That’s fine. The historical, theological and sociological origins of science are interesting. That doesn’t mean I have to believe in any of the myriad of religious beliefs associated with the origins of science whether it’s a Greek paganism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or even atheism.
We have not discussed personal beliefs here much at all. Of course you don’t have to believe it. Science, as I find it, doesn’t care what any of us believe in our hearts. 
Well correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t Daniel’s appeal to a divine creator per the Judeo-Christian Bible as his motivation for learning about nature itself be a personal belief? Is it not?
Bad thread title. It’s really about creationism and interest in basic science. Surely you’re not trying to equate creationism with religious faith.
I have no problem with anyone believing in God or finding motivation in doing science in their belief in God. But appeals to anyone’s personal religious beliefs isn’t in my opinion a good basis for a broad argument for the value of science. If you want to engage with like minded religious people in your own silo to reinforce these religious motivations I’m OK with that so long as it doesn’t affect the practice of science itself for the field as a whole.
I frankly can personally however think of no question I find less interesting than whether God exists.
I’m going to italicize the bits I would hope you will pay particular attention to in hopes of not confusing this with an attack. It’s not.
I understand you I think.
However, I just appealed to curiosity, wonder and awe. I appealed to the history of science and the common motivations of most of us.
We can personally believe what we want to about what these things are, but many scientists describe it using language similar to @dga471.
That is more than merely personal belief.
Don’t blame me for that. I didn’t come up with the title.
1 Like
A modern person is in no way obligated to have their curiosity motivated by understanding God’s creation regardless of whether centuries ago that was a primary motivation. I can be curious and awestruck by nature without any appeal to god(s) at all regardless of the history of theocratic origins of science.
1 Like
You certainly aren’t obligated. As I said before, science doesn’t care what you believe personally about these things.
So that begs the question why bring up your beliefs about god(s) at all in building a general argument for the value of science?
Because our beliefs, and those of others, are part of a general argument for basic science.
I would take issue with the claim that your religious beliefs or anyone’s religious beliefs are a useful basis for arguing the general value of science. After all you just said science doesn’t care about your beliefs, which really means that scientists are not obligated to take anyone’s religious beliefs into consideration.
What is your proposed non-religious justification for why we should do basic science instead of applied science? You said:
In your opinion, why is basic science a “service”, instead of a distraction from more pressing practical problems? You said you’re into it because you have some basic curiosity about the basic research problems that you’re working on. But why should society fund and support a person’s desire to sate their curiosity?
1 Like
You should read The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge by Abraham Flexner. Flexner founded Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Studies which I’m sure as you know helped bring Einstein to the US.
Knowledge of the natural world is its own reward and you simply have no idea as to whether that seemingly worthless piece of knowledge now may be useful in the future. We are simply better off just by seeking to understand nature first and foremost rather than pursuing science as purely a utilitarian exercise.
In his essay Flexner says he asked Eastman (of Eastman Kodak) who’s the most valuable scientist in the world and Eastman said it had to be Marconi because of the enormous telecommunications value of the radio. Flexner’s reply was,
“Mr. Eastman, Marconi was inevitable. The real credit for everything that has been done in the field of wireless belongs, as far as such fundamental credit can be definitely assigned to anyone, to Professor Clerk Maxwell, who in 1865 carried out certain abstruse and remote calculations in the field of magnetism and electricity…. Other discoveries supplemented Maxwell’s theoretical work during the next fifteen years. Finally in 1887 and 1888 the scientific problem still remaining — the detection and demonstration of the electromagnetic waves which are the carriers of wireless signals — was solved by Heinrich Hertz, a worker in Helmholtz’s laboratory in Berlin. Neither Maxwell nor Hertz had any concern about the utility of their work; no such thought ever entered their minds. They had no practical objective. The inventor in the legal sense was of course Marconi, but what did Marconi invent? Merely the last technical detail, mainly the now obsolete receiving device called coherer, almost universally discarded”
His argument was the basic science was the groundwork, the basic understanding of nature for applications you simply couldn’t envision. The same could be said for Einstein and relativity or Watson and Crick and DNA since neither discoveries were made with any anticipation of the applications that rely on those discoveries today.
So that’s one reason.
The other I think is the same argument for art and literature. Basic research and the understanding it provides enriches our lives. We are better off as human beings with an understanding nature than without even independent of any applications. Understanding like art I think is it’s own reward.
I’m noting the paradox of this thread and another one with active discussion: Has science made religion useless?
So science is useful even when its useless, and somehow it made religion useless…
It seems to me there is some contradictions here…
1 Like
Science is useful because knowledge is its own end.
The usefulness of science doesn’t need to be measured by immediate practical utility.
Science may have made religion useless as a means for explaining the natural world but that doesn’t mean religion is useless. I for one never said religion is useless.
I hope that clears up your perceived contradictions Josh.
1 Like
I think some pushback is in order here.
Would you categorize all kinds of knowledge as equally useful?
For example, a historian digs up knowledge about ancient Egypt… and a scientist discovers knowledge about the universe.
Would you look at both kinds of knowledge as "it’s own end.
All knowledge does not have equal utility at any given time.
I don’t measure the value of scientific knowledge exclusively by utility.
There was by Einstein’s own admission no practical utility to general relativity at the time of its discovery. Now our world couldn’t run without it.
1 Like
And yes both kinds of knowledge have value for their own sake.
1 Like
Ok. So would it be fair to say you are looking at a psychological attitude or a state of mind?
Let me give an example outside academia.
Suppose there were two hairstylists. One pursues knowledge of different ways of setting hair and altering it for the purpose of making money.
A second person pursues hair styling purely for the knowledge. He gets a great joy out of finding out different ways of arranging hair to get different looks and convey different meanings. He is into hairstyling in a pure manner.
Would you say you are the second guy…
Or are you saying something else entirely.