Theistic Scientists

[ajb]

Out of interest, I noticed that the examples of religous scientists are rather historical. The societies they were part of were on the whole more religious than, lets say western Europe today. Fariday was given as an example. Newton was also very religous, as another example.

 

Do we have examples of scientists today that well known and religous?

[Unity+]

Out of interest, I noticed that the examples of religous scientists are rather historical. The societies they were part of were on the whole more religious than, lets say western Europe today. Fariday was given as an example. Newton was also very religous, as another example.

 

Do we have examples of scientists today that well known and religous?

Well, here is a giant list of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

 

• Sir Robert Boyd
• Richard Smalley
• Mariano Artigas
• Arthur Peacocke
• C. F. von Weizsäcker
• Stanley Jaki
• Allan Sandage
• Allan Sandage
• Ernan McMullin
• Charles Hard Townes
• Ian Barbour
• Antony Hewish
• Richard H. Bube
• Werner Arber
• Antonino Zichichi
• John Polkinghorne

The rest can be found in that link(at the bottom of the page for modern-day scientists).

 

Many of these scientist are German, American, and other places in Europe. Many of them have won Nobel prizes in physics and other fields of science.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Unity+

[ajb]

Thank you for this list. I am quite shocked...

 

Here is a list of atheists. Several big names on this list.

Edited August 15, 2013 by ajb

[Unity+]

Thank you for this list. I am quite shocked...

 

Here is a list of atheists. Several big names on this list.

Well, the only conclusion I can come up with here is that there are as many of each type of scientists as there are in the other aspect.

[Ringer]

I am actually wondering the samething. This topic was meant to be about Theistic scientists, not about what ever has been going on for the last few posts.

 

Well, then let us examine this overpopulation issue. Are certain countries overpopulated? Yes, we would agree to that within Asian countries such as China are overpopulated. Is the world overpopulated? That is debatable depending on your views of the overpopulation(is it that there are more people than land or is there more land used up that allows less people to live in).

The issue isn't whether we are currently overpopulated, it is whether religious groups have hindered or ignored scientific investigation in that area. You know, the thing you asked me to cite sources for when I made that claim which you have yet to refute my claim with anything other than "I don't aggree" or "that's not the topic"

 

And, I am not going to keep debating about the straw man argument because you did misrepresent his opinion and he even clarified within his post why.

Again, please point out the misrepresentation based on what was written. The only clarification was a later post that said not doing those things would kill you, that was pretty much my point. I may have not been overt enough in my sarcasm to really get the point across. So I will say it outright, making a blanket statement that ending life is wrong is so ridiculous as to be incomprehensible. Anything anyone does ends life. Even if one just means human life, which no one has specified despite repeated requests to clarify, a ball of undifferentiated cells is not alive so the point is moot. Unless one takes a differing definition for life than biology or medicine does, in which case one is equivocating.

 

 

And on a further note of the argument, the Pope is human and though is leader of the Catholic church his opinions are not a representation of either half of the Catholics that exist in the world. However being humans, a majority of the belief is still there. And this isn't an avoidance attempt, as I presented the refutation of your argument.

Apparently you haven't read this the last few time so I'll make it large:

NO TRUE SCOTTSMAN

Not to mention you're saying that the majority of people don't follow their religious leaders in their strictly defined, self-affiliated, practiced religion?

 

 

What refutation? A couple no true scottsman fallacies, ignoring multiple examples, and an failed attempt at cherry picking a quote to make it seem like the source I gave didn't support the position of a religion ignoring/hindering science? I don't think those have helped your case.

 

[edit]

 

So, in more accordance with what the title of the thread, from what I've read the amount of religious scientists changes drastically depending on how you define both 'scientist' and 'religion'. So it would probably help to define what is meant by these terms. [/edit]

Edited August 15, 2013 by Ringer

[ajb]

Well, the only conclusion I can come up with here is that there are as many of each type of scientists as there are in the other aspect.

My own personal experience would suggest more non-religous scientists, but then I have not actually conducted any resarch into this. I would not try to conclude anything from wikipedia articles like this.

