Collapse Of Atheism

[D_Quintero]

Collapse of Atheism
Interesting video.
What do you think?
It claims that atheism is collapsing, yet I believe otherwise.

 

[DeFide]

Collapse of Atheism
Interesting video.
What do you think?
It claims that atheism is collapsing, yet I believe otherwise.

While my connection won’t allow me to easily view such a video online, I doubt there will be a shortage of people who think they are the are the only higher power to which they must submit.

 

[solarwind23]

Collapse of Atheism
Interesting video.
What do you think?
It claims that atheism is collapsing, yet I believe otherwise.

The claims of that video are blatantly untrue. Nature did a study on the scientific community specifically (comparing it to a similar study done in the beginning of the 20th century):

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist **James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 “greater” scientists within his sample ** [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].

In 1996, we repeated Leuba’s 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba’s 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

…

**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.

 

[DeFide]

solarwind23:

The claims of that video are blatantly untrue. Nature did a study on the scientific community specifically (comparing it to a similar study done in the beginning of the 20th century):

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

Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist **James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 “greater” scientists within his sample **[1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].

In 1996, we repeated Leuba’s 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba’s 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

…

**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.

I’m sorry, but I find these figures laughable. I’m a scientist and I’m Catholic. My colleagues are not awash in atheism or disbelief…quite the contrary.

 

[solarwind23]

DeFide:

I’m sorry, but I find these figures laughable. I’m a scientist and I’m Catholic. My colleagues are not awash in atheism or disbelief…quite the contrary.

Well, notice how it says “greater scientists” which in this case were members of the National Academy of Sciences.

If you read the article it distinguishes between randomly selected scientists and the more specific category of “greater” scientists. The rate of belief is higher in the randomly selected category.

In 1996, we repeated Leuba’s 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba’s 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

 

[solarwind23]

adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Here are world statistics on who believes what:

Christianity: 2.1 billion

Islam: 1.3 billion

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

Hinduism: 900 million

Chinese traditional religion: 394 million

Buddhism: 376 million

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. **People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious). **

Atheism is not particularly popular even among the non-religious, in that the video is correct

 

[SemperJase]

solarwind23:

Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist **James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 “greater” scientists within his sample **

What does he mean by “scientists”. Rodney Stark in his book “For the Glory of God” found that physical scientists are more likely to be believers while social scientists (socialogists) are more likely to be athiests.

So if you stack your with sample more people from the “soft” sciences, you’ll get a result like this study found.

 

[solarwind23]

SemperJase:

What does he mean by “scientists”. Rodney Stark in his book “For the Glory of God” found that physical scientists are more likely to be believers while social scientists (socialogists) are more likely to be athiests.

So if you stack your sample more people from the “soft” sciences, you’ll get a result like this study found.

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.

This is in reference to “greater” scientists, in this case National Academy of Sciences members.

Apparently biologists have the lowest rate of belief 5.5% in God, physicists/astronomers are pretty close with 7.5%

Mathematicians are the highest with 14.3

About the NAS

Classes and Sections

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is organized into six broadly defined Classes, further divided into 31 disciplinary Sections. The current organization of Classis and Sections is shown below.

Class I: Physical and Mathematical Sciences
Section 11: Mathematics
Section 12: Astronomy
Section 13: Physics
Section 14: Chemistry
Section 15: Geology
Section 16: Geophysics

Class II: Biological Sciences
Section 21: Biochemistry
Section 22: Cellular and Developmental Biology
Section 23: Physiology and Pharmacology
Section 24: Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience
Section 25: Plant Biology
Section 26: Genetics
Section 27: Evolutionary Biology
Section 28: Systems Neuroscience
Section 29: Biophysics and Computational Biology

Class III: Engineering and Applied Sciences
Section 31: Engineering Sciences
Section 32: Applied Mathematical Sciences
Section 33: Applied Physical Sciences
Section 34: Computer and Information Sciences

Class IV: Biomedical Sciences
Section 41: Medical Genetics, Hematology, and Oncology
Section 42: Medical Physiology and Metabolism
Section 43: Immunology
Section 44: Microbial Biology

Class V: Behavioral and Social Sciences
Section 51: Anthropology
Section 52: Psychology
Section 53: Social and Political Sciences
Section 54: Economic Sciences

Class VI: Applied Biological, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences
Section 61: Animal, Nutritional, and Applied Microbial Sciences
Section 62: Plant, Soil, and Microbial Sciences
Section 63: Environmental Sciences and Ecology
Section 64: Human Environmental Sciences

nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_classes_sections

 

[solarwind23]

NAS is pretty selective:

**
The Academy membership is comprised of approximately 2,000 members and 350 foreign associates, of whom more than 200 have won Nobel Prizes. ** Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.The Academy is governed by a Council comprised of twelve members (councilors) and five officers, elected from among the Academy membership. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is the president of the National Academy of Sciences.

nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page

 

[DeFide]

solarwind23:

Well, notice how it says “greater scientists” which in this case were members of the National Academy of Sciences.

