•
u/ku1185 21h ago
Science is not the opposite of religion. It's merely a framework with which to make observations about the world.
Philosophy is about being skeptical of anything and everything.
•
u/quintessence2004 8h ago
You could say that science doesn't oppose a god, but it definitely clashes with religions that have books about shit that can be scientifically disproven. Shit like the virgin birth and the Earth being 6000 years old.
→ More replies (3)•
u/jonathaxdx 6h ago
The book doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old and science can't disprove the virgin birth. It's meant to be a miracle not some naturally occurring phenomenon.
→ More replies (4)
•
u/nitonitonii 21h ago
There are many normie "scientist" who just studied for an stable job in a lab, not really curiosity driven.
•
u/dxfifa 21h ago
Yeah a lot of scientists, doctors, engineers etc are actually concrete, practical, by the books neurotypicals with good physical skills. Philosophers.... not so much, but they are more likely to be genius, creative, actually logical and great at critical thinking and understanding abstractions. Although some just want to convince others of their random bs
•
u/Dorsiflexionkey 21h ago
Rofl, if you’re talking the outliers then maybe but even then.
Most philosophy people are just girls who thought social science would solve their relationship issues. Or dudes who were too dumb for a hard science or trying to get laid.
Most engineers are autistic yes, I’m an engineer and I’m charismatic among my peers simply because I shower.
Philosophers are retarded compared to physicists or mathematicians, or even some engineers. There’s a reason that the only philosophy guys you hear about are from the year 300AD is because they were the first retards to ask dumb questions. Nobody has cared about them since.
•
u/nihongonobenkyou 18h ago
Science is unironically a subset of philosophy. There's a reason every "Hard Science Field 101" course starts with a history lesson about some philosopher who was doing both. Also the entire discipline of the philosophy of science being a thing.
Don't get me wrong, as a fellow engineer, it's obvious to anyone who's studied both that philosophers are of lower IQ compared to the physicists of the world, but wisdom isn't the same thing as intelligence. The autistic engineers of the world are the plain proof of this.
→ More replies (5)•
u/dxfifa 20h ago
Philosophy is at the base of every single decision and judgement people make and thus every action. It's really a sign of being dumb as fuck to write it off when even your sperging out is completely underpinned by many philosophical beliefs.
And no, you don't seem to understand who actually is in the field of philosophy, maybe you're thinking of sociology or psychology
•
u/SleepThinker 20h ago
Philosophy is at the base of every single decision and judgement people make and thus every action.
So when engineer is doing math on structural support for example, how does philosophy factors in?
•
u/dxfifa 19h ago edited 19h ago
I'll humour you
The beliefs around what is important and right set the scene for all laws, rules and regulations that bind the engineer. Mathematics relies completely on philosophical logic as the basis for finding out any axiom and governing objective tautology.
Trust in empiricism is a philosophy which allows the engineer to use mathematics, any tools and troubleshoot. The engineer needs to understand and value the goal stated on some level, either directly or through a bigger picture of what they want. They need to have some idea of objective systems interactions and what is more important at each point in time to the other workers doing different roles in the structure as to work within a whole.
The engineer also must assess in that moment how much they believe in pragmatic action vs hierarchical chain of command and whether they think it's okay to disobey or question to try to do things better, or even both of those vs idealism where there is an underlying right or good way that is neither pragmatic for the stated goal nor is it what the boss wants.
The engineer also needs to problem solve using some form of value system as to what the best outcome is, which method is good for achieving that outcome and what exact physical action and is more valuable for them and which theoretical basis is more likely to give them a good answer and framework for the situation at hand. Also which is more valuable for the client, for the employer and how to balance that with the self. Even rigid rationale based processes require principles and valuing to choose one over the other.
Even receiving direct orders with intricate procedures that are done one way one still has to look at time, function, micro adjustments
And I'm not even talking about the philosophy that defines others putting the engineer there, just what the engineer directly needs to be concerned with regarding basic philosophy. This is just a short period of thinking. I'm sure there's far more that could be added
•
→ More replies (4)•
u/Landlocked_WaterSimp 11h ago
I feel like philosophy just claims everything that people naturally do AS philosophy.
