Theists: Why do you think more scientists are atheists?

[L0gic]

I haven't read much of the other pages, so if something is repeated, oh well.
Scientists tend to question things, that's part of the nature. Naturally, they're going to question god. This doesn't mean they won't believe, it just means they'll question it.
Also, scientists tend to have a higher intelligence than the average, partially educated person. Perhaps, the right hemisphere of the brain is more developed, allowing for greater thinking of abstract ideas, such as questioning god.

However, I think the culprit is the average believer. They tend to make an imaginary distinction, which to them is almost a physical one, that people who believe in evolution are non-believers. Evolution is a theory and science is full of theories, studied by scientists. This is usually supported by such things as scientists rejecting god and accepting evolution, which is then applied to all scientists in general.

I'm sure many scientists are athiests but I'm also sure many are thiests. Due to the stigma that's carried around, more scientists are thought of as being athiests.

As said by Rolling_Stone: "life is nothing but physics and chemistry", I disagree with this. Life of an organism involves biology, chemistry, physics, psychology, etc... . Relationships are indeed real
"Denying the reality of higher grades of significance because they can't be counted, measured and weighed is to live in a meaningless wasteland", this is not true for all non-believers. I do not believe, not only for some of the reasons you mentioned but for other reasons, none of which are to be discussed here as this is the wrong thread. You can message me or look in another thread.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I haven't read much of the other pages, so if something is repeated, oh well.
Scientists tend to question things, that's part of the nature. Naturally, they're going to question god. This doesn't mean they won't believe, it just means they'll question it.
Also, scientists tend to have a higher intelligence than the average, partially educated person. Perhaps, the right hemisphere of the brain is more developed, allowing for greater thinking of abstract ideas, such as questioning god.

A higher intelligence doesn't make one wise. Even so, this doesn't answer why atheism should be the "default position" or no-God the approach to scientific inquiry if life and the universe look designed.

However, I think the culprit is the average believer. They tend to make an imaginary distinction, which to them is almost a physical one, that people who believe in evolution are non-believers. Evolution is a theory and science is full of theories, studied by scientists. This is usually supported by such things as scientists rejecting god and accepting evolution, which is then applied to all scientists in general.

I tend to agree, but I don't think this is as true as it used to be. It's just a small and vocal minority that equate belief in evolution with atheism.

I'm sure many scientists are athiests but I'm also sure many are thiests. Due to the stigma that's carried around, more scientists are thought of as being athiests.

You might be right, but I do think the numbers do show that in proportion to the rest of the population, more professional scientists are atheists though, like you said, not all.

As said by Rolling_Stone: "life is nothing but physics and chemistry", I disagree with this. Life of an organism involves biology, chemistry, physics, psychology, etc... . Relationships are indeed real

And that's whre wisdom comes in; not only in human relationships, but in the individual's relationship with universe and the whole of reality.

"Denying the reality of higher grades of significance because they can't be counted, measured and weighed is to live in a meaningless wasteland", this is not true for all non-believers. I do not believe, not only for some of the reasons you mentioned but for other reasons, none of which are to be discussed here as this is the wrong thread. You can message me or look in another thread.

Fair enough. (I could challenge you to present your case, but you're right. It a subject for another thread.)

 

[Valjean]

Pete, my friend. With all respect -- you're all wet!

What you're proposing is that people are born believing in Jehova, or at least born believing in some God. There is just no support for this position. It's like saying people are born believing in the Eiffel Tower or plate techtonics.
All these things, concrete, abstract or religious are learned, not innate. If they were innate there would certainly be more religious homogeneity than we see in the world.
And, as has been mentioned, an acquired belief is in no way inferior to a lack of belief. You seem to find this concept threatening, and I don't understand why.

 

[rocketman]

Why are scientists more likely to be atheists?

I think that peer-pressure has a subtle role to play. I think this partly works at a subliminal level and is powered by the very nature of the peer-reviwed reductionist scientific endeavour. It's not that science needs to be in conflict with, or contradict religion, but the sharp end of reductionism is certainly a big contrast with the theistic methods. It seems to me that scientists who are also theists are particularly good at being able to see cold reductionism for the limited engine that it is, and in turn have no problem with their 'day job' conflicting with their 'eternal job', for want of a better description.

Interestingly, the 2005-2007 Ecklund survey revealed that area of expertise had little or no bearing on the numbers. Ecklund and Scheitle concluded in a follow up analysis:

"We find that field-specific and interdisciplinary differences are not as significant in predicting religiosity as other research suggests. Instead, demographic factors such as age, marital status, and presence of children in the household are the strongest predictors of religious difference among scientists. In particular, religiosity in the home as a child is the most important predictor of present religiosity among this group of scientists."

I think it is natural to expect atheists to become scientists; they would certainly feel more comfortable in a reductionist environment.


http://www.buffalo.edu/news/8732
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289

 

[Da Troof]

Why don't the majority of scientists believe in God?

Because over the last few centuries science has gradually chipped away at the lies and superstitions that underpin religions by providing good scientific explanations for thing that once could only be explained in mystical/spiritual ways.

