ninerbuff
godless wonder
Ahaha! Many scientists I know can't figure out how to program their remote control to their TV.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
51% of scientists believe in God/higher power
- Thread starter stlekee
- Start date
Smoke
Done here.
Here are the numbers:
General Public
Believe in God: 83
Don't believe in God, but believe in some universal spirit or higher power: 12
Don't believe in either: 4
Don't know or refused to answer: 1
Scientists
Believe in God: 33
Don't believe in God, but believe in some universal spirit or higher power: 18
Don't believe in either: 41
Don't know or refused to answer: 7
So, if scientists are ten times as likely to be atheists, that's pretty dramatic. Surveys since 1914 have also found that (a) "greater" scientists are even less likely to be believers, and (b) this phenomenon got more dramatic over the course of the 20th century. For figures for the "greater" scientists, the earlier surveys polled scientists who were listed as "great scientists" in American Men of Science. In 1998, because AMS no longer made that distinction, the polled members of the National Academy of Sciences. Here are the results:
So the situation seems to be that scientists in general are ten times as likely to be atheists as members of the general public, and eminent scientists are eighteen times as likely to be atheists. And at least since the 1930s, eminent scientists who are not atheists are far more likely to be agnostics than believers.
Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God" July 23, 1998
I don't find it at all surprising. The scientist and the believer are looking at the world in very different ways.
What's even more interesting to me is the phenomenon of Christian clergy who aren't believers. Hard numbers are nowhere to be found, since most of them are in the closet, but Daniel Dennett and LaScola wrote an interesting article about it. One of the things that's interesting about it is that the vast majority of non-believing clergy they talked to were unwilling to be included, even anonymously, in the survey. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/Non-Believing-Clergy.pdf
I'd be willing to be that this phenomenon is more common in denominations that typically require a pastor to have at least a master's degree. I suspect that the more education you have, the better informed you are about your faith, and the more time you spend thinking about scripture and theology, the less likely you are to believe every detail of your church's teachings. Even if you believe in God, you're not likely to believe all the things that a lot of your parishioners believe. Some beliefs (that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, for instance, or that the Bible is inerrant) just don't hold up very well on investigation. They're easier to sustain if you just don't know much about the subject.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
It has been applied by many on RF, this also shows to me that many have exaggerated the number of scientists that don't believe in God. It does not really affect in any way my view of the world. I tend not to put scientist on pedestals or see them as the greatest thinkers.
All sciences are now under the obligation to prepare the ground for the future task of the philosopher, which is to solve the problem of value, to determine the true hierarchy of values.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
Agreed. They're just smart but fallible people who do interesting & difficult work.
Some really impress me though, such as Feynman & Hawking.
Smoke
Done here.
Obviously, there are differences, but humans tend to have an exaggerated idea of just how special we are. Most people -- at least, most people I know -- seem to be aware that chimps and bonobos are our closest living relatives. What often surprises people is that chimps are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas.
Smoke
Done here.
I don't agree with it, but I've always been amused by Robertson Davies' characterization of scientists as "simpletons who happen to have a knack with test tubes."
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
More info on scientists and God
Strange News
Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline
By Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 11 August 2005 02:24 pm ET
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.
The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.
Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.
Ads by Google Coca-Cola® Secret FormulaMeet Dr.John S Pemberton, the Inventor of Coca-Cola® Twitter.com/DrPemberton Want A Divinity Degree?If Your Path To Becoming A Minister Requires A Degree, Look Here. DivinityDegrees.EarnMyDegree.com Jesus: God or Fraud?Discover the Evidence From Scholars About Jesus' Claims to be God www.Y-Jesus.com/God
The opposite had been expected.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.
In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.
"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.
Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.
In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.
"Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said today. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."
Ecklund and colleagues are now conducting longer interviews with some of the participants to try and figure it all out.
Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | LiveScience
Strange News
Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline
By Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 11 August 2005 02:24 pm ET
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.
The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.
Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.