[overtone]

Thank you for this list. I am quite shocked...

The sophistication possible under the category "theistic" is more profound than is generally acknowledged.

 

A self reprt of "theistic" belief or lack of same can come down to a matter of almost aesthetic assessments of tribal loyalty - the same basic apprehension of the universe can be described either way, depending on whom you want to claim as compadres.

 

I know of at least one very resepctable evolutionary biologist, for example (full prof in the biology department at Cornell), who believes that the origin of human beings - and human beings alone, Darwin handling the rest - was a work of deity. This belief is such that no physical fact can, even in theory, contradict it - as with the Dalai Lama's conception of reincarnation, it's bulletproof with regard to scientific discovery.

 

And on the other side of things, you can find on the web a report from a former Catholic priest whose surveys among his former colleagues indicate that between one and four percent of Catholic priests currently serving think of themselves as atheistic.

Edited August 15, 2013 by overtone

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The sophistication possible under the category "theistic" is more profound than is generally acknowledged.

 

A self reprt of "theistic" belief or lack of same can come down to a matter of almost aesthetic assessments of tribal loyalty - the same basic apprehension of the universe can be described either way, depending on whom you want to claim as compadres.

 

I know of at least one very resepctable evolutionary biologist, for example (full prof in the biology department at Cornell), who believes that the origin of human beings - and human beings alone, Darwin handling the rest - was a work of deity. This belief is such that no physical fact can, even in theory, contradict it - as with the Dalai Lama's conception of reincarnation, it's bulletproof with regard to scientific discovery.

 

And on the other side of things, you can find on the web a report from a former Catholic priest whose surveys among his former colleagues indicate that between one and four percent of Catholic priests currently serving think of themselves as atheistic.

 

Perhaps its time this whole thing was brought to a head. It sounds like most people worldwide are running around like' headless chicken' , on this subject. Of

 

God, Darwin, Higher Power, Theism, Atheism, Don't Know

 

.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[imatfaal]

Well, the only conclusion I can come up with here is that there are as many of each type of scientists as there are in the other aspect.

 

 

My own personal experience would suggest more non-religous scientists, but then I have not actually conducted any resarch into this. I would not try to conclude anything from wikipedia articles like this.

 

 

Arete posted these two links (in another thread) to reports regarding belief amongst top scientists

 

 

 

 

The 7% figure comes from a peer reviewed article in the Publication Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html

The 3% figure comes from a peer reviewed artilce in the journal Intelligence. http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/Religion/Average-intelligence-predicts-atheism-rates-across-137-nations-Lynn-et-al.pdf

 

The sources are fine.

 

To his continuing chagrin - I would say that the sources are not quite as fine as they could be. Although I trust in both the surveys - neither were properly peer-reviewed and one was run on behalf of an avowedly atheist concern. Be that as it may - I think the results stand; and you are looking at below ten percent belief in a personal god by two nations greatest scientists

[Ringer]

To his continuing chagrin - I would say that the sources are not quite as fine as they could be. Although I trust in both the surveys - neither were properly peer-reviewed and one was run on behalf of an avowedly atheist concern. Be that as it may - I think the results stand; and you are looking at below ten percent belief in a personal god by two nations greatest scientists

Before it gets pointed out again, there was the study that had a 33%, but I don't believe that was peer-reviewed and the methods on the report only stated that they conducted an online survey of ~2,000 AAAS members. I don't find that method to be very convincing seeing that most anyone could be an AAAS member, membership type wasn't mentioned. That aside, I don't have access to Nature so I can't say if their methods were similar or better.

 

Overall, the consensus is the majority of science do not believe in a god. I wonder what kind of results one would get if they tested only supernatural beliefs.

[imatfaal]

Before it gets pointed out again, there was the study that had a 33%, but I don't believe that was peer-reviewed and the methods on the report only stated that they conducted an online survey of ~2,000 AAAS members. I don't find that method to be very convincing seeing that most anyone could be an AAAS member, membership type wasn't mentioned. That aside, I don't have access to Nature so I can't say if their methods were similar or better.

