Why are so many scientists atheists?

[StrawberryJam]

I did not conclude anything the statement was satire. Since high income people in that poll voted 63% for Bush and post graduates voted 55% for Kerry, one would logically conclude post graduates (Kerry voters) could not have high incomes because those high income people are Bush voters. Similarly one could postulate that post graduate jobs as doctors, lawyers, college professors must be paid poorly. Again the point was “correlation does not mean causation”. Said properly the survey suggests the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) may attract atheists, encourage an atheist atmosphere, discourage theists, or have other bias. As the results have been repeated it would not appear to a random anomaly

Hope that clears it up

I worry that you trust CNN to take a poll.

 

[Bendzi]

I currently go to Columbia University and my friend had a Math Professor here that was very passionate about religion. He said if everyone knew Boolean Algebra than the world would be a better place =]

 

[smithm29]

Many scientists are atheists because they have no interest in things that cannot be empirically proven, controlled, and predicted.

Many scientists are also social misfits and/or total jerks, but I wouldn’t hold that against science in general.

Partly, I think it’s a sort of subculture. Why are so many in the Liberal Arts and Social Sciences leftist Marxist moonbats? It is something extraneous (usually) to their area of study that is nonetheless expected and/or encouraged by their colleagues.

Academia is a political as anything else. “Not what you know but who you know”, “go along to get along”, etc. are all things that can apply as much in the halls of the ivory towers as they do among the cubicles and shelving units of the lower world.

These two are pretty much dead on. Your field of study and practice molds you. Currently, “scientific” fields almost demand cold atheism from their practitioners. There’s a long process of socialization that goes along with higher education. Getting a PhD is as much about becoming a “right-thinking” member of a community as it is about becoming a biologist/chemist/sociologist/etc…

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I currently go to Columbia University and my friend had a Math Professor here that was very passionate about religion. He said if everyone knew Boolean Algebra than the world would be a better place.

It would make a change anyway. Instead of the old cliche viz. 2+2 = 4, we’d have a new cliche viz. 1+1 = 1.

 

[kimmielittle]

IMHO, it’s because:

Religion requires Faith.
Faith, can’t be measured / valued scientifically.
Things that have no science “Value” or measurement - don’t fit in.
And thus, is ignored.

Science demands empirical evidence.
Religion is Philosophical in nature and needs no evidence to support a faith in it.

“Faith” is not allowed, or a part of / in, a scientific examination - It won’t hold up to scientific valued scrutiny.

Many scientists can’t separate themselves from their academic studies, IMHO.

 

[JDaniel]

As a former atheist, I find this to be very offensive. I wasn’t arrogant - I just didn’t know anything. And judging from the emperical evidence around me, I couldn’t see God so I didn’t believe in Him.

It wasn’t until a much deeper search began did I begin to believe.

Please don’t lump a group of people together and insult them, this is called bigotry.

Precisely.

God bless,
jf

 

[Mijoy2]

I’ll take a stab at it and suggest, perhaps, it’s a chicken and egg thing. In other words, it’s not the scientist who became the atheist but the atheist who became the scientist.

 

[ChadS]

My feelings on this are that scientists as a profession are trained to hypothesize, test, measure, re-test and re-measure what they are studying. That way they can come to definite conclusions about observable phenomena. If they bring this type of training and thinking into other areas they will attempt to apply the same criteria. When it comes to believing in God or prooving that God exists there is little they can test, measure, re-test and re-measure. If that can’t be done then in their opinion God doesn’t rise to their standard of proof needed for belief. In their worldview feelings aren’t good enough and intuition might be a good start, but it doesn’t go far enough.

ChadS

 

[Prophesy]

The article in the link below calls the “greater” scientists those who are National Academy of Sciences.
stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Why are scientists who are in the National Academy of Sciences considered greater scientists? This limits the scientific field to only those in America (unless they polled the small sample of 350 foreign associates). Also, members are nominated by other members, is this another factor? Another question is ‘how was the survey asked?’, the wording of a question can be very important.

