Atheist Scientists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hospitaller
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hospitaller

Guest
Hi everyone. My apologies if I’ve posted this thread in the wrong area, but I’ve run into a bit of a problem in an ongoing debate on another forum and I need some help.

I’m currently embroiled in an argument with an atheist regarding the issue of faith and reason. I’ve argued that they can exist side by side, and have in fact done so for the entire history of the Church, citing numerous Catholic scientists such as Gregor Mendel and Georges Lemaître as proof. In response, she basically claimed that pre-20th century scientists don’t count, and then posted links to a couple of web-pages citing other surveys to the effect that that the majority of contemporary scientists are atheists, and that atheists are more intelligent than believers, respectively.

Now, for the most part her arguments are nonsense, and of little worry to me, but I can’t for the life of me think of a way to respond to this in a way that advances the case for faith.

Anyone have any ideas?
 
Why argue? The fact of the matter is that all scientists operate with propositions that are accepted with less than full evidence. In other words atheist propositions will not stand up to the standards of proof demanded of believers.

Perhaps I can coax itsjustdave here. I believe he is a Catholic and a chemist or something like that.

In the meantime, work your way through these dialogs:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/atheism-agnosticism-secularism-index.html
 
Hospitaller said:
… she basically claimed that pre-20th century scientists don’t count, and then posted links to a couple of web-pages citing other surveys to the effect that that the majority of contemporary scientists are atheists, and that atheists are more intelligent than believers, respectively.
Click to expand...
Why does she think atheists are more intelligent than believers? Because a lot of scientist are atheists? I studied science in college, worked as spacecraft engineer for many years, worked with many scientists, some very smart, some not so smart. I think its a bit elitist to assume one who is learned in one areas of study is smarter than others who are learned in another area of study. Knowledge in one field does not equate to knowledge in another field.

Nonetheless, some of the smartest scientists have faith in God. Some have converted from atheism to theism citing their discoveries in science. Consequently, I don’t think they can show that science and religion are incompatible.

I believe it was Albert Einstein (no dolt when it comes to science), who stated, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” And “I want to know God’s thoughts…the rest are details.”

Additionally…

Albert Einstein:“I have never found a better expression than ‘religious’ for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind”
“Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order”
Max Planck, founder of quantum theory:“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”
**Werner Heisenberg, **Nobel laureate and one of the founders of quantum mechanics:***I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking ***as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on.
**Here’s one of my personal favorites…

Robert Jastrow**, astrophysicist:“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Biochemist Francis Crick, who shared the Nobel Prize for discovering the molecular structure of DNA stated:"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, **could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Francis Crick, Life Itself, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981),88)
Astrophysicist, C.J. Isham wrote:
“Perhaps the best argument…that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times, this has led to scientific ideas…being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory.” (John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity, (New York: Crossroad, 1994), xii.) Arno Penzias, Physicist and Nobel Prize winner:
“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole” (Malcom W. Browne, “Clues to the Universe Origin Expected”, New York Times (March 12, 1978)continued…
 
continued…**

Dr. “Fritz” Schaefer** is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize. He wrote:
“The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, `So that’s how God did it!’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991)

At a 1994 lecture at the University of Colorado, Dr. Schaefer stated:Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called “the necessity for a beginning” and eventually to “the presence of a superior reasoning power.” …

About the 1992 observations, which were from the COBE (the NASA satellite Cosmic Background Explorer), there was a story on the front page of virtually every newspaper in the world. The thing that the London Times, New York Times, etc. seemed to pick up on was a statement by George Smoot, the team leader from the Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory. He said, "It’s like looking at God." Obviously, this captured the public’s attention.

A somewhat more sober assessment of the findings was given by Frederick Burnham, a science-historian. He said, “These findings, now available, make the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years.” …

Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,

"Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time’s beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn’t. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is one of the worlds leading scientists. Dr. Collins believes that faith in God and faith in science can co-exists. In his 2006 book, *The Language of God - A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, *he makes the case for God and for science.

I also recommend the 1992 book, Cosmos, Bios, Theos - Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo sapiens edited by Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese. It contains various and contradictory views from prominent scientists regarding science and God.
 
For what it’s worth, be careful with the quotes above… some, like Francis Collins, really are devout believers. Francis Crick, on the other hand, was extremely anti-religion, despite above quote regarding origin of life.

Having worked with many scientists myself, I would not say that scientists are particularly brilliant. You have to have decent intelligence, yes. But as a group I would not say that scientists are, as a whole, any smarter than doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects, accountants, priests, or any other profession that requires advanced education.

