Theists: Why do you think more scientists are atheists?

[idea]

From teaching engineers, we evaluated their thinking maturity in labs etc...

read page 5:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/IntDev-I.pdf

Personally, I see athiests as still being in the bottom level - absolute knowing, thinking that everything is pretty much certain etc... In fact, a good chunk those who grad with BS are still there. Sad thing. If you read through the levels, you will notice that the highest level thinkers understand that life is ambiguous.

I think a lot of people go into science / engineers specifically because they do not like ambiguity. they like cold hard numbers that they can add and subtract and get exact answers for - they cannot handle subjective interpretation of essays, or trying to come up with something out of their head. The are not philosophers… They are INTJ’s for the most part. Many INTJ’s do not understand the point of religion. It is just their personality.

This was a BIG problem in the lab classes. Students hated it because it took them from the ivory tower where answers were precise to a place where there was no precise answers.

What is the temperature of this room? I would ask. Then explain, there is no exact temperature. Next to the window is different than next to the computer. It varies with time, and with the number of students going to and fro. There is no exact answer in the lab like there is in your textbook. Everything comes with uncertainty. We threw open ended probs with uncertainty in results and they hated it - we did this to try and increase their Perry levels etc... Many were stuborn, they refused to live in an uncertain world.

In short, it is the nature of the scientist to hate ambiguity, so they pretend that it does not exist. From what I have seen anyways...

last stage:
Contextual knowing. ... using intuition, their own thoughts and feelings and ideas of others - this is what the typical scientist cannot handle. feelings, ideas, thoughts - not data, simulations, derivations... It is too liberal artish for their personality types.

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

natural things by natural means, spiritual things by spiritual means. religious is a spiritual experience...

 

[Willamena]

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.

gasp! So many exclamation marks. I said this thing is meaningless; to extend that elsewhere is your own "saying".

Isn't the relationship between ill-health and smoking demonstrated to be causal? Not much comparison there, then, unless you actually are asserting that atheism causes science, or vice-versa.

"Significance in the situation finally depends on the context which frames the discovery --and that is the conscious concern and intentions of the group of people who make the discovery..."1 I approach this question of correlation thinking as an astrologer. In astrology it is recognized that a specific symbolic combination in the horoscope chart for a specific moment and place in time, taken for a specific person, read for a specific event, and read by a specific person, will only have significant for those people, for that incident, in that place, and in that moment. With any other combination it will either have a different significance, or no meaningful significance at all.

This particular combination of this particular correlation is significant to those particular people who will have an intention and desire to see it. No causality has been indicated (as far as I know).


1 Appearances: The Symbol in Context, from The Moment of Astrology, Geoffrey Cornelius

 

[Willamena]

On this, we completely disagree. That's like saying the default position is "No sun, and no moon."

Or no Buddha Dharma.

 

[Scuba Pete]

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

My mother claims to be an atheist and I was brought up Unitarian Universalist (Methodist until I was 9 or 10). She disowned me when I became a Christian. She even did it publicly, on the radio in Gainesville Florida. Some how I was able to overcome all of the myths she fed me as a child and I still was able to discern the truth.

You might have actually heard of one of my more famous great aunts: Madelyn Murray O'Hair. She called me shortly after my conversion to tell me how disappointed she was in me. I had never talked or met with her before that, and never again afterwards. I suspect my mother was behind that call as well.

 

[Willamena]

In short, it is the nature of the scientist to hate ambiguity

Except Schrödinger?

 

[smidget]

gasp! So many exclamation marks. I said this thing is meaningless; to extend that elsewhere is your own "saying".

Isn't the relationship between ill-health and smoking demonstrated to be causal? Not much comparison there, then, unless you actually are asserting that atheism causes science, or vice-versa.

