4Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksDo scientists believe in god?
September 17th, 2012, 01:03 PM
Do scientists believe in god?
Notoriously yes, lots do. Others don't.
Beleif is a very personal thing and you may find it difficult getting people to share their personal beleifs or ideas. I think also if you are in certain lines of work then it may do your career prospects no good by declaring your faith in the almighty... bar preisthood.
I keep hearing that science is a cold hard world of reality with no place for God... yet i've never heard of any scientific evidence that God does not exist, therefore it might be that those who said there is no place for god in science might have been lieing for whatever reason... possibly to promote a materialist philosophy.
Some do and some don't. It varies on the particular question asked and the poll taken.Originally Posted by TimeLord
Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Do Scientists Really Reject God? | NCSE
And there is none that he does. Which is why it is a matter of faith.
Thats in agreement with my findings so far strange... will let u know if i find out more
But lots of evidence that the religious version of events as written down in just about every form of scripture or oral traditions was completely wrong. If accounts of god are so muddled, than so is the definition. This is also why scientist answers depend heavily on how the questions are phrased--the closer they ask about belief in traditional center of religious faiths the lower the reported numbers. If it's left completely open, then those that believe in "god" increase considerably. Even the most ardent scientist believes in god if by god you simply mean the sum total of known and as yet unknown physical laws. Einstien wrestled with this a great deal--often clarifying his statements about god to assert he meant nothing like the personal Abrahamic gods that are often confused with his position.yet i've never heard of any scientific evidence that God does not exist,
People who believe in God look to be cleverer because they have invented and discovered more things. Which is odd as less people now claim to believe in God and yet more things are being invented faster.
I do not believe the statement in bold. What evidence do you have that this is true?
I think you may be confused by the following. In the time of the renaissance and the enlightment, when science as we understand it was being developed, believing in God was the ddefault position and even if you didn't you would keep very quite about your non-belief. Consequently all the early progress was made by people who believed in God or at least said they did. That percentage has declined over time.
Here is an excerpt from Einstein:
Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavour and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions – fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favour of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilised by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.
The social impulses are another source of the crystallisation of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer’s outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.
The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilised peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples’ lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilised peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.
Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.
The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvellous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.
How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it
We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events – provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God’s eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research., only those who realise the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labour in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a sceptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realisation of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.
Scientists, like everyone else, are individuals. We may subscribe to popular theories and that may make us look like lemmings to people on the outside, but we all have our own personalities and preferences. Some of us believe in God, some don't.
I see too often people inferring that scientists all have to follow the same ideological mindset. We're typically bound together by methodology for the sake of comparable results, but we're still much different on a personal level.
Well, i think scientists take time to think about the logic behind it, and they will soon see that eiter they see that no matter what, they don't know if there is a god, and simply accept the fact there is no scientifically true way to know if there is.
But on the other hand, many will see, that when you want to disprove the existance of the flying spaghetti monster, this can not be done, much in the same way that god can not be disproved.
In this logic, it has no advantage to admit you don't know, or simply say you don't believe, as both actually mean the same.
But it's faith, not believing. I hope, there is a god, but i fear he'd hate what he would see here at earth. In that way i'm ashamed in that way. Then i hope there isn't a god, well then i see that if there is no afterlife, and nothing is there, then life slightly loses it's meaning when growing older. It's a cycle.
The easiest way for a scientist thus, is to admit to not know, or to say you don't believe there is. Which actually is precicely the same. Only one is agnost, other is atheist.
Hehe...
In order to garner funds for future projects, it may require a leap of faith. Scientists are not only the unkempt, unshaven, bespectacled, lab coat wearers but damn good at telling people what they want to hear.
I remember a few statistical statements from Richard Dawkins's talk on TED "Militant atheism". A particular 1998 survey questioning members from the National Academy of Sciences showed that nearly three quarters of those questioned were atheists, where the remainder numbered agnostics more than theists.
