Theists: Why do you think more scientists are atheists?

[Rolling_Stone]

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".

You have to ask the author of the OP. (Even so, it's still hair-splitting.)

 

[Sunstone]

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

According to Scott Atran, there seems to be an innate tendency or predisposition in humans to conceive of supernatural agency operating in the world. If Atran is right, then that might be the default position.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

According to Scott Atran, there seems to be an innate tendency or predisposition in humans to conceive of supernatural agency operating in the world. If Atran is right, then that might be the default position.

So then my answer and following question are all the more pertinent?

 

[smidget]

Why did you distort the quote?

Me? I was saying the that more scientists were atheist than the general population, & that's supported there

 

[Willamena]

Me? I was saying the that more scientists were atheist than the general population, & that's supported there

Technically, the study only represents a select number of scientists in the United States. What about India --do you suppose there are more atheist scientists there?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Monkey see, monkey do.

To borrow someone else's phrase, now THAT'S irony!

 

[smidget]

Technically, the study only represents a select number of scientists in the United States. What about India --do you suppose there are more atheist scientists there?

There's stats from different countries available if wanted , I reckoned America seems most applicable on this forum. For many countries also, the levels of atheism found among the general public is v. high, so I also thought there would be less interest & difference between them and scientists.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What is the percentage of atheists within the scientific community and within society as a whole?

 

[idea]

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 .

They can be beautiful or not - the point is they chose a career of numbers over a career of people. Their priorities, what they enjoy, what they understand is equations and numbers over people. Religion is all about dealing with people, how people should interact, how to solve people problems. - love, humble, selfless, don't murder, play nice - the Bible is about people, not numbers... They are not touchy feely liberal arts majors is the point... The trend makes sense to me.

 

[idea]

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.​

INTJ

you should find your type if you don't already know it. It is fun

some exerts:
Typical INTJ career choices are in the sciences and engineering
Personal relationships, particularly romantic ones, can be the INTJ's Achilles heel.
the knowledge and self-confidence that make them so successful in other areas can suddenly abandon or mislead them in interpersonal situations.
many INTJs do not readily grasp the social rituals;
INTJs are usually extremely private people, and can often be naturally impassive

To outsiders, INTJs may appear to project an aura of "definiteness",
- they don't like shades of gray

both perfectionism and disregard for authority may come into play

It would be fun to compare personality types with degree of religious faith.

I'll start
type ENFP from one to 10, I am a 10 for religious faith
I don't know all the details, but I am 100% sure that God exists.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... 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.

I must have missed science class on the first day. I distinctly don't remember anyone telling me that anything looked "designed".

I would refer you to the thread that I started, asking "What part of Design Indicates that Intelligence Was Involved?"

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/66839-what-part-design.html

Basically, I am submitting that almost nothing in our universe suggests design - much less, intelligent design.

After you provide evidence that establishes that there was "intelligence" involved in the design of our world, we can move on to the question that you posited.

 

[smidget]

They can be beautiful or not - the point is they chose a career of numbers over a career of people. Their priorities, what they enjoy, what they understand is equations and numbers over people. Religion is all about dealing with people, how people should interact, how to solve people problems. - love, humble, selfless, don't murder, play nice - the Bible is about people, not numbers... They are not touchy feely liberal arts majors is the point... The trend makes sense to me.

Hmm, really? Science can do an awful lot to help people. Many of the scientists (and in fact so am I, although I'm not sure at what point in education you are supposed to classify yourself as a scientist) I know are very interested in the ways that their research can help people suffering terrible diseases. Genetic engineering - quite a bit of that was looked into and produced things deliberately to help the famine problems in certain parts of the world.

Lots and lots of scientists are very, very nice. And don't believe in murdering, hating people etc :

And I have a problem with saying science is about numbers solely - loads of scientists are naff with numbers! :

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Monkey see, monkey do.

To borrow someone else's phrase, now THAT'S irony!

That's not irony - that's sophomoric.

The irony is that one would see it as accurate.

 

[tomspug]

That's not irony - that's sophomoric.

The irony is that one would see it as accurate.

Yes, because every opinion other than one held by the scientific community is wrong. I consider blind faith far more sophomoric than skepticism.

 

[rocketman]

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).

Sounds fair.

I think also, TVOR, that at least some of these people genuinely believe that they have had experiences which warrant their faith in such things. That is certainly the case with some of the scientists I work with. Could it be that faithful parents are blessed from above with a higher proportion of faithful kids, and/or kids that are more likely to receive some kind of spiritual insight/experience? I would say yes, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Could it be that faithful parents are blessed from above with a higher proportion of faithful kids, and/or kids that are more likely to receive some kind of spiritual insight/experience? I would say yes, but that's just my opinion.

Interesting thought. Genes, upbringing or both?

That's not irony - that's sophomoric.

That is a better word for it.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Since no one answered, am I to suppose that the answer to the question, "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" isno?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... I consider blind faith far more sophomoric than skepticism.

A theist pointing out the shortcomings of blind faith to an agnostic.

You really must stop.

 

[Scuba Pete]

According to Scott Atran, there seems to be an innate tendency or predisposition in humans to conceive of supernatural agency operating in the world. If Atran is right, then that might be the default position.

So perhaps the scripture I quoted, that God put eternity in the hearts of men has some scientific validity. True dat!

 

[Magic Man]

Dude. Why are you SO obsessed with this vapid concept? You have already pointed out that it's pointless. Why go further? Please, stop blathering about it and move on to something more germane to the subject.

I'm not obseesed. I'm not the one trying to sweep it under the carpet because he has no response. If you would just either admit that you were wrong, as has been shown, or at least give some kind of support to your argument, it would be fine. Instead, here you are basically saying "Well, I have no rebuttal for that (because it's completely logical and true), so I'll just claim that this whole argument was pointless, and that you should just drop it".

Since no one answered, am I to suppose that the answer to the question, "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" isno?

No, but it is logical to say "If it looks, walks and sounds like a duck, it most likely is a duck". There is nothing that makes the universe inherently look, walk or sound like a God. It may look that way to you, and that's fine. For you, it would be nonsensical to say that everything in the universe acts as if there's a God, so there must be no God. On the other hand, it would be just as nonsensical for me to say that nothing in the universe acts as if there's a God, so there must be a God.