Theists: Why do you think more scientists are atheists?

[Scuba Pete]

I'm not obseesed.

Dude... you should go easy on whatever you are smoking! Peace out!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is nothing that makes the universe inherently look, walk or sound like a God.

Out of curiosity: how would you know? Einstein suggested that the most incomprehensible thing about the cosmos is that it is at all comprehensible. I find its emergent properties awe inspiring. And Spinoza found that the universe looks precisely like God. I'm not at all sure that I agree, but I'm even less sure that your certainty is warranted.

 

[fantome profane]

Out of curiosity: how would you know? Einstein suggested that the most incomprehensible thing about the cosmos is that it is at all comprehensible. I find its emergent properties awe inspiring. And Spinoza found that the universe looks precisely like God. I'm not at all sure that I agree, but I'm even less sure that your certainty is warranted.

But neither Einstein nor Spinoza meant anything like the kind of Deity that imposes intentionality upon the physical universe in a way that would be anything similar to the concept of “design”.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But neither Einstein nor Spinoza meant anything like the kind of Deity that imposes intentionality upon the physical universe in a way that would be anything similar to the concept of “design”.

Therefore?

 

[Scuba Pete]

But neither Einstein nor Spinoza meant anything like the kind of Deity that imposes intentionality upon the physical universe in a way that would be anything similar to the concept of “design”.

Wow. Do you have evidence to corroborate this amazing revelation?

 

[fantome profane]

Therefore?

I thought it was relevant.

Wow. Do you have evidence to corroborate this amazing revelation?

Do you disagree?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Do you disagree?

Yeah. I do.

 

[fantome profane]

Yeah. I do.

Alright, I am much too lazy right now, but I will come back with citations to back up my claims. Honestly I thought that what I was stating was common knowledge to anyone familiar with either Einstein or Spinoza.


In the meantime I would like to pose a question to anyone who would like to comment.

I maintain that methodological naturalism is an important and inherent part of what makes science science. But of course metaphysical or philosophical naturalism is not required. But my question is this. Is it simply the a logical consequence that someone who is so deeply steeped in the one form of naturalism would tend to adopt the other more encompassing forms as well. Also what does this say about those scientists who do not adopt metaphysical naturalism? Is this a kind of cognitive dissidence, or is it a sign of a more enlightened mind that can make this distinction?




(p.s. and please, I am interested in your insights, but I am not trying to fight with anyone. I am not your enemy).

 

[Rolling_Stone]

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.

I totally agree that it is both logical and reasonable to say, "If it looks, walks and sounds like a duck, it most likely is a duck," but that's not what's taught.

So, I wonder how many scientists agree that there's nothing in the universe that inherently looks designed? I'd wager even Dawkins doesn't say that.

 

[gnomon]

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).


(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.

I too, would like to see a better side by side analysis of the general population compared to that of scientists.

But for links,
Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"  July 23, 1998

among the top natural scientists

That might not be the best study sample. It's also bound to ruffle a few feathers.

Shermer and others have related this correlation to education levels. Actually, some outright say intelligence levels.

I do think a look at raw numbers shows that there is a prevalence of atheism and agnosticism among credentialed scientists as opposed to the general public. But I do not see the evidence stating that intelligence levels inversely correspond to religious belief.

Surveys of scientists in India show somewhat the opposite. High rates of religious belief exist among credentialed scientists in India. According to one study. They also hold a high level of secular acceptance, or tolerance of religious understanding, which may show that there are other cultural factors in play rather than a straight up correlation between education or intelligence and religious belief.

Also, the CFI has frequently reported polls that while there may be an inverse relationship between education levels and specific traditional religious beliefs that there is a direct relationship between those two and rates of paranormal beliefs.

What to make of that?

 

[lunamoth]

Perhaps science tends to be self-selecting for people who like to view the world in a materialistic way which they feel they can understand and control?

Why do you think some scientists are not atheists?

 

[DallasApple]

Perhaps science tends to be self-selecting for people who like to view the world in a materialistic way which they feel they can understand and control?

Why do you think some scientists are not atheists?

Not only that..why are some non-scientist in fact athiest?