Also… it’s pretty crass of this person to say “pre-20th century scientists don’t count”. That’s basically defining the rules to suit your own conclusion. [On that note, Georges Lemaître was six years old at the beginning of the 20th century, so I would put his scientific career squarely in the 20th century.] But anyway, what changed pre- vs. post-20th century? It certainly wasn’t evidence for or against the existence of God. It also wasn’t the average intelligence of scientists - I would argue that scientists are becoming more average all the time, but that’s too long to go into here. Rather, the 20th century is approximately when “modernism” became more popular, and also when numerous factors, including a couple of devastating world wars, led to a major crisis of faith, especially in Europe. This afflicts society as a whole, both scientists and non-scientists. Basically it becomes the fashion across society as a whole to not believe in God. No scientist is raised in a vacuum, and they pick up these popular trends as readily as anyone else. So if you restrict your discussion to 20th century scientists, of course you’ll find lower levels of religious belief, because that’s the case across all of society. Your friend would make her point much better if she could point to large numbers of pre-20th century atheist scientists, at a time when religious belief was more fervent across society as a whole.
 
… the majority of contemporary scientists are atheists, and that atheists are more intelligent than believers, respectively.
Click to expand...
My experience is that the majority of contemporary scientists ARE atheistic in general, but mostly because in academic science it is more fashionable to be atheist, or perhaps UNfashionable to be religious. Academic science is highly competitive, where arrogance and one-upsmanship is the rule rather than the exception. While introversion is frequently seen, true humility seems fairly rare. Someone who argues for the existence of God is someone to be defeated for one reason only: to raise one’s sense of intellectual superiority. In an atheistic world-view, there is nothing else to consider.

As far as atheists being more intelligent than believers, well, just 'cause they have made a career in thinking so don’t make it true.

Aside from showing her examples of some very bright believers, reasoning with folks like these is generally fruitless. In their minds, they have too much to lose by agreeing with you.
  • Tim
 
I believe in the “Big Bang” theory, but I also believe there was a “Big Banger”.

I also understand it that Albert Einstein was totally fascinated by the holy Eucharist.
 
Hospitaller said:
Now, for the most part her arguments are nonsense, and of little worry to me, but I can’t for the life of me think of a way to respond to this in a way that advances the case for faith.
Click to expand...
She is probably right in that the majority of contemporary scientists are either atheist or agnostic. You are right in that there are many scientists who have religious faith. Some names are:* Ken Miller (Catholic Biologist)
rossum
 
Hospitaller said:
Anyone have any ideas?
Click to expand...
👋 Hospitaller,

Look at the number of scientists listed below from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for employment in 2006. I’m sure there are many people who do and don’t believe in God that have these jobs. We’ll never know who they all are, and it isn’t important to me as long as they do their job well and to the best of their ability.😉
  1. Medical scientists held about 92,000 jobs in 2006. Epidemiologists accounted for only 5 percent of that total. In addition, many medical scientists held faculty positions in colleges and universities, but they are classified as college or university faculty. (See teachers—postsecondary, elsewhere in the Handbook.)
    stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos008.htm
    http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos008.htm
  2. Biological scientists held about 87,000 jobs in 2006. In addition, many biological scientists held biology faculty positions in colleges and universities but are not included in these numbers. Those whose primary work involves teaching and research are considered postsecondary teachers. (See the statement on teachers—postsecondary elsewhere in the Handbook.)
    stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm
    http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm
  3. Agricultural and food scientists held about 33,000 jobs in 2006. In addition, many people trained in these sciences held faculty positions in colleges and universities. (See the statement on postsecondary teachers elsewhere in the Handbook.)
    stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos046.htm
    http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos046.htm
4)Physicists and astronomers held about 18,000 jobs in 2006. Physicists accounted for about 17,000 of these, while astronomers accounted for only about 1,700 jobs. Many physicists and astronomers held faculty positions in colleges and universities. Those classified as postsecondary teachers are not included in these employment numbers. (See the statement on teachers—postsecondary elsewhere in the Handbook.)
stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm
http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm
  1. Geoscientists held about 31,000 jobs in 2006. Many more individuals held geoscience faculty positions in colleges and universities, but they are classified as college and university faculty. (See the statement on teachers—postsecondary elsewhere in the Handbook.)
    stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos288.htm
    http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos288.htm
  2. Environmental scientists and hydrologists held about 92,000 jobs in 2006. Jobs for hydrologists accounted for only 9 percent of the total. Many more individuals held environmental science faculty positions in colleges and universities, but they are classified as postsecondary teachers. (See the statement on teachers—postsecondary elsewhere in the Handbook.)
    stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos050.htm
    http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos050.htm
  3. Chemists and materials scientists held about 93,000 jobs in 2006. Chemists accounted for about 84,000 of these, while materials scientists accounted for about 9,700 jobs. In addition, many chemists and materials scientists held faculty positions in colleges and universities but are not included in these numbers. (See the statement on teachers—postsecondary, elsewhere in the Handbook.)
    stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos049.htm
    http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos049.htm
Wow! And that was only in the United States 2006! :eek: The 2007 statistics aren’t out yet though I think the numbers will be soaring off the charts from that of previous years. :cool:
 
Scottgun said:
Why argue? The fact of the matter is that all scientists operate with propositions that are accepted with less than full evidence. In other words atheist propositions will not stand up to the standards of proof demanded of believers.
Click to expand...
What exactly is full evidence? Is that the opposite of hungry evidence?