Ads by Google Coca-Cola® Secret FormulaMeet Dr.John S Pemberton, the Inventor of Coca-Cola® Twitter.com/DrPemberton Want A Divinity Degree?If Your Path To Becoming A Minister Requires A Degree, Look Here. DivinityDegrees.EarnMyDegree.com Jesus: God or Fraud?Discover the Evidence From Scholars About Jesus' Claims to be God www.Y-Jesus.com/God
The opposite had been expected.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.
In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.
"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.
Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.
In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.
"Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said today. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."
Ecklund and colleagues are now conducting longer interviews with some of the participants to try and figure it all out.
Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | LiveScience
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
Yes, I can.
Not really.
I don't assume every scientist has the time to read philosophy. The numbers also don't go into specific thoughts (dogmas, abortion, same-sex marriage) what have you. There is a big difference between a liberal anything and a conservation anything, regardless of what those things are. Anyways, lots of scientists are ego-centric, bad people. This doesn't punch a hole in intellectual superiority, because I never implied an intellectual superiority to be there.
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
Yup.. now break it down to Christianity.. then Protestants.. and then evolution.. and then dogma.. and then young earth..
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I don't agree with it, but I've always been amused by Robertson Davies' characterization of scientists as "simpletons who happen to have a knack with test tubes."
I do have respect for science. But sometimes they seem to suffer from Autism
Scientific brain linked to autism
Scientists tend to be analytical
Highly analytical couples, such as scientists, may be more likely to produce children with autism, an expert has argued.
BBC NEWS | Health | Scientific brain linked to autism
Smoke
Done here.
That doesn't surprise me at all. I'd imagine "hard" science to be less compatible with belief than social science. However my cousin (who has, I think, seven degrees) did manage to complete a Ph.D. in microbiology and still remain a believing Catholic, but lost his faith when he got his degree in sociology.
It may depend on how well one is able to compartmentalize his life. I imagine that the more you think about your faith scientifically, the less likely you are to be able to sustain that faith. Faith doesn't hold up well under scientific investigation. Most believers don't think it should have to. If one can "change gears," going from fact-based thought in the lab to faith-based thought at church, it's easier to sustain your faith, but it does raise the question of just how rigorously scientific -- and just how thoroughly faithful -- one's thinking really is. If you're serious about both, you're cultivating habits of mind that are, I think, more contradictory than complementary.
That's what I'm really puzzled by... I don't get how someone can DO that.
For instance at one point here on the boards someone was asked what Adam and Eve looked like and they said they couldn't answer the question because they didn't have any evidence.
I did a double take.
It's like wait, so you can believe they even existed despite the fact that genetics shows it's impossible and there's no evidence for them, but you can't answer a question about what they look like? Why the sudden gear change from belief without evidence to "Oh, I suddenly need evidence to answer this?"
Starsoul
Truth
Well there you have it, does science or logic measure love too? IS there a scale that could accurately measure how much you are in love with somebody, or quantify the said amount of passion level gaudgable of the commitment that you are going to give, to sustain a relationship?
WHy do then people blindly fall in love? there could be no future ahead, no plausible explanation for the way one feels, no optimum way to express it to its length, why does that leap into the unknown love not require a proof of feasibility/ metaphysical equilibrium or a certain relativity, or even a sign that such a declaration would be believed/bought by the other who you profess your love for?
Ofcorse just because you had some classic rare intimacy does not in any way confirm that you two would remain a couple forever, no matter how exciting, SO why do people pick up on the mere strings of faith regarding love which could just be a well planned seduction or etc, and freak out about faith in a deity because THAT requires too much evidence. Just wondering..
dust1n
Zindīq
Well I experience love rather directly, unlike God. That would be largest gap in your metaphor.
There's a huge difference; first of all I know the person I love exists. I don't see how you're making a comparison between having faith in someone that demonstrably exists will be there for you (which is more induction than faith)... compared to having faith that some thingy called God or Allah exists.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I believe popular religion in the Western World has made a constant march toward Fundamentalism. This might be due to being backed in to the corner by Science and Modernism.
