Why do so many atheists become scientists?

[sinnerdexter]

Prompted by posts in a somewhat unsatisfying thread (" Why do you think so many scientists are atheists?”) I think the majority were atheists before they became scientists, instead of vice versa. A more accurate question may be: Why do so many atheists become scientists? And it may just be their lack of accepting religious stories leads them to search for proof.

What differentiates humans from animals may involve our inherent search for more information and power (generically speaking, the purpose of life, etc). For some, the belief in the supernatural satisfies some of this searching. For others, they need more solid, logical tangible. “scientific” proof. It seems a matter of trust versus doubt.

And even though some people may claim to be “scientific”, their knowledge, in effect, comprises a belief system due to the nature of their scientific knowledge … for example, the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. I have encountered people who, like religious people, get emotionally defensive toward someone who doesn’t believe in their scientific beliefs.

For example, I favor the Big Bounce Theory, and some Big Bang proponents get emotional that their way is the “only way”, just as religious people do. And they certainly don’t like hearing that the Big Bang Theory was invented by a Roman Catholic priest who described the Big Bang as the cosmic egg exploding at the moment of creation.

 

[JohnDamian]

Many people who have an interest in the world will try and find out about the world. Some people appear to be inclined in a more curious way than others.

Naturally; then it follows that someone who is interested in finding out about the world; if they are religious would have more options; such as theology; philosophy as well as science.

Wheras; an atheist does not have the same flexibility. I would doubt an atheist would study theology; and if the atheist were credulous he would also not study philosophy (as there are no credible philosophers who are atheist) - so what choice in studying the world does the atheist have but through science?

 

[R_Daneel]

Many people who have an interest in the world will try and find out about the world. Some people appear to be inclined in a more curious way than others.

Naturally; then it follows that someone who is interested in finding out about the world; if they are religious would have more options; such as theology; philosophy as well as science.

Wheras; an atheist does not have the same flexibility. I would doubt an atheist would study theology; and if the atheist were credulous he would also not study philosophy (as there are no credible philosophers who are atheist) - so what choice in studying the world does the atheist have but through science?

What an “incredible” claim! You might try to check out George H. Smith - for one. amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X

 

[JohnDamian]

What an “incredible” claim! You might try to check out George H. Smith - for one. amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X

Is that the book in which he states “Christianity has nothing to offer a happy man living in a natural, intelligible universe.” - how quaint…

I shall be delighted to read such “philosophy” - I need to fill the somewhat neglected bottom shelves; Nieztche, Hume and Wittgenstein are quite lonely.

 

[j1akey]

Prompted by posts in a somewhat unsatisfying thread (" Why do you think so many scientists are atheists?”) I think the majority were atheists before they became scientists, instead of vice versa. A more accurate question may be: Why do so many atheists become scientists? And it may just be their lack of accepting religious stories leads them to search for proof.

What differentiates humans from animals may involve our inherent search for more information and power (generically speaking, the purpose of life, etc). For some, the belief in the supernatural satisfies some of this searching. For others, they need more solid, logical tangible. “scientific” proof. It seems a matter of trust versus doubt.

And even though some people may claim to be “scientific”, their knowledge, in effect, comprises a belief system due to the nature of their scientific knowledge … for example, the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. I have encountered people who, like religious people, get emotionally defensive toward someone who doesn’t believe in their scientific beliefs.

For example, I favor the Big Bounce Theory, and some Big Bang proponents get emotional that their way is the “only way”, just as religious people do. And they certainly don’t like hearing that the Big Bang Theory was invented by a Roman Catholic priest who described the Big Bang as the cosmic egg exploding at the moment of creation.

My personal problem is that anti-evolutionists and creationists basically throw 150 years of work done by thousands of people from several different fields of study that have dedicated their entire lives to that study and the only reason I ever hear is “well, evolution can’t provide answer to X so Y must be true”. No matter how you dress it up it always boils down to that. Even if X does have they come up with something else and then something else and then something else again after that, it’s a never ending loop.

Now, this isn’t to say that peole shouldn’t question current scientific theories (another defensive mechanism is for creationists to play victim for “just asking questions”). But if you’re going to question it then you better come with something to back up those questions.

The scientific community has rejected creationism so they rebranded it “Intelligent Design” then they tried to get it taught to high school kids who don’t even have a basic understanding of the subject matter in the first place saying that it’s only “fair” to teach them both side by side. Now they’ve renamed it something else to make it sound more sciency but I can’t remember what. So who is this fair to? Fair to the all the people over the last 150 years who have dedicated their lives to the subject just to have it blown away by religious dogma? I don’t think so. Yes lets let CHILDREN decide what is or isn’t true.

It’s not that I feel threatened in any way but it serves no purpose and offers absolutely nothing toward the advancement of knowledge about the world around us. Creationism is an intellectual dead end.

