Comments on: Prophet of Science: Arthur Holly Compton, June – Dec 2009; Peers http://www.asa3online.org/PSCF/2010/01/20/prophet-of-science-arthur-holly-compton-june-dec-2009-peers/ A members' forum for discussion of PSCF articles Wed, 21 Dec 2011 03:06:01 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Ted Davis http://www.asa3online.org/PSCF/2010/01/20/prophet-of-science-arthur-holly-compton-june-dec-2009-peers/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Ted Davis Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:33:00 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/PSCF/?p=27#comment-9 Randy, This is a very good question. First, the state of affairs you refer to was not narrowly confined to physics, but (as far as I can tell) involved scientists in all fields. Among those Christian scientists who wrote about science and religion at that time, there were hardly any traditional Christians--hardly any who could have said the Nicene Creed without crossing their fingers. Was this just an absence of visibility? Perhaps so; perhaps there were a large number of Christian scientists with traditional beliefs, and they just didn't write about this so we can't see them easily when we look back today. This is possible, but unlikely. We know (for example) that around 1930 nearly all of the "eminent" scientists who were religious (a fairly large subset of the "eminent" scientists at the time) were either Unitarians (and thus by definition not traditional Christians) or else members of "liberal" denominations (the survey I am thinking of used that term). Virtually none were Baptist or Catholic, for example. I know of only two "fundamentalists" who were eminent scientifically, and one of them was a actually physician not a laboratory scientist. This is not true today, not at all. Why was it true then? Perhaps b/c the intensity of the "fundamentalist-modernist" controversy drove many people, even very thoughtful people, out of the middle. There are more options today, religiously, and thus more places where scientists and other Christians can find comfortable places in which to dwell. There were scads of scientists in the 19th century who were traditional Christians, including the top geologist in America (James Dwight Dana) and the greatest American scientist around the Civil War (oceanographer Matthew Maury). The pendulum has indeed swung back, though only part-way. What accounts for this great shift? Many factors, IMO, including evolution as one of those many factors. (It's a mistake IMO either to reduce this to evolution or to ignore evolution entirely.) Randy,

This is a very good question. First, the state of affairs you refer to was not narrowly confined to physics, but (as far as I can tell) involved scientists in all fields. Among those Christian scientists who wrote about science and religion at that time, there were hardly any traditional Christians–hardly any who could have said the Nicene Creed without crossing their fingers.

Was this just an absence of visibility? Perhaps so; perhaps there were a large number of Christian scientists with traditional beliefs, and they just didn’t write about this so we can’t see them easily when we look back today. This is possible, but unlikely. We know (for example) that around 1930 nearly all of the “eminent” scientists who were religious (a fairly large subset of the “eminent” scientists at the time) were either Unitarians (and thus by definition not traditional Christians) or else members of “liberal” denominations (the survey I am thinking of used that term). Virtually none were Baptist or Catholic, for example. I know of only two “fundamentalists” who were eminent scientifically, and one of them was a actually physician not a laboratory scientist.

This is not true today, not at all. Why was it true then?

Perhaps b/c the intensity of the “fundamentalist-modernist” controversy drove many people, even very thoughtful people, out of the middle. There are more options today, religiously, and thus more places where scientists and other Christians can find comfortable places in which to dwell.

There were scads of scientists in the 19th century who were traditional Christians, including the top geologist in America (James Dwight Dana) and the greatest American scientist around the Civil War (oceanographer Matthew Maury). The pendulum has indeed swung back, though only part-way. What accounts for this great shift? Many factors, IMO, including evolution as one of those many factors. (It’s a mistake IMO either to reduce this to evolution or to ignore evolution entirely.)

]]> By: Randy Isaac http://www.asa3online.org/PSCF/2010/01/20/prophet-of-science-arthur-holly-compton-june-dec-2009-peers/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Randy Isaac Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:10:59 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/PSCF/?p=27#comment-7 Ted, I've been pondering this for the last few weeks since I read your response. Why does there seem to be such a dearth of theologically conservative Christians in the physics community in the 20's and 30's? There may be several possibilities: 1. They were there but didn't publicize their faith 2. Theologically conservative people tended not to go into physics or perhaps science in general 3. Interest in physics correlates better with more liberal thinking I'm not sure any of these are satisfactory. Why do you think this is so? I also wonder whether this is a change from the 19th century? If so, what brought about such a change? Is the pendulum swinging back? Why? Randy Ted,
I’ve been pondering this for the last few weeks since I read your response. Why does there seem to be such a dearth of theologically conservative Christians in the physics community in the 20’s and 30’s? There may be several possibilities:
1. They were there but didn’t publicize their faith
2. Theologically conservative people tended not to go into physics or perhaps science in general
3. Interest in physics correlates better with more liberal thinking

I’m not sure any of these are satisfactory. Why do you think this is so?

I also wonder whether this is a change from the 19th century? If so, what brought about such a change? Is the pendulum swinging back? Why?

Randy

]]>