Reply
Wed 25 Nov, 2009 06:21 am
Of course a higher power is not a mean old man on a throne with his son and a ghost hanging around him.
Wonder when the human race is going to grow up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do scientists think about religion?
Members of the scientific community are often seen as doubting Thomases, but the reality is more complex. Even Charles Darwin may have made room for God.
By David Masci
November 24, 2009
E-mail Print Share Text Size
Today, a century and a half after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," the overwhelming majority of scientists in the United States accept Darwinian evolution as the basis for understanding how life on Earth developed. But although evolutionary theory is often portrayed as antithetical to religion, it has not destroyed the religious faith of the scientific community.
According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
Furthermore, scientists today are no less likely to believe in God than they were almost 100 years ago, when the scientific community was first polled on this issue. In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not. Scientists have unearthed many important fossils since then, but they are, if anything, more likely to believe in God today.
The scientific community is, however, much less religious than the general public. In Pew surveys, 95% of American adults say they believe in some form of deity or higher power.
And the public does not share scientists' certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.
Given that scientists are much less likely than the general public to believe in God, it's not surprising that the percentage who are affiliated with a particular religion is also lower. Nearly half of U.S. scientists say they have no religious affiliation -- describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular -- compared with 17% of all Americans.
Among scientists there are far fewer Protestants (21%) and Catholics (10%) than in the general public, which is 51% Protestant and 24% Catholic. And while evangelical Protestants make up more than a fourth of the general population (28%), they are only a tiny slice (4%) of the scientific community. One notable exception is Jews, who make up a larger proportion of the scientific community (8%) than the general population (2%).
But the Pew poll found that levels of religious faith among scientists vary quite a bit depending on their specialty and age. Chemists, for instance, are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in biology and medicine (32%). And younger scientists (ages 18 to 34) are more likely than older ones to believe in God or a higher power.
If a substantial portion of the scientific community is made up of believers, why do so many people think evolution and religion are incompatible? It may be because some of our most famous and prolific scientists, such as American evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould and British physicist Stephen Hawking, were or are atheists and agnostics. But what about Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, who was recently appointed as director of the National Institutes of Health by President Obama? Collins is an evangelical Christian who speaks passionately about his faith -- and also thinks evolution is an established scientific fact.
As for Darwin, his letters indicate that he was probably an agnostic who lost his faith not because his groundbreaking theory was incompatible with religion, but because of his grief after the 1851 death of his favorite child, his 10-year-old daughter, Annie. And even then, he may not have completely rejected the idea of a higher power. The concluding sentence of "Origin of Species" speaks of a "Creator" breathing life "into a few forms or into one." The passage raises at least a little doubt as to how the father of modern evolutionary theory might have responded to the question on belief in Pew's recent survey of scientists.
David Masci is a senior researcher at the Pew Forum.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
E-mail Print Digg Twitter Facebook StumbleUpon Share
COMMENTS (15) | Add Comment
Comments:
01400 characters remaining
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beliefs do not require facts (which is more or less the definition), but scientific theories do require belief, even if supported through evidence. Not all science, of course...but often times even the fundamentals are based on assumptions, and require a degree of conviction. Peer review is often times a joke, with ulterior motives versus sound scientific evidence....find a physicist and ask him/her about peer review. I "believe" in science and I believe in God (I guess that would be obvious from my statements), and I know that the faith in God is just that, faith....I also know that the acceptance of theories as truth is highly unscientific, and the formulation of theories based on incomplete evidence is often accepted as "science", especially by the public. Ignoring all that, science, in it's most complete form cannot and will not discredit the existence of the supernatural, ever....and God loves science, even if religion has been...well....stupid....
cz157 (11/24/2009, 3:34 PM )
Report Comment
Report item as: (required)
Inappropriate language Threatening language Advertising/spam Other
Additional Comments: (optional)
500 characters limit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with the question is that first you have to define God. Many people say thay believe in God or a higher power but when you aske them to define God thay will all define it difrently. So lets ask the question first, "Define God" and see what scientists say. I believe in a higher power or God but it is not even close to that of a christan believer.
Bellaegoski (11/24/2009, 3:25 PM )
Report Comment
Report item as: (required)
Inappropriate language Threatening language Advertising/spam Other
Additional Comments: (optional)
500 characters limit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is like an article entitled "What do plumbers (lawyers, doctors, your occupation of choice) think about religion?" The obvious answer, and I believe the correct one, is, "who cares?" An education in science does not qualify a person as a theologian, any more than does an education as a computer engineer. These are entirely different (and equally valid) fields of endeavor, but I would no more expect a scientist to be an expert in theology than I would expect a theologian to understand quantum physics.
leotoydog (11/24/2009, 2:44 PM )
Report Comment
Report item as: (required)
Inappropriate language Threatening language Advertising/spam Other
Additional Comments: (optional)
500 characters limit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See All comments Advertisement
The Latest | news as it happens
Today's a big day for Obama's turkeys (No, not Biden and Geithner) - Top of the Ticket 11/25/2009, 2:12 a.m.