The other thing that chaps my *** is the fact that people pick and choose which scientific theories and fields of study they want to discredit. Odly enough it’s only the theories that go against what they interpret the bible to say, usually from a fundametalist point of view. Those are the theories that are unscientific, the rest is somehow OK even though any field of study follows the same guidelines regardless of what it is that their studying.

I don’t see anyone trying to knock down germ theory or gravity or geophysics or atronomy or pathology or spectroscopy any of the other theories or fields of study. Nope, it’s pretty much only evolution that people take issue with.

 

[colmcille1]

My personal problem is that anti-evolutionists and creationists basically throw 150 years of work done by thousands of people from several different fields of study that have dedicated their entire lives to that study and the only reason I ever hear is “well, evolution can’t provide answer to X so Y must be true”. No matter how you dress it up it always boils down to that. Even if X does have they come up with something else and then something else and then something else again after that, it’s a never ending loop.

Now, this isn’t to say that peole shouldn’t question current scientific theories (another defensive mechanism is for creationists to play victim for “just asking questions”). But if you’re going to question it then you better come with something to back up those questions.

The scientific community has rejected creationism so they rebranded it “Intelligent Design” then they tried to get it taught to high school kids who don’t even have a basic understanding of the subject matter in the first place saying that it’s only “fair” to teach them both side by side. Now they’ve renamed it something else to make it sound more sciency but I can’t remember what. So who is this fair to? Fair to the all the people over the last 150 years who have dedicated their lives to the subject just to have it blown away by religious dogma? I don’t think so. Yes lets let CHILDREN decide what is or isn’t true.

It’s not that I feel threatened in any way but it serves no purpose and offers absolutely nothing toward the advancement of knowledge about the world around us. Creationism is an intellectual dead end.

The other thing that chaps my *** is the fact that people pick and choose which scientific theories and fields of study they want to discredit. Odly enough it’s only the theories that go against what they interpret the bible to say, usually from a fundametalist point of view. Those are the theories that are unscientific, the rest is somehow OK even though any field of study follows the same guidelines regardless of what it is that their studying.

I don’t see anyone trying to knock down germ theory or gravity or geophysics or atronomy or pathology or spectroscopy any of the other theories or fields of study. Nope, it’s pretty much only evolution that people take issue with.

Wwll now, here we have, in a nutshell, an overview of the sort of complaint (a kind of atheists’ charter) which, at the end of the day, saddens true believers.
Yet that sadness is somewhat tempered by the REALITY of the true believer’s standing in the world.
We (i.e. true believers) are working actively in our faith through good works both on a local and international level.
We are strong in our belief in the power of prayer. (The power of prayer and the great evangelising work of Pope John Paul 2 led to the ultimate fall of modern man’s scourge, communism.)
We hand on the Faith to our children and we do our own evangelising via corporal and spiritual works and mercy. (Some of us, God help us, even go on internet forums to spread the Good Word!)
So what I want to know is, given all of the REALITY of the above, why do non-believers insist on plucking this solitary scientific string of “debate”?
If you can’t stand the heat (of the global kitchen), back off and let the true believers unhindered access to do His Good Work.

God Bless.

 

[j1akey]

Wwll now, here we have, in a nutshell, an overview of the sort of complaint (a kind of atheists’ charter) which, at the end of the day, saddens true believers.
Yet that sadness is somewhat tempered by the REALITY of the true believer’s standing in the world.
We (i.e. true believers) are working actively in our faith through good works both on a local and international level.
We are strong in our belief in the power of prayer. (The power of prayer and the great evangelising work of Pope John Paul 2 led to the ultimate fall of modern man’s scourge, communism.)
We hand on the Faith to our children and we do our own evangelising via corporal and spiritual works and mercy. (Some of us, God help us, even go on internet forums to spread the Good Word!)
So what I want to know is, given all of the REALITY of the above, why do non-believers insist on plucking this solitary scientific string of “debate”?
If you can’t stand the heat (of the global kitchen), back off and let the true believers unhindered access to do His Good Work.

God Bless.

I was attempting to respond to one of the the OP’s points in regards to why we [non-believers] get defensive when it comes to things like evolution and the like so I listed my personal views on it. If you would like to address what I said specifically then I will continue the conversation with you. If you’re just going to preach about faith and and spreading Gods word then I will not.

I’d like to go a couple pages at least before it spirals into something else entirely.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Many people who have an interest in the world will try and find out about the world. Some people appear to be inclined in a more curious way than others.

Naturally; then it follows that someone who is interested in finding out about the world; if they are religious would have more options; such as theology; philosophy as well as science.