Another figure also told that MOST studies resulted in a conclusion that there exists a negative correlation between religiosity and education. Still, some studies however showed no correlation at all.
This talk was in 2002, with a particular sample group. However, I think it correctly reflects the general beliefs of the scientific community. So it is my personal belief that *most* scientists are atheists, which sounds completely reasonable to me.
So he wouldn't be at all biased, then...
What's your point? The information was attained from external sources of which he was not involved. The message of his talk was indeed strongly sided, but the results from the surveys were completely independent of his campaign. The information itself was straightforwardly presented purely with charts and numbers.So he wouldn't be at all biased, then...
But if there were other surveys showing that 50% of scientists had some sort of spiritual or religious belief, then I suspect he would not have included their results.
Of course, I have no idea what surveys have been carried out or what their results are. But I wouldn't trust anything Dawkins says about religion.
Yeah, you're right on second thought. Information can be selectively presented.But if there were other surveys showing that 50% of scientists had some sort of spiritual or religious belief, then I suspect he would not have included their results.
Of course, I have no idea what surveys have been carried out or what their results are. But I wouldn't trust anything Dawkins says about religion.
But does Dawkins really earn your distrust so much?
I tend to agree. Dawkins is just delivering the message of the study---and that study is consistent with others going back many decades.
On anything to do with religion, yes. He is an unreasonable fundamentalist anti-theist.
He titles one of his books, the root of all evil. Then one the god delusion. Then he claims he is seeding the ability for freethought. Yet he disclaims the freethought of religion. I'd say he's contradicting himself. In a book (not forum). I got this information in less then 2 minuts. Beforehand, i'd have never heard of Richard Dawkins. And on his opinions, i'd agree to disagree with him. He's to fundamentalistic, even as a scientist, you must understand the importance of faith, and the possibility your wrong.
"Freethought" is not freewheeling thought. It's actually quite specific and restricted. Freethought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThen he claims he is seeding the ability for freethought. Yet he disclaims the freethought of religion. I'd say he's contradicting himself.
So Dawkins rejecting religion is adhering to a central tenet of freethought rather than violating it.Regarding religion, freethinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.
A line from "Clifford's Credo" by the 19th Century British mathematician and philosopher William Kingdon Cliffordperhaps best describes the premise of freethought: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
So, let's talk about your feelings.On anything to do with religion, yes. He is an unreasonable fundamentalist anti-theist.
Let's not digress. Dawkins presented statistics that support his belief. That does not mean the statistical data are biased. It is an Ad Hominem fallacy.
About the survey, even for the scientists who believe in God, I thinks they may have different concepts of God. One may believe in God the Doer, who creates everything by his power and intervenes from time to time (this scientist may also not believe in evolution theory). Another one may believe in God the initiator, who started a Big Bang and let things develop on its own. Another may believe in God the Law Setter, who sets physical laws and parameters before flipping an ON switch.
So it would be more interesting if someone give a more concise characteristic of God before asking the scientists.
Not really an ad hominem; I'm not saying the statistics must be wrong because he presented them. I'm sure they are valid. I don't think he would want to (or dare to) present false statistics. But, because he is presenting them, I would be highly sceptical that they are the full story and would look for confirmation from other sources.
I don't think Dawkin's would disagree. Well, perhaps the "unreasonable" part...
Have you? What have you found?
Not Ad Hominem?
No I haven't. I don't think it is a particularly important or interesting question.Have you? What have you found?
I do think it is quite relevant to the topic of this thread. I don't think it is a good argument to reject an evidence based on your personal distrust of the person presenting it, and then saying that it is not interesting.No I haven't. I don't think it is a particularly important or interesting question.Have you? What have you found?
As I said, I am NOT rejecting the evidence. I'm sure the data was good, correct, accurate (as much as any such survey can be). I am not accusing Dawkins of lying or making up numbers.
