Atheism among upper level scientists; latest survey

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/ecklunds-still-at-it/

3570 views

And what are the implications of this?

3536 views

And what are the implications of this?-Just an ongoing observation that highly trained and respected scientists of various types are generally atheists. In this survey the biologist group is more atheist than before. For example, generally physicians in the USA have been as high as 40% believers in some religion. This may be changing.

Post reply

3473 views

Again, what does this imply? How are the religious inclinations of scientists relevant?

Post reply

3442 views

Again, what does this imply? How are the religious inclinations of scientists relevant?-They are not. It is of sociologic interest that highly educated scientists are very likely to be atheistic, while the less educated, especially in the US, are in large majority, theistic. Is it that the leading scientists feel research will explain everything? I doubt that research will explain everything. No other implication.

Post reply

3466 views

David drew our attention to an article which referred to a survey among members of the National Academy of Sciences, a large majority of whom are atheists.-shanoxilt: Again, what does this imply? How are the religious inclinations of scientists relevant?-DAVID: They are not. It is of sociologic interest that highly educated scientists are very likely to be atheistic, while the less educated, especially in the US, are in large majority, theistic. Is it that the leading scientists feel research will explain everything? I doubt that research will explain everything. No other implication.-Dawkins alludes to a similar survey among Fellows of the Royal Society, as well as to research projects which suggest that "more highly educated people are less likely to be religious" (p. 102, The God Delusion). Education in my view is just as irrelevant as a scientific background, since there are fundamental questions which no-one can answer with any authority. An illiterate tribesman in the back of beyond may have a far greater awareness of the essence of things than us, who are so far removed from Nature that we can't even perform basic bodily functions without creating an industry and a culture to cover them up. Shanoxilt's question is spot on, though of course the neutral observer will hardly ignore scientific research, any more than he will ignore the mysteries that science has (so far) signally failed to solve.

Post reply

3413 views

As the article shows large numbers of scientists accept religion or practice one:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151203183346.htm-"'More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious," Ecklund said. "And it's striking that approximately twice as many 'convinced atheists' exist in the general population of Hong Kong, for example, (55 percent) compared with the scientific community in this region (26 percent)."-"The researchers did find that scientists are generally less religious than a given general population. However, there were exceptions to this: 39 percent of scientists in Hong Kong identify as religious compared with 20 percent of the general population of Hong Kong, and 54 percent of scientists in Taiwan identify as religious compared with 44 percent of the general population of Taiwan. Ecklund noted that such patterns challenge longstanding assumptions about the irreligious character of scientists around the world.-"When asked about terms of conflict between religion and science, Ecklund noted that only a minority of scientists in each regional context believe that science and religion are in conflict. In the U.K. -- one of the most secular countries studied -- only 32 percent of scientists characterized the science-faith interface as one of conflict. In the U.S., this number was only 29 percent. And 25 percent of Hong Kong scientists, 27 percent of Indian scientists and 23 percent of Taiwanese scientists believed science and religion can coexist and be used to help each other."-Comment: Not as one-sided as it might seem.

Post reply

3082 views

David has drawn our attention to an atheistic article that criticizes a theistic criticism of scientists. One is tempted to join Mercutio and cry, "A plague o' both your houses!" but there are sensible, rational, tolerant theists and atheists ... we are privileged to have met some on this forum ... so I would have moved on were it not for this paragraph:-"Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."-Dawkins also likes to quote such statistics, as if somehow this gave greater weight to the atheist argument. It doesn't. Scientists take up a career in science because, presumably, they are fascinated by the material world. You have to have a particular mental inclination for that, and a genuine belief that the material world can be understood. Matt says science is not about truth but about providing models. But to make progress, you have to have models that work, that make sense, that can be tested, that can make predictions. You have to believe that problems can be solved. Always, though, it is the material world that provides the problems and the solutions. That is science's field. I don't find it in the least surprising that the majority of such people believe that the material world holds all the answers, but the tiny proportion of "greater" mathematicians, biologists, physicists and astronomers who do believe in God clearly have no difficulty reconciling their material preoccupations with their non-material beliefs. Why don't the pollsters ask the "greater" scientists for the FACTS about how the universe began, how life began, what is the nature of consciousness, memory, imagination, emotion? They should then get a 100% unanimous answer: There are no facts. As for those who have faith that one day science will come up with the answers, they are no more and no less entitled to their faith than anyone else. That is not a swipe at science or at scientists. It is a swipe at those who attempt to misuse science for their non-scientific agendas.

Post reply

3473 views

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/ecklunds-still-at-it/-David, that article doesn't say exactly what you think it does. The blogpost is a polemic against I've never heard of, and the most recent survey posted rings in at the recent year of 1998.
 (Before he delivers statistics.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Post reply

3558 views

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/ecklunds-still-at-it/&#... 
> David, that article doesn't say exactly what you think it does. The blogpost is a polemic against I've never heard of, and the most recent survey posted rings in at the recent year of 1998.
> (Before he delivers statistics.)-I'm aware of previous statistics and there appears to be an increased number of atheist scientists over the years. That's all I meant to point out.

Post reply

4118 views

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/ecklunds-still-at-it/&#... > 
> > David, that article doesn't say exactly what you think it does. The blogpost is a polemic against I've never heard of, and the most recent survey posted rings in at the recent year of 1998.
> > (Before he delivers statistics.)
> 
> I'm aware of previous statistics and there appears to be an increased number of atheist scientists over the years. That's all I meant to point out.-I'm torn about the actual meaning of that. -For example, I don't think it's terribly uncommon for someone who grew up ultra-religious to be exposed to the evidence behind evolution in college and this would begin a process of rebellion for them. I've watched it happen to two guys. -Alternatively, one reason I originally wanted to do biochem was due to an English prof early in my college career who stated that experiments completed by Pasteur proved evolution was false. (The guy also believed that he had visited Noah's Ark in Turkey, and that an odd case of large human bones found in Israel was evidence for the Nephilim.) I ended up spending the entire class trying in vain to defend evolution--at the time I knew a bit from sites like talkorigins, but this guy had other wackjob arguments that I'd never even heard of before. That summer I read several books and educated myself on the underpinnings of epistemology and how science works to defeat skepticism. (Popper and Kuhn were staples that summer.) -Another thing to remember is that though tolerated on paper, it's difficult to be an Atheist in the U.S. I know you probably think that sounds silly, but even in my case, I haven't dared to tell my own family that I'm agnostic. Dawkins & Science provides a haven for atheists.-Jumping a bit to dhw's observation, I also agree that in some cases people who are materialistic are drawn to science, but I also stress that most who go to college are kids. Exactly how much do you (or dhw) really think that 18yr old kids walk into college full materialists--I posit that most don't even know what that word means.

Post reply

3474 views

MATT: Jumping a bit to dhw's observation, I also agree that in some cases people who are materialistic are drawn to science, but I also stress that most who go to college are kids. Exactly how much do you (or dhw) really think that 18yr old kids walk into college full materialists--I posit that most don't even know what that word means.-The survey, and hence my observation, did not concern college kids but the "greater" scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences. Approximately two thirds of them are avowed materialists (one should not ignore the proportion of agnostics), and I don't find that surprising among people who have devoted their working lives to studying the material world as we know it.

Post reply

3462 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

Atheism among upper level scientists; latest survey (Introduction)