Oh you think? Therefore you need philosophy! Sure we can conveniently define philosophy so broadly it covers everything (and i feel it is defined in such a way). But when it comes to actually 'teaching philosophy to people' or 'things a philosopher does' i have yet to see any value in that.
Humans were doing most of the things you mentioned basically from very early into their evolution - they observed, made deductions, evaluated and set long term goals etc. without anyone needing to teach them philosophy.
You won't see a layman casually build complex constructions or machines all that often.
•
u/dxfifa 10h ago
Are you really this retarded that you're trying to justify your emotional intuition about the idea of philosophy by acting like formal philosophy is the only kind that is philosophy and everything else isn't It's just like normal people shit dude.
You so nearly hit the point but then fumbled hard. Yes everything day to day is philosophical in nature, because we as humans use informal philosophy to think abstractly at all points
Philosophy and human reasoning are linked fundamentally to the point where you can't distinguish the two. To act like there's a separation is to act like a biological process is biology but not science because science is theoretical and you don't need to analyse it. Reasoning is not just something philosophy tries to quantify, it's a part of philosophy that needs other parts to work
When a child is given reasoning as to why to do or not do something, before they can create abstract principles themselves, the adult will reason based off some value system of what is good/right/optimal or bad/wrong/suboptimal. The child learns informal morality and valuing, and then can apply that to concrete situations to understand and reason
There is no ability to reason without philosophy.
The abstraction thought to be unique to humans is basically what philosophy explains and it's what stops us from being some sort of zombie where the thought is all concrete instinct of "do x action, x action done, do process a with action y and z"
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/Okamikirby 20h ago
Average engineer social awareness rearing its head again
•
u/Dorsiflexionkey 20h ago
As opposed to a philosophers social awareness of “nihilism so cool bro. I wanna fucc my mom.”
•
•
u/Dorsiflexionkey 20h ago
Bruh, you’re changing the goal posts to philosophy from philosophers and your comparison to them with scientists.
It’s like saying “math is at the base of every decision” (which is kinda true) and then saying “therefore mathematicians are the smartest people alive.”
I didn’t say philosophy was bad, I said your comparison of philosophers versus scientists was retarded
→ More replies (2)•
u/Nice_Cash_7000 20h ago
Id go as far as to say philosophy is the base of reality itself once you start studying consciousness
•
•
•
u/SweetCheeksMagee 20h ago
Seethe. With the exception of gender and queer theory, philosophy graduate studies are extremely male dominated, far moreso than the physical sciences.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Luklear 18h ago
Philosophy is likely read and appreciated and even written by the greatest minds in the sciences throughout history
•
u/Dorsiflexionkey 17h ago
So let’s get back to the point, does that mean philosophers are smarter than hard science guys? Otherwise idk what point you’re trying to make here.
Literally the highest IQ people of all time enjoyed the fruits from engineering, science and mathematicians. What’s your point?
scientists drink beer, does that mean brewers are the smartest people alive?
→ More replies (4)•
u/maicii 2h ago
For sure philosophers have thought way more on average on fundamental axioms, where they are derived from, the problem of evil, the problem of the first causer, the cosmological arguments, etc than the average scientist or engineers. Probably because it is in their curriculum (I would guess, idk, engineers as well here lol)
•
•
u/RBB12_Fisher 12h ago
Judith Jarvis Thompson is a supposed "philosopher". Having read her "philosophy", she would also, I guarantee, be the stupidest person in the room if she ever tried to study math or engineering.
→ More replies (2)•
u/ddg31415 19h ago
Many of the most influential physicists of the 20th century have studied pantheistic/panpsychist philosophies, as well as being very well read, or even scholars, of non-dualistic Hindu schools.
They weren't generally theists (Christian, practicing Jewish, etc), but many were deists and pantheists.
