Christians: 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates

[Martellus]

According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes). Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards.

Other numbers:

Jews - over 20% of total Nobel Prizes winners

Atheists, agnostics and freethinkers - 10,5% of total Nobel Prizes winners

Muslims - 0,8% of total Nobel Prizes winners

Source: 100 Years of Nobel Prizes - Baruch A. Shalev - Google Livros
​

What is your opinion about it?

Muslims comprise about 20% of the world's population and yet, they make up just 0,8% of Nobel Prizes winners. Whereas the Jews comprise about 0,02% of the world's population and they make up 20% of Nobel Prizes winners. How do you see such a fact?

Atheists, despite all their aggressiveness towards religion, going so far as to accuse religion of being something antagonistic to scientific progress, make up just 10.5% of Nobel Prize winners (when they are put together with Agnostics and Freethinkers), in other words, they are far behind the religious people in this regard. Having said that, is not unfoundedly hubristic on their part to regard religion as anathema?

 

[Sunstone]

How were the statistics compiled? Why were the hard sciences thrown in with literature and peace? Are atheists over-represented as prize-winners when compared to their numbers as a percent of the world's population?

 

[Nietzsche]

The vast majority of said Laureates are also middle-aged white guys. What's your point?

 

[Ouroboros]

Atheists, despite all their aggressiveness towards religion, going so far as to accuse religion of being something antagonistic to scientific progress, make up just 10.5% of Nobel Prize winners (when they are put together with Agnostics and Freethinkers), in other words, they are far behind the religious people in this regard. Having said that, is not unfoundedly hubristic on their part to regard religion as anathema?

And there's only 2.5% atheists in the world.

I think the numbers you have corresponds somewhat with the distribution of the same groups in America (and perhaps in the west world in general). So it's not so surprising.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheists, despite all their aggressiveness towards religion, going so far as to accuse religion of being something antagonistic to scientific progress, make up just 10.5% of Nobel Prize winners (when they are put together with Agnostics and Freethinkers), in other words, they are far behind the religious people in this regard. Having said that, is not unfoundedly hubristic on their part to regard religion as anathema?

No.

You're overstating the case.

One, Christianity is over-represented in what is sometimes called the "western world". It has been inherited for various reasons and does not always mean much, if anything at all.

Two, not all or even most atheists claim that religion is opposed to knowledge. It just seems that way because we are still so unused to let it be said. Most of us are actually rather quiet.

Three, one wonders how reliable those numbers are. You should not underestimate the false reporting due to social pressure. At the current time people old enough to earn a Nobel are unlikely to have lived through a society capable of accepting their atheism.

Four, the previous point is further aggravated by your numbers counting back to 1901. It was basically impossible to be openly atheistic before 1985 or so, after all.

 

[Cephus]

So what? In most western countries, more than 80% of the population claim to be Christians, you're saying that Christians perform more poorly in science than in the general population. Is that supposed to be a surprise?

 

[Martellus]

How were the statistics compiled?

Unfortunately, I couldn't answer your question because the link above has only a few pages of the book. However, it is noteworthy to clarify that I have searched for criticism on the said book and found nothing that disproved or refuted such numbers.

Why were the hard sciences thrown in with literature and peace?

"The Nobel Prize is an annual, international prize first awarded in 1901 for achievements in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace. An associated prize in Economics has been awarded since 1969.[5] Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 850 individuals.[6] (...)"
Source: List of Christian Nobel laureates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Are atheists over-represented as prize-winners when compared to their numbers as a percent of the world's population?

You might have a point. However, I would buy into this argument since Atheism is well widespread over the West, China and Japan.
According to a 2012 Gallup poll*, 13% of the world's population is made up of Atheists. The highest percentages are found in China (47%), Japan (31%) and Western Europe (14%). Not to mention the "Non-Religious" people, who comprise 23% of the world's populace.

*For further informations: http://www.winmr.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf​

 

[Revoltingest]

What is your opinion about it?

We heathens do well cuz we have Satan on our side.

 

[Martellus]

No.

You're overstating the case.

One, Christianity is over-represented in what is sometimes called the "western world". It has been inherited for various reasons and does not always mean much, if anything at all.

