Yes, the percent of scientists who are atheists is, I believe, much higher than the percent of atheists in the population at large.
I’d like to clarify my opening question a little.
Are there any ways that the different scientific disciplines imply, or even offer, direct evidence against the existence of God?
As the warden said to Paul Newman, in
Cool Hand Luke, “What we have here is failure to communicate.” The language of science is a language designed for communication of scientific data and the “description of structural regularities”, as Ludwig Wittgenstein once said. The language of science makes the description of almost everything that is meta-science impossible to describe in its native form. It is a foreign language where religion is concerned.
Of course, most of scientific literature is consists of abysmally poor (English), but, strikingly concise juxtapositioning of words and phrases. Things that should not be so hard to read and understand become extraordinarily difficult. The next time you read a science article, really take a good look at how it uses the language to less than sublimely subject the reader to a coercive bias. Scientists have had to learn the art of self-enriching-tech-talk, or lose their paychecks, not to mention that you rarely hear anything at all from religious scientists.
Why don’t you hear from religious scientists? Because it would lead to the downfall of their standing in the science community. While a few have risked it, the adamantly secular wing of science has put the fear of death into the religious scientist. Outing the religious scientist is like what Cuban children, during the 60’s and 70’s, did to their parents. They were “turned in” by their own children for any talk overheard that sounded even the least anti-Castro.
Science has no choice, if scientists want to keep on earning money. For the religious, this may be a losing battle for a long time.
jd