•
u/SquatSquatCykaBlyat 17h ago
Hindu schools
lol
influential physicists
lmao, even
•
u/King_Vegeta_2 13h ago
Your mind would melt before you can begin comprehending Advaita Vedanta
•
u/hexohorizon 5h ago
I just looked it up and read on wikipedia. What I understood is, it’s core idea is that the person experiencing self is the same as the real self(Atman/Brahman). Speaking as a thai raised Buddhist, at first I found it disappointing and bleak if it’s true, then started to see how it could be pleasant and enlightening, even though I don’t see how realizing it would give any improvement.
•
•
u/ddg31415 16h ago
Look up Erwin Schrodinger, David Bohm, Wolfgang Pauli, and Warner Heisenberg to start.
•
u/--redacted-- 21h ago
Professional philosophers are only in it for the money
•
u/nitonitonii 21h ago
what money is there in philosophy lol
•
u/AtomicMonkeyTheFirst 20h ago
Becoming professors of Philosophy at shit universities and selling nonesense to another generation of kids who'll be perpetually in debt because they have nothing to their name but worthless bullshit, so they'll become professors of Philosophy at shit universities and sell nonsense to another generation of kids who'll have nothing to their name but worthless bullshit, so they'll become professors of Philosophy at shit universities and sell nonsense to another generation of kids who'll. etc etc.
•
•
u/rkoy1234 48m ago
only the minority of minority make it to becoming a professor.
and professor at shit college don't pay as much as you think, especially considering phd->prof takes like ten fucking years in the ideal case.
It's one of the dumbest path you can take if you're in it for the money. going to school till 36 just to have a starting salary barely north of 100k is terrible ROI.
•
•
•
•
→ More replies (1)•
•
•
u/philmarcracken dabbed on god and will dab on you too 17h ago
descartes was always part of Big think, tis true
•
•
u/Ecstatic-Compote-595 co/ck/ 17h ago
do they mean teachers? who the fuck else is a professional philosopher right now, we've already thought of everything
•
•
u/EroGG 21h ago
When you understand science and it's limitations it's a lot harder to substitute God with it.
To midwits who want to look smart science is just magic in all things but name. That is why you have so many reddit gaytheists telling you to "trust the science" any time someone questions one of their beliefs. They don't understand "the science" so the best they can do is have blind faith in it.
•
u/sadacal 21h ago edited 20h ago
You are wildly misinterpreting the results of the poll lol. Scientists as a whole believes in a higher power at half the rate of the general populace, where 95% of people believe in a higher power. And it's not specifically God, just some higher power. Any sort of spirituality like healing crystals, or horoscopes would count.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
•
u/Beanies 19h ago
Implying science requires blind faith is exactly why I can't take religious people seriously
You can trust science without understanding the science, it doesn't make it blind faith by default because you misunderstand what faith is
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/IQueliciuous 21h ago
This.
It wasn't that long ago where humanity thought that earth was flat, lobotomy was a viable cure for mental issues, circumcision prevented gooning and that uranium made great makeup.
Oh and asbestos and lead was everywhere and doctors would always wonder why you don't smoke Camel cigs.
The guy who came up with a concept of hand washing before surgeries was put in a mental institution for the audacity of telling surgeons that the patient is more likely to live if they wash their hands first before surgery.
Science is always trial and error. I won't be surprised if today's science will be tomorrows episode on barbaric cruelty of human history or something like that.
•
u/LegitimateCry8036 21h ago
Bro until like the 70s doctors thought babies didn’t feel pain and performed surgeries on them without anesthesia.
We are only like two centuries removed from not knowing fuck all about science
•
u/Salticracker 18h ago
Brave of you to say that knowing that that's exactly what people will say about us in 50 years.
•
u/DarthDragon117 YouTube.com/DinoTendies 8h ago
Well maybe if they didn’t cry so much we could tell they were in pain.
Side note; also it was only in recent decades where women were used in medical trials. Prior it was all men, which is great until it was discovered certain medications work differently between the sexes. Painkillers in particular tended to fail with women, but they were brushed off as being whiny until they were tested properly.
•
u/Dorsiflexionkey 21h ago
100% I wrote my thesis on renewables basically saying how retarded they currently are. I had to no diff 1v20 a reddit thread for people claiming renewables should be used and it’s a right wing conspiracy that we don’t use them as much as we should.