Just read what the most Important Christian Theologian in the western world had to say Creationism.
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]). -Augustine
And my favorite Church Father
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]). -Origen
If they could figure this out 1800 years ago I don't see why they can't do it today.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
While I hate to step on the toes of Abibi and my fellow lover-of-physics Meow Mix .... I slightly disagree. I think we have to separate the very abstract, philosophical question of a Creator-God (a deist god), from the much more tangible question of a theist god, or a personal God who interrupts the laws of physics and chemistry, perhaps to benefit those who favor and worship him. The latter is a lot less defensible in light of science. In my opinion, it's really indefensible in light of science. If we have learned anything from scientific inquiry it is that (1) the floods and diseases which terrorized our ancestors were not caused by magical human-like beings who are trying to help us or hurt us, but by the simple and beautiful mechanics of Nature, and (2) the course of events is determined by laws of Nature which are never broken.Since this is what I am getting at the rest is just gravy
So modern scientific knowledge really isn't compatible with a theist god, in my view. You can always use what I call the "snow leopard" argument, of course, and say that god intervenes in the universe all the time but he's incredibly shy and elusive, and it's impossible to capture these interventions on film, like a snow leopard.
Great question. But we could turn this question around, we could ask: how can you, as an insignificant mortal, possibly know that the universe was created by a personal god, with human-like qualities such as love and jealousy, and a thirst for obedience, praise and worship from Earthlings? The arrogant scientists with their condescending attitude, at least, freely admit don't understand the nature of the inconceivable forces which may have conspired to create the universe. So in a sense, it's really the theists who could be accused of arrogance, since they not only claim to know minute details about the Creator which they cannot possibly know, but they also project their own human qualities into those details and put themselves at the center of the Creator's plans and concerns. In effect, theists are saying "I know the universe was created by someone like me, for me. And I know the laws of this universe don't always apply to me when God intervenes on my behalf. In short, I know more than physicists. Therefore, physicists are arrogant."Abibi said:
But, if the universe simply followed the laws of physics, biology, etc. we would still expect highly intelligent, technological life to be rare on a given planet. So the observation of human uniqueness on Earth is compatible with either possibility, God or no god. OTOH your hypothesis, it seems to me, raises many unanswerable questions, which are perfectly answerable in terms of the laws of nature. For example, if God created the universe in order to create humans, why all this waste? Why do we have lifeless Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn, its many moons .... not to mention the countless star systems and galaxies, and the unimaginably large black void in between them all .... ? It seems virtually the entire universe is a senseless waste, from your God hypothesis point of view, whereas all the evidence makes sense from the scientific point of view. This is not to mention the fact that many of our closest ancestors, such as the Neanderthals who were as intelligent and technological as we, went unceremoniously extinct after God created them (were they a mistake?), and this is not to mention the countless failed pregnancies and child deaths which preceded the fortuitous birth of you and me (or were these tragedies encoded into the plan?) Most likely, our species, too, will go unceremoniously extinct, just like 99% of the species before us. Why create a 14 billion-year-old universe for the sole purpose of beings whose existence only lasts for what amounts to a fraction of an eye blink?Abibi said:
Yes, humans are unique and special. That's why 99.99999999999% of the universe does not, and will never, contain human life, and human life will most like take place during a relatively insignificant period of the history of the universe. There's nothing about these observations which contradicts the picture of a universe which runs according to elegant, yet unfeeling and unthinking rules. My education in physics and biophysics, thermodynamics and nonequilibrium statistical physics has given rise to many unanswered questions but has always supported this basic picture.
Last edited:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
What?
Ninerbuff - I think you're the one misrepresnenting the facts of the survey. I will restate exactly what I said before '51% of scientists believe in god or a higher power'. That is what the survey says. Also , there is no mention of the number of scientists surveyed, but 100 would be too small a sample to give a statistically valid measurement.