Why are so many scientists atheists?

[humble_catholic]

Thomas, I jus finished reading this article. Interesting but incomplete, while he can give estimated guesseson what he as a scientist thinks the people could have seen that day, I also read about the physics expert that said it could have been a meteorite but the fact that the kids predicted it showed to him itwas a miracle.

In his scolarly article he couldnt account for the drying f the peoples clothing or the ground. Notice he doesnt even talk about it in the article. It seems like you have skipped this in your posts also. Also he tries to predict why the kids had these apparitions but cant tie them up to the drying of the clothes and ground. Its till a reach to most reasonable people. The seculo journalist as there and he saweverything that happened.

You can try to explain bits and pieces of this naturally but when you tie in all the evidence together, it still spells out 2 things: miracle and super natural event.

 

[ThomasToo]

Thomas, I jus finished reading this article. Interesting but incomplete, while he can give estimated guesseson what he as a scientist thinks the people could have seen that day, I also read about the physics expert that said it could have been a meteorite but the fact that the kids predicted it showed to him itwas a miracle.

In his scolarly article he couldnt account for the drying f the peoples clothing or the ground. Notice he doesnt even talk about it in the article. It seems like you have skipped this in your posts also. Also he tries to predict why the kids had these apparitions but cant tie them up to the drying of the clothes and ground. Its till a reach to most reasonable people. The seculo journalist as there and he saweverything that happened.

You can try to explain bits and pieces of this naturally but when you tie in all the evidence together, it still spells out 2 things: miracle and super natural event.

You’ve asserted over and over again about the drying of the clothes and the ground. Have you ever questioned the verisimilitude of those portions of the event. The summaries of the events of that day–from very Catholic sources–do not mention them and I doubt there is anywhere near enough evidence for it as the standard you want to set up for explanation of the phenomenon. If it is enough of a miracle for you that people got dry then I think we simply have very different levels of uniqueness required for something to be miraculous.

 

[humble_catholic]

You’ve asserted over and over again about the drying of the clothes and the ground. Have you ever questioned the verisimilitude of those portions of the event. The summaries of the events of that day–from very Catholic sources–do not mention them and I doubt there is anywhere near enough evidence for it as the standard you want to set up for explanation of the phenomenon. If it is enough of a miracle for you that people got dry then I think we simply have very different levels of uniqueness required for something to be miraculous.

Actually yes if you bothered to do some reseach on this there are catholic souces that sitedthe drying of clothing. I believe (if im correct) that father De Marchi lived in Fatima and was a witness to the miracle an extensive research on the event including questioning many witness to the drying of the clothing as well as other aspects of the miracle that thy experienced that day. He even wrote a book on his investigation. Like I said before, some of the events can be explained awaynaturally and supernturally but when you put it all together from every aspect , no natural explanation fits.

Simply put, the amount of energy needed to dry those peoples clothing instantly should have incinerated them, but it didn and this alone was the most remarkable thing that was experienced by the crowd. If this part of the miracle isnt very importat to your standards as to judging miracles, then Im simply flabbergasted.

In ending, I guess if you dont want to believe something, you can find a way to discount it, but would be reasonable to do so in thi manner?

As`I stated before the Jesus Mythers have a belief that Jesus the person never existed, butwhen you are having even the top athiest scholars calling their evidence rediculous their credibilityinstantly fades.

Drying of drenched clothing alone doest mae a miracle, whats amazing is that it dried instantly, and If I read correctly (its late here and im half awake LOL ), not only did their clothing dry instantly but they became cean instantly. That latter part I will have to do more research on.

I thik what I have provided should be enough to reasonably assume that a super ntural miracle had ocurred on that day. Yes there are catholic sources that do atempt to explain some aspects of the miracle naturally (a testament to their honest research), but there are others that werent afraid to takle the supernatural question of the miracle.

Another interesting point of this is that the edito in chief of O seculo was under tremendous pressure from the atheistic government to recant his tesimony and he couragiously wouldnot at least twice.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Einstein specifically was quoted telling the atheist and agnostics to not associate his name with them or their cause as he didnt believe in their cause. Yes he was a Deist but if he had lived long enough to see what the hubble telescope had seen and discovered he definately would have been a theist. His one major problem was his short sighted view of why God allowed evil in the world, and im sure that a good theist philosopher could have taken him aside and helped him to understand that one easily.

Einstein saw the incredible beauty and order of the cosmos and as I mentioned before it is not his fault that he grew up during a time in which atheists tried to make us believe that the universe had no beginning. If einstein was born today he either would have flowed into judaism or christianity.

He was also quoted as saying that religion was peurile and indicitave of human weakness.

He also died a very long time ago, 1955, and I find it hard to believe that you had a close enough personal friendship with him to know anything about how he would have reacted to the Hubble Space Telescope, which incidentally is a product of numerous scientific fields of knowledge.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Personally I feel like the belief in a deity often times relies on a person to have faith in it, as creating a scientific proof for the existence of a deity is impossible. Since scientists spend a majority of their life reject things that are based purely on faith and accepting those things, which are well tested and proven. Scientists also tend to be skeptics as some degree of skepticism as required for a good scientist to do their job.

