51% of scientists believe in God/higher power

[stlekee]

I ran across this while surfing. Its a 2009 survey, fairly recent. Something I read often here seems to be that scientists and educated people don't have much use for God and religion. This survey doesn't support that claim. This survey says 51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power and breaks it down further. What 'ca think?

Scientists and Belief - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

 

[DarkSun]

What scientists personally believe isn't a scientific issue. Science only concerns itself with the objective.

 

[gnomon]

I've heard that 100% of human beings have to squat when they defecate.

edit: If they know what's good for them.

 

[DarkSun]

I've heard that 100% of human beings have to squat when they defecate.

edit: If they know what's good for them.

What about in space?

 

[gnomon]

What about in space?

They just point their moon to the moon.

 

[dust1n]

I ran across this while surfing. Its a 2009 survey, fairly recent. Something I read often here seems to be that scientists and educated people don't have much use for God and religion. This survey doesn't support that claim. This survey says 51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power and breaks it down further. What 'ca think?

Scientists and Belief - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Haha.. ask how many of those are of the Abrahamic God.

 

[stlekee]

haha - how true. But serious for a second, if half of the people who spend their lives and careers pursuing knowledge and understanding (truth) of the sciences believe there is a god, it says something. You can't just dismiss it with a joke. These are not the stupid people so often characterized as believers by athiests. And I understand that scientists are not science - maybe the point is that the people doing science aren't as anti-god as some who merely believe in science as the end-all be-all. If nothing else, it punches a hole in the intellectual superiority impied by some athiests.

 

[gnomon]

haha - how true. But serious for a second, if half of the people who spend their lives and careers pursuing knowledge and understanding (truth) of the sciences believe there is a god, it says something. You can't just dismiss it with a joke. These are not the stupid people so often characterized as believers by athiests. And I understand that scientists are not science - maybe the point is that the people doing science aren't as anti-god as some who merely believe in science as the end-all be-all. If nothing else, it punches a hole in the intellectual superiority impied by some athiests.

Isaac Newton spent more of his time in Aramaic studies and alchemy than he did on the calculus, optics or phsyics. So what? We recognize this man for the valid contributions he made into, what many people forget, optics, than physics and than his calculus. Other scientists believed that the hereafter was a state of enslavement to the Gods. But they contributed heavily to astronomy.

We have a classical culture that believed in Titans. They also contributed heavily to political philosophy as well as natural philosophy. Actually, some in those time contributed to atomic theory as well as steam combustion, but so what? I don't see many scientists today giving one bit of credence to any of those cosmologies.

Who cares if a scientist in a particular field states claim to a believe in a savior which predominates so many religious beliefs today but did not exist among those scientists who did not have a concept of a savior. It doesn't matter.

The fact remains that people put forward concepts in theology and science which are debatable. They will continue to be debated. That a person gets something right, as right as testable and empirical science can ascertain, also puts forward a specific cosmology doesn't detract from the fact that all of such statements are open to debate. I don't care about Newton's alchemy. It is bunk today. Nor do I care about his Aramaic view against the trinity so many religious believers, including scientists, adhere to. That view is based more upon the failure of the Vandals to actually institute a new authority in Rome when they had a chance than anything relating to science.

Here is some more science. Chinese individuals of cosmological views unknown developed gunpowder. So what? The fact remains that they developed gunpowder. Their cosmological views upon that fact are completely lost in face of the actual technological significance of that fact.

 

[stlekee]

Dust1n - here's some numbers from the survey

Given their much lower levels of belief in God or a higher power, it is not surprising that the percentage of scientists who are unaffiliated with any religion is much higher than among the general public. Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research Center poll (48%) say they have no religious affiliation (meaning they describe themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular), compared with only 17% of the public. Thus, it follows that most faith traditions are represented in smaller numbers in the scientific community than in the public as a whole. For instance, the scientific community is far less Protestant (21%) and Catholic (10%) than the general public, which is 51% Protestant and 24% Catholic. And while evangelical Protestants make up more than a fourth of the general population (28%), they make up only a small slice (4%) of the scientific community. One notable exception is Jews, who make up a larger proportion of the scientific community (8%) than the general population (2%).

