Theists: Why do you think more scientists are atheists?

[smidget]

Why are scientists more likely to be atheists?
I'd especially be interested in the views of theists on this matter.

Stats:

"A study has shown atheism to be particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%. (See also Relationship between religion and science.)"

(I think the idea is that members of the National Academy of Sciences are likely to be better scientists and more intelligent. It's an interesting finding to itself, any way)

The survey referred to can be found here: Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998 [I can't yet post URLs, but possibly you can find it with google. If not, get back to me in a while . ] Although this is a Nature article, I think it's hosted by a different site and so should be accessable to those without uni subscriptions. Lemme know if not though).

Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
Figures are percentages.

(Couldn't get proper indentation so I've coloured the data from the 3 diff. years)

Contrast with findings for the U.S. general population:
"A 2004 survey by the Pew Research Center showed that in the United States, 12% of people under 30 and 6% of people over 30 could be characterized as non-religious.[7] A 2005 poll by AP/Ipsos surveyed ten countries. Of the developed nations, people in the United States had most certainty about the existence of God or a higher power (2% atheist, 4% agnostic)"
Most of the data here is from the wiki page Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [I can't post the URL, but if you search wikipedia for it, you should get it] but all the data is backed up by links to the original reports.

 

[Willamena]

Personally, I think the distinction is nonsense. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I think this is a direct result of many theists denouncing evolution as being an atheistic belief. Sad that. They have erroneously drawn the line between belief in God and belief in evolution: a line that God never created or wanted to be drawn.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I wouldn't argue the aspect of causation, but these figures are undeniable in terms of correlation.

To me, the fact that the universe of those polled is limited to scientists gives us two clear conclusions:
1) The higher the level of intelligence and education, the more likely the rejection of the concept of a personal God.
2) Scientists are trained to be open minded skeptics, and that is almost certainly reflected in the study.

 

[smidget]

Personally, I think the distinction is nonsense. Correlation does not imply causation.

I didn't say there was evidence that there was nescessarily causation, but there is correlation, a pretty big correlation especially for the more senior scientists. I'm just curious if you have any thoughts as to why this would be

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Brainwashing.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Brainwashing.

Now THAT is irony in its purest form.

 

[Sunstone]

Brainwashing.

Sure.

 

[smidget]

I think this is a direct result of many theists denouncing evolution as being an atheistic belief. Sad that. They have erroneously drawn the line between belief in God and belief in evolution: a line that God never created or wanted to be drawn.

That's an interesting point, but as you've said in another thread, not all creationists are (by your info - I have no info on this, so I'm going by you on this!) not anti-evolution, and certainly all theists are not creationists.

 

[Willamena]

I didn't say there was evidence that there was nescessarily causation, but there is correlation, a pretty big correlation especially for the more senior scientists. I'm just curious if you have any thoughts as to why this would be

I think the correlation is mostly meaningless.

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." The Principia Discordia, pg. 40

There's scientists, there's scientists who work specifically with evolution, there's atheists, and there's any number of combinations of the lot. That some specific ones may constitute a large group of atheists simply indicates that people know where to look for what they want to find.

 

[Valjean]

If any brainwashing is involved, it's the downloading of theological concepts into a childs mind before it develops a firewall or spam filter.

Scientists believe what empirical evidence reveals. No evidence -- no belief. I'm surprised the percentage of atheistic scientists isn't higher.

 

[smidget]

I think the correlation is mostly meaningless.

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." The Principia Discordia, pg. 40

There's scientists, there's scientists who work specifically with evolution, there's atheists, and there's any number of combinations of the lot. That some specific ones may constitute a large group of atheists simply indicates that people know where to look for what they want to find.

There is a really big correlation in the stats though. Are you then saying that all correlation is meaningless then?! What about correlation between ill-health and smoking. There's definite correlation (and there's definite evidence as to what goes on in the body due to smoking that can harm it), certainly not all smokers will suffer from worse health than non-smokers, but there's a correlation between certain diseases and it, which I certainly would say is meaningful...

Also, a large percentage of scientists have absolutely nothing to do with evolution! I know plenty of people studying chemistry and physics that have absolutely no interest in biology, let alone evolution! This data isn't from solely biologists, but a random selection of scientists of different disciplines.

 

[Scuba Pete]

If any brainwashing is involved, it's the downloading of theological concepts into a childs mind before it develops a firewall or spam filter.

Concepts like "there is no God"??? I agree.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

.... "All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." The Principia Discordia, pg. 40

Including that one, and the book that it comes from.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Now THAT is irony in its purest form.

It is, isn't it?

It begins when they step into a class and told that while things look designed, they must be approached as tough they aren't. That's philosophy, not science.

 

[Valjean]

Concepts like "there is no God"??? I agree.

No need to introduce that one -- it's already there. No-god is the default position.
Like no-faeries or no Thor.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

It is, isn't it?

It begins when they step into a class and told that while things look designed, they must be approached as tough they aren't. That's philosophy, not science.

No - that's skepticism. It's what differentiates science from religion.

 

[smidget]

Brainwashing.

Brainwashing? Do you genuinely believe this is the reason behind the stats posted above, or are you just trolling? If the former, I don't think science teaching generally involves the touching upon any theological issues at all (it never has in my experience, and I think it'd be generally frowned upon in Britain, where I live. Obviously I'm not knowledgeable about the US system, but I'd say, as an atheist, that religion doesn't really have a place in the teaching of science, even if this is refuting religion). Are you saying that having a trust in logic and experimentable postulates is something brainwashed into people then? Are you saying that the more science someone learns, then the more likely they are to become atheist, and this is because science teachers say "Be atheist"?

In my experience, good scientists have always wanted me to think for myself, look at the evidence and draw my own conclusions and continuously ask questions about things that don't gel.

 

[smidget]

Concepts like "there is no God"??? I agree.

Hmm, I can only speak from my personal experience, but everyone told me there was a god etc, when I was a kid, and when I started thinking for myself, I started to realise that this did not make sense to me, that there was nothing at all saying that there was a god etc.

Lots of testimony I've read/heard from other atheists goes along these lines as well - from those I've come across, I think the atheists that grew up in an atheist family and enviroment are in the minority.

I do see a correlation between very religious families and very religious offspring though, in my every day life.

...Hmm, perhaps I shall go look for studies into the religiosity of the family and the resulting beliefs in the kids

 

[Scuba Pete]

No need to introduce that one -- it's already there. No-god is the default position.
Like no-faeries or no Thor.

On this, we completely disagree. That's like saying the default position is "No sun, and no moon." Just because you are blind to God does not mean that he is a myth.