Who would have thought that scientists would be religious?

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The following is an eye-opener. Though I know quite a few scientists of various disciplines who are devout people of faith, I would have bet good money that more scientists would be agnostic or athiest than would be people of faith. I even naively thought maybe science was attractive to athiests for that reason.

The study cited seems to be valid. People of faith, how do you interpret this? You agnostics and athiests, how do you explain this?

Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 11 August 2005
02:24 pm ET

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.

"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.

Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

"Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said today. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."

Ecklund and colleagues are now conducting longer interviews with some of the participants to try and figure it all out.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050811_scientists_god.html

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,702 • Replies: 32

No top replies

What's to explain? Other than noting that you apparently suffered from unwarranted delusions both about agnosticism/atheism and the pursuit of scientific study, there's nothing unusual in any of this.

0 Replies

Oh, i would note that including "political scientists" in the study is more than a little ludicrous.

0 Replies

This is not a revelation to people of faith.

0 Replies

This is not a revelation to people of science.

0 Replies

Joe Sixpack wrote:

We don't have to pay for this study, do we, neo?

0 Replies

So none of you have ever said that religion and science don't mix?

0 Replies

Science has done more to prove the bible and it's events than anything else could. Especially a scientist would recognize the extremely high odds of everything just happening on earth without divine intervention.

0 Replies

Well that's my belief Intrepid, but wouldn't you say we are in a distinct minority here on A2K?

0 Replies

We may be a minority who will admit to our beliefs. There are probably many more who would rather avoid the wailing and nashing of teeth that we run into in voicing them.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So none of you have ever said that religion and science don't mix?

It's been said, implied, hinted at and shouted dozens if not hundreds of times here. And everybody knows it.

This wake up call , unfortunately, will probably not wake any of those zealots out of their fog.

Other than that, I'm with Joe 6P.

0 Replies

Religion and science don't mix and competent scientists who subscribe to a faith don't try. The key word here is faith; faith is believing in something for which there is no proof. Science is based on empiricism. In other words, it relies unequivocally on physical evidence and, to some degree, on extrapolation based on previously discovered laws or principles. Competent scientists of faith simply do what we all do: they separate some aspects of their lives from other aspects.

Many scientists believe in God or a higher power, but they don't allow religious dogma to interfere with their quest for knowledge. No competent physicist or geologist believes in the young Earth idea connected to creationism, there is no debate about the validity of evolution in the scientific community, and few competent scientists really believe Noah built a boat big enough to hold two of every animal. We would decertify the physician who relied on prayer rather than medicine to heal, prosecute the psychologist who counseled a modern day Abraham to do what the voices told him to and sacrifice his son, and fire the physicist whose research conclusion read "Everything is the way it is because God wants it that way.

This is no wake up call and will come as a surprise only to those who are unfamiliar with the scientific community. Scientists of faith simply realize what so many don't--the existence of God is unprovable, and that's okay because it wouldn't be faith otherwise.

0 Replies

What's the issue? Isn't science about doubt? And isn't religion about faith?
Or did I get that all wrong?

I don't recall reading any scientist who ever claimed to have absolute knowledge of anything. I would have thought also that keeping an open mind would be useful to a scientist, you know, to keep inquiring.

But then there is the bumper sticker I see around here every now and again and it goes something like this "God said it, I believe it, that settles it". Now that person is entitled to that attitude but for mine it signifies a closed mind.

I'm not at all surprised that a scientist, possessed of an inquiring and open mind, would be open to the idea of a deity. Why not? They probably see it as a possibility and so it shouldn't be ignored.

0 Replies

To a certain extent, i can understand the confusion of some people. There are those who bill themselves as "atheists" who raise their dogmatic insistence to the level of religion, and who enshrine science as scripture. For such people, "atheism" has replaced theism in their lives. They "believe" in science as an article of faith, and have as little real understanding of science and scientific principles as the "revealed truth" crowd have of those ideas.

But they are atheists only in the sense that they dogmatically insist that there is no god, and they certainly are not irreligious. There are a great many of us who are simply atheistic by the definition of others. Some, as describes me, are anti-religion, and in my case that includes the dogmatic atheists.