If you read the article it distinguishes between randomly selected scientists and the more specific category of “greater” scientists. The rate of belief is higher in the randomly selected category.

I’m aware of what it says. I don’t buy it.

“Greater?” Oh yes, we all know what dunderheads Descartes, Pascal, Einstein, Clavius, Secchi, Faraday, Maxwell, Bohr, Leibniz, Galileo, Copernicus, Planck, Euler, Schrodinger, Oppenheimer, Fleming, Kepler, Newton, Pastuer, Pauling, and da Vinci were.

 

[solarwind23]

DeFide:

I’m aware of what it says. I don’t buy it.

“Greater?” Oh yes, we all know what dunderheads Descartes, Pascal, Einstein, Clavius, Secchi, Faraday, Maxwell, Bohr, Leibniz, Galileo, Copernicus, Planck, Euler, Schrodinger, Oppenheimer, Fleming, Kepler, Newton, Pastuer, Pauling, and da Vinci were.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.pdf This I think has the original Nature article with sources etc.

This is of course statistics in 1998, not 1500’s.

As for what some of the people you mentioned believed:

Einstein: einsteinandreligion.com/personal.html

Einstein in 1934 at a Conference of the American Association for the Advancement of ScienceThis quote from Einstein appears in “Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium”,published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to theDemocratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says:

**To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted ** [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself.

In 1914 nearly 30% of greater scientists believed in God, today it is 7%.

How many great 20th century scientists (and really most developmets were made in the 20th century, from general relativity, to quantum physics, to cosmology and astronomy, to genetics, etc.) believed in a personal God or were deeply religious?

How about this: name 10 nobel prize winning scientists who believed in a personal God/were serious enough in their religion to go to Mass (or equivalent) every week.

 

[SemperJase]

Being a graduate student, I think that the atheism adopted by scientists is more due to their college experience than it is being a result of the science itself.

There is no even handed examination of Christianity in colleges. It is secular indoctrination. The science curriculum is based on the assumption that God does not exist.

Hardly surprising that people who graduate from those programs would not recognize God.

 

[solarwind23]

SemperJase:

Being a graduate student, I think that the atheism adopted by scientists is more due to their college experience than it is being a result of the science itself.

There is no even handed examination of Christianity in colleges. It is secular indoctrination. The science curriculum is based on the assumption that God does not exist.

Hardly surprising that people who graduate from those programs would not recognize God.

But the statistics above are not about mindless people who could be indoctrinated to believe something simply because someone else says so.

Those are people who are leading scientists, many of whom have wone Nobel Prizes for their work.

I agree with you that the average person can get indoctrinated to either be secular or to be religious, but those people are highly independent and creative, they’re the ones who make scientific discoveries the rest of us simply learn.

I doubt they’d believe something simply because someone else said so.

 

[SemperJase]

solarwind23:

I doubt they’d believe something simply because someone else said so.

I think you’re giving them more credit than they deserve. I don’t believe they are mindless robots, but surely their educational background has influence on their beliefs.

At college students tend to have much more exposure to secular beliefs than religious ones. Why would they question those beliefs when their whole course of study (sometimes lasting 8 or more years for a Ph.D) selectively emphasizes those beliefs while ignoring religious study?

 

[solarwind23]

SemperJase:

I think you’re giving them more credit than they deserve. I don’t believe they are mindless robots, but surely their educational background has influence on their beliefs.

At college students tend to have much more exposure to secular beliefs than religious ones. Why would they question those beliefs when their whole course of study (sometimes lasting 8 or more years for a Ph.D) selectively emphasizes those beliefs while ignoring religious study?

But a scientific education says nothing for or against God. The worst thing that would happen is creationism would be mocked in a biology class. But creationism is ridiculous and has nothing to do with God.

As a college student in a science program I have not been exposed to any secular beliefs whatsoever. I have learned a lot of math and science, but nothing pro or con about God.

I agree that humanities students could be exposed to a lot of secular thought, but this is not what I have seen in the sciences.

 

[Maranatha]

Many times scientists are great thinkers in their own field but don’t spend the time and effort to become experts in other fields. A physicists can spend his whole life reading and researching physics and not have enough time to devote to critical thinking about philosophy.

The number of great thinkers that have concluded Theism is much longer then the thinkers that have concluded Atheism.

 

[solarwind23]

Maranatha:

Many times scientists are great thinkers in their own field but don’t spend the time and effort to become experts in other fields. A physicists can spend his whole life reading and researching physics and not have enough time to devote to critical thinking about philosophy.