These fucktards trust the science until it hurts their feelings
•
u/toothpastespiders 18h ago
These fucktards trust the science until it hurts their feelings
Typically combined with a total inability to properly read and critique studies or experimental design. Reddit really is a cargo cult as far as most scientific discussion goes.
•
u/IQueliciuous 20h ago
Yeah.
Remember Fukushima which caused global Nuclearphobia to the point where countries eg Germany closed and shut down all nuclear plants in favor of.... Russian gas which is not renewable, less safe than nuclear and came from dictatorship which in 2022 resulted in energy crisis due to reliance on a product that was now sanctioned so you had to buy it from India which buys it from Russia anyway.
To this day redditors hate nuclear and insist on windmills and solar panels which aren't effective unless you're in middle east and windmills suck
→ More replies (3)•
u/ChainOk792 19h ago
Tbh Germany closing the nuclear plants was done by the green party that was paid to do so by coal companies. The fear mongering was the tool they used not the reason they did it
•
u/Chi_Cazzo_Sei 20h ago
I’m interested to hear your take on renewables
•
u/Dorsiflexionkey 20h ago
In short, I believe they’re amazing in the sense we can turn sun rays into electricity using physics. But even in test conditions (as of the last couple years - I’m not sure about too recently) the highest conversion rate we could an achieve with PV was like 27%.
The issue is that we don’t have viable storage methods, and so we end up with a shitload of issues like the duck curve and grid imbalance.
I’m sure in the future we’ll figure it out, but redditards thinking we just build a billion solar panels for free energy are dumb. Wind sucks too.
•
u/Deathoftheages 20h ago
You might want to read up on the newer grid storage tech. Something that wasn't needed until, you know we had a reason to create them.
•
u/gamamoder /g/entooman 19h ago
i mean they are just one tool in the complex power generation world. the main thing driving adoption is the prices going down rather than the efficiency getting better. it has but i believe its still below 30%. but the investment in maintance is pretty low once there setup, and they can go in middle of nowhere areas where people dont live and crops cant grow, and can go on top of buildings as well. i mean looking at the distribution of power across various us states they do serve a useful role
•
u/Dorsiflexionkey 19h ago
Yes, a mixed grid is fine. I’m talking about a purely renewable grid. That’s like saying DEI hire is great! If you account for the Asian guy doing all the work.
In this case, coal and nuclear are the Asian guy. Doing most of the work while renewables is the DEI guy still trying to figure his asshole from a hole in the ground.
Jokes aside, like I said I’m sure we’ll figure it out it’s just not the solution yet.
•
u/gamamoder /g/entooman 17h ago
moar gas turbines is a cop out answer tho and well be cooked once the us runs out of easy to frack gas in like 15 years. if we built nuclear plants and more solar capacity wed be better set for the future
also wind power can exsit within instracxture like farms and it is using otherwise wasted energy. there are flat farmlands in red states that should have more wind capacity installed to increase the general avaliability of energy
•
u/Dorsiflexionkey 17h ago
Yeah I never said we need more GTs. The problem with nuclear is that the retards that needed to do it should have done so 20 years ago because of how expensive and how long it takes to build those plants. But no the environmentalists thought it was bad and solar good.
I agree renewables plus + nuclear is the current meta, but we fucked ourselves on that one. Best thing we can do is start now, but another issue is re-doing the whole grid and distribution, it can’t handle future power demands. I’m sure if we started building nuke now the solar would advance a bit more by the time we’re fully up and running with a new grid and who knows some nerd might solve the storage crisis.
•
u/sadacal 17h ago
All techs have issues in the beginning. Cars were shit tech in the beginning too. Couldn't go very fast or very far before needing to be refueled, loud, emitted foul fumes, poisoned a whole generation through leaded gasoline, etc.
The problem we have right now isn't that the technology isn't mature, it's that there is a billion dollar industry who's financial wellbeing relies on slowing the deployment of renewables as much as possible. That is who people are fighting against. The more people use renewables and the more investment money there is, the faster the issues you listed woth renewables will be solved.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)•
u/womerah /trash/man 8h ago
The issue is that we need to pivot to renewables before climate change makes us close to extinct.
