited timeline is like a grain of sand on a very large beach. This reality doesn't make me feel insecure or frustrated, it gives me a mission which will last my lifetime. LLOL

@josephr so interesting because that is exactly how my father thinks. He says humans will never know all there is and isn't that amazing. Why muck it all up with religion and making up answers to questions that may never be answered!

@GreatNani Your father sounds like he's a wise man with a wise daughter. I also accept that the "why" is that some people need order in their universe, even though they have no control. So they use the order which comes from believing that there's a mighty power or system taking care of them. That's my theory anyway. LLOL

@josephr they don't see the beauty in chaos!

@LimitedLight Scientific.

@irascible They clearly are believers that the number 1 causes the number 2. LLOL

Regarding everything is a theory, I like Stephen Hawking's (maybe not originally his) "model based reality". Basically, a good theory explains the existing observations and makes testable hypothesis. When you theoretically attribute the observations to God, what is the predictive power of your theory? Does it help anyone's understanding? If not, then it is a bad theory and needs to be rejected. All scientific theories have value because their likelihood of making a correct prediction is greater rather than that by random chance (usually much higher, if it is any respectable theory).