Some theists may be perfectly open-minded and willing to consider alternatives, there must be plenty of such people. But, take the US for example, or many regions in the middle east, devoutly religious societies. The vast majority of the devoutly rather than tenuously religious leave no room for alternatives to their faith. A prime example is the Christian apologeticist’s new favorite term, presuppositionalism, where they erroneously allege that secular scientists begin from the presuppositional foundation of strong atheism (many may start as weak atheists, but not all, and certainly not as a foundation of their reasoning) while themselves admitting to the inviolable presupposition of considering the world from the belief that God does exist and that the bible is his inerrant, literal world. Presuppositionalism is a school-of-thought blatantly used to justify dismissing all possible alternatives out of hand without consideration. frontlinemin.org/defendfaith.asp

As for empiricists, maybe some are close-minded and dogmatic, but just like religious folk, that in no way defines the whole of the scientific community. Curiosity drives many of us. Plenty of us are willing to examine and consider just about any argument thrown our way. Or devise their own (look at the current state of theoretical physics for christ’s sake) The difference is, we do our best to scrutinize those hypothesis and speculations critically and find their faults, inconsistencies, fallacies, whatever. Plenty of us would be absolutely thrilled if some hint of what is now called the metaphysical was shown to have a basis in reality, ergo opening up a whole new realm of discovery. It’s not our fault when a speculation doesn’t hold up to close examination.

Wheras; an atheist does not have the same flexibility. I would doubt an atheist would study theology;

As Sun Tzu wrote, know thine enemy. Allegorically, I’ve known plenty of atheistic types who knew more about the religion of the religious people who argued them than they did themselves. It would be interesting to find out how many actual theologians are atheists.

and if the atheist were credulous he would also not study philosophy

What about empiricism or atheism isolates it from studying philosophy? The three are more closely tied than you might imagine.

(as there are no credible philosophers who are atheist)

David Hume? Nietzsche? Rand? Bertrand Russell? Victor Stenger is one who’s currently alive. I’m sure there are others, and once this generation of philosophers is dead, a number of the posthumously famous ones will likely be atheistic too. I’d guess in higher numbers than in previous eras.

so what choice in studying the world does the atheist have but through science?

If you understand what science means, you should realize that science isn’t the limiting factor on understanding that you think it is. If anything it provides the means to examine the value of claims, and without it, anything anyone claimed would be equally valid, and no one could distinguish the veracity of any particular speculation.

 

[reggieM]

Creationism is an intellectual dead end.

I see it in exactly the opposite way.
Materialism is a dead end – it admits as such. When you’re dead, you’re dead. Matter itself is a dead end because it is meaningless.
Materialist-atheism destroys philosophy. It can’t be credible because it posits that there is no ultimate meaning. The act of philosophizing from that view point is nonsensical.

On the other hand, God is infinite – and is therefore the exact opposite of a dead-end. God is living-endlessly, or eternal life. God is the source of being, life and ultimate meaning.

Soulless materialism is death itself and the nothingness inherent in that.

 

[buffalo]

Why do so many atheists become scientists?

They paint themselves into a corner.

 

[j1akey]

I see it in exactly the opposite way.
Materialism is a dead end – it admits as such. When you’re dead, you’re dead. Matter itself is a dead end because it is meaningless.
Materialist-atheism destroys philosophy. It can’t be credible because it posits that there is no ultimate meaning. The act of philosophizing from that view point is nonsensical.

On the other hand, God is infinite – and is therefore the exact opposite of a dead-end. God is living-endlessly, or eternal life. God is the source of being, life and ultimate meaning.

Soulless materialism is death itself and the nothingness inherent in that.

It seems like you’re talking about philosophy rather than knowledge. I realize this is the philosophy forum but I’m talking about an intellectual dead end, not a philosophical one. Nor is a scientific theory a philisophical viewpoint either.

So now in what way is creationism not an intellectual dead end? It doesn’t offer any insight other than what basically boils down to is a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. There is no evidence to back it up and doesn’t explain anything other than to say God created us. No from a philosophy standpoint I might be able to see this but from a scientific standpoint it doesn’t hold any water atll.

So again, how is creationism not an intellectual dead end. What has it shown?

 

[colmcille1]

It seems like you’re talking about philosophy rather than knowledge. I realize this is the philosophy forum but I’m talking about an intellectual dead end, not a philosophical one. Nor is a scientific theory a philisophical viewpoint either.

So now in what way is creationism not an intellectual dead end? It doesn’t offer any insight other than what basically boils down to is a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. There is no evidence to back it up and doesn’t explain anything other than to say God created us. No from a philosophy standpoint I might be able to see this but from a scientific standpoint it doesn’t hold any water atll.

So again, how is creationism not an intellectual dead end. What has it shown?

You mentioned “a fundamentalist interpretation”. I think you ought to be addressing the final question in your post to a Protestant Fundamentalist as they reject the theory of evolution out of hand.

