Why do you think so many scientists are atheists?

[needimprovement]

In 1996, Nature found 60.7% of scientists expressing disbelief or doubt.

 

72.2% of the "greater" scientists do no believe in God. About 20.8% are agnostic.

 

The article in the link below calls the "greater" scientists those who are National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

 

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

[AzurePhoenix]

Given objectivity, and depending on the definition of God being addressed (in the case of the survey, a personal, interactive/intercessionary god,) that's where the evidence and critical reasoning tend to lead. Which is how scientists are supposed to examine hypothesis.

Edited August 11, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[DJBruce]

Personally I feel like the belief in a deity often times relies on a person to have faith in it, as creating a scientific proof for the existence of a deity is impossible. Since scientists spend a majority of their life reject things that are based purely on faith and accepting those things, which are well tested and proven. Scientists also tend to be skeptics as some degree of skepticism as required for a good scientist to do their job.

 

It could also be said that people who are scientists tend to be very gifted at critical thinking and have an inquisitive nature. As such they do not blindly follow a faith because of their parents wishes or a societal norm, and instead go about considering why they should believe in a deity. While a great deal of the populous in my opinion simply follow their faith out of adherence to those traditions and norms without challenging them., or at least not challenging them on a scientific level.

[Mr Skeptic]

Science is all about predicting things. Since there is no predictive value to God,* whether he exists or not is irrelevant. Given the two theories with identical results (laws of nature, vs laws of nature and there's a god somewhere too), most scientists will chose the simpler of the two.

 

*If god had predictive value then you could disprove god by the failure of said predictions to occur.

[swansont]

Scientists are skeptics. It comes with the job.

[John Cuthber]

Most of us think the universe is complicated enough without adding God to it.

[needimprovement]

Personally I feel like the belief in a deity often times relies on a person to have faith in it, as creating a scientific proof for the existence of a deity is impossible. Since scientists spend a majority of their life reject things that are based purely on faith and accepting those things, which are well tested and proven. Scientists also tend to be skeptics as some degree of skepticism as required for a good scientist to do their job.

 

It could also be said that people who are scientists tend to be very gifted at critical thinking and have an inquisitive nature. As such they do not blindly follow a faith because of their parents wishes or a societal norm, and instead go about considering why they should believe in a deity. While a great deal of the populous in my opinion simply follow their faith out of adherence to those traditions and norms without challenging them., or at least not challenging them on a scientific level.

Interesting DJBruce, but I have to disagree. It seems to me that most scientist are very rigid in their belief in the allmight scientism to be able to prove everything around them, but once you show them a miracle like the one that occurred at Fatima most either go blank or say that isn't enough to convince them. that isnt being honest or inquisitive. That is being stuck in a narrow box where they put roadblocks against belieing that are unreasonable. In short they almost become the ultimate conspiracy theorists.

[JohnB]

Not quite needimprovement. Science deals with predictability.

 

Once you add "miracles" into the mix, then things are inherently unpredictable. Whether or not they exist is irrelevent, it is their nature of pure unpredictability that puts them outside the field of science.

[needimprovement]

Not quite needimprovement. Science deals with predictability.

 

Once you add "miracles" into the mix, then things are inherently unpredictable. Whether or not they exist is irrelevent, it is their nature of pure unpredictability that puts them outside the field of science.

Good point JohnB, I never really looked at it that way , but doesn't it also keep them from looking for the truths that science cant predict when science is everything to them?

[swansont]

Add to that that these "miracles" occur under less-than-rigorous conditions, so there's no way to properly study them. The acceptance of an incident as a miracle is generally one which lacks skepticism, and scientists are skeptics. An image of Jesus on a shower curtain is one of pattern recognition in a random arrangement of mold, and given enough shower curtains you will end up with images like this. It's nothing that violates physical law. Yet some will revere it as a miracle.

[ewmon]

I think the majority were atheists before they became scientists, instead of vice versa. A more accurate question may be: Why do so many atheist become scientists? And it may just be their lack of accepting religious stories leads them to search for proof.

 

What differentiates humans from animals may involve our inherent search for more information and power (generically speaking, the purpose of life, etc). For some, the belief in the supernatural satisfies some of this searching. For others, they need more solid, logical tangible. “scientific” proof. It seems a matter of trust versus doubt.