It could also be said that people who are scientists tend to be very gifted at critical thinking and have an inquisitive nature. As such they do not blindly follow a faith because of their parents wishes or a societal norm, and instead go about considering why they should believe in a deity. While a great deal of the populous in my opinion simply follow their faith out of adherence to those traditions and norms without challenging them., or at least not challenging them on a scientific level.

 

[humble_catholic]

Interesting Dexter, but I have to disagree. It seems to me that most scientist are very rigid in their belief in the allmight scientism to be able to prove everything around them, but once you show them a miracle like the one that ocurred at Fatima most either go blank or say that isnt enough to convince them. that isnt being honest or inquisitive. That is being stuck in a narrow box where they put roadbloacks against belieing that are unreasonable. In short they almost become the ultimate conspiracy theorists.

 

[Anselm33]

Why do you think so many scientists are atheists?

I think you’ll find a statistically significant difference between believers and non-believers (I’m including agnostics in that category as well as atheists) depending on the discipline. I would wager that there are a higher percentage of believers amongst astronomers and astrophysicists than amongst biologists, and I’m not sure why that’s so, unless the astronomers get the message of Psalm 19a–the heavens declare the glory of God.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

They know enough to disbelieve, but not to know that they don’t know enough.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Interesting Dexter, but I have to disagree. It seems to me that most scientist are very rigid in their belief in the allmight scientism to be able to prove everything around them, but once you show them a miracle like the one that ocurred at Fatima most either go blank or say that isnt enough to convince them. that isnt being honest or inquisitive. That is being stuck in a narrow box where they put roadbloacks against belieing that are unreasonable. In short they almost become the ultimate conspiracy theorists.

Not quite humble_catholic. Science deals with predictability.

Once you add “miracles” into the mix, then things are inherently unpredictable. Whether or not they exist is irrelevent, it is their nature of pure unpredictability that puts them outside the field of science.

 

[FaithJoy]

Most scientists don’t believe in God because that is the culture in college class rooms. It is much like liberalism/leftists is mainly of the teaching profession. If anything, we can blame ourselves in that we don’t influence class rooms like the leftists do. We have a lot of work to do in this area, we are very lacking. I don’t think it has anything to do that they have “the truth” in any way.I also think that scientists , because they don’t believe in God, have a need to fill a void in the purpose of their lives. It’s, in many ways, a religion to them.

 

[humble_catholic]

Not quite humble_catholic. Science deals with predictability.

Once you add “miracles” into the mix, then things are inherently unpredictable. Whether or not they exist is irrelevent, it is their nature of pure unpredictability that puts them outside the field of science.

Good point Dex, I never really looked at it that way, but doesnt it also keep them from looking for the truths that science cant predict when science is everything to them?

 

[Leela]

Good point Dex, I never really looked at it that way, but doesnt it also keep them from looking for the truths that science cant predict when science is everything to them?

I would think that the idea of a miracle must be the issue for scientists. When something is unexplained, the scientist wants to try to explain it. That is what it is to be a scientist. When is it worth saying to a scientist to stop trying to explain, predict, and control? If a scientist ever stopped doing that, she would no longer be a scientist. Hence the statistics on scientists and religious belief.

As Einstein put the issue: “There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.”

What a scientist can’t do is live as though miracles are things that just happen now and then–things that they shouldn’t bother to inquire about further.

Though this Einstein quote seems to be popular among theists, it seems to me to be inconsistent with theism. Don’t theists believe that God occasionally decides to intervene with a world that usually runs according to laws? A scientist would probably find that interventionist view incompatible with doing science. Scientists tend to be either deists like Franklin, pantheists like Einstein, or materialists like Dawkins.

Best,
Leela

 

[ThomasToo]

Good point Dex, I never really looked at it that way, but doesnt it also keep them from looking for the truths that science cant predict when science is everything to them?

The point for many of us is that ‘miracle’ is a non-entity. This notion goes all the way back to Hume’s An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding but the simplest version of it–for my money–comes from Arthur C. Clarke (Clark’s Third Law) ‘any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.’

Anything we cannot understand is termed ‘miracle.’ Eclipses were considered to be of supernatural origin until we gained a solid understanding of the heliocentric model of the Solar System. What seems left then is a god of the gaps and gaps that grow smaller every day.

 

[humble_catholic]

I would think that the idea of a miracle must be the issue for scientists. When something is unexplained, the scientist wants to try to explain it. That is what it is to be a scientist. When is it worth saying to a scientist to stop trying to explain, predict, and control? If a scientist ever stopped doing that, she would no longer be a scientist. Hence the statistics on scientists and religious belief.

As Einstein put the issue: “There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.”

What a scientist can’t do is live as though miracles are things that just happen now and then–things that they shouldn’t bother to inquire about further.

