Are there more atheists/agnostics among scientists than in the general population?

[Otto Kretschmer]

Are there? I wonder of any studies have been done on this.

Edited April 25 by Otto Kretschmer

[Phi for All]

Seems to me there are three factors here that need defining. Do all atheists/agnostics believe similarly? Do scientists all study the same things? And are there cultural aspects based on the religion(s) in an area that might define "general population" differently?

I'm not sure you can get a meaningful answer to this question. Throughout history, scientists have had to bow to the will of the governing authorities. Many attend church just to fit in and not anger the establishment. They were told in no uncertain terms that they would not be successful unless they accepted the church's teachings. Personally, I wouldn't count someone as religious who was just going to church so they wouldn't be persecuted.

It might not just be the church. Sigmund Freud was apparently persecuted for early papers on marginalized people where he detailed that many women and children labeled with mental disorders were simply traumatized by the men in their lives. He suggested that's where the fault lies, and apparently was told in no uncertain terms not to pursue that line of research if he wanted to prosper in science. His later works show him steering clear of suggesting that men were the leading cause of trauma.

[exchemist]

36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Seems to me there are three factors here that need defining. Do all atheists/agnostics believe similarly? Do scientists all study the same things? And are there cultural aspects based on the religion(s) in an area that might define "general population" differently?

I'm not sure you can get a meaningful answer to this question. Throughout history, scientists have had to bow to the will of the governing authorities. Many attend church just to fit in and not anger the establishment. They were told in no uncertain terms that they would not be successful unless they accepted the church's teachings. Personally, I wouldn't count someone as religious who was just going to church so they wouldn't be persecuted.

It might not just be the church. Sigmund Freud was apparently persecuted for early papers on marginalized people where he detailed that many women and children labeled with mental disorders were simply traumatized by the men in their lives. He suggested that's where the fault lies, and apparently was told in no uncertain terms not to pursue that line of research if he wanted to prosper in science. His later works show him steering clear of suggesting that men were the leading cause of trauma.

But you could easily do studies in liberal democracies where no such persecution or social expectation applies. This would be true of anywhere in N America, W Europe or Japan.

There is this Pew study, conducted in the USA for example: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ What this does not seem to correct for is any correlation between religious belief and level of educational attainment. It may be also that more educated people tend to be less religious, regardless of subject studied. 

[iNow]

That study, it should be noted, is already 15 years old and the number of atheists/agnosticists (aka atheists who lack the courage of their conviction) have only further grown since then across the general population. 

Religiosity seems to shrink further every year, seemingly to be replaced by nationalism and various other forms of tribal grouping. 

Edited April 25 by iNow

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Are there? I wonder of any studies have been done on this.

I’m sure a search engine can shed some light on this

[exchemist]

50 minutes ago, iNow said:

That study, it should be noted, is already 15 years old and the number of atheists/agnosticists (aka atheists who lack the courage of their conviction) have only further grown since then across the general population. 

Religiosity seems to shrink further every year, seemingly to be replaced by nationalism and various other forms of tribal grouping. 

Why would an atheist, in the USA in 2009, have felt the need for courage to respond honestly, in an anonymous survey? 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

Why would an atheist, in the USA in 2009, have felt the need for courage to respond honestly, in an anonymous survey? 

Because humans are weird mostly hairless apes who exist in groups and are wired accordingly 

[exchemist]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

Because humans are weird mostly hairless apes who exist in groups and are wired accordingly 

What groups are these that American scientists were finding themselves in, in 2009, that would prevent them replying with honesty to an anonymous survey? I cannot envisage how that would work. 

[OldChemE]

It seems to me the pew study, like some others asks the wrong question, and consequently the results are too undefined.  I've read the report, and it appears they asked whether or not the respondents believed in God.  That's a poor question.  Were they asking about belief in a Moral Being created by men to guide behavior? Or were they asking about a physical being that created everything?  I believe that people created the concept of God to teach moral behaviors, so you could say I believe in God, but I sure don't think there is some creature out there pulling the strings.  I make this point because I have been asked by people "do you believe in God" and I answer in the affirmative but certainly don't mean I think there is some creature who created everything.

[TheVat]

19 minutes ago, OldChemE said:

...I make this point because I have been asked by people "do you believe in God" and I answer in the affirmative but certainly don't mean I think there is some creature who created everything.

I am curious why you would not answer, if you don't believe in a personal creator being, in the negative?  Why not just say that you see God as a human symbol of those moral teachings you see as universal?  

This whole topic is fraught with multiple definitions, which makes surveys shaky.  I wonder if some people who do not believe in a creator being, which would fit the term atheism, call themselves agnostic simply because they can't rule out some kind of pantheism or panpsychism.  Or, as iNow likes to suggest, they are afraid of driving away religious people (who dominate their community) by identifying as atheist.  

[CharonY]

There have been numerous surveys among natural scientists back in the 90s and 2000s, when teaching evolution was heavily attacked by the conservative establishment in the US. The overall trend was overall lower religiosity when compared to the average population, but also interesting trends depending on discipline. IIRC the questions were more general, like "do you consider yourself religious" rather than asking things specific to a system (e.g. god or gods).

I believe biologists had the lowest number of religious folks whereas, mathematicians and medical folks had higher. I am sure they must still be available somewhere. 

[OldChemE]

On 4/25/2024 at 3:45 PM, TheVat said:

I am curious why you would not answer, if you don't believe in a personal creator being, in the negative?  Why not just say that you see God as a human symbol of those moral teachings you see as universal?  

 

Sometimes I'd rather not get in a religious debate (guess I was just taking the easy way out)

[TheVat]

14 hours ago, OldChemE said:

Sometimes I'd rather not get in a religious debate (guess I was just taking the easy way out)

Living in a pretty conservative region, I understand this option well.

 

[John Cuthber]

It probably depends where you look.
https://icelandmag.is/article/00-icelanders-25-years-or-younger-believe-god-created-world-poll-reveals