What surprises me is that a few scientists do still believe in God. I think this shows just how effective religious brainwashing of young children can be.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What you're proposing is that people are born believing in Jehova, or at least born believing in some God.

Not really Seyorni... I am proposing that it DOESN'T matter AND it's unverifiable at any level. This whole concept of the "default position" is simply ludicrous.

Consider this scripture:

Ecclesiastes 3:10 I have seen the burden God has laid on men. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. 12 I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. 13 That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God. 14 I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him. NIV

Why should I believe it OVER your intuition? It makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, while I went to quote just the highlighted portion, this entire passage spoke to me of it's inherent truth.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You seem to have developed some kind of duck fetish.:sarcastic

Maybe it's just de-duck-tive reasoning?

 

[Willamena]

Do you agree that the child is from birth in a state of kensho, "seeing one's true nature" unencumbered by the myths we build about ourselves, the lies we tell ourselves? If our true nature is oneness with all, and if "God" is recognized in that light, then the "default position" could be "knowing God".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A child is born barely able to discern much of anything beyond the most rudimentary. To romanticize this as being "unencumbered by ... myth" is unhelpful. The child is similarly unencumbered by rational thought. Neither side of the debate should confuse "knowing God" with a sucking impulse ...

 

[Willamena]

A child is born barely able to discern much of anything beyond the most rudimentary. To romanticize this as being "unencumbered by ... myth" is unhelpful. The child is similarly unencumbered by rational thought.

Just so, though.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... Ecklund and Scheitle concluded in a follow up analysis:

"We find that field-specific and interdisciplinary differences are not as significant in predicting religiosity as other research suggests. Instead, demographic factors such as age, marital status, and presence of children in the household are the strongest predictors of religious difference among scientists. In particular, religiosity in the home as a child is the most important predictor of present religiosity among this group of scientists."

I think it is natural to expect atheists to become scientists; they would certainly feel more comfortable in a reductionist environment.


http://www.buffalo.edu/news/8732
[URL]http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289[/URL]

Some interesting (and educational) information there, Rocketman. As I began reading your post, I was prepared to be offended, but as it unfolded, I found myself agreeing with your view.

The part that really caught my eye was the strength of the indicator in a scientists religiosity. The fact that the strongest indicator is "religiosity in the home as a child" leads me to the position that some (if not many) scientists are never able to throw off the yoke of their upbringing.

I don't intend for that to be as offensive as it sounds, but rather, it is intended to reflect the mindset that some of the scientists were never able to acheive the sharp reductionism that you bring up (at least, reductionism as it pertains to their religious upbringing).

 

[Willamena]

Some interesting (and educational) information there, Rocketman. As I began reading your post, I was prepared to be offended, but as it unfolded, I found myself agreeing with your view.

The part that really caught my eye was the strength of the indicator in a scientists religiosity. The fact that the strongest indicator is "religiosity in the home as a child" leads me to the position that some (if not many) scientists are never able to throw off the yoke of their upbringing.

I don't intend for that to be as offensive as it sounds, but rather, it is intended to reflect the mindset that some of the scientists were never able to acheive the sharp reductionism that you bring up (at least, reductionism as it pertains to their religious upbringing).

Is it necessary, in order to be a good scientist, to throw off that yoke?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Is it necessary, in order to be a good scientist, to throw off that yoke?

I would say (resoundingly) "absolutely not". It is self evident that many great scientists are strong theists and deists.

It is also self evident (from the statistics quoted) that a great many do come to the conclusion that (for them) God either does not exist, or that they can never know (with certainty) the answer.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Maybe it's just de-duck-tive reasoning?

Or maybe it's because critics seem to duck the question that I repeat the question (which remains unanswered).

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Or maybe it's because critics seem to duck the question that I repeat the question (which remains unanswered).

What was your question again?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What was your question again?

Q: Why do you think more scientists are atheists?


A: Brainwashing.


Response: Irony


A: Yes. It begins when students step into a class and are told that while things look designed, their investigation must be approached as though they are not.


Someone stated that no-God is the default position. I asked why:

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 a duck"?

I went on to say in another post that a religion that is not submitted to scrutiny isn't fit to be called a religion. So why not apply that same scrutiny to scientism? Why make atheism the "default position"? Is it wisdom to say, "If it looks, walks and sounds like a duck, it can't be a duck because there are no ducks"?

 

[tomspug]

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

Monkey see, monkey do.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Q: Why do you think more scientists are atheists?

Why are scientists more likely to be atheists? ...
"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.)"

Why did you distort the quote?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Why did you distort the quote?

So, "Why do you think more scientists are atheists?" is a distortion of of the thread's question:

Theists: Why do you think more scientists are atheists?

Wow! Talk about splitting hairs!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, "Why do you think more scientists are atheists?" is a distortion of of the thread's question:

Wow! Talk about splitting hairs!

I'm not splitting hairs. I'm asking how you got from quote to question, since the quote does not say that "more scientists are atheists".