Though this Einstein quote seems to be popular among theists, it seems to me to be inconsistent with theism. Don’t theists believe that God occasionally decides to intervene with a world that usually runs according to laws? A scientist would probably find that interventionist view incompatible with doing science. Scientists tend to be either deists like Franklin, pantheists like Einstein, or materialists like Dawkins.

Best,
Leela

Leela, and as people here have consistently pointed out, science is only one way of finding truth. It is a philosphic way of thinking. There are many other ways of finding truth out that science cant get into. If your stuck in a narrow bandwidth of determining what is truth and what isnt truth there would be no need for logical proofs, philosophy or even science itself as it is also a philosophy.

Thomas it seems like many materialists like dawkins bring up the god of the gaps argument yet not one of them could ever defend it in a debate. Dawkins himself refuses to do it and that is why his books on the subject have been rediculed by many of his atheist loyalists.

True one reason for Fatima being called a miracle was that it couldnt be explained, but like I said that is if you only study it in pieces. How do you account for the fact that the 3 kids knew it would happen? That is to big of a coincidence to term happen-stance.
How do you account for the fact that the one girl knew that the boy and girl would die at an early age?

Ill give you another example of unreasonable reasoning. I have 2 parents right? How do I know that they are really my parents? Well in your line of thinking I cant. Even if I do a DNA test that can also be refuting by saying that there could be some way of forging the test or there is some tech out there that can do this and I dont know about it. There is no way I can be 100% scientifically sure that my parents really are my parents. See what I mean. At some point the evidence points in favor of me taking a leap of faith to fully believe that they are my parents. Radical scientism trys to take even reasonable faith out of the picture and in their world view they cant trust anyone or anybody because even empirical lab experiments could be faked by a higher power. At what point do we call it rationalism and at what point do we call it hysterical paranoia?

Im done with this subject and I stand by what I said before, there are many conspiracy theorists out there and some really think that the world is out to get them, and when they throw reason and rational out the window it really does seem that way.

 

[Leela]

Leela, and as people here have consistently pointed out, science is only one way of finding truth. It is a philosphic way of thinking. There are many other ways of finding truth out that science cant get into. If your stuck in a narrow bandwidth of determining what is truth and what isnt truth there would be no need for logical proofs, philosophy or even science itself as it is also a philosophy.

Thomas it seems like many materialists like dawkins bring up the god of the gaps argument yet not one of them could ever defend it in a debate. Dawkins himself refuses to do it and that is why his books on the subject have been rediculed by many of his atheist loyalists.

You’ve neglected everything I said above about miracles. (“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.”)

Though I agree that there are many ways to learn things that are true, many people find the miracle accounts to be what is most convincing about the truth of their particular religion. Since as I explained previously, miracle stories are not likely to be the sort of evidence that convinces a scientist. Since miracle stories are perhaps the most common way of convincing new potential adherents to believe, and since they are unlikely to affect scientists, it is not then surprising that scientists are less likely to be religious adherents.

Best,
Leela

 

[humble_catholic]

You’ve neglected everything I said above about miracles. (“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.”)

Though I agree that there are many ways to learn things that are true, many people find the miracle accounts to be what is most convincing about the truth of their particular religion. Since as I explained previously, miracle stories are not likely to be the sort of evidence that convinces a scientist. Since miracle stories are perhaps the most common way of convincing new potential adherents to believe, and since they are unlikely to affect scientists, it is not then surprising that scientists are less likely to be religious adherents.

Best,
Leela

Leela, I understood it completely, which is why I believe that Scientists that are too rigid to their philosophy will never be true and complete truth seekers since I as I stated before, science is just one of many philosophies at getting to the truth. Scientists should adopt a middle ground .

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” This is a quote from einstein and clearly points to what I was referring to earlier

 

[pete_29]

He was also quoted as saying that religion was peurile and indicitave of human weakness.

He also died a very long time ago, 1955, and I find it hard to believe that you had a close enough personal friendship with him to know anything about how he would have reacted to the Hubble Space Telescope, which incidentally is a product of numerous scientific fields of knowledge.

HEY!!! I was born in '56, it wasn’t that long ago.

Science requires proof.

God requires faith.

Some people can find common ground between the two. Some people can’t.

 

[bingbang]

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

I think that this is the best answer. No one can ever prove that God exists in a lab. It is something that you need to feel in your heart. This isn’t something that scientists are going to accept. If the scientific method can’t prove it, it probably can’t be proven at all…but God is completely different than science.

 

[humble_catholic]

Exactly and there is nothing unreasonable with having Faith as I pointed out by the example of the miracle of Fatima.
God Bless

 

[sinnerdexter]

Add to that that these “miracles” occur under less-than-rigorous conditions, so there’s no way to properly study them. The acceptance of an incident as a miracle is generally one which lacks skepticism, and scientists are skeptics. An image of Jesus on a shower curtain is one of pattern recognition in a random arrangement of mold, and given enough shower curtains you will end up with images like this. It’s nothing that violates physical law. Yet some will revere it as a miracle.