 

Overall, the consensus is the majority of science do not believe in a god. I wonder what kind of results one would get if they tested only supernatural beliefs.

 

The full nature piece is present here at the stephejaygould.or site http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

 

The full pew research document is here at their own websire http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf

 

The royal society piece I cannot find anything other the the abstract at SSRN - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2271642

and some text in the God Delusion.

 

Some of the results are here http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/atheism-among-anglophone-scientists-ii-the-uk/

 

Personally I would shy away from a survey on religious belief run by someone from the Templeton Foundation - and I would have to say the same for research run by the Director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation. That is not to say that either would deliberately bias their methods or results - but I think science must be value free (in an ethical value sense) if at all possible.

 

The AAAS survey did state that the members were not foreign members nor primary or secondary level educators (IIRC). They do state that they had a greater response from Professorial level than student level which was corrected with weighting - so it is clear they were accepting responses from students.

 

The Nature correspondence seemed (to a layman as myself) to be run in an exemplary manner (as was the AAAS IMHO) for what it was - and faithfully mimicked a famous 1914 survey. They were both surveys sent to members with all the problems and response biases this entails.

 

What is clear is that to a highly significant degree the percentage of scientists who believe in either a personal god, or a higher being is lower than the general population - and I think you can say that for the more senior scientists this effect is much more marked.

 

As far as I can tell there is NO peer reviewed work - you are a young scientist with a psych connexion, sounds right up your street, you should go for it

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Interesting, Tonight [16th Aug 2013 ] the Royal Albert Hall in London were the promenade concerts. It was absolutely full with Hundreds , upon hundreds of cultured individuals Listening to an electrifying performance of two of J.S. Bach Oratorios , sung by the Monteverdi Choir. The production of such major works appreciated by so many cultured individuals must indicate something. It was a riveting,electrifying performance of a riveting , inspirational work by Bach. [ He inspired by whatever he was inspired by. ]

 

That was a STRAW POLL if ever there was one

 

 

 

straw poll chiefly US, Canadian, and NZ, vote

n

(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an unofficial poll or vote taken to determine the opinion of a group or the public on some issue

link http://www.thefreedictionary.com/straw+poll

Edited August 16, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Iota]

 

 

I may be a Christian/Catholic, but I base scientific conclusions on scientific observations. Have some leniency here.

Well if you are going to try to change my belief in God it ain't going to happen. I respect your beliefs and I hope you turn out to respect mine.

 

Well, then, it's clear that you're here in the hope of someone reinforcing your irrational idea that- following a religion and studying science are two activities which don't contradict. They completely contradict.

 

This may well sound ridiculous, considering I'm only a year older than you. But literally a year ago, maybe a little bit over, I was in the exact frame of mind you are now: complete denial. You can take offence to that, I really don't mind; but I was force fed Christianity my whole life, was very dedicated to it, and only a year ago, I was completely convinced nothing could come between me and my faith.

 

Looking back now, that wasn't true at all, and I'd been denying the fact that I didn't truly believe in god for years. Because I'd lived my whole life believing that I could talk to god (because I was told I could), that made it hard to have any free thoughts of my own... because I was afraid to even consider that god didn't exist, because after all, god can read my thoughts, and I wouldn't want to piss off god. I was too afraid to consider a godless world, and on top of that, I was afraid I'd go to hell for eternity. Because my parents were kind enough to teach me that hell is very real, at an age as young as primary school, which I'd now consider child abuse. But anyway, my mind was trapped by fear, fear to even consider that god isn't real or that 'Satan' provoked such thoughts. That's what religion does, it's evil.

 

Despite this fear, I had quite a scientific mind, always had done but it was suppressed for years because of my religious beliefs. I found myself gradually looking outside the box my mind had been in for years, and just questioning whether it was possible that there could be no god at all. For about a year I poked at the idea again and again and again, while still god-fearing, so not questioning too far. Eventually all those short moments of daring to questioning god's existence added up to quite a lot of questioning, and I found myself eventually realising how illogical it is, I became less and less scared of god and began to question my beliefs... before finally realising I didn't believe at all.