Also, may I ask you: what is robotology?

God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[j1akey]

colmcille1:

You mentioned “a fundamentalist interpretation”. I think you ought to be addressing the final question in your post to a Protestant Fundamentalist as they reject the theory of evolution out of hand.

I’m not sure what protestants specifically have to do with it since it’s not just protestants that think creationism is fact, many people on these forums for example who say they are Catholic also think creationism is science and true.

You for example seemed pretty upset in your earlier post a few days ago and seem to imply you think creationism is true even if you never came out directly and said it. If that’s the case then I should be able to pose this question to you and you should be able to answer it. If not then you have no good reason for believing what you do. No offense but telling me to go ask a protestant seems like a dodge or a cop out to me. If you truly believe it then there’s no reason wh you can’t answer the question I posed.

Also, may I ask you: what is robotology?

Not a Futurama fan I see.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Futurama

 

[colmcille1]

I’m not sure what protestants specifically have to do with it since it’s not just protestants that think creationism is fact, many people on these forums for example who say they are Catholic also think creationism is science and true.

You for example seemed pretty upset in your earlier post a few days ago and seem to imply you think creationism is true even if you never came out directly and said it. If that’s the case then I should be able to pose this question to you and you should be able to answer it. If not then you have no good reason for believing what you do. No offense but telling me to go ask a protestant seems like a dodge or a cop out to me. If you truly believe it then there’s no reason wh you can’t answer the question I posed.

Not a Futurama fan I see.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Futurama

I get “upset” , as you put it, about many things. And no offence taken, I understand it’s your interpretation.
I believe in Truth as espoused by the one True religion.
I’m sorry but I hope that you too will take no offence at this but I feel that I cannot, at least at this point in life, share common ground with your beliefs.
I don’t subscribe to the power of TV and I do not mean that remark as a reflection on yourself. Forgive me for the brevity of my response.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Anselm33]

from “Sinnerdexter”

For example, I favor the Big Bounce Theory, and some Big Bang proponents get emotional that their way is the “only way”, just as religious people do. And they certainly don’t like hearing that the Big Bang Theory was invented by a Roman Catholic priest who described the Big Bang as the cosmic egg exploding at the moment of creation.

QUOTE]
I believe the “Big Bounce” (a universe alternately expanding and contracting, if that’s what you mean) first proposed by John Wheeler has been discredited on Second Law considerations.
See
magisreasonfaith.org/Magis_FactSheet.pdf
Even Wheeler no longer believes in the alternating expansion and contracting universe theory.
That being said, I would agree with your general thesis that many (I’m not sure about most) scientists are unbelievers before they become scientists (I was an agnostic) and are searching for order and reason in the world around them.

 

[reggieM]

It seems like you’re talking about philosophy rather than knowledge. I realize this is the philosophy forum but I’m talking about an intellectual dead end, not a philosophical one. Nor is a scientific theory a philisophical viewpoint either.

You asked about Creationism but before getting into that, I’d like to discuss the points you raise here first. As I see it, we won’t be able to agree on much without a better understanding on these concepts.
I don’t understand how you differentiate between science and philosophy.
Additionally, you seem to be saying that philosophy is not a pathway to knowledge.
I think you’re saying that philosophy is not an intellectual activity, but science is.
Finally, you say that a science theory is not a philosophical viewpoint, but do you agree that science relies on philosophy and is, actually, a philosophical construct itself?
And back to the first question – how do you perceive the difference between science and philosophy?

This is where we will have the biggest disagreement, possibly – or the best opportunity of getting a common understanding.

Because, as it stands, I’d disagree with the statements above.

1. Philosophy is a pathway to knowledge.
2. Philosophy is an intellectual exercise.
3. Science is construct of philosophy – it requires a philosophical framework.
4. Science measures and tests empirical reality – that which can (at least potentially) be directly observed. Science cannot justify itself. It cannot prove anything about the category of knowledge that it provides, or even that it does provide knowledge. These are things which cannot be observed, measured or tested scientifically. Philosophy justifies science, gives the framework and meaning for science, and provides the rules and purposes.

 

[Ismael]

Many people who have an interest in the world will try and find out about the world. Some people appear to be inclined in a more curious way than others.

Naturally; then it follows that someone who is interested in finding out about the world; if they are religious would have more options; such as theology; philosophy as well as science.

Wheras; an atheist does not have the same flexibility. I would doubt an atheist would study theology; and if the atheist were credulous he would also not study philosophy (as there are no credible philosophers who are atheist) - so what choice in studying the world does the atheist have but through science?

That’s a big claim… especially since about 75% of all conetmporary philosophers are atheists… (the reverse happens only in the field of philosophy or religion, an unlikely subject for an atheist).

Most philosophers today deal very little with religion actually and unfortunately.