Well, considering that the university is generally regarded as an institution that has its origin in the Mediaeval Christian setting and that the Church fulfilled an extremely important role in the foundation of the first European universities, I would not say that Christianity does not mean much or that it didn't fulfill any role in the Western World progress. Let me mention some ultra-renowned universities that have their origin from Cathedral schools: University of Bologna (1088), the University of Paris (c. 1150, later associated with the Sorbonne), the University of Oxford (1167), the University of Modena (1175), the University of Cambridge (1209), the University of Salamanca (1218) and so on.

Two, not all or even most atheists claim that religion is opposed to knowledge. It just seems that way because we are still so unused to let it be said. Most of us are actually rather quiet.

Agreed. Pardon me for my generalisation. However, a large portion of Atheists are - not rarely - quite aggressive toward religion. But generalisation will never be a good thing indeed.

Three, one wonders how reliable those numbers are. You should not underestimate the false reporting due to social pressure. At the current time people old enough to earn a Nobel are unlikely to have lived through a society capable of accepting their atheism.

Why? At that time, Europe was not that from Mediaeval times. Both Christianity and the Church were widely criticised at that time.

Four, the previous point is further aggravated by your numbers counting back to 1901. It was basically impossible to be openly atheistic before 1985 or so, after all.

As I have said, I searched for anything that could call those numbers into question. There is nothing that could disprove such numbers. I would gladly thank you if you brought anything that could refute those number.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, considering that the university is generally regarded as an institution that has its origin in the Mediaeval Christian setting and that the Church fulfilled an extremely important role in the foundation of the first European universities, I would not say that Christianity does not mean much or that it didn't fulfill any role in the Western World progress. Let me mention some ultra-renowned universities that have their origin from Cathedral schools: University of Bologna (1088), the University of Paris (c. 1150, later associated with the Sorbonne), the University of Oxford (1167), the University of Modena (1175), the University of Cambridge (1209), the University of Salamanca (1218) and so on.

Then you are giving yet another reason to suspect the accuracy of the numbers.

 

[Ouroboros]

You might have a point. However, I would buy into this argument since Atheism is well widespread over the West, China and Japan.
According to a 2012 Gallup poll*, 13% of the world's population is made up of Atheists. The highest percentages are found in China (47%), Japan (31%) and Western Europe (14%). Not to mention the "Non-Religious" people, who comprise 23% of the world's populace.

The Noble prize has existed for some 100 years or whatever. Japan, China, and other countries outside of Europe and US were not part of even be considered for any prize until recent 20 years or so. That means the numbers are extremely skewed in favor of the distribution of Christians from Europe and US. It's obvious.

I'm curious why you suddenly bring in a few countries with a high number of atheist to make a point how the atheists are somehow "over represented" in the world and still have few prize winners. Yet, when you were making your argument for the Christian representation, then you're not willing to compare to a few countries only, but the whole world.

Like this:
Whole world: 30% Christians. Nobel prize: 70% Wooooww! How cool!
China: 47% atheists. Nobel prize: 10%. Oh, shucks. They suck!!!

It's flawed comparisons if you're not maintaining the same standards for both groups.

Either you compare Christians in the whole world, and the same for atheist. Or you compare Christians in the west, and the same for atheist. Or you compare Christians in China and how many of them got Nobel prize, vs Chinese atheists. I bet that most likely the Christian Chinese Nobel prize is very close to zero!

 

[Martellus]

The Noble prize has existed for some 100 years or whatever. Japan, China, and other countries outside of Europe and US were not part of even be considered for any prize until recent 20 years or so. That means the numbers are extremely skewed in favor of the distribution of Christians from Europe and US. It's obvious.

It would be imprudent of you to doubt some of the most renowned institutions in the world and try to baselessly impute them some sort of bias.

I'm curious why you suddenly bring in a few countries with a high number of atheist to make a point how the atheists are somehow "over represented" in the world and still have few prize winners. Yet, when you were making your argument for the Christian representation, then you're not willing to compare to a few countries only, but the whole world.

Like this:
Whole world: 30% Christians. Nobel prize: 70% Wooooww! How cool!
China: 47% atheists. Nobel prize: 10%. Oh, shucks. They suck!!!

It's flawed comparisons if you're not maintaining the same standards for both groups.