Also there’s the fact that it’s from the website of Stephen Jay Gould, I don’t recall what he’s said about religion, but I know he has weighed in previously.

-Prophecy

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Ego

Bingo.

It’s easy, when you’re studying the fabric of the universe, to think that, because you can understand a small part of it, you might be able to understand all of it someday, and then make it, and so why bother with God?

Further, you begin to think, when faced with the profound mysteries science reveals, as well as its nearly unlimited usefulness, to think that it’s the only game in town, the only valid tool.

This is why, my guess is, an equivalent percentage of scientists are ignorant of philosophical argumentation, great art, literature, and music, or at least think that these don’t reveal truth because they don’t result in trains or planes, and because they don’t use the “scientific method.”

It’s a very ordered world-view… very calvinistic.

 

[humble_catholic]

I also think that the poll is too specific and not generalized enoough to be accurate. If you polled high iq people outside of the field of hard science where there is no pressure to be religious or atheist and think the way others do in order to advance in your career you will see different numbers.

Most polls on doctors show that a a very high number of doctors believe in God and an afterlife.

redorbit.com/news/health/171626/most_doctors_believe_in_god/index.html

"A recent survey found a high percentage of spirituality in medicine, researchers say.

CHICAGO – A survey examining religion in medicine found that most U.S. doctors believe in God and an afterlife – a surprising degree of spirituality in a science-based field, researchers say.

In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine.

“We were surprised to find that physicians were as religious as they apparently are,” said Dr. Farr Curlin, a researcher at the University of Chicago’s MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics. "

Also doctors have also been privy to witnessing patients go through experiences where they have been pronounced dead and then are brought back to life. I remember reading about one such lady who was pronounced dead for a period of time and then was brought back,and she talked about her spirit floating outside her body. The doctors didnt know what to make of her experience until she asked them if they knew that there was a doll on top of the hospital roof. When security went up there, sure enough they found the doll exactly how she described it would be.

You see most hard scientist (and im not saying all) dont know how to think outside of their small box and believe that if something isnt testable in a lab then it probably doesnt exist or they dont know if it exists.

How can an atheist explain this ladies experience/
The answer is they cant and it would probably make them very uncomfortable to do so.

 

[Leela]

As a former atheist, I find this to be very offensive. I wasn’t arrogant - I just didn’t know anything. And judging from the emperical evidence around me, I couldn’t see God so I didn’t believe in Him.

It wasn’t until a much deeper search began did I begin to believe.

Please don’t lump a group of people together and insult them, this is called bigotry.

Note also that many people make a deep search and find the notion of a personal God unconvincing, but thank you, Jerok, for your charitable view and stand against bigotry.

We all have different experiences and can be justified in believing different things. Both believers and nonbelievers can give others who have diferent views from ours the benefit of our charity in assuming that they like us are sincerely trying to have good beliefs supported by good reasons rather than being motivated by arrogance and holding beliefs we know aren’t well justified.

 

[edwest2]

Personally I think the theory of evolution has a lot to do with it. Until such time as a definite answer is provided for the origin of life, and a workable alternative theory of aging is proven to be viable, they’ll go on being atheists. Man doesn’t want to believe in God generally anyway, so all they’re doing is using their science to promote their own atheism.

At the moment for example, even the Church dithers. On the one hand there will be a statement from the Vatican stating evolution is more than a theory, and then on the other the catechism will make reference to “original sin” and “Adam and Eve” as literal people.

In the meantime it makes no effort to define exactly where “sin” did come from if the evolutionary context is correct.

This leaves a lot of room for atheists to avoid the issue of Christ. If the Church can’t make a clear statement on origins for example, and explain it’s theology and the need for redemption in the light of that statement, they why should they take any notice?

Clear explanations have been given but when the Church says something positive about science, she is praised by the secular world. When the Church says something negative about science, she is scorned. God is a direct participant in life. The Church is clear that Adam and Eve disobeyed the Living God.

