.
I think that there are still skeptics among the scientific researchers, and new discoveries in that field of study are often used to bolster their skepticism. As far as those who are not skeptical about creation versus evolution, their awe may remain the same, may lesson or may increase.
~
Increase.
I'd say it would increase.
Most scientists just ignore the topic. They talk a lot about god, but they don't mean the God of creation.
Would a biologist teach his children to ignore the events in the Bible and concentrate only on the moral lessons?
Several years ago I read Irving Stone's biography of Clarence Darrow where he fought a huge case defending a school biology teacher who taught the theory of evolution to his pupils, probably contradicting the set course material.
Then which god do they mean? Or are they hesitant to openly admit their non-belief in Him?
Their curiosity grows with each new discovery. But it depends of each one if they are in awe or not.
Were the majority of scientists ever in awe of Creation, with a capital C? Do you mean Creation in the biblical sense? Your question is a bit confusing in that way, and sounds like a bit of a trick question, whether intentional or not!
However, I believe that their awe of the universe increases as their realisation of how much is not known increases.
Scientists don't study the universe because they've run out of things to study on earth, they do it because they can, and they have a special interest. Astronomy, cosmology, etc. are only a part of it, it doesn't take away resources from science carried out on earth. There are still plenty of microbiologists, ecologists, zoologists, pathologists, conservation scientists, marine biologists etc. etc. who carry out a vast range of studies daily.
I know that you know this. Your answer confused me, did you really think that study of the wider universe is carried out at the expense of studies on earth?
No, it isn't a trick question. I used the word Creation (in whatever sense) deliberately. My original intention was to say "God", but I was afraid I might be inundated with a barrage of unpleasant comments by atheists.
I love the picture you've attached.
I've read that the major part of the waters here on earth still lie undiscovered and mysterious.
both, Marguerite as well as sunmoonandstars.
Undiscovered, but not neglected! It is more difficult to develop technology for deep sea exploration than for space, due to the pressure.. They are working on it! :)
Maybe I will agree with MMtB however, in that there are more human problems that need to be sorted out as a priority, as much as I appreciate the value of exploration of sea and space!
Okay! An "open to interpretation" question! :)
I'M SO GLAD YOU MENTIONED THIS!!!
Hello N:
I cannot imagine that they're NOT awed. When I was a kid, we thought the Milky Way was all there was. To discover that there are BILLIONS and BILLIONS of other galaxies is awesome on steroids.
excon
I think many are in awe of the Universe because the more they study the more spectacular and fascinating it is, and the more questions there are to try to answer. This is true too of the Earth-bound natural sciences, including quantum physics.
They might not be in awe of it in a religious, unless they believe in a god running it all, but certainly in an emotional way. I have listened to scientists talking on the radio about their discoveries, whether terrestrial or astronomical, and you can often hear the excitement in their voices.
I think anyone but the most determinedly dullard can find natural features and processes beautiful, awe-inspiring or moving, irrespective of any religious beliefs. I believe understanding them at even a fairly basic level can further those emotional responses, not necessarily blunt them. I know what a rainbow is, in essence, and I know it can be plotted mathematically (involving a lot of abstruse trigonometry) - but that does not stop it being a beautiful sight.
I can repeat a little story I was told one Winter's night some years ago when meeting friends in Somerset (SW England). We were on top of the Mendip Hills, far enough away from Bristol, Wells and other towns for street lighting not to be a problem, and stood for a while admiring the Milky Way.
They told me of a young Canadian woman visiting them not long previously. In similar dark, clear conditions, she stared at the beautiful night sky for a long time, then burst into tears. A bit embarrassed, her hosts asked what was wrong.
Nothing was "wrong". She told them she was a professional astrophysicist, using a radio-telescope but near a city and in an area prone to fog. That would not affect her work, much of it mapping radio-frequency signal fields and analysing them mathematically to establish the natures of the stars emitting them. She may well regard the mathematics of these things as being beautiful in their own right. However, although studying objects in our galaxy, this was the first time she had actually seen it with her own eyes, and it overwhelmed her - her knowledge of what it is probably deepening the experience and its emotional effect.
So a scientist may not need a "Creator" in the Biblical sense, but that does not stop him or her from appreciating and being in awe of the universe at an emotional level, alongside the formal, passive-tense papers in the learned journals.