"Significance in the situation finally depends on the context which frames the discovery --and that is the conscious concern and intentions of the group of people who make the discovery..."1 I approach this question of correlation thinking as an astrologer. In astrology it is recognized that a specific symbolic combination in the horoscope chart for a specific moment and place in time, taken for a specific person, read for a specific event, and read by a specific person, will only have significant for those people, for that incident, in that place, and in that moment. With any other combination it will either have a different significance, or no meaningful significance at all.

This particular combination of this particular correlation is significant to those particular people who will have an intention and desire to see it. No causality has been indicated (as far as I know).


1 Appearances: The Symbol in Context, from The Moment of Astrology, Geoffrey Cornelius

Well, I was trying to get across the idea that I was exclaiming quite a lot

I'm not talking about causation here, I'm saying that huge correlation certainly cannot be dimissed automatically as being meaningless and was pointing out that there is certainly instances where it's be found to be meaningful. To say that correlation is indicates no more connection between two things than a complete lack of correlation seems a very, very bizarre approach to take.

And as for astrology, I'd say that's definitely never seemed to have much in the way of concern for correlation! (! ) Pretty much because of this (and along with the fact that I can see no logical reasoning for why the movement of the stars would affect my personal relations), I do dismiss astrological predictions. So I'm afraid thinking as an astrologer doesn't make much sense to me, sorry. Perhaps this wasn't your point, maybe I'm misreading you.

And I'm not declaring that I can claim that atheism causes people to become scientists or vice versa, just asking what people personally think the reasons behind the facts might be. I can make theories of my own and hear what other atheists say what they think the reasons might be, but I'm more interested in what theists think on the subject, because I'm likely to understand/think less along that way myself, so it's much more interesting to me personally .
Obviously if you don't have any ideas/notions/theories as to why there might be a correlation between being a scientist and being an atheist, then that's fine, and a perfectly acceptable position

 

[smidget]

My mother claims to be an atheist and I was brought up Unitarian Universalist (Methodist until I was 9 or 10). She disowned me when I became a Christian. She even did it publicly, on the radio in Gainesville Florida. Some how I was able to overcome all of the myths she fed me as a child and I still was able to discern the truth.

You might have actually heard of one of my more famous great aunts: Madelyn Murray O'Hair. She called me shortly after my conversion to tell me how disappointed she was in me. I had never talked or met with her before that, and never again afterwards. I suspect my mother was behind that call as well.

Well, I think that's entirely hideous behaviour to have, to disown, or refuse to associate/befriend someone just because they are religious. I believe entirely in people's right to decide things for themselves as well, but would very like people to have all the facts before them, and I have never been able to understand, even remotely why people are thinkingly theist (I know they are, I just do not understand it, at all - if I did , I wouldn't classify myself as atheist). I think I might have trouble forming a completely deep friendship/relationship with a strong theist, just because there would always be something that we found incomprehensible about each other, in exactly the same way that I don't think I could with someone that was rampantly anti-animal testing (for scientific reasons. I'm talking about to the extent where they're more pro-animal than human... I go to a uni where there's alot of protest on this and there's been firebombs on uni property etc. I'm talking about that level of extremism, not just a mild distaste for it)/pro-the death penalty/even someone that had joined the army as a soldier, but there's gazillions of brilliant things to my religious friends - intelligence, humour, friendliness etc... This is rather a large tangent, isn't it? My point is simply that I think that people ought to be allowed to think out stuff by themselves, and also I'm incredibly curious as to why these intelligent people I know have come to the conclusions they have.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not talking about causation here, I'm saying that huge correlation certainly cannot be dimissed automatically as being meaningless and was pointing out that there is certainly instances where it's be found to be meaningful. To say that correlation is indicates no more connection between two things than a complete lack of correlation seems a very, very bizarre approach to take.

'Correlation' is meaningful, and 'meaning' is correlated between two things. We, the observers of the world around us, are the ones who draw those connections (co-relations) between arbitrary things. Some (particular) correlations, though, will hold more meaning to some (particular) people because of their (particular) situation and circumstances. This correlation holds little meaning for me in my situation and circumstances. I see atheist scientists and I see theist scientists; and as long as they both do a good job of describing the world, I've no more interest in that. Their salaries are justified.