Either you compare Christians in the whole world, and the same for atheist. Or you compare Christians in the west, and the same for atheist. Or you compare Christians in China and how many of them got Nobel prize, vs Chinese atheists. I bet that most likely the Christian Chinese Nobel prize is very close to zero!

No. I said that Atheists made up around 13% of the world's population and if we put them together with Non-Religious people (23%), then both Atheist, Irreligious and Agnostic people will comprise 36% of the world's population. I made a fair argument.

 

[Ouroboros]

It would be imprudent of you to doubt some of the most renowned institutions in the world and try to baselessly impute them some sort of bias.

Our relationship with China, Russia (Soviet), and many other countries (where most atheists in the world lives) were not on the best terms during something called "The Cold War" which you might have heard about in movies at times. The bias was based on conflicting political and border issues. I'm pretty sure you won't find many Chinese, Soviet, Cuban, etc before the 80's. Secondly, socioeconomical problems is causing some countries to have poor educations leading to few scientists and research people. Many of these countries (like China for instance) was late to the capitalist game and simply didn't have the same base of educated scientists.

So again, the numbers are skewed because of socio-economic-political and historical issues, not religious or faith based.

Go back to your book and look at which country dominates Nobel prizes?

I'll save you the work: 43% US. (page 12, science category, 36% US overall)

Why? Because of socio-econo-political and historical issues, especially related to WWII.

--edit

One more thing. The statistics for current number of atheist v Christians in the world etc is ... to big surprise... the current numbers, i.e. as of now.

In America, the atheists are growing. More than 10% now, but they were barely 5% some 15-20 years ago. Keep that in mind too. And the same has been happening worldwide. The number of non-believers has increased the past 30 years or less. So again, the comparisons are not fair. Suddenly the increased number of non-believers in the past 20 years should be reflected on the past 100 years of Nobel prize statistics? (read the gallup report again, page 6, "TRENDS SINCE 2005: Religiosity drops by 9%, while atheism rises by 3%.". That's just 2005 to 2012 alone).

 

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on all.
A Unique Statistics
An Ahmadiyya Muslim Nobel Prize winner Prof. Abdus Salam [Physics, 1979, shared] is a unique person who was:

a) winner of this prize [and numerous others]
b) who also had the practical passion to uplift underdeveloped countries in science, he made an international a centre for it in Italy, and an academy.

References:
Abdus Salam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Abdus_Salam

ICTP - International Centre for Theoretical Physics
wwwDOTictpDOTit/

TWAS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/TWAS

 

[suncowiam]

So you only account for religious beliefs? Where's race, sex and age. I have a feeling you will see bias towards a particular race, sex and age group. Even then, what does this really assert?

Not sure what you're trying to prove?

 

[Kirran]

Most good points have been made here already, but I'm in time to say that not all atheists are irreligious. Plenty of Buddhist and Hindu atheists, for example. So just throwing atheism and irreligion into a pile together when looking at your global numbers doesn't really make sense.

 

[Cephus]

Most good points have been made here already, but I'm in time to say that not all atheists are irreligious. Plenty of Buddhist and Hindu atheists, for example. So just throwing atheism and irreligion into a pile together when looking at your global numbers doesn't really make sense.

They might value some of the philosophy, they do not believe in any of the gods. If they do, they are not, by definition, atheists.

 

[Kirran]

They might value some of the philosophy, they do not believe in any of the gods. If they do, they are not, by definition, atheists.

Who are you referring to here?

 

[Cephus]

So what? In most western countries, more than 80% of the population claim to be Christians, you're saying that Christians perform more poorly in science than in the general population. Is that supposed to be a surprise?

Actually, it made me think a bit on this, since atheists make up less than 5% of the population, based on studies, and make up more than 10% of the Nobel laureates, they are vastly over-represented, while the Christians are vastly under-represented. It makes me think that the OP never thought about the actual numbers before presenting wholly unjustifiable claims.

Anyone surprised?

 

[Cephus]

Who are you referring to here?

No one in particular. Atheists cannot, by definition, believe in gods. Any gods. If they do, they are not atheists. I know of several who value Buddhist philosophical ideas, I haven't met any atheist Hindus, but I'm sure some exist. None of them believe in any gods, period.