"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Jan 22, 2012 Full story: Examiner.com 13,514

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Full Story
First Prev
of 676
Next Last

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1 Jan 22, 2012
No atheist I have met boasts that most scientists are atheists. In fact, most scientists are products of their societies and are trained from birth to believe in deities.

It is actually the religious side that argues more often that scientists cannot be true believers: if they (as scientists) acknowledge the evidence for evolution, the claim is that they cannot be religious. If the scientists points out that the earth is far more than 10,000 years old, they are told they are doomed to hell. This is the religious side claiming there can be no reconciliation, not the atheist side.
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

#2 Jan 22, 2012
Mariano Greenbank, just another incredulous liar for Jesus.
redneck

Myrtle Creek, OR

#3 Jan 22, 2012
People who think about things are more likely to be sckeptical.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#4 Jan 23, 2012
redneck wrote:
People who think about things are more likely to be sckeptical.
The more I think about that statement, more sceptical I am about it.

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#5 Jan 23, 2012
I am optimistic that the skeptics will become hopefully sanguine and confident.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#6 Jan 23, 2012
Perhaps most Atheists would agree that one should only believe anything so far as it is justified by reason and evidence.

The evidence is that scientists are more likely to be non-religious than the general population. According to Wiki, only about a third of scientists profess to believe in some sort of god,(not necessarily a religious one) compared to perhaps 75% of the US population.(It depends on definition. Wiki often includes medical doctors as 'scientists'). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_bet...

Being non-religious is different from being an atheist. I wonder how many scientists today seriously believe in Creationsism? Or that Jesus died for our sins, or Mohammed is a messenger and prophet of Allah? It would be reasonable to expect it is a very clear minority. Regardless of how many are atheist, that is a triumph of reason over superstition.

Love science and thy neighbor :-)

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#7 Jan 23, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
No atheist I have met boasts that most scientists are atheists. In fact, most scientists are products of their societies and are trained from birth to believe in deities.

It is actually the religious side that argues more often that scientists cannot be true believers: if they (as scientists) acknowledge the evidence for evolution, the claim is that they cannot be religious. If the scientists points out that the earth is far more than 10,000 years old, they are told they are doomed to hell. This is the religious side claiming there can be no reconciliation, not the atheist side.
Because the atheist side are dealing the punches...not takin them.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#8 Jan 23, 2012
GhostShaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the atheist side are dealing the punches...not takin them.
You obviously don't know what atheism is (and isn't). And apparently you don't understand what science is either.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#9 Jan 24, 2012
EdSed wrote:
Perhaps most Atheists would agree that one should only believe anything so far as it is justified by reason and evidence.
The evidence is that scientists are more likely to be non-religious than the general population. According to Wiki, only about a third of scientists profess to believe in some sort of god,(not necessarily a religious one) compared to perhaps 75% of the US population.(It depends on definition. Wiki often includes medical doctors as 'scientists'). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_bet...
Being non-religious is different from being an atheist. I wonder how many scientists today seriously believe in Creationsism? Or that Jesus died for our sins, or Mohammed is a messenger and prophet of Allah? It would be reasonable to expect it is a very clear minority. Regardless of how many are atheist, that is a triumph of reason over superstition.
Love science and thy neighbor :-)
In your post you claim that scientists are more likely to be atheists. I disagree, rather I think it is far more likely that atheists prefer to be scientists.

I believe it was Richard Dawkins that said that Darwin made it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Would it be surprising, therefore, that those who are already predisposed to atheism (for whatever reason) gravitate towards a career in the sciences?

Since: Mar 09

Hidden

#10 Jan 24, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
In your post you claim that scientists are more likely to be atheists. I disagree, rather I think it is far more likely that atheists prefer to be scientists.
I believe it was Richard Dawkins that said that Darwin made it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Would it be surprising, therefore, that those who are already predisposed to atheism (for whatever reason) gravitate towards a career in the sciences?
Of course, theists already know how we came to be here and how the universe started, Atheists are trying to find out the real answer, so likely they would gravitate towards the sciences.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#11 Jan 24, 2012
CTEd wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, theists already know how we came to be here and how the universe started, Atheists are trying to find out the real answer, so likely they would gravitate towards the sciences.
Theists THINK they know and are SURE they know because Mummy and Daddy and Pastor Billy Bob have TOLD them how we came to be here and how the universe started -- and they wouldn't lie, now would they?:)

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#12 Jan 24, 2012
"Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].

"In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever a mere 7% of respondents."