I would just be sceptical about anything Dawkins says about religion given his (admitted) extreme bias. He may have ignored other surveys that didn't support his case as well. He may be giving a more favourable view of the survey. This is statistics after all, interpretation and knowing the background to the data is very important. How many answered the survey? Were they randomly chosen or self-selected? What exactly was asked? What other questions were asked?
If a creationist told you that Darwin had been proved wrong, would you say "oh, OK" or would you think, "hmmm... creationist ... perhaps I should double check this story".
But I don't think the question asked in this thread is very interesting or important either.I do think it is quite relevant to the topic of this thread.
But as I said I don't really care, so I guess I should just shut up now.
I would think "I hope it is a new one, so that I can learn something"
If there is suspicion that the presenter holds unreasonable bias, then I can't really blame someone for not fully trusting what it is shown by that particular presenter. Information can be selectively presented, regardless of whether the information itself is partial or not. Considering the talk Dawkins made had a very solid, one-sided view on religion, with Dawkins himself being a very outspoken atheist, then I see fair cause for Strange's distrust ... however I still disagree that this distrust should be applied to these particular surveys.
And, as I have said, I have no doubt those surveys are valid and reasonably accurately represented by Dawkins.
Does anyone else find ‘atheism’ rather odd. I am technically an ‘atheist’ but would never really consider myself so. In the same way that I don’t support the New York Yankees so technically I am a ‘non-New York Yankees fan’ but that would be quite a ridiculous way to consider myself.
Given that there is no reason to suppose there is a God (certainly not a theological one) to the same degree there is no reason to suppose there is a cosmic teapot (a la Russell) I am as much an ‘ateapotter’ as I am an ‘atheist’.
Would people agree? (Is this so banal it wasn't worth posting? It’s just I rarely hear it said; would love to hear from anyone who disagrees)
Last edited by SHF; September 30th, 2012 at 03:48 PM. Reason: typo (as always)
Indeed. It is not logical for the word "atheist" to exist. But, obviously, it was created in a time when (nearly) everyone believed in God or gods (it was coined in the 16th century, I think).
Your analogy seems faulty to me. There's a difference between disbelieving with respect to any/all deities as opposed to disbelieving with respect to one, particular deity. An atheist is analogous to someone who is not a fan of any major-league baseball team. With your analogy, it's like saying Hindus are atheists because they're not adherents of the Christian god.
Last edited by epidecus; September 30th, 2012 at 05:04 PM.
Sounds more like you're agnostic. Unless you completely reject the idea that a God could exist, which isn't particularly scientific to me.
Strange:
I agree, it makes sense as a historical hangover (although not so historical for many people unfortunately)
Epidecus:
Ah, yes, I should alter my analogy a little as you say. And the truth is I don’t support any baseball team. So perhaps as you note I should say that given that I don’t support any baseball team it would be odd to consider myself specifically a ‘non-baseball fan’. I’m also a non-tiddlywinks fan, a non-waterpolo fan etc, but would never consider myself in such terms. Thanks for the correction. (Do you feel the analogy now stands?)
Flick Montana:
I wouldn’t say I’m agnostic (if you mean that I take the position that whether there is a God is unknowable) but of course we get into definitions of God. If we are talking about a theological god then surely we can see there is no reason to take such a notion seriously. Like there is no reason to take the cosmic teapot seriously. Technically perhaps I should call myself agnostic about both theological gods and cosmic teapots but practically it seems rather silly, no? Is that really unscientific? (Ultimately, I would say the only thing I know is that I don’t know anything at all, but that is not a practical way to live or to do science, are you agnostic about evolution or atomic theory? Surely everything is ultimately unknowable, you can’t be agnostic about everything otherwise the word becomes meaningless)
I take the idea of God seriously. I don't particularly think the Christians got it right. But the idea that there could be an alien life form so advanced beyond our understanding that we consider it God doesn't seem impossible to me. The idea that we may have been placed here on purpose? I'll entertain that. Doesn't mean I accept it or worship this possible creature.