 

And even though some people may claim to be “scientific”, their knowledge, in effect, comprises a belief system due to the nature of their scientific knowledge … for example, the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. I have encountered people who, like religious people, get emotionally defensive toward someone who doesn’t believe in their scientific beliefs.

 

For example, I favor the Big Bounce Theory, and some Big Bang proponents get emotional that their way is the “only way”, just as religious people do. And they certainly don’t like hearing that the Big Bang Theory was invented by a Roman Catholic priest who described the Big Bang as the cosmic egg exploding at the moment of creation.

[Sisyphus]

Interesting DJBruce, but I have to disagree. It seems to me that most scientist are very rigid in their belief in the allmight scientism to be able to prove everything around them, but once you show them a miracle like the one that occurred at Fatima most either go blank or say that isn't enough to convince them. that isnt being honest or inquisitive. That is being stuck in a narrow box where they put roadblocks against belieing that are unreasonable. In short they almost become the ultimate conspiracy theorists.

 

I disagree completely. Inquisitiveness and skepticism go hand in hand (and are what science relies on), and accepting miracles at face value is a failure of both. But I think this video explains it better:

 

[pioneer]

Scientists are trained to be experts in their fields. This means they know a lot about those things under the umbrella of their chosen field. However, they know far less, by comparison, with respect to all the other fields of expertise. Religion may not be their strong suit of expertise, and therefore their opinion is more like that of a layman.

 

If a physicist commented on evolution, this is not the same as an evolutionary expert. The layman has more freedom to speculate, since he is less aware of all the data, which restricts the opinions of the evolutionary expert.

 

One trick to make the layman look like he is the real expert, is to use prestige. The singer with a number 1 hit, may appear to other layman, like he is an expert on global warming, since one assumes he is important, skilled, held up and well paid, so we need to listen. But due to the nature of expertise, he is really an expert song writer, and not an expert meteorologists. We really should consult the experts in the field if the goal is higher understanding. If we wish to be told what we want to hear, so we run with the herd, chose a charismatic layman.

 

What would happen if I said, one does not have to be an expert in science, to define important ideas of science? That is irrational, but it would still be a good tactic if my goal was to push my own layman agenda for whatever reason.

 

The agnostic scientists are probably the only ones who think and not just parrot the atheist party booklet. They leave the option open since they understand their own limits and don't pretend to be an expert in an area where they lack proper credentials.

Edited August 12, 2010 by pioneer

[swansont]

Scientists are trained to be experts in their fields. This means they know a lot about those things under the umbrella of their chosen field. However, they know far less, by comparison, with respect to all the other fields of expertise. Religion may not be their strong suit of expertise, and therefore their opinion is more like that of a layman.

 

That's going to be true of anyone who is religious layman, not just scientists. Yet the observation (or contention) is that among these laymen, scientists are more prone to be atheists.

[john5746]

IMO, it is obvious that as human knowledge increases, superstitious belief decreases, especially when a conflict occurs. Scientists are on the forefront of knowledge, so it would make sense that they would have more conflict with any specific belief claims. Note that biologists have the greatest % as opposed to mathematicians. More conflict, less belief. Even if you they have belief in god, it will tend to be a more general, poetic instance, as opposed to literal interpretations.

[Severian]

I think there is a lot of social pressure for scientists to declare themselves as atheists. It is a self feeding thing. If more scientists are atheists than average, then a 'new' scientist is going to be exposed to more atheist arguments and is more likely to become an atheist himself. I have certainly never heard of anyone being converted to theism in a scientific environment.

 

A second factor is that scientists tend to be more self confident and therefore more open and honest about their beliefs. I think a lot of "ordinary" people, when asked about their religion, will lie about what they believe for the sake of appearances. So in a religious society like the US, it will appear that there are less atheists in the general population than there really are. If you did the same study (as mentioned in the OP) in the UK (where I think people are embarrassed to say they are Christians, and not embarrassed to say they are atheists) I think you would find a different result.

[CharonY]

Actually I am not that sure about the social pressure. For most of my colleagues I have no idea about their religious attitudes. The reason is that it simply does not factor in into science. I know a handful of Christians, mostly because they mentioned at one point or another that they are going to church (and are thus not available e.g. for meetings). It is likely that the vast majority are atheist, but it simply never came up.