" http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file... ;

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13 Jan 25, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
In your post you claim that scientists are more likely to be atheists. I disagree, rather I think it is far more likely that atheists prefer to be scientists.
I believe it was Richard Dawkins that said that Darwin made it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Would it be surprising, therefore, that those who are already predisposed to atheism (for whatever reason) gravitate towards a career in the sciences?
While I'm guessing that those who are inclined to be curious are those inclined to be scientists. They are also the ones that tend not to accept superstitious nonsense, so are more likely to become atheists as they mature.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#14 Jan 25, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
While I'm guessing that those who are inclined to be curious are those inclined to be scientists. They are also the ones that tend not to accept superstitious nonsense, so are more likely to become atheists as they mature.
Peru_Serv thinks philosophical naturalism limits the scientific method.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#15 Jan 25, 2012
CTEd wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, theists already know how we came to be here and how the universe started, Atheists are trying to find out the real answer, so likely they would gravitate towards the sciences.
Surely you jest. Most theists do indeed "know" that they are here because of God (Vishnu, Allah, etc.) and are not concerned with exactly how it happened. On the other hand atheists also "know" that it all happened by accident and they are very concerned with exactly how it happened.

I don't personally see any difference between the two camps.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#16 Jan 25, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Peru_Serv thinks philosophical naturalism limits the scientific method.
No, I think the scientific method is a myth.

I also think it's kind of silly for scientists to insist that there is a natural explanation for all phenomina known and unknown and always will be that way past, present, and future. Then they turn around and insist that they only believe in things for which there is rigorous scientific proof. Where's the rigorous scientific proof for metaphysical naturalism?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#17 Jan 25, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
Surely you jest. Most theists do indeed "know" that they are here because of God (Vishnu, Allah, etc.) and are not concerned with exactly how it happened. On the other hand atheists also "know" that it all happened by accident and they are very concerned with exactly how it happened.
I don't personally see any difference between the two camps.
I'm sure you don't. I do.

Interesting that you say "most theists" but imply *all* atheists.

All atheists do not *know* that it happened by accident - while there are likely some who (incorrectly) do. Most expect the universe and everything in it has a naturalistic cause. You may include agnostics in this group as well.

Yes, they - and many theists - are concerned with exactly how it happened. Human curiosity. You seem to suggest that this is a negative trait.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#18 Jan 25, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I think the scientific method is a myth.
I also think it's kind of silly for scientists to insist that there is a natural explanation for all phenomina known and unknown and always will be that way past, present, and future. Then they turn around and insist that they only believe in things for which there is rigorous scientific proof. Where's the rigorous scientific proof for metaphysical naturalism?
One could say the proof is in the pudding...

However the fact remains is that science deals with METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, because methodological supernaturalism doesn't work.

Hence why you're here arguing for "It COULD be magic cuz how do YOU know, where you THERE?!?", and bitter that the scientific community doesn't give two figs.(shrug)

Oh, feel free to reference more YECers, that's always good to add to your credibility.

Since: Mar 09

Hidden

#19 Jan 25, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
Surely you jest. Most theists do indeed "know" that they are here because of God (Vishnu, Allah, etc.) and are not concerned with exactly how it happened. On the other hand atheists also "know" that it all happened by accident and they are very concerned with exactly how it happened.
I don't personally see any difference between the two camps.
Becuase science has arrived at that conclusion through evidence, not becuase someone told them. Evolution was hounded from the moment it was first posited. It was illegal to even teach it in this country until the middle of the 1900s. Despite all that the science could not be denied. It simply grew stronger with each new discovery.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#20 Jan 25, 2012
CTEd wrote:
<quoted text>Becuase science has arrived at that conclusion through evidence, not becuase someone told them. Evolution was hounded from the moment it was first posited. It was illegal to even teach it in this country until the middle of the 1900s. Despite all that the science could not be denied. It simply grew stronger with each new discovery.
Evolution and science is essentially the same as religion. As human being we are always looking for answers to things. 10,000 years ago the reason for space or the sun was because someone riding a flamed chariot in the sky put it there and that was the answer for this. Now in modern times when we think we are more educated than before we have different answers with the big bang and balls of gas. Thats where our intellectual prowess leads us versus 10,000+ years ago. I'm just as sure in the future that the answers we think we have now will be mocked and laughed at also.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 676
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bill Maher Takes Aim at Minnesota Congressman 11 min serfs up 94
Alibaba symbol of China's new tech giants 3 hr capitalist baron 3
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 3 hr Dogen 173,759
Space station shipment contains 3-D printer; Sp... 4 hr SpaceBlues 1
Researchers rekindle vaccine-autism debate 4 hr Starts with Vaccines 3
Ruben Navarrette: Hispanics demand respect, abo... 8 hr spud 6
Review: Larger iPhones eliminate reason to switch 9 hr technogala 1
•••

Science / Technology People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••