I would imagine most scientists prefer things they can logically rationalise, that being the case most religions don't seem to be rational or logical in there doctrine or teachings. The central theme of vitually every major religion seems to be about making people follow that particular religion, to this end they seem to provide stories, rules and rituals that have very little basis in fact or truth, certainly nothing scientific. So just how are people that spend their whole lives looking for the truth in everything really going to believe what they can fully understand is mostly lies, myths and superstitions? They're more than likely to reject the falsehoods in these religions and as such atheism is naturally going to be much more prevalent amongst scientists and indeed in anyone that believes in truth and logic.
Rejecting the Bible is different than rejecting God. For instance, I don't subscribe to a religion, but I am constantly amazed at how relevant the message of Jesus remains even today (make that especially today).
Well, your point was still there regardless so I'd say you're good.
I am an atheist. I believe that a higher, supernatural being does not exist (or in my case at least those in the major religions). I would definitely consider myself by the term "atheist" because it defines my belief concerning a significant and controversial issue. Why do you find it impractical?
This is off topic, therefore you can choose to ignore it: What message is this of you speak of? Do you mean that forgiveness is given only when some innocent is killed for it?
No scientist can discount or lessen the probability of God. This leaves a window open for belief in a deity and it doesn't even matter which one(s). You open the window because you see an opportunity and you close it when there is no hard evidence. There is nothing wrong in either approach.
The message you have chosen has been misinterpreted by you. It would read "hen some innocent chooses to die that others might live." That is a wholly (and holy) different matter from your implication.This is off topic, therefore you can choose to ignore it: What message is this of you speak of? Do you mean that forgiveness is given only when some innocent is killed for it?
Moreover, I suspect Flick was thinking something more along the lines of the Sermon on the Mount, or the parable of the Good Samaritan. And in that regard I would agree with him. Forget the interpretation of Christianity by a hundred different sects: just focus on those parts of the message relating to alturism, cooperation and a peaceful outlook.
Some do, some don't, nearly all have religious belief when it comes to their so called "accepted scientific theory" even when it is obviously wrong, like their completely misunderstanding of basic electricity generation, and lack of basic real world experience. Let alone their invention of because they could not explain a simple vacuum experiment.
nearly all have religious belief when it comes to their so called "accepted scientific theory"
That's a poor attempt at equivalence and a fallacy. Reasoning the best supported hypothesis based on measurable evidence and testing is not equivalent to religious "beliefs," which required no measurable evidence, and actively refuse to evaluate hypothesis even when offered.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; October 2nd, 2012 at 03:34 PM.
I don't think that is accurate. Christianity stands on the pillar of a need for a savior. It begins with a flaw (sinful nature) of two people of being easily fooled by a talking snake, and ending with human sacrifice to absolve this sinful nature. A sacrifice isn't just choosing to die for everyone one dies. Additionally, the narratives cite betrayal, a trial, and good half day of torture. Why a person must be killed to absolved a design flaw for all humanity never made any sense to me.The message you have chosen has been misinterpreted by you. It would read "hen some innocent chooses to die that others might live." That is a wholly (and holy) different matter from your implication.
I agree these passages relate to altruism, cooperation and a peaceful outlook out of the context of Christianity, but within that context they are irrelevant. Within the narratives, Jesus loathed the Samaritans. He specifically instructed his disciples to avoid them and not to stay in their quarters. This brings a different meaning to the Good Samaritan parable, which I find as derogatory. It is a parable of despicable Samaritan behaving behaving better than one from Judah. I am not aware of any Christian dogma which cite good deeds alone rewards salvation. If good deeds alone were required, then there wouldn't be a need for variety of faiths or sects of Christianity. I am certain that people were behaving altruistically long before the establishment of Christianity....Moreover, I suspect Flick was thinking something more along the lines of the Sermon on the Mount, or the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Last edited by MrMojo1; October 2nd, 2012 at 12:34 PM. Reason: fixed quote
| « Stockholm ....er...Religion Syndrome | Pseudo-religions » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