However, it is a phenomenon of the reversion to 16th century religious values by so many of the religiously fanatic in the United States to allege a conspiracy of secular humanism in an assault upon "christian values." By the terms of that wild-eyed conspiracy theory, science seeks to disprove the existence of god, and evolutionary theory is the point of the spear aimed at the god-fearing. But this is a ridiculous proposition, and it is howling paranoia.

It is perfectly reasonable for an intelligent scientist (which does not include "political scientists"--oh man that cracks me up) to be a theist. That same scientist can also see Intelligent Design for the absurd set of propositions that it is, and she can continue to believe that a deity has set the universe in motion without being obliged to reject the extremely plausible and sound principles of evolution by selection in favor of a silly contention about a meddling creator.

This is about, more than anything else, the paranoia of the religiously fanatical, who either out of ignorance or policy, see centuries of scientific inquiry as a threat to their dogma.

0 Replies

I'd like to know how many scientists actually professed belief in God, as opposed to those who are agnostic and therefore would not be included in the "disbelief" statistics. This study appears to be at odds with previous studies: Leading scientists still reject God

Quote:

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). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.

Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
Figures are percentages.

0 Replies

Interesting.....

Thanks Terry - I was just about to mention your point.....

On Tuesday I watched part of the local public access channel's call in show that is produced by the local Austin Athetist Organization, or whatever they call themselves.

They sited that very fact at one point that 2/3's of scientists do NOT believe in God (made me wonder how many of these were agostics).

I don't have the time right now to read the article by the orginal poster (I will later) but to me this is just another example how statistics can be made to say anything you want.

BTW - I tune into this Atheist call in show on public access cable sometimes to try to figure out what the purpose of it is.......haven't been able to figure it out.....but I'm such a Curious George.

2 atheists sit there, taking calls from people, who generally (not always) believe in God.

The Believer makes his comments, the Atheists literally sit there and roll their eyes and smirk.
Sometimes the believer gets carried away and gets disconnected.
Sometimes the believer confronts the atheists with their condecending behavior, and they are told, literally, "This is our show, and you don't call us and tell us how to behave"

so - it's 2 groups, one saying - I believe in God, the other saying I don't believe in God.

So what? Nothing gets accomplished.
So don't believe in God. Who cares?
So believe in God. Who care?

It's the closest I get to watching reality tv

0 Replies

One observation here is that the study Terry cites is from a survey of scientists who are members of NAS. The study cited by Rice Unviersity was a survey of academics. I will plead ignorance here: would science professors likely be members of NAS too?

But again, this different information pretty well debunks another notion I had. I expected scientists who are not in academia to have a higher percentage of belief in some sort of higher power than I expected from those in academia.

In other words, I'm rethinking my whole range of thinking on this issue.

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

. . . but to me this is just another example how statistics can be made to say anything you want.

Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

-- Homer J. Simpson

0 Replies

DOH!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So none of you have ever said that religion and science don't mix?

Well, not exactly.

I think, real life, Foxfyre, you confused what I've said and confused what others have said.

What I said was "The Belief of God has no place in science", which means, believe in God all you want, but don't let your belief get in the way of your work. Or in other words, believe in God on your own time.

The study you found did not suggest that scientists couldn't be religious. I suspect the majority keep their belief separate from their work, after learning from Einstein's mistake, which was to let his belief influence his concepts on science. (He turned out to be wrong about quantum physics. Chance does happen).

And Rice's study showed me nothing new. I didn't expect the social sciences to be less God-believing than the natural sciences. I expected it to be the other way round. I expected less believers in the natural sciences than in the social sciences, which she has helped prove, but she must repeat her experiment again and others must repeat it, to prove that her findings were not a complete fluke.

Leading scientists, of course, have to be sceptical about a lot of things. Even their own research and those of other peoples. I've taken a Masters course and one of the modules was concerned about critical reading of other people's research. Seeing what is right and what is wrong and what could have been done better.

You don't become a leading scientist, if you believe in everything you see.

EDIT: Whoops. Just saw Mills75's response, which says pretty much the same thing as my response. I should read threads more thoroughly and save myself the bother.

0 Replies

Who would have thought that scientists would be religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know