I think it will entirely depend upon what particular area of science the scientist is working in, but for the most part, there is no reason to think that even the best scientists could not be religious. Now, certainly a scientist whose work was in evolutionary biology could not be an excellent scientist and at the same moment accept creationism (or, as it has been strategically renamed more recently, intelligent design theory), for these two are incompatible. But I see no reason why someone could not believe there is a God and also do superior work in the area of inorganic chemistry, say. But it is even more complicated than this, I think. People are magnificently complex beings, and one of their most puzzling complexities is the ability to "partition" their lives in such a way as to isolate one area of their life from other areas, and thus avoid noticing or being moved by the contradictions that might be revealed if the "partitions" were somehow removed. (Before saying what follows, I...

I certainly do not agree that creationism is "utterly optional" for a good scientist, on the obvious ground that it is bad science (or else pseudo-science). That was my point. On the other hand, I accept that someone who was religious could do exceptional work in evolutionary biology--either by partitioning in the way I noted, or by conceiving of evolution as part of God's plan, or (as Heck proposes) by seeing religion as no more related to science than poetry is. I would add, however, that most religions I am familiar with seem to have a great deal more intersection with science, in their putatively factual assertions about the world and how things work, than poetry does. Keeping these intersections from generating conflict, I continue to think, is the partitioning trick. But look, some philosophers (Heck included) both defend and practice religion, in which case it is no surprise that these philosophers would think that all talk of conflict between religion and science (or reason) is...

In the Republic , Plato argues that there should be a ruling elite consisting entirely of philosophers. He never mentions that there must only be 7 of these, and I think it would also count as a serious misunderstanding (one often made in the scholarly literature, however) to say that these philosophers had to be "altruistic"; rather, they needed to understand well what is in everyone's interest, including their own, and they would have to (correctly) understand their own interests as including the interests of those with whom they lived, and upon whom they depended for goods and services. Plato was certainly no fan of democracy, as a form of government, and so he would not be much impressed with modern forms of government that were democractic by nature. He was also not at all in favor of oligarchy, or rule by the wealthiest citizens--which, I think it is fair to say, is how many present "democracies" end up. Plato counted tyranny as the worst possible form of government, moreover,...

Nearly all of the philosophy journals practice "blind review" of submitted articles. What this means is that those making the decision to publish or not to publish the contributed piece have no idea who the author is, or what his professional status (or lack of it) might be. So yes, it is certainly possible for someone who is not a professional academic to publish philosophical work where professionals will read it. Even so, I think it will be difficult for someone without specialized training to get published in this way--the rejection rate at most philosophy journals is very high even for those with graduate training and years of experience, so getting one's work published can be quite challenging, and usually requires that the piece to be published demonstrates mastery of the field and the most recent work in thsi field. As for how someone might keep up with what is going on now, many publishers (I would recommend Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Blackwells, who...

I agree with Peter Lipton that most cases of people associating unnaturalness with badness are cases that provide no such connection. Usually, however, I find in such faulty associations a false conception of what is and is not "natural." For example, many people have claimed that homosexual sex acts are "unnatural," for the reason that the biological function of sex is reproduction. So homosexual sex acts would be ones, to use Peter Lipton's expression that appropriated "something that has one function [reproduction] in order to perform a different function [giving and receiving pleasure, for example]." While I concede that homosexual sex acts cannot serve the function of reproduction (at least directly--I can come up with cases where it does so indirectly), I do not at all concede the claim that the natural function of sex is reproduction, since plainly that would make most sexual activities unnatural , including (but not limited to) kissing, caressing, oral or manual sex, and most of the...

I wholly agree with Joseph Moore's reply and wish merely to add to it. As much as I understand not wanting to be too heavy an influence, your role as mother does not give you the moral option of not being an influence--that is just the way it works, and I'm sure you do know that. So, the only question is: What sort of influence do you wish to be? You can influence your daughter in ways that will strengthen her ability to make sound independent judgments, and the best way to do this is to model the process for and with her. She needs the raw materials, to do the job--just as we all do. One does not become independent through ignorance--ignorance takes us in the very opposite direction. So for Heaven's sake do not refuse to answer her questions and thus leave her in ignorance! By showing her how you reason, and how you are willing to attend to her reasoning (and to show the respect of challenging and correcting her reasoning, when it seems flawed to you), you will promote far better the...

Your questions seem to focus on how smart people were (or are), and thus on how you can become that smart. Maybe you mean something different than I do, when you use the word "smart," but I think the only honest answer one can give to many of your questions is "no one knows, and no one can know." But I can say that Socrates (and Plato, and Aristotle) would all agree on the best thing you can do to get the best education you can have: Find others who have that same interest, and those credibly reputed to be able to serve that interest, and follow the inquiries that follow where they may. This does happen at universities (and at colleges, in the US--a "college" is not post-secondary education most other places), and I would also pick your college or university in the same way that Aristotle probably did. He found out that the most famous thinkers and educators were at Plato's Academy, and so he wanted to work with--and to think alongside--the best minds. So my advice is: Find out...

I agree that curiosity is a great virtue, but I disagree that it was not a classical virtue. You are simply looking at the wrong "classics"! It is no surprise that curiosity is treated with suspicion (at best) in religious works whose whole goal is to get the reader to follow certain dogmas or patterns of thought. Curiosity is the very thing that overturns dogmas and questions all authorities, and those promoting dogmas and authority (usually their own) know this well. But not all "classical works" were devoted to the promotion and maintenance of special dogmas or authorities. Have a look at ancient Greek philosophy, and see what they say about (and how much they exemplify) this great virtue of curiosity. Specifically, look through a book on the presocratic philosophers and ask yourself how curious they must have been, to come up with such theories to explain the world around them. Read Plato's Apology and find out how Socrates dedicated (and ultimately forfeited) his life in...

Yes. Let me explain: Identification with some group (religious, especially, but also philosophical) extends your ability to make a difference in the world by adding your efforts to those of others, rather than limiting your efforts to the confines of whatever you can do on your own. By joining Habitat for Humanity, for example, you will find you are much more effective in building homes for those who cannot otherwise afford them than if you go out and try to build such homes all by yourself and without others' help. On the other hand, you might also find that Habitat for Humanity did things in ways with which you could not entirely agree or be comfortable. I am not at all religious (indeed, I would say I am the opposite of religious, at least insofar as that involves believing in dieties and such things), but even I can't miss the fact that many churches are associated with very significant and very well organized charities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs, as they are...

Philosophers don't all agree because they won't listen to me ! Just kidding! In fact, I would really hate it if everyone's reactions to my views were: Oh, right. Well, that's it, then! That would be the end of philosophy, and I would not want to contribute to that ! There are lots of differences between what science does and what philosophy does, and one of these difference has to do with what I would call the domain of "appropriate responses." In science, the appropriate responses include (but are not entirely limited to): accept the theory and the data offered in its support, or hold the theory in suspence while one seeks to replicate (or fail to replicate) the data offered in support, or reject the theory because one has some other data that are incompatible with the theory. Much of what happens in philosophy (both where progress is made and where it is stalled) happens because we do not have access to the sort of data that clearly confirm or disconfirm our theories. Our...

It really depends upon the subject. In the area of formal logic, one can (not always readily or easily, mind you!) refute a hypothesis, for example, by showing that it entails a contradiction. In most areas of philosophy, however, the closest we can come to a refutation is to show that the hypothesis in question entails some consequence that is contrary to the very sorts of intuitions or cases that motivate the inquiry in the first place. Let me give one example of this sort--one that is often used in classroom discussions in the field of ethics. Suppose we are considering an ethical theory that holds value to consist in the maximization of benefits to all of those, collectively, who will be affected by the action. (There are ethical theories like this, generically called "consequentialist" theories.) But a standard criticism of this theory is that the mandate to maximize the overall benefit of all concerned could result in a mandate to inflict great suffering on a completely innocent...