 

I started looking for videos that discussed whether or not god existed- now that I wasn't mentally trapped by fear- I eventually came across Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, both whom explain the absurdity of religion (not just Christianity) in clear terms, with evidence and logic. That finally reinforced my atheism to the point of solidarity. The day I shed religion was honestly the best day of my life, I could finally have clear thoughts and learn scientific facts without any conflict at all, and have my own mind to myself.

 

Religion is nothing more than a mind virus, a fear-induced mental illness, paranoid schizophrenia. You can question anything EXCEPT for religion, and for good reason... because as soon as you do- and if you're at least reasonably intelligent- you'll be free of it. You'll wake up and realise it's complete rubbish, and that you've wasted a lot of time you'll never get back, fearing a god who isn't there. That's why religionists are offended by the questioning of their faith, because they're terrified that the person questioning it might be right, because deep down most of them know religion doesn't add up, but won't admit it to themselves.

 

You seem to be at the point of questioning god's existence indirectly, if only very slightly. I could be mistaken, but I really doubt it. Keep it up and you won't regret it.

[Unity+]

 

 

That's why religionists are offended by the questioning of their faith, because they're terrified that the person questioning it might be right

No actually most of us(religious) are not offended, but have made a firm conclusion on their faith until proof otherwise provided that God cannot exist, which is little or to no likely hood of occurring.

 

 

 

Despite this fear, I had quite a scientific mind, always had done but it was suppressed for years because of my religious beliefs. I found myself gradually looking outside the box

And this implies religion(in general) prevents you from looking outside the box. It is not the fault of one or many to determine what you do or what you don't do. I would say this was more of your fault than religion.

 

 

 

...because I was afraid to even consider that god didn't exist

You keep implying that this is the cause by religion rather than your own fears.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Unity+

[iNow]

most of us ... have made a firm conclusion on their faith [that an Easter Bunny who rides on purple flying unicorns powered by fairies are real] until proof otherwise provided that God an Easter Bunny who rides on purple flying unicorns powered by fairies cannot exist...

 

Just for context and to maximize our shared understanding in this discussion, the edited version of what you said above is what it sounds like to me when I read comments like those about god(s).

Oh, John. He'll just rationalize and hand wave that one away, too. Let's be serious. His beliefs and preconceptions are not going to be easily altered by facts and reality, no matter how many of his hoops we successfully jump through.

 

Just sayin'...

Edited August 17, 2013 by iNow

[Iota]

No actually most of us(religious) are not offended, but have made a firm conclusion on their faith until proof otherwise provided that God cannot exist, which is little or to no likely hood of occurring.

 

And this implies religion(in general) prevents you from looking outside the box. It is not the fault of one or many to determine what you do or what you don't do. I would say this was more of your fault than religion.

 

You keep implying that this is the cause by religion rather than your own fears.

 

I wasn't expecting you to recognise what I was saying at all, but I put it out there anyway. If you're intelligent, you'll come to recognise what I said, and others in the this forum have said, within time. Like I said, only a year ago I was deeply deluded by religion like you are now. I'm not even going to humour those individual points you put forward to me, because they're all complete rubbish, with all due respect.

 

Next time just read what I said and think about it, don't just come back at what I said with desperately defensive nonsense.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Iota

[doG]

Let me make the difference between basing a conclusion in science on scientific evidence and making a conclusion of belief philosophically.

 

Based on all the scientific theories we have, the "fine-tuned" universe and design of the Universe, I make my own conclusion that there is an intelligent being behind it. This type of thinking makes sense to me, unless you consider it irrational.

Yes, it's irrational. To theorize that there could be intelligence behind it would be scientific, to conclude there is intelligence behind it is unscientific. There is no evidence to conclude that deities are a fact.

