Gothic.net Community - View Single Post

Drake Dun · 12-14-2008, 10:51 PM

...and on to scientists and religion (I'll do science and religion next, I hope).

If your sample population is that of the United States, it's indeed true that most (i.e., more than 50% of) scientists are religious. If your sample population is the world, my guess is that more are not. I would have to do a lot of data mining to compile world-wide numbers, but the United States is the most religious country among the developed nations, and its population is vastly outweighed by the combined populations of all the other less religious countries in the world. Japan alone has close to half as many people, and almost every person I have met here, scientist or otherwise, is a de facto atheist.

Since I probably won't have time to get around in detail to the paranoid slander that atheism necessarily leads to some kind of apocalyptic meltdown or jackboot nightmare, I'll also take an aside here to point out that in terms of crime rates etc., irreligious countries like Japan and Sweden are doing way better than the States. Every day I walk out my front door, I see the proof that society doesn't need God to avoid turning into a Mad Max scenario or totalitarian dystopia. And I can't pass up pointing out the irony that the famous scientist just tapped in support of religion was very clear about his own opinion on that ethics has nothing to do with religion.

To get back to the point, even in the United States, there is a pronounced correlation between scientific training and irreligiousness. According to Gallup, something like 90% of the general population is "certain" or has "little doubt" that "God exists".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/23470/Who...ho-Doesnt.aspx

Look at people who are educated, and the numbers start dropping off slowly (quicker if you're looking at specific issues like evolution/creationism, rather than belief in God in general).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20329/Rel...-Has-None.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/11089/Loo...ion-Today.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/video/21820/Re...Evolution.aspx

Look at scientists, and the numbers drop off sharply. A third or so of scientists reject belief in God.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/

Look at the cream of the crop, and you bounce off the bottom of the barrel, so that the trend is turned completely on its head - with only 10% believing.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

I would rather this topic had not been raised at all, but if you're going to bring it up, you can't expect me to sit quietly by and not bring the real facts to light. Turning to the even more annoying business of shooting off names of big shot scientists, you'll notice a trend - most of the religious ones are from way back in the day. It's not even exactly correct to call a guy like Newton a scientist, as such. The word "scientist" wasn't coined until the 19th century. We look back at Newton now and call him a scientist because we can see that on his good days, he was employing the same basic methods of rational inquiry as form the cornerstone of what we now call science, which, however, is a rather grander enterprise than what existed in Newton's time. On his bad days he was attempting to prove that the solar system was constructed as a Russian doll of perfect polyhedrons and trying to turn lead into gold by alchemical means, something he had to do quietly in order to avoid the Church's wrath.

So yes. When you go back to a time when gravity was a radical new concept, you find that the people who we would now call scientists were almost all religious. Moving forward toward the present time, the historical trend is plain to see. Try this experiment: Make yourself a list of famous scientists of the 20th and 21st centuries, and then go dig up info on the religious beliefs of each one. Compared to the general populace, outspoken atheists are grossly over-represented, especially if we start halfway through the 20th century instead of at the beginning. A good chunk of the rest are agnostics, humanists, pantheists, deists, universal unitarians, Spinozans, etc. I.e., in some kind of non-dogmatic system of pseudo-religious belief or non-religious belief. Not full blooded theists. Then there are some genuine Christians and what not.

If the only point you're trying to make is that you can be both a scientist and religious, fine. The point is cheerfully conceded. If OTOH you're trying to say that there is a natural connection between being a scientist and being religious, such that the best scientists tend to be religious and being more religious makes you a better scientist, the facts simply aren't there for you. If anything, the facts we do have suggest the opposite.

12-14-2008, 10:51 PM	#224
Drake Dun Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 1,178	...and on to scientists and religion (I'll do science and religion next, I hope). If your sample population is that of the United States, it's indeed true that most (i.e., more than 50% of) scientists are religious. If your sample population is the world, my guess is that more are not. I would have to do a lot of data mining to compile world-wide numbers, but the United States is the most religious country among the developed nations, and its population is vastly outweighed by the combined populations of all the other less religious countries in the world. Japan alone has close to half as many people, and almost every person I have met here, scientist or otherwise, is a de facto atheist. Since I probably won't have time to get around in detail to the paranoid slander that atheism necessarily leads to some kind of apocalyptic meltdown or jackboot nightmare, I'll also take an aside here to point out that in terms of crime rates etc., irreligious countries like Japan and Sweden are doing way better than the States. Every day I walk out my front door, I see the proof that society doesn't need God to avoid turning into a Mad Max scenario or totalitarian dystopia. And I can't pass up pointing out the irony that the famous scientist just tapped in support of religion was very clear about his own opinion on that ethics has nothing to do with religion. To get back to the point, even in the United States, there is a pronounced correlation between scientific training and irreligiousness. According to Gallup, something like 90% of the general population is "certain" or has "little doubt" that "God exists". http://www.gallup.com/poll/23470/Who...ho-Doesnt.aspx Look at people who are educated, and the numbers start dropping off slowly (quicker if you're looking at specific issues like evolution/creationism, rather than belief in God in general). http://www.gallup.com/poll/20329/Rel...-Has-None.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/11089/Loo...ion-Today.aspx http://www.gallup.com/video/21820/Re...Evolution.aspx Look at scientists, and the numbers drop off sharply. A third or so of scientists reject belief in God. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/ Look at the cream of the crop, and you bounce off the bottom of the barrel, so that the trend is turned completely on its head - with only 10% believing. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html I would rather this topic had not been raised at all, but if you're going to bring it up, you can't expect me to sit quietly by and not bring the real facts to light. Turning to the even more annoying business of shooting off names of big shot scientists, you'll notice a trend - most of the religious ones are from way back in the day. It's not even exactly correct to call a guy like Newton a scientist, as such. The word "scientist" wasn't coined until the 19th century. We look back at Newton now and call him a scientist because we can see that on his good days, he was employing the same basic methods of rational inquiry as form the cornerstone of what we now call science, which, however, is a rather grander enterprise than what existed in Newton's time. On his bad days he was attempting to prove that the solar system was constructed as a Russian doll of perfect polyhedrons and trying to turn lead into gold by alchemical means, something he had to do quietly in order to avoid the Church's wrath. So yes. When you go back to a time when gravity was a radical new concept, you find that the people who we would now call scientists were almost all religious. Moving forward toward the present time, the historical trend is plain to see. Try this experiment: Make yourself a list of famous scientists of the 20th and 21st centuries, and then go dig up info on the religious beliefs of each one. Compared to the general populace, outspoken atheists are grossly over-represented, especially if we start halfway through the 20th century instead of at the beginning. A good chunk of the rest are agnostics, humanists, pantheists, deists, universal unitarians, Spinozans, etc. I.e., in some kind of non-dogmatic system of pseudo-religious belief or non-religious belief. Not full blooded theists. Then there are some genuine Christians and what not. If the only point you're trying to make is that you can be both a scientist and religious, fine. The point is cheerfully conceded. If OTOH you're trying to say that there is a natural connection between being a scientist and being religious, such that the best scientists tend to be religious and being more religious makes you a better scientist, the facts simply aren't there for you. If anything, the facts we do have suggest the opposite.