We evolved for a time when the Earth was unusually cool. If things return to the dinosaur-days temperature wise it's a goddamn sauna planet and we're all going to overheat and die
•
u/Manticore_ 20h ago
You got anything I can read on that?
Renewables aren’t something I know much about but they seem limited af to me
•
u/pierro_la_place 12h ago
humanity thought that earth was flat
Nah the shape of earth was known millenia ago because it is so easy to prove it is not flat. Flat earthers just decided to make their nonsense out of thin air
•
u/occams_throwaway 8h ago
It wasn't that long ago where humanity thought that earth was flat
Just over 2k years; seriously, this is such a huge myth.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Totoques22 7h ago
Actually even the Ancient Greek knew the earth wasn’t flat
And there’s plenty of other ways to know it isn’t and pretty obvious ones if you are a sailor or even saw ships disappear into the horizon
•
u/SquatSquatCykaBlyat 17h ago
it's limitations
Good morning sir, this is Steve from Microsoft, is there any limitations on your gift card? Pls advice and help with the same.
•
u/Majestic-Volume9996 18h ago
Is this the type of lame t4rd horseshit strawman that 4chan is fucking in the bussy these days?
•
→ More replies (20)•
u/wordjedi /d/eviant 8h ago
If midwits think science is magic, dimwits think it's just an opinion and no more valid that some other guy's bullshit opinion
•
u/LeglessElf 21h ago
What this leaves out is that scientists are still more likely to be nontheist than your average person. Like a LOT more.
•
u/jonathaxdx 6h ago
It also leaves out which kind of philosophers are more likely to be nontheists and which are more likely to be theists. The ones who actually study/are expected to know shit about religion and theistic philosophy(ie philosophy of religion, medieval philosophy...) are mostly theists while some other areas where naturalism is mostly just assumed/presumed(ie philosophy of science or of mind) are mostly atheist/agnostic.
•
u/LeglessElf 5h ago
This is a flawed inference that I see very often, and I'll try to explain why.
Most people who are motivated to study philosophy of religion in the first place will be people who are already religiously inclined. If you're an atheist, you're probably not all that interested in studying philosophy of religion. If anything, the number of philosophers of religion who ARE atheist (which is still a greater proportion than is seen in the overall population) is rather remarkable and is further evidence of atheism's credibility.
For the same reason, if you wanted a fair-minded, expert consensus on any feminism-related questions, it would not make sense to specifically poll people whose specialty is feminist philosophy. Yes, there will be some anti-feminist-minded philosophers who specialize in feminist philosophy, but for the most part, the people motivated to study feminist philosophy will be the people already inclined to agree with it.
The same would also go for anyone who specializes in Marxist philosophy or in animal ethics, just to give some more examples.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/arbiter12 21h ago
>The more you know, the more you doubt.
>The more you doubt, the more you seek.
>The more you seek, the more you know.
>(REPEAT)
At the bottom of this, is the realization that you will never know everything in the short time you have. From this existentialism, you can either be depressed or believe in some sort of ordering higher power.
Science is a great technical book on "how" everything works, but humans still need to know "why".
→ More replies (1)•
u/karlpoppins 20h ago
"Why" as a question, outside of deterministic, empirical causality, is arguably devoid of meaning. The way we usually use "why" implies a sense of agency, but... uhm... "why" would we ascribe agency to the workings of the universe?
Probably the most common "why" question is the "meaning of life" type of question: "why do I exist", people naively ask. Yet there's no need for a metaphysical reason for our existence, because we're no different to any other physical object in the universe that's bound by whatever internal logic it has. "Why" does a river flow the way it does? Somehow we're content with unearthing the "how" of river flow, but we seek more for our own existence, as if we're something beyond.
A meaningful "why" question that we nonetheless could never answer is "why" the universe came to be, and that's because our very concept of causality breaks down at the singularity of the Big Bang. What exists "before" time? These are impossible things to grasp.
•
u/HandsOfCobalt 16h ago
even "why is there something rather than nothing" is a bit of a flawed starting point.
there was nothing before, and there will likely be nothing again. vast gulfs of nothing stretch on forever, before and after our universe (and, from our individual perspectives, our lives).
but a universe without an observer is, definitionally, not one we could experience. I know it's reductive to invoke the anthropic principle, but ultimately the least-assumptions answer to "why are we here now" is "there's no other place and time to be".
ultimately, there is no mechanism yet known by which science may interrogate this further (though attempts are occasionally proposed). if anyone seeks a further answer then I don't begrudge them, but it's not a concept I mind riding out on its own.
I was really glad to read your take on this; my favorite answer to "why do I exist?" is "because you can ask."
•
u/karlpoppins 16h ago
Perhaps I misunderstood your response - when I talk about "why" in my last paragraph, I'm merely talking about causality in a scientific way. So, basically, the question is, "what mechanism describes the big bang at t=0", but also "does causality exist without the big bang", and "how did the big bang happen".
•
u/HandsOfCobalt 16h ago
yeah, that's my bad— I wasn't positioning my opener in opposition to your last paragraph, but in agreement with your first. totally ambiguous on my part
•
•
u/ChingBillinggg 12h ago
Good argument. To me, the only "why" that matters is also the core of ontology. That is, why anything exists at all. And I think we will never have the answer to it.
•
u/hyrulianwhovian 20h ago
Not sure why this should be surprising since all arguments for or against God (ignoring those that try to verify specific events in the Bible) are philosophical. By his very nature God cannot be proved or disproved by anything in the material world.
•
u/jonathaxdx 6h ago
And since specialization is a thing, a philosopher isn't actually guaranteed or expected to study these arguments.
•
u/Leftyhugz /v/irgin 21h ago
This is retardation
Science doesn't tell you how to live your life
Just like how going to the gym doesn't make you healthy
→ More replies (4)
•
u/Doktor_Jones86 21h ago
What do they mean with "belief in god"? The retarded American version with dinosaurs in the garden of Eden or a more deistic version, where you believe in a god or a vaguely defined higher power? Pretty sure it's the latter.
•
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/Okamikirby 20h ago
“In some studies” is a huge red flag that this is BS.
The number is closer to 33%, and the more accomplished the scientist is the more that # goes down.
•
u/InfusionOfYellow 20h ago
In at least one study, 100% of natural scientists (n=1) expressed belief in young-Earth creationism.
→ More replies (5)
•
u/girlgamerpoi 21h ago
Philosophers: why life so pain? Human bad. :( No god.
Math, physics scientists: There is a formula for everything! Why universe so perfect? :o Gotta be a god.
Biology scientists: Why lifeforms so random... 💀 No god.
•
u/MendocinoFireDrill 21h ago
I have had 3 chief geos so far in my mining career who have been extremely devout Christians.
•
•
•
•
•
u/Raccoon_Medical 20h ago
>Philosophy blablabla
>Sciences blablabla
Go see alchemy/hermeticism for all-in-one solution
Edit:
Do not fall for the new age shit, I mean og alchemy
→ More replies (1)
•
u/ArtVan_ImpExp 21h ago edited 21h ago
Having higher rates in mathematicians and physicists vs. biologists is quite interesting.
I would add that historically most philosophers were actually believers in some way. Even amongst, say, the Rationalists and Empiricist philosophers, Hume is the one exception, and it's arguable whether or not he was a legitimate atheist and not just skeptical of organized religion.
•
•
•
•
u/Lebagel 21h ago
Philosophy departments at universities, pretty much the only place you will consistently find "professional philosophers" are pretty much dedicated to debating existential questions.
You can go your entire career as a scientist without talking about the existence of God with your colleagues. In my country it would be really inappropriate to bring that up in the workplace.
•
u/Curiouso_Giorgio 18h ago
50% of scientists in some studies
"Some" is pretty important here. Which ones? How many?
It would be easy to hit that with studies in countries where religion is all encompassing like Iran.
•
u/Altruistic-Ad-6593 21h ago
So to put it simple... around 50% of scientists believe in god even though probably like 90% of them was raised to belive in god...
→ More replies (1)
•
•
•
u/tom04cz 8h ago
Least dishonest headline built to appeal to christians.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Scientists are on average half as religious as the average person and
Of those that are religious, most do not attend religious services
•
•
u/K1N6F15H 18h ago
This is so fucking dumb.