And atheists certainly do take a lot of notice. For some reason, what the Church has to say about origins does concern them.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Luke_K]

Q:Why are many scientists atheists?
A: I think most of them never learned what Catholicism or other religions really taught was true, or why it was taught as true. They have no knowledge or experience of what the spiritual life is really about. They have an idea of what religion is based on the common Christian, who is a poor example, but have never read what the saints have to say about it.

A person who is interested in science seeks the truth, and when confronted with the hypocrisy and triviality of religion in its common practice, may find it unsatisfying and not worth exploring deeper.

Q: Why are many scientists not atheists?
A: Because they recognize the proper scope of their profession and how humans and their endeavors are never as good in practice as they are in theory.

Here are some relevant web-comics
phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761
phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=581
phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1121
phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174

 

[Leela]

Q:Why are many scientists atheists?
A: I think most of them never learned what Catholicism or other religions really taught was true, or why it was taught as true. They have no knowledge or experience of what the spiritual life is really about. They have an idea of what religion is based on the common Christian, who is a poor example, but have never read what the saints have to say about it.

I guess you could say that in response to “why isn’t everyone a Catholic?” It doesn’t get to the issue of why scientists in particular are less likely to be theists.

Perhaps it is just a symptom of the common tendency for people with more education to be less religious. Are scientists less religious than other well educated people?

 

[tonyrey]

I guess you could say that in response to “why isn’t everyone a Catholic?” It doesn’t get to the issue of why scientists in particular are less likely to be theists.

Perhaps it is just a symptom of the common tendency for people with more education to be less religious. Are scientists less religious than other well educated people?

You are equating “well educated” with “well academically educated”…

 

[punkforchrist]

As it has been mentioned, it depends largely on how polls are conducted. This study reveals that 62% of natural scientists (physics, chemistry, biology) believe in God, whereas 38% do not. Among social scientists (psychology, sociology), 69% believe versus 31% who do not.

I suspect, as do the researchers of this study, that many of the so-called “non-believers” simply do not profess faith in any particular religion, even though they consider themselves spiritual people. I even read a study in which it was concluded that 21% of atheists believe in God!

However we look at it, God’s existence is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

 

[edwest2]

As it has been mentioned, it depends largely on how polls are conducted. This study reveals that 62% of natural scientists (physics, chemistry, biology) believe in God, whereas 38% do not. Among social scientists (psychology, sociology), 69% believe versus 31% who do not.

I suspect, as do the researchers of this study, that many of the so-called “non-believers” simply do not profess faith in any particular religion, even though they consider themselves spiritual people. I even read a study in which it was concluded that 21% of atheists believe in God!

However we look at it, God’s existence is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

As you can see from other posts, it does not matter if God is a philosophical question. People use science here all the time to dismiss religion, belief in God and the origin of Sacred Scripture. Science informs them.

God bless,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

Scientists, by profession, study reality, as opposed to the contents of their own imaginations.

Scientists, by profession, study physical reality, as opposed to the spiritual realities that matter far more than matter!

People who study reality are more likely not to accept the existence of beings that do not manifest in any way and that are thus indistinguishable from nothing.

People who study physical reality are more likely not to accept the existence of spiritual realities like truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love…

 

[Leela]

Scientists, by profession, study physical reality, as opposed to the spiritual realities that matter far more than matter!

I don’t think that’s it. Science studies reality for the purpose of predicting and controlling. They aren’t limited to “the physical” as a self-imposed boundary. They try to create a description of the universe that best enables us to predict and control. Postulating a distinction between a physical and a nonphysical reality doesn’t come into it at all since doing so won’t help us do science. It won’t help us create a description that best enables us to predict and control. There is never a need to talk about a supernatural/natural distinction when doing science.

Now there is certainly more to life than predicting and controlling. That isn’t to specify a limitation of science. It is just to say that we have other purposes than doing science.

Best,
Leela