• In total there are 20 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 20 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

No, 93% of all scientists are NOT Atheists

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: No, 93% of all scientists are NOT Atheists

Unread post

ant wrote:It's so odd to profess pride for having a simple absence of belief.
I pride myself on not believing in some of the things other people believe in. I don't believe vaccines cause autism, I don't believe GMO's are bad for you, I don't believe the earth is flat, I don't believe Michael Jackson is alive, I don't believe UFO's are abducting people every night, and I don't believe in a personal deity.

Escaping the river of stupid is worth being proud of.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: No, 93% of all scientists are NOT Atheists

Unread post

That's fine, but in this particular context it's not a proclamation of anything substantive. Meaning, your absence of belief in a deity does not necessarily mean you are a more rational creature than John Doe, the theist. As a "proud" atheist you'd like to think it typically does, which may be one reason for your prideful bloviating that you are.

John Doe can subscribe to some form of theistic belief and be a law abiding citizen (no relationship between the two implied) while you do not share a similar belief, but are, say, a rapist, a theif, a con man, or generally just a nasty person no one particularly likes, with the possible exception of your mother.

Agreed?
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: No, 93% of all scientists are NOT Atheists

Unread post

ant wrote:John Doe can subscribe to some form of theistic belief and be a law abiding citizen (no relationship between the two implied) while you do not share a similar belief, but are, say, a rapist, a theif, a con man, or generally just a nasty person no one particularly likes, with the possible exception of your mother.

Agreed?
I'll assume that's rhetorical.
Meaning, your absence of belief in a deity does not necessarily mean you are a more rational creature than John Doe, the theist.
Not necessarily, no. Your absence of belief in a flat earth doesn't necessarily mean you're a more rational person than Shaquille O'Neal. You may have just jumped on the spherical-Earth bandwagon by sheer luck.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: No, 93% of all scientists are NOT Atheists

Unread post

Totally out of context again.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: No, 93% of all scientists are NOT Atheists

Unread post

Chris OConnor wrote:We should get a new book discussion going where we can debate this stuff again. Our best non-fiction discussions have been about this subject. I am about to create a thread in the non-fiction forum where we can start picking our next book for discussion.

Chris,

You were also wrong about children being born in some sort of default atheist setting.

Putting aside the truth or falsity of theism, there are more social science findings that indicate children are born/wired to ascribe agency.
The benefits are obvious - greater chances of survival (e.g. I heard a strange noise in that bush. I'd better run just in case it's a predator).
And of course, there are other social/communal benefits directly related to theism.

If humanity had been wired for atheism it's highly likely we would not be here.

I can effectively skirt the naturalistic fallacy because of the simple fact that we all made it out of the trees.
Or at least some of us did. :P
User avatar
Slaverz_Bay
Almost Comfortable
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:39 pm
6
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: No, 93% of all scientists are NOT Atheists

Unread post

Chris OConnor wrote:We should get a new book discussion going where we can debate this stuff again. Our best non-fiction discussions have been about this subject. I am about to create a thread in the non-fiction forum where we can start picking our next book for discussion.

Great idea...man. I'd be in.

This reminds me of how I think the Bible is simply a work of fiction. Of literature. Mythology. And if it were in a book store and needed to be assigned a section..providing they did not have a "religious" or a "bibles" sections...that it should be always filed in the Fiction or Literature...maybe even Poetry...area!

At my home it is...it sits on the shelf right next to my compendium of Greek Mythology (since after all the bible is simply Hebrew Mythology).
User avatar
Slaverz_Bay
Almost Comfortable
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:39 pm
6
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: No, 93% of all scientists are NOT Atheists

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
ant wrote:It's so odd to profess pride for having a simple absence of belief.
I pride myself on not believing in some of the things other people believe in. I don't believe vaccines cause autism, I don't believe GMO's are bad for you, I don't believe the earth is flat, I don't believe Michael Jackson is alive, I don't believe UFO's are abducting people every night, and I don't believe in a personal deity.

Escaping the river of stupid is worth being proud of.

Great post...and I totally agree! I AM proud of not believing in things I consider silly. Like a personal caring god, for example. Given how rife organized religion is with frauds and idiots..people who embarrass themselves and their faith with their remarks--like your Swaggerts and whoever that idiot was who said Katrina was god's punishment at a sinful city--I think atheism IS asign of intelligence and reason.
Ergo.....something to take pride in.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: No, 93% of all scientists are NOT Atheists

Unread post

ant wrote:If humanity had been wired for atheism it's highly likely we would not be here.

I can effectively skirt the naturalistic fallacy because of the simple fact that we all made it out of the trees.
Or at least some of us did. :P
Or as Voltaire said, "if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

Or as Fox Mulder said, "I want to believe."

So, yes, it seems we are born with a belief in something greater than us, and our brains often turn that something into an anthropomorphic something: God.