 

[Atomist]

Haha.. ask how many of those are of the Abrahamic God.

well the link says like 38%

 

[Nepenthe]

haha - how true. But serious for a second, if half of the people who spend their lives and careers pursuing knowledge and understanding (truth) of the sciences believe there is a god, it says something. You can't just dismiss it with a joke. These are not the stupid people so often characterized as believers by athiests. And I understand that scientists are not science - maybe the point is that the people doing science aren't as anti-god as some who merely believe in science as the end-all be-all. If nothing else, it punches a hole in the intellectual superiority impied by some athiests.

Only 51% of scientists believe in a god compared to 95% of the general public. That's a huge difference and is indicative of how a scientific approach to examining the world is linked to non-theism. Consider also that amongst those theistic scientists there are far fewer who identify with a specific religion- for example, only 21% identified as Protestants compared to 51% of the general populace. 8% identified themselves as Jewish which added to the percentage of theists and I wonder how many Jewish atheist scientists identify themselves as Jewish. I bet most do so.

Also, it's not exactly 51%- breaking it down reveals a bit more. 33% claim a personal god while 18% believe in an ambiguous "higher power". Sure deism and/or pantheism are theisms but they're very different than belief in a personal god.

In 1998 members of the prestigious National Academy of Science were polled on their religious belief. Only 7% identified as theists. Biologists had the lowest belief at 5.5% and mathematicians the highest at 14.3%. Of course there are theists in science, but there are far fewer than in the general public and even the theistic scientists are far less likely to practice any religion.

 

[Meow Mix]

haha - how true. But serious for a second, if half of the people who spend their lives and careers pursuing knowledge and understanding (truth) of the sciences believe there is a god, it says something. You can't just dismiss it with a joke. These are not the stupid people so often characterized as believers by athiests. And I understand that scientists are not science - maybe the point is that the people doing science aren't as anti-god as some who merely believe in science as the end-all be-all. If nothing else, it punches a hole in the intellectual superiority impied by some athiests.

Smart people believe in stupid crap too.

Newton was an alchemist, for instance.

I get the point that you're trying to make, but as an atheist who doesn't try to claim that "oh, scientists are on my side" I just don't see the point.

Scientists can be great at their science but utterly suck at metaphysics, for instance, which is vitally important in the theism/atheism debate.

David Bohm was an amazing physicist, but he believed that a charlatan human being could bend spoons with his minds.

Again, even scientists can be ****ing idiots. I don't think this says a lot.

 

[stlekee]

Nepenthe wrote
Only 51% of scientists believe in a god compared to 95% of the general public. That's a huge difference and is indicative of how a scientific approach to examining the world is linked to non-theism.

That seems to indicate the scientific method is linked to neither theism nor non-theism.

There are areas in life where the scientific method is not applicable. I think friendship, love, happiness, kindness, beliefs are beyond the scope of science. Science can't prove these intangibles, yet life would be empty without them. Perhaps the only proof for some things is the actual experience. Science can't prove true or false matters of the heart.

If you want to believe in science at the exclusion of belief in a god/higher power, its still just a belief. Personally I don't see science and God as 'competing' for our loyalty or belief, they're totally different things and require totally different perspectives and approach. But that's just me.

 

[stlekee]

Meow Mix, calling people who don't believe as you do fxxx idiots is closed minded and disrespectful in my view. You can't have both ways - meaning you can't claim the intellectual high ground while you're in the gutter. Only idiots think of others as idiots.

 

[Atomist]

Meow Mix, calling people who don't believe as you do fxxx idiots is closed minded and disrespectful in my view. You can't have both ways - meaning you can't claim the intellectual high ground while you're in the gutter. Only idiots think of others as idiots.

No... We can reasonably call young earth creationist idiots... same with flat earthist and Holocaust denialists... without being an idiot. Nice try though...

 

[Meow Mix]

Meow Mix, calling people who don't believe as you do fxxx idiots is closed minded and disrespectful in my view. You can't have both ways - meaning you can't claim the intellectual high ground while you're in the gutter. Only idiots think of others as idiots.

Sure, I gave an example of what I would consider an idiot, but my point -- which you can't reasonably deny -- is that even smart people can be idiots. That's all, define "idiot" by whatever you want but I bet I can find a person with a high IQ and an expensive degree that believes it.

Holocaust denial, young-earth creationism, theism in general -- yep, there's "smart" people that believe that nonsense.

My point stands.