And as for astrology, I'd say that's definitely never seemed to have much in the way of concern for correlation! (! ) Pretty much because of this (and along with the fact that I can see no logical reasoning for why the movement of the stars would affect my personal relations), I do dismiss astrological predictions. So I'm afraid thinking as an astrologer doesn't make much sense to me, sorry. Perhaps this wasn't your point, maybe I'm misreading you.

Astrologers are all about correlation between things. But no matter.

And I'm not declaring that I can claim that atheism causes people to become scientists or vice versa, just asking what people personally think the reasons behind the facts might be. I can make theories of my own and hear what other atheists say what they think the reasons might be, but I'm more interested in what theists think on the subject, because I'm likely to understand/think less along that way myself, so it's much more interesting to me personally .
Obviously if you don't have any ideas/notions/theories as to why there might be a correlation between being a scientist and being an atheist, then that's fine, and a perfectly acceptable position

Fair enough. My idea was that you see what you're looking to see, but if that doesn't qualify as a notion, I'll just stand back here in the corner.

Carry on!

 

[idea]

Except Schrödinger?

LOL! He is a famous one because he went against the norm.

Think of the normal engineer / scientist though - Some nerd in a plaid shirt with pocket protector and inch thick glasses right? They are nerds because they are INTJ’s. They do not understand other people, they do not understand feelings. Remember “Data” from Star trek? That is who they are. Preach to them about mourning for those who mourn, and loving their neighbor, prayer, faith, you know, spiritual stuff - I don't think they really understand that so well. everyone has their plus sides and short fallings, don't mean to be harsh to the INTJ's out there - they are great for lots of stuff, glad they exist.... just to point out that religion is all about how to deal with people (don't steal, be humble, love, etc. etc. - all about how to treat one another and grow closer to one another - hermits don't get it...) and INTJ's are not really "people" persons...

sour grapes - you know the tale? The fox can't get the grapes, so to make himself feel better, he imagines the grapes are sour.
People are the same - if they do not get it, they call "sour grapes"....
Engineers don't have touchy feely relashonships with others - don't like spiritual things, so it must be sour grapes.

 

[Willamena]

I put about as much faith in Meyers-Briggs as I do in the common misconceptions of astrology.

 

[smidget]

LOL!

In any event, you have to admit, what is the first picture that comes to mind when you think of a scientist? Some nerd in a plaid shirt with pocket protector and inch thick glasses right? They are nerds because they are INTJ’s. They do not understand other people, they do not understand feelings. Remember “Data” from Star trek? That is who they are. Preach to them about mourning for those who mourn, and loving their neighbor, prayer, faith, you know, spiritual stuff - I don't think they really understand that so well. everyone has their plus sides and short fallings, don't mean to be harsh to the INTJ's out there - just to point out that religion is all about how to deal with people and INTJ's are not really "people" persons...

Please do not tell me that you think this stereotype is true? I know far, far too many absolutely, disgustingly () gorgeous scientists. I'd post pictures of people I know, but I reckon that'd be something of a breach of their privacy. I know plenty of lovely lovely scientists too. But, I'd say there's nothing to say that says I must be nice to others, but I definitely hate upsetting people and would do my utmost to not harm people and to make them happier. I think this is partly to do with empathy, which I feel (I can feel sad => Feeling sad is bad => I do not want other people to feel this. It's all rather simple to me ) and also just the terrible feeling other people being upset/unhappy/angry gives me.

There could be said to be a stereotype that religious people have certain physical characteristics too, but I think that's absolute tosh . I know beautiful religious people, less beautiful ones, intelligent ones, silly ones, very kind ones and selfish and unkind ones... Same distribution as I see with atheists .