Women Postpone Thanksgiving Dinner to Meet Militant Feminist! - The Daily Mirror 11/25/2009, 2:00 a.m.
Earnings Roundup - L.A. Times - Business 11/25/2009, 12:00 a.m.
Business Briefing - L.A. Times - Business 11/25/2009, 12:00 a.m.
Last-minute Thanksgiving hors d'oeuvres - L.A. Times - Food & Dining 11/25/2009, 12:00 a.m.
Most Viewed Most E-Mailed 1. Google won't exclude distorted Michelle Obama image from its site
2. Toyota to replace gas pedals on 3.8 million recalled vehicles
3. Adam Lambert and TV scandal: A match made in rock heaven
4. Lakers' cruise gets a little choppy
5. Obama tells Singh that U.S. values its ties with India
6. Tim Rutten: Who's watching Glenn Beck?
7. Britain's war inquiry panel opens hearings on Iraq
8. L.A. council says pot shops could accept cash
9. Terrorism probe casts scrutiny on Minneapolis' Somali immigrant enclave
10. Talk of war surtax for Afghanistan expenses heats up
1. Screaming kids and airplanes: Mayday! Mayday!
2. Restaurants brace for a sour season as consumers lose appetite for dining out
3. What do scientists think about religion?
4. More attacks on redheads reported at Calabasas school
5. The universe's past, in close-up
6. Understanding China
7. Conservation is seen as key to dealing with state's water woes
8. Beck shakes up LAPD's command staff
9. A more flavorful dry-brined turkey
10. Glenn Beck has big plans
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Of course a higher power is not a mean old man on a throne with his son and a ghost hanging around him.
Wonder when the human race is going to grow up.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what it is.
Also. In what manner do you suggest that the human race "grow up" Obviously, you consider yourself more mature than the human race so I anticipate your all knowing reply.
God help us.
@Intrepid,
Also. In what manner do you suggest that the human race "grow up" Obviously, you consider yourself more mature than the human race so I anticipate your all knowing reply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any one who believes in fairy tales are not a grown up in my opinion be that fairy tales concerning Santa Claus or the Greek or Roman gods or the three in one Christian god with Mary and the saints thrown in.
In fact, a true believer instead of someone who just gives lip service to the nonsense is not completely sane and that insanity can result in the poisoning of their own children< see Jones town> or the flying of jet liners into building as you shout god is great.
@BillRM,
i have little or no use for the christian concept of god
that being said, if having to abandon any sense of wonder or hope that there are more interesting things around us or beyond the veil means "growing up", then heat up my bottle and change my diaper, cause i like my fairy tales, ghosts and aliens
@BillRM,
What a sad life it must be for you. Nothing to believe in. Nothing to stimulate imagination. Nothing to hope for.
@djjd62,
if having to abandon any sense of wonder or hope that there are more interesting things around us or beyond the veil means "growing up", then heat up my bottle and change my diaper, cause i like my fairy tales, ghosts and aliens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sense of wonder is hardly lacking in this wonderful universe we all find ourselves in. The Christian 3 in 1 god is a way too small of a god to match the universe we are in, as a matter of fact.
Fairy tales can be cute and interesting but not as anything more then that.
As far as aliens I have no problem with the idea that we are not alone in this universe of our and if you keep up with the news even the Catholic church no longer had a problem with that idea.
Or that perhaps someday we will meet them at least over a communication link.
@Intrepid,
What a sad life it must be for you. Nothing to believe in. Nothing to stimulate imagination. Nothing to hope for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We happen to live in a wonderful universe that is both vast in time and space and every day we find out more interesting facts concerning it and ourselves.
Nothing to stimulate imagination you got to be kidding me.
Let see we just found out that 95 percent of the universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy that we at the moment have no real understanding of!
There is all kind of current theories concerning space -time that are all interesting and stimulating if you but get you head out of the bible and look at the real universe.
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
What a sad life it must be for you. Nothing to believe in. Nothing to stimulate imagination. Nothing to hope for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We happen to live in a wonderful universe that is both vast in time and space and every day we find out more interesting facts concerning it and ourselves.
Nothing to stimulate imagination you got to be kidding me.
Let see we just found out that 95 percent of the universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy that we at the moment have no real understanding of!
There is all kind of current theories concerning space -time that are all interesting and stimulating if you but get you head out of the bible and look at the real universe.
.
Are you saying that you have faith in and believe something that you or nobody else has actual knowledge of? These are only theories and you believe them? What kind of fairy tales are they?
The christian religion thwarts free thinking and logicality; replacing them with dogmatism and superstition. Intrepid's inability to recognize this is obvious.
Karl Popper is considered by some to be the leading expert on the philosophy of science. He gave credit to myth for stimulating scientific endeavors:
Quote:My thesis is that what we call "science" is differentiated from the older myths not by being something distinct from a myth, but by being accompanied by a second-order tradition -- that of critically discussing the myth.
@Intrepid,
Are you saying that you have faith in and believe something that you or nobody else has actual knowledge of? These are only theories and you believe them? What kind of fairy tales are they?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space-time theories are in a state of flux and not at the same level of development as evolution theory so if you mean do I believe in any one of them as having been proven beyond question no. I do believe however in the facts that those theories are being build on such as the red shift of light and find them highly interesting.