[needimprovement]

I think the majority were atheists before they became scientists, instead of vice versa. A more accurate question may be: Why do so many atheist become scientists? And it may just be their lack of accepting religious stories leads them to search for proof.

 

What differentiates humans from animals may involve our inherent search for more information and power (generically speaking, the purpose of life, etc). For some, the belief in the supernatural satisfies some of this searching. For others, they need more solid, logical tangible. “scientific” proof. It seems a matter of trust versus doubt.

 

And even though some people may claim to be “scientific”, their knowledge, in effect, comprises a belief system due to the nature of their scientific knowledge … for example, the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. I have encountered people who, like religious people, get emotionally defensive toward someone who doesn’t believe in their scientific beliefs.

 

For example, I favor the Big Bounce Theory, and some Big Bang proponents get emotional that their way is the “only way”, just as religious people do. And they certainly don’t like hearing that the Big Bang Theory was invented by a Roman Catholic priest who described the Big Bang as the cosmic egg exploding at the moment of creation.

Many people who have an interest in the world will try and find out about the world. Some people appear to be inclined in a more curious way than others.

 

Naturally; then it follows that someone who is interested in finding out about the world; if they are religious would have more options; such as theology; philosophy as well as science.

 

Wheras; an atheist does not have the same flexibility. I would doubt an atheist would study theology; and if the atheist were credulous he would also not study philosophy (as there are no credible philosophers who are atheist) - so what choice in studying the world does the atheist have but through science?

[AzurePhoenix]

Many people who have an interest in the world will try and find out about the world. Some people appear to be inclined in a more curious way than others. Naturally; then it follows that someone who is interested in finding out about the world; if they are religious would have more options; such as theology; philosophy as well as science.

Some theists may be perfectly open-minded and willing to consider alternatives, there must be plenty of such people. But, take the US for example, or many regions in the middle east, devoutly religious societies. The vast majority of the devoutly rather than tenuously religious leave no room for alternatives to their faith. A prime example is the Christian apologeticist's new favorite term, presuppositionalism, where they erroneously allege that secular scientists begin from the presuppositional foundation of strong atheism (many may start as weak atheists, but not all, and certainly not as a foundation of their reasoning) while themselves admitting to the inviolable presupposition of considering the world from the belief that God does exist and that the bible is his inerrant, literal world. Presuppositionalism is a school-of-thought blatantly used to justify dismissing all possible alternatives out of hand without consideration. http://www.frontlinemin.org/defendfaith.asp

 

As for empiricists, maybe some are close-minded and dogmatic, but just like religious folk, that in no way defines the whole of the scientific community. Curiosity drives many of us. Plenty of us are willing to examine and consider just about any argument thrown our way. Or devise their own (look at the current state of theoretical physics for christ's sake) The difference is, we do our best to scrutinize those hypothesis and speculations critically and find their faults, inconsistencies, fallacies, whatever. Plenty of us would be absolutely thrilled if some hint of what is now called the metaphysical was shown to have a basis in reality, ergo opening up a whole new realm of discovery. It's not our fault when a speculation doesn't hold up to close examination.

 

Wheras; an atheist does not have the same flexibility. I would doubt an atheist would study theology;

As Sun Tzu wrote, know thine enemy Allegorically, I've known plenty of atheistic types who knew more about the religion of the religious people who argued them than they did themselves. It would be interesting to find out how many actual theologians are atheists.

 

and if the atheist were credulous he would also not study philosophy

What about empiricism or atheism isolates it from studying philosophy? The three are more closely tied than you might imagine.

 

(as there are no credible philosophers who are atheist)

David Hume? Nietzsche? Rand? Bertrand Russell? Victor Stenger is one who's currently alive. I'm sure there are others, and once this generation of philosophers is dead, a number of the posthumously famous ones will likely be atheistic too. I'd guess in higher numbers than in previous eras.

 

so what choice in studying the world does the atheist have but through science?

If you understand what science means, you should realize that science isn't the limiting factor on understanding that you think it is. If anything it provides the means to examine the value of claims, and without it, anything anyone claimed would be equally valid, and no one could distinguish the veracity of any particular speculation. Edited August 14, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[Zolar V]

 

It could also be said that people who are scientists tend to be very gifted at critical thinking and have an inquisitive nature. As such they do not blindly follow a faith because of their parents wishes or a societal norm, and instead go about considering why they should believe in a deity.

as such you don't often see scientists going to war.

 

 

While a great deal of the populous in my opinion simply follow their faith out of adherence to those traditions and norms without challenging them., or at least not challenging them on a scientific level.

Instead you see the masses following another off to a war based upon some simplistic ideal or belief that could be twisted to suit the leaders purpose.

[needimprovement]

Add to that that these "miracles" occur under less-than-rigorous conditions, so there's no way to properly study them. The acceptance of an incident as a miracle is generally one which lacks skepticism, and scientists are skeptics. An image of Jesus on a shower curtain is one of pattern recognition in a random arrangement of mold, and given enough shower curtains you will end up with images like this. It's nothing that violates physical law. Yet some will revere it as a miracle.

Exactly swansont, that is why the Vatican employs some of the most stringent methods of studying Miracles and it took them many years to accept Even Fatima as a miracle. The Vatican even sends Atheist doctors and scientists to check a lot of these miracles out. That is amazing in and of itself. Its like saying Dawkins investigating a miracle and using theists to check it out for him. The miracle of Fatima isn't comparable to some of these other miracles like seeing an image of a saint on a piece of cheese because many people were there and the things that happened (drying and cleaning of clothes, prediction by the kids etc etc) cant be explained by scientists. This was the most documented miracle of our time.

Reply With Quote

[ydoaPs]

Exactly swansont, that is why the Vatican employs some of the most stringent methods of studying Miracles and it took them many years to accept Even Fatima as a miracle. The Vatican even sends Atheist doctors and scientists to check a lot of these miracles out. That is amazing in and of itself. Its like saying Dawkins investigating a miracle and using theists to check it out for him. The miracle of Fatima isn't comparable to some of these other miracles like seeing an image of a saint on a piece of cheese because many people were there and the things that happened (drying and cleaning of clothes, prediction by the kids etc etc) cant be explained by scientists. This was the most documented miracle of our time.

Reply With Quote

Watch the video on the first page.

[swansont]

Exactly swansont, that is why the Vatican employs some of the most stringent methods of studying Miracles and it took them many years to accept Even Fatima as a miracle. The Vatican even sends Atheist doctors and scientists to check a lot of these miracles out. That is amazing in and of itself. Its like saying Dawkins investigating a miracle and using theists to check it out for him. The miracle of Fatima isn't comparable to some of these other miracles like seeing an image of a saint on a piece of cheese because many people were there and the things that happened (drying and cleaning of clothes, prediction by the kids etc etc) cant be explained by scientists. This was the most documented miracle of our time.

Reply With Quote

 

Can't be explained is a bit of a dodge. Scientists can't go back and get data, because it was a one-time event, so in that sense they can't explain it. Can they give alternate, plausible, non-miracle explanations? Sure.

[ydoaPs]

Can't be explained is a bit of a dodge. Scientists can't go back and get data, because it was a one-time event, so in that sense they can't explain it. Can they give alternate, plausible, non-miracle explanations? Sure.

Not to mention the leap from "can't be explained" to "God did it!" is as unjustified as the leap from "can't be explained" to "Aliens did it!".

 

Being unexplained just means it's not explained. By definition, being unexplained, means "God did it!" isn't an acceptable explanation.

[Mr Skeptic]

Exactly swansont, that is why the Vatican employs some of the most stringent methods of studying Miracles and it took them many years to accept Even Fatima as a miracle. The Vatican even sends Atheist doctors and scientists to check a lot of these miracles out. That is amazing in and of itself. Its like saying Dawkins investigating a miracle and using theists to check it out for him. The miracle of Fatima isn't comparable to some of these other miracles like seeing an image of a saint on a piece of cheese because many people were there and the things that happened (drying and cleaning of clothes, prediction by the kids etc etc) cant be explained by scientists. This was the most documented miracle of our time.

Reply With Quote

 

But how many of these miracles does Thor have to do before people will believe in him?