Only 17% of scientists are atheists - this begs a question regarding methodological naturalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter crai7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

crai7

Guest
According to Pew, 17% of scientists are atheist, 51% believe in a God or a universal spirit/higher power and the remainder are agnostic in the US. This begs the question; how do those who claim to believe in God or a higher power reconcile this with their belief (in most cases apparently) in evolution whilst simultaneously squaring this with methodological naturalism (a 19th century shift in the philosophy of science)?

See the Pew survey on the beliefs of scientists:

 
Last edited:
In what way does it beg the question? Do you mean that it raises the question?

There are loads of religious people who agree with the theory of evolution. One does not have to be a methodological naturalist to agree with the theory of evolution.
 
The usual meaning, as in “to cause someone to ask a specified question as a reaction or response.”

I’m referring to scientists, not religious people in general. How do these scientists hold to methodological naturalism, whilst simultaneously allowing for the involvement of a supernatural creator? The cognitive dissonance must be especially acute if they believe in guided evolution.

[Methodological] naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible.

Source: Secularism and Methodological Naturalism | Center for Inquiry
 
Last edited:
crai7 said:
The usual meaning, as in “to cause someone to ask a specified question as a reaction or response.”
Click to expand...
That’s not what “begging the question” means, common misuse notwithstanding.
crai7 said:
I’m referring to scientists, not religious people in general. How do these scientists hold to methodological naturalism, whilst simultaneously allowing for the involvement of a supernatural creator? The cognitive dissonance must be especially acute if they believe in guided evolution.
Click to expand...
…not all scientists are methodological naturalists. You’re actually begging a question here by assuming within your question that in order to study evolution, one must be a methodological naturalist.
 
crai7 said:
The usual meaning, as in “to cause someone to ask a specified question as a reaction or response.”

I’m referring to scientists, not religious people in general. How do these scientists hold to methodological naturalism, whilst simultaneously allowing for the involvement of a supernatural creator? The cognitive dissonance must be especially acute if they believe in guided evolution.

[Methodological] naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible.

Source: https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/secularism_and_methodological_naturalism/
Click to expand...
That’s where theistic evolution comes in. It commits to the notion that God was involved in His creation, but does not attempt to ascribe any particular physical phenomenon to God.

I wonder though if some of this is confusion between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. All scientists, when working as scientists, work within the sphere of methodological naturalism (that’s basically what science is), but whether or not they are philosophical naturalists is a separate question.
 
It’s been suggested for centuries that math is the language of God, and math is frequently how we understand science.

But scientists can understand math, whether they think there’s a God behind it or not.

So anyone-- atheist, agnostic, or Deist-- can be a scientist, because we live in a world that’s structured and makes sense. Why they think it’s structured and makes sense differs depending on who you talk to, but any individual’s opinion about reality doesn’t have an effect on the existence of the reality.
 
There is only materialism. Science has nothing to do with God/gods. Only the Catholic Church has the full, complete answer. Science does not.
 
niceatheist said:
40.png
crai7:
The usual meaning, as in “to cause someone to ask a specified question as a reaction or response.”

I’m referring to scientists, not religious people in general. How do these scientists hold to methodological naturalism, whilst simultaneously allowing for the involvement of a supernatural creator? The cognitive dissonance must be especially acute if they believe in guided evolution.

[Methodological] naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible.

Source: https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/secularism_and_methodological_naturalism/
Click to expand...
That’s where theistic evolution comes in. It commits to the notion that God was involved in His creation, but does not attempt to ascribe any particular physical phenomenon to God.

I wonder though if some of this is confusion between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. All scientists, when working as scientists, work within the sphere of methodological naturalism (that’s basically what science is), but whether or not they are philosophical naturalists is a separate question.
Click to expand...
You said it much better than I.
 
Several good answers already in this thread, but I would just point out that the word “Scientists” as used in this article/ thread is very broad.

I guarantee you that there are “scientists” in some of these fields who don’t ponder this issue at all, either because (a) evolution is outside their chosen specialty area or (b) because whatever they are studying, they just accept that God is ultimately responsible for it without getting into the weeds of thinking why/ how exactly, similar to what midori said.

There seems to be one school of thought assuming that everyone with a scientific bent must struggle to reconcile it with their belief in God, and another school of thought for which this is a non-issue and science is just a way of humans building their ever-incomplete knowledge of God’s creation. One of my husband’s Baptist relatives asked him once at a family function, “You’re really into science. Do you ever have a problem reconciling that with your belief in God?” My husband said “Nope.” End of conversation. I think it was probably the first time he’d ever even considered the issue, to be honest. It simply didn’t occur to him to doubt God.
 
I don’t understand this “science vs God” view of the world.

My dad used to teach engineering statics at Ole Miss. He was a very devout Christian. Do the people who think that God and science are in opposition think that he just stood in front of the class and said “some beams stay up because God wills it and others fall down because God wills it. Science is against God so we’re not going to get into how beams work”?
 
@crai7 A better way to put it, just over half believe in God. The other half is divided between the possibility of God and a small percentage believe there is no God. 😉

As far as Evolution goes, the Catholic Church does not have a teaching on rather we evolved from cells or the creation story, I think, could be wrong though. Mother Church, does teach, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and were given Souls by God. That part we have to believe. I think. If I understand it correctly.

So in other words you can be a “Young Earther” or “Old Earther”. You can believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old or millions.

I don’t adhere to Darwinism, although I think we probably evolved at some point. Either way it is really not a huge deal to me because I believe in the Almighty and his Church as my guidance.
 
Last edited:
There have actually been significant contributions to science and engineering by Catholic priests and members of religious orders. Obviously they weren’t having a problem reconciling God and science.

I always thought the whole “God vs science” debate was cooked up by Time / Life Magazines in the 50s and 60s to stir the pot and make money. I’d file it in the same bin with that scary 1960s PSA about how automation and machines were going to do away with our bodies.

I am sure there are scientists who have doubts about God or don’t believe in God, just like there are street sweepers, housewives, English teachers, dancers, restaurant cooks and every other profession who have doubts. Anybody can have doubt. It’s not something special to scientists.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see a conflict. If one is religious then science details the “how” and religion the “why”.

Consider this. The plagues upon Egypt prior to the Exodus can all have natural explanations. Red algae blooms which could kill fish leading to an explosion of gnats and flies. Some algae is toxic and could have poisoned livestock. Death of first born could have been a toxic mold. Perhaps first borns were fed first. So if mold forms on the top layer of food first, they got a bigger dose.
Are these natural cause possible? Sure. But to say that all 10 occured one after another during those specific events is a stretch. It leaves plenty of room for God to act by starting certain natural processes.
 
There is a conflict which has resulted in thousands of posts spanning years.
 
It’s a real dichotomy. The Church insists that God acted in Creation. Science can’t say that and is incomplete.
 
The link you posted was interesting, but I have no idea what “opinions are not relevant” means in connection to what I posted. I didn’t post anything about “opinions”. I posted what I see based on my experience. (I work, and have worked, with a great many engineers, scientists, PhDs etc)
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
It’s a real dichotomy. The Church insists that God acted in Creation. Science can’t say that and is incomplete.
Click to expand...
This is a beautiful example of the false dichotomy. The Church insists that God acted in Creation. Science says nothing on the matter. There is no conflict between science and religion, only between certain scientists and religion.
 
If that were true, there would be no further posts on the subject. Since it is not accurate, the posts will continue to appear.

I would ask any theistic evolutionists reading to point out where God acted. At best, based on my reading here, evolution is like a wind-up toy that once let go, goes anywhere at random. God does not act after that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top