But as someone pointed out, a lot LESS smart people believe theism than the general populace. A *lot* less. 51% versus 90%, hell even if it's 51% versus 80% or 70% that's a pretty significant difference.

No matter how you cut it, being a scientist or having a degree or having a high IQ doesn't mean you're going to be right. Being right makes you right. Not believing in unjustified voodoo bullcrap makes you... well, at least not blatantly unjustified. I'd call being blatantly unjustified "being wrong." Would you?

 

[Bismillah]

I would like to know how many scientists believe the Earth is flat? The point being made, I am assuming, is that many scientists are indeed theists. If those who specialize in the field of empirical study hold such a belief, then it should be reasoned that there isn't anything that specifically contradicts those beliefs. As in, spirituality and science are two mutually exclusive realms of study and the condescending attitude that I have seen many atheists adopt with a supposed scientific backing and refutation of theism is flawed in the eyes of those that they hold as bastions of reason.

 

[Meow Mix]

I would like to know how many scientists believe the Earth is flat? The point being made, I am assuming, is that many scientists are indeed theists. If those who specialize in the field of empirical study hold such a belief, then it should be reasoned that there isn't anything that specifically contradicts those beliefs. As in, spirituality and science are two mutually exclusive realms of study and the condescending attitude that I have seen many atheists adopt with a supposed scientific backing and refutation of theism is flawed in the eyes of those that they hold as bastions of reason.

Oh I agree 100%. Science isn't going to lead anyone to atheism. It can't, furthermore.

However scientists should have a certain understanding of metaphysics in order to do good science.

It's interesting to me that many scientists have this reverence for proper metaphysics when they perform science, but then drop the ball when it comes to their personal lives.

You're right of course that science has nothing to do with it. But it's sort of like a teacher who refuses to commit pedophilia in school but his personal life is a different story. (I'm not comparing theism to pedophilia, just drawing some semblance of an analogy). In this case school has nothing to do with it, the teacher just decides to be inconsistent.

Likewise, a good scientist is a good metaphysicist. If they decide to be a good metaphysicist in science that's just what's expected of them. If they decide to be a poor metaphysicist outside of science, well, then they're quite silly.

Considering theism lacks physical or metaphysical (and especially metaphysical) support and that even many scientists are fooled by blatantly stupid metaphysics outside of normal science (like Newton's fascination with alchemy and Bohm's fascination with minds bending spoons, as I've already mentioned) it's fair to say that scientists -- like anyone else -- can be a good metaphysician with part of their lives while completely prone to voodoo superstition just like anyone else.

After all, even religious people who don't believe in proper metaphysical justification of their theism will probably refrain from answering a direct question about something if they knowingly lack the evidence or knowledge to answer it (e.g. "who was the 24th president of the US", answered with "I don't know") but when it comes to questions about what exists many of them are PERFECTLY willing to go on and on about what exists despite their lack of any rational evidence whatsoever, blissfully unaware of the inconsistency they espouse by their willingness to do so in some areas but not others!

 

[Bismillah]

Oh I agree 100%. Science isn't going to lead anyone to atheism.

Since this is what I am getting at the rest is just gravy

It always seems like people are pushing for physical evidence for beliefs. Considering the scale of the universe that we inhabit, is it reasonable to assume that we can even see these signs? How could we, as insignificant mortals, ever be able to witness the proofs and comprehend the vast scale of our surroundings. An almighty creator would certainly transcend whatever tenuous grasp of reality our minds hold. I don't want to get into personal details of why I hold my belief since that would seem to diverge from the topic a bit too radically so I'll just keep it general.

We cannot even comprehend the inner workings of our own brain. Our conscious and semi-conscious self that works in unimaginable ways to produce the most mundane of functions. When I look at the difference between us and our simian "cousins" I can't help but laugh at their crude ignorant lives. These are the smartest animals inhabiting the planet excluding us and yet they seem so basic.

The individuality, uniqueness, and scale of things around me is proof enough for me. Living reaffirms my beliefs.

 

[Sunstone]

When I look at the difference between us and our simian "cousins" I can't help but laugh at their crude ignorant lives. These are the smartest animals inhabiting the planet excluding us and yet they seem so basic.

I don't know what you know of our simian cousins, but all the scientific evidence to date seems to point to our being "souped up" versions of them -- a super chimpanzee, if you will -- and not otherwise radically different than they.