But Chris is right too. The specific beliefs about God come from religious stories passed down culturally. People are blank slates until culture starts filling in the blanks. It seems likely that the trait to want to believe in something greater than us was beneficial to us in the past. But arguably these viral beliefs as seemingly set in stone in the three major "Abrahamic religions" are no longer a benefit to the human race, but the source of much rancor and conflict. We see hundreds or thousands of sects within Christianity alone or even with one sect, we see many variations. It seems that we can't agree on very much when it comes to this man-made invention: God. What made sense in a world of small, nomadic tribes may not make sense in a world of nation-states.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: No, 93% of all scientists are NOT Atheists

Unread post

Or as Voltaire said, "if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

Here's an interesting post that discusses the entire context of the above quote:

This statement was made as part of his larger argument that the existence of God and/or belief in God are beneficial and necessary for civilized society to function. The larger context of the debate in which he was engaged at the time indicates that he did not intend this statement to be an ironic quip essentially claiming that God is fictional, as it is commonly used today.

In fact, the statement was made as part of a piece that he wrote comdemning and refuting an atheistic essay called "The Three Imposters".

https://www.quora.com/What-did-Voltaire ... invent-him
Last edited by ant on Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: No, 93% of all scientists are NOT Atheists

Unread post

Slaverz_Bay wrote:What a great deal of theists who trot out their old "its not true that 90% of scientists are atheist" do not know is that the "god" that the odd scientist might remark about is ALWAYS (90% or more of the time) a DEIST and not a THEIST got. The man of science is speaking of something far far more along the lines of a "Universal Intelligence" or "Impersonal Order of Things" than he is a personal, theist, caring, bible god.
I am a liberal Christian. I am also very conversant with science. I know a number of professional scientists who are Christian - they go to my church and work at CERN. In general they tend to conceptualize God as a universal spirit, in the language Ant posted from the Pew survey. That version works well for me, as well.
Slaverz_Bay wrote:I do a LOT of science reading. And also reading of books from both sides of the "god" question. Things like Dawkins' "God Delusion" as well as "The Dawkins Delusion." And the ONLY professional scientist of the 20th or 21st century I have EVER read who believed in a personal, bible sort of god was Francis Collins' "The Language of Life." (lookie there, theists! I just gave you a freebie to use for your fodder next time. LOL).
I am not sure what a "Bible sort of God" would mean. Feet and hands? Talking to people out loud in their language? Riding a chariot through the skies when the thunder is rolling? The first epistle of John declares "God is love". In general it's a good idea to separate imagery from declarative content from which guidelines for behavior follow.

Unfortunately fundamentalists (which, admittedly, included most Christians up to about 1890) tend to think in terms of "belief" as some sort of criterion for being a Christian. Assent to specific propositions is a matter of creeds, which were ways of excluding heretical teachings. Creeds have very little basis in original, New Testament Christianity as the basis of salvation or judgement, despite what 1500 years of church teaching said. Gradually over time Christianity morphed from a religion mainly about practice to a religion mainly about belief. That is not really a very insightful, or Christian, way to conceptualize it.

"Belief" or "faith" in the Biblical usage should be thought of as trust. The word used in Greek corresponds to believing a witness in a trial, but also to trusting a leader or contractual partner.
Slaverz_Bay wrote:Admittedly, Dr. Collins is a brilliant scientist, and was indeed a co-founder of the Human Genome Project, where he and Crick unraveled the entire DNA genome over almost a decade.

BUT...it appears that Dr. Collins was RAISED a Christian...then left the faith when he got involved in science--as do so many--and then, when he admittedly was looking for something larger than material science to believe in, in order to fill his depression and a personal emotional void--re-embraced his childhood faith. Yeah..the one he grew out of years before.

This is a very old and predictable dynamic, and it reminds me of criminals who "find god" when they get locked away. Or when a formerly wealthy person loses everything and finds god.
You make it sound like there is some problem here. Something larger than materialism seems like an obvious thing to seek - even materialists may seek meaning that doesn't emerge from their materialism. When people realize that the rat race they have been so invested in is really just a sham, it makes sense to ask what values are not just a sham - what really matters.
Slaverz_Bay wrote: LOL.... There IS a reason here: god and the attendant belief system like an afterlife and answered prayers serve as excellent emotional placebos for the downtrodden.
Nobody hangs around Christianity for long without realizing that it does not function as a way to grant wishes. Similarly, talk about an afterlife functions much more as a way of feeling connected to those who have died than as a way of reassuring us that we will be judged "acceptable." (There are churches, indeed whole denominations, in which this is not true. They tend to alienate normal people, but to gain adherents among the deeply insecure.)

In practice commitment to Christianity is usually a mix of values, beliefs (perception of what is true, e.g. nothing exists without a creator), emotional reinforcement from other people, and internal "emotional confirmation" that the practices are trustworthy. It evolves over time and self-perception is probably the main driver: people want to think of themselves as good people.

In short, like Dawkins you tend to buy into the mistake of literal-minded Christians who think that what they are doing is agreeing to some propositions about the nature of things. I would urge you to talk to some Christians about why their Christianity is meaningful to them - what makes it seem like a good choice. You will usually find that Christians with at least a college education can give lots of factors that have nothing to do with the intellectual issues favored by Dawkins, Hitchens and their ilk.
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”