[iNow]

During an interview with particle physicist and philosopher Victor Stenger this week, two points relevant to some of the discussion in this thread were made:

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/showing-god-does-not-exis_b_3757729.html

 

Folly presents my basic thinking about why science and religion are irrevocably incompatible. When a scientific theory disagrees with the data, the theory is discarded. When a religious theory disagrees with the data, the data are discarded. It is foolish to take anything on faith, which is a belief based on no evidence, just wishful thinking.

 

<...>

 

While we cannot prove that every conceivable god does not exist, we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a god that plays such an important role in the universe such as the Abrahamic God would have been detected by now. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the evidence that should be there is not.

[Ringer]

Personally I would shy away from a survey on religious belief run by someone from the Templeton Foundation - and I would have to say the same for research run by the Director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation. That is not to say that either would deliberately bias their methods or results - but I think science must be value free (in an ethical value sense) if at all possible.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, bias doesn't necessarily mean the results are flawed but it increases the chances dramatically.

 

The AAAS survey did state that the members were not foreign members nor primary or secondary level educators (IIRC). They do state that they had a greater response from Professorial level than student level which was corrected with weighting - so it is clear they were accepting responses from students.

Thanks for pointing it out, I don't know how I missed that section when I read it. I do wonder what is meant in the biological and medical respondents. IIRC medical doctors tend to be more religious than practicing scientists or medical researchers, but I'm not sure if practicing medical doctors is included in that set.

 

As far as I can tell there is NO peer reviewed work - you are a young scientist with a psych connexion, sounds right up your street, you should go for it

Sadly my psych department only allows undergraduate research to use other undergrads for sampling. I actually wanted to do something similar for research but my research adviser didn't like the idea.

[imatfaal]

...

 

 

Sadly my psych department only allows undergraduate research to use other undergrads for sampling. I actually wanted to do something similar for research but my research adviser didn't like the idea.

 

That's bad news. I interviewed members of the European Parliament for mine - probably would have got a better response with undergraduates. But I suppose your tutors' decision makes sense - any connexion with the life sciences means you need (and rightly so) to be so cautious with ethical issues; a blanket ban from moving outside the student corpus makes things easier if a little less interesting

[pears]

People keep bringing up the No True Scotsman in this thread. What is the piece of reasoning the No True Scotsman fallacy is being applied to here? My understanding of this fallacy is that someone makes a generalisation, a counter-example is shown, then the person who made the generalisation shifts their position to exclude the counter-example. It seems here that the ones shouting No True Scotsman are the ones making the generalisation, rather than the person alleged to have committed the fallacy.

[Villain]

Maybe it does you at a personal level, but we know that religous views have, for example, hampered stem cell research.

 

Umm...what? Please don't confuse ethics and religion.

[Moontanman]

My point was that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

 

 

Science cannot prove or disprove many things, does that make them equally valid?

[Unity+]

 

 

Science cannot prove or disprove many things, does that make them equally valid?

Validity is irrelevant in this case. String Theory is mathematically sound. It does not contradict current theory, however it is not proven. It is left to the skepticism of some while full acceptance of others.

 

The same case can be made with religion.

 

EDIT: Let me further explain the meaning of validity within this explanation. Validity is irrelevant because in any case, with the example presented, a higher-being is logical and does not contradict scientific theory. Neither does the theory of vibrating strings.

 

The logic behind something implies that there is nothing against currently known logic, therefore it is logical until proven with scientific theory it is illogical.

While we cannot prove that every conceivable god does not exist, we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a god that plays such an important role in the universe such as the Abrahamic God would have been detected by now. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the evidence that should be there is not.

And somehow we know what evidence to look for in the first place.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Unity+

[ajb]

Umm...what? Please don't confuse ethics and religion.

The two are very different.

 

People object on both grounds, I have not tried to claim otherwise.

The same case can be made with religion.

 

 

And somehow we know what evidence to look for in the first place.

Well string theory makes some generic predictions and maybe when or if we find the right vacuum it makes specific predictions that are at least testable in principal.

 

The Abrahamic God that used to like to get involved has absolutly no evidence of existing. Here we do have some observations that we can make as we know, if he exists, he likes to mess with things. For example, we have no evidence of miracles or huge deviations from understood physics in our daily lives.