Now your silly comment that I believes in things that I had never seen and that is the same as believing in a three in one god for example.
No one had seen directly the 100 of millions of sun mass black holes in the center of almost all galaxies including ours however ”we” had seem the energy given off by matter falling into them and the pattern of rotation of stars around them therefore I do happen to believe in them as a result.
In any case your ability of classify believing in the proven existed of massive black holes as the same thing as your belief in a 3/1 god is just an indication of any true believer not being completely sane.
Side note I found myself laughing my head off then I went to your profile to temporarily unblock you and you had a picture of yourself in a Santa Claus suit how very fitting in my opinion.
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:
The christian religion thwarts free thinking and logicality; replacing them with dogmatism and superstition. Intrepid's inability to recognize this is obvious.
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Where, exactly, do you get this idea that religious people cannot be free thinkers or have logical thinking?
How do you, in for infinite wisdom, know what I do and do not recognize.
Is that the most that you can bring to this thread? How very unfortunate that you can only find time to mock someone and no time for free thinking and actually use your brain.
@Intrepid,
I agree with Intrepid.
Furthermore, the opinion that science makes religion obsolete is based on a very shallow understanding of what science is all about.
Both Intrepid and Wandeljw have already said it far better than I could. I agree with them both. This idea that there is somehow an uncrossable gulf between those who profess a religion and those who practice science is mainly a 20th century notion. Oh, sure, back in the days when the Church was all-powerful in Europe, people like Copernicus and Galileo were persecuted for their research findings. But ovder the centuries some of the best minds in science were also ordained clergymen.
Darwin was far from being an atheist. In fact, he sought the approval of Church of England clergy before submitting Origin of Species for publication. Einstein was no atheist, either. I have never understood why there should be any disagreements at all between science and people of a religious nature. The so-called Christian fundamentalists who deny the fact of evolution are a Christian minority; it's certainly not the teaching of the mmajority of mainstream churches, as far as I can tell. It must also be remembered that a belief in "a higher power" is not the same thing as buying the entire Father/Son/Holy Ghost nonsense. Some scientists may be true Christians in the traditional sense of the word. Or devout Jews. Or peracticing Budhists. Or whatever. But the majority, I suspect, understand that the mythology of the Bible is not to be taken literally but, rather, to be seen as allegory. A belief in a god or a higher power is a very personal thing.
I, for one, believe that there are things in this universe which scientific inquiry not only has not explained but can never explain, even if the human race were to survive for another billion years and scientific progress continue at the same rate it's been going. These are not things that we simply don't understand e.g. 'dark matter.' These are things which our feeble human brains cannot understand.
@Merry Andrew,
Bill is merely trying his pre-holiday bait session. Anyone who rises to his hack attempts at cobbling an argument is in for a convoluted ride into the world of Bill. Hang on,
MA-Darwin was a"pussy". He was an atheist who feared for his reputation, his family life, and position within community. He had written some quite eloquent letters to Joseph Hooker summarizing his non belief in an Intelligence behind Creation and evolution.
Buying the "substance and format" of Bills argument merely induces a rage among the believers and gains nothing for the host of non believers . Such debate is a wasted effort as long as no one tries to teach it in science class.(Thats my view)
@Merry Andrew,
Einstein was no atheist, either
---------------------------------------------------------
Einstein were indeed an atheist and were attacked for being one in his own lifetime and told by Americans religion leaders that he should go back to his home land for daring to question Christian/Jewish believes.
Only by taking some of his comments way out of content such as god does not play dice can you come up with the claim that he was not an atheist.
God in the above statement and other such was a short cut remark to mean the universe not a personal god in any way or in any manner.
Once more lying for Jesus as in the founding fathers was good Christians and the country was founded as a Christian nation when anyone who know any history know otherwise beginning with Thoma Jefferson.
@farmerman,
MA-Darwin was a"pussy". He was an atheist who feared for his reputation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheists had a long history of having bad things happen to them and Darwin had enough problems without dealing with that nonsense also.
@Merry Andrew,
I, for one, believe that there are things in this universe which scientific inquiry not only has not explained but can never explain, even if the human race were to survive for another billion years and scientific progress continue at the same rate it's been going
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No real disagreement there however falling back therefore on silly myths of a personal god or gods is not going to increased our knowledge of the universe one little bit.
@Intrepid,
idea that religious people cannot be free thinkers or have logical thinking?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the very nature of religious people they can not question their faith by the very meaning of faith so any facts or scientific theorem that tend to call in question their believe systems must blindly be rejected.
See evolution as a fine example of this.
@farmerman,
long as no one tries to teach it in science class.(Thats my view)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So farmerman are you claiming that you can or are dividing your mind into two parts one that can go along with the earth was created in 7 days and humans and animals was created with the wave of some superbeing hands and the other part happily allowing you to be a geologist and accepting that the current earth took 4 billions or so years to reach it current state?
Seem that such a divided mind would be a highly unstable mind indeed and in very poor mental health.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace