51% of scientists believe in God/higher power

[Meow Mix]

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.

I think it's crude and ignorant when people expect God to show up through physical evidence, so we may be of like mind here

Evidence for God that would convice skeptics like me sure isn't going to be in the form of a rock somewhere that says "Yep this was carved by me, Allah" or "God" or whatever it wants to go by...

It would come in the form of metaphysical evidence -- ontological, epistemic, teleological, whatever evidence that demonstrates the necessity or even probable existence of such a being; or I would also consider it pretty convincing if I had a revelation that I could verify externally to me such as if God or Allah or whoever sent a revelation to me and my friends at the same time so that when I said "Hey I had what I think was a dream about meeting God and he said this and that" and they were all like "OMG really? Me too!"

Other than that kind of stuff gods aren't in the empirical arena. Science is limited to that, so it's never gonna say jack about gods -- that is, unless those gods are tied to empirical events such as "causing a worldwide flood" in which case we can say such a god doesn't exist. Otherwise though, nope, not related to science at all!

 

[Bismillah]

not otherwise radically different than they.

You really don't hold yourself to be much different than a chimpanzee? :sarcastic

 

[Bismillah]

MM: I haven't taken any Philosophical classes and don't plan on doing, so your post went pretty much over my head :cover:

ontological, epistemic, teleological

You people are walking encyclopedias :areyoucra

 

[Sunstone]

You really don't hold yourself to be much different than a chimpanzee? :sarcastic

I hold you and I to be different from chimps, but the differences are mostly matters of degree, rather than matters of structure. Put differently, we and the chimps have huge differences in terms of how much of x or how much of y we each have. But we both have the same structures -- the same x's and y's. There's no part of our brain, for instance, that is completely new and does not have a corresponding part in chimpanzees.

Of course, we also have characteristics that bespeak greater difference. For instance, chimps do not speculate about morality, so far as we know. So, I guess, in respect to those characteristics, we are very different from them.

Morals Without God? - NYTimes.com

 

[Breathe]

You really don't hold yourself to be much different than a chimpanzee? :sarcastic

We aren't that much different from chimps at all.

 

[Sunstone]

I would also consider it pretty convincing if I had a revelation that I could verify externally to me such as if God or Allah or whoever sent a revelation to me and my friends at the same time so that when I said "Hey I had what I think was a dream about meeting God and he said this and that" and they were all like "OMG really? Me too!"

I know a couple of people who have had "joint dreams", if they might be called that. Of course, there is no way for a non-party to the dream to verify that the dreamers aren't making it all up. Still, I believe these people because to doubt them would go against everything I know about them, their characters, and their integrity. But someone who didn't know them would not have my reasons for believing them.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I noticed there is a huge fall off from evangelical protestants in the mainstream population compared to scientists (28% compared to 4%) . That is a good sign.

 

[David69]

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

I'm suprised the persentage isnt much higher saying as the chances that everything created wasnt done by this higher power is Zero!

 

[Bismillah]

but the differences are mostly matters of degree, rather than matters of structure.

I am confused by the meaning of this. Our inherent selves are completely different. I've seen the arguments of whether animals can love or not, but they are clearly not capable of the deepest emotions part of our lives. The emotions that make us who we are. They cannot ponder their existence or contribute to anything outside of their own individual survival and aiding in the survival of its offspring. Compared to humans our closest "relatives" are blind automatons.

There's no part of our brain, for instance, that is completely new and does not have a corresponding part in chimpanzees.

While we may have the same parts the whole is different. Our cerebral cortex for example is much larger than a chimpanzees I am willing to bet. So though we may share some essential components so what? It's not the individual pieces that matter but the whole product.

It really is quite clear to me that we are a very unique thing, if not in the universe at least on our world. There is nothing as intricate, yet simplistic as the human body.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

That is one way of interpreting the numbers, I suppose.

An alternate interpretation, which I find more accurate revealing, is that knowing about science does not imply being "against god". That is particularly noticeworthy for those who claim that modern biology is somehow dominated by some sort of anti-Creationist conspiracy.

There is also the fact that 51% is still a lot less than the average population's number. Specifically, going from 83% who directly claim to believe in God to 33% shows both that science is not anathema to belief in God and that it doesn't conduct to it either. Maybe it hints that more often than not so-called belief in God is glorified superstition (which is IMO a true statement).

Even more significant, the percentage of atheists rises from 2% to 17%, that of agnostics from 2% to 11%, and, curiously, Jewish from 2% to 8%.

If you ask me, the clear message is that science does not really want to deny God - but all the same, it ends up showing that belief in it is often superstitious.

 

[gnomon]

I've seen the arguments of whether animals can love or not, but they are clearly not capable of the deepest emotions part of our lives. The emotions that make us who we are. They cannot ponder their existence or contribute to anything outside of their own individual survival and aiding in the survival of its offspring?

How do you know? Elephants mourning their dead. A dog attempting to save another dog from a highway. Even a dog nursing a newborn human child. What rulebook says that humans are superior in this aspect than other animals. A few words written down in a book by humans. If a dog, even driven by instinctual maternal instincts, tries to rescue a member of a species separate from it's own, in other words, not it's own offspring, does that mean it is less capable of emoting than human beings who willingly use other animals in violent sports!

While we may have the same parts the whole is different. Our cerebral cortex for example is much larger than a chimpanzees I am willing to bet. So though we may share some essential components so what? It's not the individual pieces that matter but the whole product.

And what religious document makes any reference to a larger cerebral cortex? The answer is none.

It really is quite clear to me that we are a very unique thing, if not in the universe at least on our world. There is nothing as intricate, yet simplistic as the human body.

The human body, from the so called intricate eye, which better examples can be found among other animals as well as other survival techniques, is a mess. Sharks have been around far longer than we humans. If nature tells us anything, we are merely surviving until the next comet impact.

Maybe Gabriel's trumpet is an asteroid more than 6km in diameter hurtling towards Earth.

 

[LuisDantas]

It really is quite clear to me that we are a very unique thing, if not in the universe at least on our world. There is nothing as intricate, yet simplistic as the human body.

The human body is hardly any more remarkable than that of any other primate, however. And while I am not a biologist, I'm sure that many other lifeforms are perhaps even more remarkable in their own ways. Viruses, for instance, are just about as intrincate yet simplisic as they come.

As for the main body of your post, it seems to me that you are mainly talking about social and psychological achievements. Those are neither demonstrably absent from chimpanzees and other non-human primates, nor forever beyond their reach. All it takes from them to be similar to humans in those fields as well are small changes (if even that) and proper environment.

 

[jmvizanko]

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

At least they believe in god in a way that also allows them to believe in science. I don't think they are incompatible at all. Certain varieties of fundamentalism with ancient texts, such as Genesis, are. But I don't think many of these scientists are relgious fundamentalists. Most believe in a general god in my experience and reading.

 

[ChristineES]

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

There is no reason to believe that just because someone is a scientist also means that they are agnostic or atheist.

 

[Nepenthe]

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.

The scientific method is inherently non-theistic, not atheistic. It has no need for interjecting gods into the method of inquiry. It excludes them unless a god hypothesis is necessary or empirically demonstrated- a hypothesis that has shown little need to present itself.
A huge proportion of scientists are not theists and even more are not religious compared top the general public. My point is that pursuing a career in science and thinking as a scientist is statistically meaningful in determining whether one is a theist or not.

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.

Of course science is applicable in all of the situations you mention- none of those are beyond the scope of science. Amazing insights into the neuro-biology of love, altruism, the anthropology of kinship systems, etc., etc., have been made.

 

[Meow Mix]

MM: I haven't taken any Philosophical classes and don't plan on doing, so your post went pretty much over my head :cover:

You people are walking encyclopedias :areyoucra

Sorry!

Ontology is the study of being and existence; ontological arguments for God usually involve demonstrating from first principles that it's necessary for God to exist either by showing that assuming the non-existence of God self-contradicts or by using a type of logic called modal logic (which deals in possibility and necessity) that God necessarily exists and therefore can't not-exist.

Epistemic arguments (epistemological, to some) are those that argue belief in God is justified somehow a priori (without having to look for evidence, for instance it's an a priori truth that if A > B and B > C that necessarily A > C... we can know that to be a true statement without finding evidence for it just because of the way it's defined) or sometimes a posteriori (having to find evidence).

Teleological arguments have to do with the appearance of design in the universe mostly, and a category I didn't mention is transcendental arguments which attempt to prove God's existence by showing everything must depend on God to exist essentially (it's pretty close-knit to the ontological arguments).

 

[Meow Mix]

There is no reason to believe that just because someone is a scientist also means that they are agnostic or atheist.

This is true. :rainbow1:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

I see what you're saying. Good points.

 

[Atomist]

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.

Well... other surveys have disbelief in god to like 31%... and this God/hell etc business is a pretty strong meme... It's fair to say nearly all of them are not fundamentalist... the belief in God can be justified (maybe not etymologically...) but certain dogmatic beliefs... maybe not so much.

Not only that... God makes for a good "meaning for life"... it's hard to accept that we're all here without a purpose. I don't think belief in god necessarily is a logical belief.

 

[ninerbuff]

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

Misquoted. Out of 100 scientists, 33 believe in god, 18 DO NOT BELIEVE IN god but a universal spirit or higher power.
To say that 51% believe in god is erroneous. Not to mention it was a survey on 100 scientists and there are many more that that in the whole world.