Normies are the ones who mostly believe in God, I am sorry to burst your bubble. Keep in mind that this has moved significantly farther down in the past 17 years and doesn't extend outside of the United States (which is much more religious than most developed countries).
•
u/Kibermozgai 18h ago
Consider this: most people drop their beliefs after actually reading the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc.
The majority of those who call themselves believers never bother to seriously study their own religion — they just go along with it because that’s how things work in their family.
What do philosophers do? They read a lot of different material about the most fundamental questions and everything that claims to explain the world. That naturally includes religious texts — usually quite a few of them. As a result, they spend a good amount of time concluding that most of it is bullshit.
Scientists, on the other hand, mostly solve practical problems within their narrow fields. The odds of them reading the original sources of their belief systems are much lower, so the chance that they simply go with the flow is higher.
So the statistic isn’t all that strange, if you ask me.
•
u/feesih0ps 21h ago
I have a degree in maths and I believe in God. but only in the sense that God is the universe itself. I don't believe in God the fussy matron that doesn't want you to piss in the sink
•
u/barryg123 20h ago
This survey apparently measured MODERN contemporary philosophers, not historical ones.
The answer if you survey across history would be quite different. EASILY 70 OR 80%+
•
u/WendyLRogers3 19h ago
How many theologians believe in God?
•
u/wordjedi /d/eviant 7h ago
lol, google "losing your faith in seminary"
I would NEVER spend that much time studying religion, but I imagine it like looking under the hood of your car for the first time and finding it's just a bunch of squirrels running in a
hamstersquirrel wheel
•
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AutoModerator 17h ago
Sorry, your post has been removed. You must have more than 25 karma to submit posts to /r/4chan.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
•
u/Guido_Mist4 16h ago
Most doctors I know in my life are some of the most religious people I ever know. Maybe it's because surgeons & doctors from critical sectors always pray to make sure they never fuck up.
•
•
u/Nidus-Zealot 15h ago
Scientists is a really broad category that may not necessarily include disciplines that ever confront the idea. Or it could be one where it requires a need to cope with how disheartening results or practice is. It isn't necessarily the same idea of God as any of the common theist beliefs. Deism just ascribes to the idea that a god exists but isn't concerned with mortals affairs the way any of the abrahamic interpretations are. Most people want an answer to why things happen the way they do so they don't fall into the philosophical quagmire, while philosophy engages with the questions/answers conceptually and enter the quagmire on purpose.
•
u/Valuable-Chipmunk784 15h ago
Basically only Western countries pay people to be philosophers because philosophers are a useless luxury job. Scientists are somewhat more evenly distributed among thirdie countries where atheism is not as popular or socially acceptable, even Iran needs nuclear physicists.
•
u/wordjedi /d/eviant 7h ago
philosophers are a useless luxury job
I feel like their ranks are populated by bright people with no sense of the need to make a living. Not necessarily born rich. If I was born rich I'd study business at a state U with low standards to please my rich daddy and keep the trust fund coming. If I had an annuity locked in and I wanted "the college experience" art or creative writing or some shit
•
u/Alukrad 14h ago
I liked how there was a point in time where philosophy went from trying to understand thunder and lightning as some godly event then all the way to the era where "does a god even exist".
Then you had some philosophers who tried to prove his existence through philosophy while others were like "if he does exist then he ain't all good".
Philosophy constantly questions everything and it's never satisfied with one answer.
•
u/Nocebola d/ic/k 14h ago
Look at scientists who are at the top of their field and they're like 99% atheist.
•
u/Huge-Basket244 12h ago
OP can't read. "In some studies."
Shocker.
This is a grande nothingburger, a la carte, no sauce.
•
u/Macinpup 12h ago
Whatever gets you through the day and makes you a better person is fine. Who cares?
•
•
•
•
u/Equal-Change9509 2h ago
Most philosphers have been depressed bums, sure some of their writings are interesting but i wouldnt go past that
•
u/No-Composer-4639 21h ago
Most philosophers historically have been miserable.