The number of great thinkers that have concluded Theism is much longer then the thinkers that have concluded Atheism.

My question would be whether the great thinkers who concluded God were predominantly people of the past?

Science is so new, we’ve only really had serious science for the past few hundred years. And its ability to answer questions about our origins is unlike anything anyone in the past had access to.

Plus, were philosophers of the past primarely theistic or deistic in their belief?

 

[solarwind23]

By the way, I actually took the time to watch most of that video and it is blatantly inaccurate.

It pretty much says that the theory of evolution has been destroyed and that many scientists in the US now believe in intelligent design.

This video is propaganda that in my view deliberately twists facts.

 

[DeFide]

solarwind23:

In 1914 nearly 30% of greater scientists believed in God, today it is 7%.

How many great 20th century scientists (and really most developmets were made in the 20th century, from general relativity, to quantum physics, to cosmology and astronomy, to genetics, etc.) believed in a personal God or were deeply religious?

…

Most folks these days aren’t doing much discovery of their own, but are merely riding on the shoulders of once-in-a-century minds. Much of cosmology & subatomic science is just churning out endless divergent unverifable theories on a daily basis.

By the way, merely repeating these figures doesn’t make them meaningful, accurate, impartial, or worthwhile.

The first thing that comes to mind when someone mentions NAS scientists is one who advocated the “Mini Ice Age” theory along with his hippie activist buddies a couple decades back, and when that didn’t pan out, he became an activist for Global Warming. And yes, he belonged to the NAS all along. I guess he decided to cover all his bases.

I can name societies, guilds, associations and groups for all kinds of studies that have political overtones from a number of different persuasions.

The point being is you’re going to have to evaluate the truth of God or atheism on different grounds.

You might want to start here:
peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#6

 

[solarwind23]

DeFide:

Most folks these days aren’t doing much discovery of their own, but are merely riding on the shoulders of once-in-a-century minds. Much of cosmology & subatomic science is just churning out endless divergent unverifable theories on a daily basis.

But there has been an unusually large number of these minds in the 20th century, which in my opinion has more to do with the times than the minds. Was Einstein uniquely brilliant? Sure, but if he didn’t exist, would perhaps another person have developed general relativity because the time was right for that idea (i.e. the type of debates going on, the type of questions raised were leading us to it)? It seems that scientific progress started out very slowly and then exploded.

To name some of these developments off the top of my head:

The entire theory of quantum mechanics, which cannot be attributed to one or two minds, but was developed by many overtime.

General relativity was developed by Einstein, but since his time many people contributed to developing this theory.

Cosmology/big bang theory developed entirely in the 20th century. And this was not developed by a single person. Really quite a few people contributed to it, and more recently to the inflation model.

A very recent discovery is “dark energy” and the accelerating expansion of space. Very interesting to see what new insights this will lead to.

The theory of evolution, okay Darwin didn’t live in the 20th century, but 19th which as far as I’m concerned is good enough for the sake of this argument. Genetics and virtually everything we know today about biology was developed very recently.

A fairly recent mathematical development is fractal math. A lot of what’s found in nature can be modelled with fractal systems, which really comes down to applying very simple rules over and over to get incredible results. Mountains, trees, leaves, etc. can all be modelled with fractals.

There is also a lot of genius in the technologies that have been invented, computers, amazing advances in medicines, airplanes, space travel etc.

All these advances came about in the past 2 centuries. Did human beings suddenly change biologically and start outputting great minds at a faster rate, or did we accumulate enough knowledge to allow the rate of discoveries to explode?

Who knows where progress is leading us: there is an effort by physicists to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics, it will be very interesting to see whether we can solve the dark energy problem, artificial intelligence in computing is a promising field, fractals in mathematics etc.

The point being is you’re going to have to evaluate the truth of God or atheism on different grounds.

You might want to start here:
peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#6

First of all, this thread has nothing to do with the truth of atheism, but rather the video that alleges that modern science has destroyed atheism (and evolution too), and that the belief in God is on the rebound.

It most certaintly is not on the rebound, and seems to be almost gone in the community of “greater scientists.” How many of those great 20th (and 19th) century scientists who pretty much gave us the world we have today believed in a personal God?

And I bet those who did believe in God were deists/pantheists (which is no longer a belief in the personal God) or some other such thing. How many of those scientists belonged to a traditional religion and went to church (or equivalent) every week?

I provided those statistics to contradict the video, not to argue that atheism is true. I am not an atheist.

I should point out, however, that virtually all of the arguments in that Kreeft argument are philosophical in nature and can (and have been) used to justify a deistic God. There is no Christ or the God of Christianity in those arguments.

The strongest of those arguments: cosmological/contingency/and whatever variations of the “uncaused first cause” argument have nothing to do with any kind of God, and can be answered by any timeless/necessarily existing thing, could be a multiverse for all I know.