Love

Dallas

 

[Magic Man]

Out of curiosity: how would you know? Einstein suggested that the most incomprehensible thing about the cosmos is that it is at all comprehensible. I find its emergent properties awe inspiring. And Spinoza found that the universe looks precisely like God. I'm not at all sure that I agree, but I'm even less sure that your certainty is warranted.

Because their idea of God was completely different than a theistic one. I agree that the universe acts like a pantheistic god. That's not saying much, though. What was meant was that the universe doesn't act as if there's a theistic God controlling things, or designing things.

Also, the fact that there are so many atheists, especially so many who are scientists, leads to the idea that the universe does not inherently act as if there is a theistic God. That doesn't mean there isn't one, or that all of those atheists are right. It does, however, at least show that theirs is just as valid a way to view the universe. Some people may see things in the universe that point to God's touch, and they may be right. That doesn't mean those things automatically show God's touch, though, considering even people who study how those things work don't see God's touch.

 

[crystalonyx]

Perhaps science tends to be self-selecting for people who like to view the world in a materialistic way which they feel they can understand and control?

Why do you think some scientists are not atheists?

Really irrelevant, in the fact that most are. Religion is not a thought process, it is an emotional one. Very smart people can be taken in by the emotional or traditional aspect of religion. However, it seems that those that have learned the scientific method are less prone to be taken in by the emotional aspects of religion.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Religion is not a thought process, it is an emotional one.

To you, but not to me. My religion is based purely on evidence: not emotion. Are there emotions involved? Indubitably. They are after the fact and not before.

 

[Willamena]

Because their idea of God was completely different than a theistic one. I agree that the universe acts like a pantheistic god. That's not saying much, though. What was meant was that the universe doesn't act as if there's a theistic God controlling things, or designing things.

If you look hard enough, it does; people just aren't used to the idea that they are "God".

Saying their idea of God was different than theistic seems to suggest that in your opinion those who accept a version of God that makes no sense have the right of it.

Also, the fact that there are so many atheists, especially so many who are scientists*, leads to the idea that the universe does not inherently act as if there is a theistic God. That doesn't mean there isn't one, or that all of those atheists are right. It does, however, at least show that theirs is just as valid a way to view the universe. Some people may see things in the universe that point to God's touch, and they may be right. That doesn't mean those things automatically show God's touch, though, considering even people who study how those things work don't see God's touch.

Oh, but what about the fact of "so many theists" are Swiss watch-makers? What grand conclusion can we draw from their presence in the world? Doesn't that lead to the idea that Newton was right and the universe is clockwork? I realize there's no stats to give the idea credence, but then no one's bothered to assemble them.

* From stats based on a polling of 1000 scientsts. :rainbow1:

 

[McBell]

I realize there's no stats to give the idea credence, but then no one's bothered to assemble them.

What Blasphemy!!

* From stats based on a polling of 1000 scientsts. :rainbow1:

You can statistically show that 80% agree with anything. If you ask the right 5 people.

 

[Willamena]

In the meantime I would like to pose a question to anyone who would like to comment.

I maintain that methodological naturalism is an important and inherent part of what makes science science. But of course metaphysical or philosophical naturalism is not required. But my question is this. Is it simply the a logical consequence that someone who is so deeply steeped in the one form of naturalism would tend to adopt the other more encompassing forms as well. Also what does this say about those scientists who do not adopt metaphysical naturalism? Is this a kind of cognitive dissidence, or is it a sign of a more enlightened mind that can make this distinction?

I am confused by your question. I looked up metaphysical naturalism and that is more commonly known as ontological naturalism --wouldn't that be the naturalism that 'makes science science"? Isn't methodological naturalism the "more encompassing view" (that phenomena and hypotheses of all sorts can be studied by the same methods)? If I understand your question correctly, though, I essentially agree (like Zen Buddhism, where realizing practice is not distinguished from practicing realization), although naturalism does not necessarily lead to atheism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection, by Barbara Forrest.

 

[crystalonyx]

To you, but not to me. My religion is based purely on evidence: not emotion. Are there emotions involved? Indubitably. They are after the fact and not before.

Then you are the exception, not the rule.