But really, scientists operate on the same assumptions everyone does. Nothing that a scientist assums is any different then assumptions you make every day. That your senses work and reason works and that conclusions follow from evidence. Just the fact that you type on this forum indicates that you accept these axioms.
 
and out of context quotes aside, Einstien was not a believer at all.
 
Hospitaller said:
she basically claimed that pre-20th century scientists don’t count
Click to expand...
And to think about all that time I wasted in physics class studying Newton’s Laws! 😦

BTW, if pre-20th century scientists don’t count, then Darwin doesn’t count either.
 
Mersenne said:
and out of context quotes aside, Einstien was not a believer at all.
Click to expand...
True. “*It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” *(Albert Einstein, 1954).

I neglected to mention in my message below that if you follow the online “See teachers—postsecondary, elsewhere in the Handbook” it will link you to the additional number of scientists that are teachers. 🙂
wildleafblower said:
👋 Hospitaller,

Look at the number of scientists listed below from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for employment in 2006. I’m sure there are many people who do and don’t believe in God that have these jobs. We’ll never know who they all are, and it isn’t important to me as long as they do their job well and to the best of their ability.😉
  1. Medical scientists held about 92,000 jobs in 2006. Epidemiologists accounted for only 5 percent of that total. In addition, many medical scientists held faculty positions in colleges and universities, but they are classified as college or university faculty. (See teachers—postsecondary, elsewhere in the Handbook.)
    stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos008.htm
    http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos008.htm
  2. Biological scientists held about 87,000 jobs in 2006. In addition, many biological scientists held biology faculty positions in colleges and universities but are not included in these numbers. Those whose primary work involves teaching and research are considered postsecondary teachers. (See the statement on teachers—postsecondary elsewhere in the Handbook.)
    stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm
    http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm
  3. Agricultural and food scientists held about 33,000 jobs in 2006. In addition, many people trained in these sciences held faculty positions in colleges and universities. (See the statement on postsecondary teachers elsewhere in the Handbook.)
    stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos046.htm
    http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos046.htm
4)Physicists and astronomers held about 18,000 jobs in 2006. Physicists accounted for about 17,000 of these, while astronomers accounted for only about 1,700 jobs. Many physicists and astronomers held faculty positions in colleges and universities. Those classified as postsecondary teachers are not included in these employment numbers. (See the statement on teachers—postsecondary elsewhere in the Handbook.)
stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm
http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm
  1. Geoscientists held about 31,000 jobs in 2006. Many more individuals held geoscience faculty positions in colleges and universities, but they are classified as college and university faculty. (See the statement on teachers—postsecondary elsewhere in the Handbook.)
    stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos288.htm
    http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos288.htm
  2. Environmental scientists and hydrologists held about 92,000 jobs in 2006. Jobs for hydrologists accounted for only 9 percent of the total. Many more individuals held environmental science faculty positions in colleges and universities, but they are classified as postsecondary teachers. (See the statement on teachers—postsecondary elsewhere in the Handbook.)
    stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos050.htm
    http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos050.htm
  3. Chemists and materials scientists held about 93,000 jobs in 2006. Chemists accounted for about 84,000 of these, while materials scientists accounted for about 9,700 jobs. In addition, many chemists and materials scientists held faculty positions in colleges and universities but are not included in these numbers. (See the statement on teachers—postsecondary, elsewhere in the Handbook.)
    stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos049.htm
    http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos049.htm
Wow! And that was only in the United States 2006! :eek: The 2007 statistics aren’t out yet though I think the numbers will be soaring off the charts from that of previous years. :cool:
Click to expand...
 
Hospitaller said:
I’m currently embroiled in an argument with an atheist regarding the issue of faith and reason… to the effect that that the majority of contemporary scientists are atheists, and that atheists are more intelligent than believers, respectively.

Now, for the most part her arguments are nonsense, and of little worry to me, but I can’t for the life of me think of a way to respond to this in a way that advances the case for faith.

Anyone have any ideas?
Click to expand...
I don’t know how you can respond in “way that advances the case for faith”, but I have a few ideas how faith can hold it’s own.
  1. Science doesn’t study the supernatural. Any scientist commenting on religion (Be he Ken Miller or Richard Dawkins) is speaking outside of his/her area of expertise.
  2. Correlation doesn’t prove causation.
    She is citing is a correlation: *There are more scientists alive today who are atheists. *
    She is proposing one theory to explain it: *Scientists are smarter than other people and have picked up on a truth that ordinary people miss. *
**It wouldn’t be scientific to embrace that explanation without evidence. **Also, truth isn’t a democracy. Everyone on Earth could believe in the same religion and still be wrong. Every single scientist could be an atheist and still be wrong.

Actually, I don’t believe in God either, but her reasoning in this argument doesn’t prove anything.
 
I didn’t claim Einstein was a “believer.” If you look at my post again, the quotes were used to show that religion and science are not incompatible. Einstein appears to have been a Deist, which claims existence of a “clockmaker” so to speak, who wound up his clock but then doesn’t touch or directly interact with it again. I used to be deist, and while it falls on the side of Theism, it too is not congruent with all the available evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top