 

[The Voice of Reason]

From teaching engineers, we evaluated their thinking maturity in labs etc...

I agree with the gist of your post, as applied to engineers. In my career, I have been surrounded by engineers. As a group, I find them to be the opposite of lawyers. Engineers (again, as a group) tend to function best when there are no shades of gray, and everything can be reduced to a formula. These types of engineers are (for me) fairly difficult to work with. Lawyers, on the other hand, tend to see everything in shades of gray, and don't much care for a world where everything is "black and white" (again, I am speaking of the group).
Oddly, some of the most dynamic minds I've met have been in that percentage of engineers that can function in a world of grays. They are definitely in the minority, but they are absolutely brilliant when you catch up with one.

Personally, I see athiests as still being in the bottom level - absolute knowing, thinking that everything is pretty much certain etc... In fact, a good chunk those who grad with BS are still there. Sad thing. If you read through the levels, you will notice that the highest level thinkers understand that life is ambiguous.

I see this as you projecting your own bias onto a group. I say this because "atheists" as a group have only one thing in common - their disbelief in "God". Beyond discussing atheists in that light, the problem of overgeneralization dilutes the argument to the point of uselessness.

I think a lot of people go into science / engineers specifically because they do not like ambiguity.

I may be in the minority here, but I don't think of engineers as scientists, per se. I see them as a group unto themselves. When working with lab workers and lab managers, they seem (to me) to have a completely different outlook and personality makeup than the engineers. Just my .02 worth.

In short, it is the nature of the scientist to hate ambiguity,

Agreed.

so they pretend that it does not exist.

I disagree. I see scientists as working in the pursuit to eliminate ambiguity, not pretending that it does not exist.

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

... and since they are spiritually discerned, they are beyond the reach of science.

Oh - by the way - at the risk of sounding woefully ignorant, I have to confess that I have no idea what "INTJ" is. I'll take all the help you can give me on that one.





​

 

[Rolling_Stone]

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

And what is skepticism if not a philosophy?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

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

Why is no-God the default position? There's no more evidence for atheism that there is for theism. In fact, if there is a "default position," why not go with the one that says, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it must be a duck"? Why go with the one that says, "It's not a duck because there's no such thing as ducks"?

 

[Magic Man]

Brainwashing.

I think you mean the ability to break free of brainwashing.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Yes, the default position is that there is nothing. Once you start experiencing things, they become part of your reality. When I was first born, I knew nothing of the sun. I learned over time what it was, and there is plenty of evidence to support the belief. When I was born, I didn't know anything about God. I learned a lot about the concept over time, but the evidence was lacking.

 

[3.14]

athiests are not bound by religion so they can explore everything without bias that might interfear with there beliefs, and if there beliefs are wrong they just explore new ones instead of morphing there old ones to fit there belief

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yes, the default position is that there is nothing.

Yet you have provided NO proof that this is so. None, nada, squat. You only guess and then you pass your guess off as somehow being real. Why? Because YOU came up with the guess? How droll.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

And what is skepticism if not a philosophy?

A healthy skepticism is the vehicle that drives our curiosity. Philosophy is the (love of) study of knowledge.

From Merriam Websters Online Dictionary:
Skepticism
3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation

The equivocation of terms is tiring. This is the English language. You can't just make up a meaning for a word - they are all predefined.

 

[Magic Man]

Yet you have provided NO proof that this is so. None, nada, squat. You only guess and then you pass your guess off as somehow being real. Why? Because YOU came up with the guess? How droll.

Um...no, it's because the default position for something is to assume it's not true, or that there is not something. I don't assume there's a country called Australia until I am given some reason to. I don't assume there's a sun until I am given some reason to. I don't assume there's a God until I am given reason to. I don't assume anything until I am given reason to.

I know you think you have to prove this wrong because you think it hurts your position as a theist, but it doesn't. You can admit that atheism is the default position, and still not admit that atheism is in any way superior to theism. the two things are completely unrelated.