Why don't most higher up scientists believe in a God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PonderingJak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hans_W said:
Quantum mechanics has broken the conventional perception of causality,
Click to expand...
I don;t think so. The following book shows that this is not true: "The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
by Peter R. Holland
 
Hans_W said:
Same will happen with ‘dark matter’. Perhaps it can be reduced to not yet discovered particles, or it will be defined as a new type of matter. But it will be part of the ‘natural world’.
Click to expand...
How do you know that it will be part of the natural world and is not due to the fact that the current theory of gravity needs revision?
 
AttendeDomine said:
Because of technology, our modern culture places far too much emphasis on the value of the scientist as thinker. Your question assumes this, but your question is also a category error. The existence of God is a philosophical question. Expertise in Science does not imply expertise in philosophy. Furthermore, scientists will be the first to tell you when a particular question is actually outside of their extremely specific field of expertise. Don’t forget that research scientists focus on a very small domain within their wider Ph.D. Everything outside such a domain is merely an opinion, and their opinion is not necessarily better or worse than anyone else’s insofar as their reasoning is concerned. Their status as scientist does not change the fact that they may be extremely unqualified to discuss the question in a truly academic manner. Twenty year old college students might be more qualified to discuss the topic.

What you ask is similar to asking, “Why can’t most physicists outline the economic and political factors that led to the fall of the Soviet Empire? Does that mean there are no reasons, and the Soviet Empire never fell?”

I would also add something else. A Ph.D. in a particular science (or any other field) in no way implies that said scientist is even a particularly great thinker. A hundred years ago, advanced education was incredibly difficult to achieve and only a select few were able to take advantage of it. A small percentage of the population even graduated from high school, and out of those who did, a very small amount were gifted enough to be asked to go on to university and graduate school. These days, Ph.D.s are a dime-a-dozen, and you can even earn one 7 years after graduating high school.

You’re at an age when a doctorate in a complicated field might really, REALLY impress you. When you get to college, you’ll see how erroneous that opinion can be.
Click to expand...
As a scientist with a PhD (well actually it’s in chemical engineering, but I basically do applied science) - I agree wholeheartedly. I am pretty well-read scientifically speaking, but that’s not necessarily because I have a PhD. I wouldn’t say Ph.D.s are a dime a dozen, although in some fields there is a glut of them, and not everyone who gets a Ph.D. is particularly brilliant - there are many very bright students in sciences who, for reasons of their own, never go beyond a BS or MS degree, and conversely there are very average students who get a BS and aren’t really sure what to do next, so might as well stay in school and muddle through a Ph.D. - it’s paid for after all, and if you persist long enough, and don’t fail your classes and qualifying exams, you will eventually get the degree.

I of course am truly exceptional and qualified to speak about everything. But not most other Ph.D.s!

I will amend this to add… as far as atheism is concerned- moreso than the strident atheism of Dawkins et al, what I see amongst scientists my age and younger, are mostly people who are ‘unchurched’ - who either were never raised with much or any sense of religion, or who dropped out of church by the time they were in high school or college and never gave it much critical thought. This may be a practical form of atheism, but it is very different from those who get in your face and say “As a scientist I don’t believe in God”.
 
Someone mentioned earlier that Einstein believed in God, but when I looked it up apparently he believed in a pantheistic god, AKA he thinks that the universe is God, which doesn’t even necessarily mean that “God” can think.
 
To quote Padre Pio “if you don’t believe in hell you will when you get there.”
 
I don’t recommend anybody trying this but I’ve had friends who have astral projected. This is proof there are souls. Also check out Chris Langans website he has an iq of about 200 and believes in God.
 
In psychology we study the process of socialization, whereby people tend to strongly adhere to group norms. In academia, many say they are spiritual, but few are religious. It’s that the process of socialization in academia invisibly drives people toward atheism, and science becomes their God.
 
Robert_Sock said:
In psychology we study the process of socialization, whereby people tend to strongly adhere to group norms. In academia, many say they are spiritual, but few are religious. It’s that the process of socialization in academia invisibly drives people toward atheism, and science becomes their God.
Click to expand...
So I wonder… people who persevere through a PhD in science end up spending a long time in an academic environment - 8-10 years, counting undergraduate education.

What if you compare to non-science people who spend similar length of time pursuing research in a unversity setting… PhDs in economics, humanities, etc. I wouldn’t count ‘professional’ doctoral degrees such as law & medicine because these do not tend to be the open-ended research of the more academic pursuits.

Certainly my experience is that the academics in the humanities (outside of traditional-minded religious universities) are often very critical of faith & religion. Postmodernism rules in that setting, and as such the attitudes toward religion are sometimes way off the deep end.
 
PonderingJak said:
I’m speaking specifically about Steven Hawking and Neil Degrade Tyson. They are perceived as geniuses and are extremely smart in terms of science. I’m a high school freshman wanting to see if God exists or not, and this fact came up. And it really made me wonder. Space is incredibly big, and maybe is endless, but we’re stuck in the Milky Way with a very small sun (compared to other suns). That’s one scientist’s reason for being an atheist. He’s an astrologist and spent a lot of time studying the stars, and he noted that there are many things that could easily kill us if we were on a collision course, and there’d be no way to save anyone of that happened. Can anyone help answer my question? I got a little bit off track, but still want to know why people perceive as extremely smart are atheists and vehemently deny the existence of God
Click to expand...
I don’t know why those “higher up scientists” don’t believe in God, perhaps they have had some sort of scientific enlightenment?

If that’s so, I’ve yet to find out what any of them have discovered that convinces them God doesn’t exist.
 
rose_kelly said:
I don’t know why those “higher up scientists” don’t believe in God, perhaps they have had some sort of scientific enlightenment?
Click to expand...
I also have to question, regarding the title of the thread, what is meant by “higher up scientists”.

There isn’t really a hierarchy so to speak, other than what universities may have, with professors, associate professors, assistant professors, which is more about seniority and tenure as opposed to importance. There are scientists who are famous, including Hawking and Tyson, but that doesn’t correlate with how smart or influential they are either. As it happens, Hawking is very highly regarded as a physicist having made some seminal contributions. Tyson has a very credible academic record in astronomy but as far as impact on the field I would not put him in the same category at all. What he does have is good on-screen charisma and a talent for explaining science to a general audience in a way that doesn’t cut corners. He also has a compelling life story. All of this makes him a good ambassador for science and science education, although lately he has been pushing the anti-religion agenda as well which is unfortunate. But I wouldn’t really call him a “high-up” scientist, although he does have a nice bully pulpit for himself at this point.

I’m trying to think off the top of my head other scientists who are household names… the main characteristic for that is you have to be a good self-promoter. I can say that among Nobel prize winners there are some who would strike you as actually quite brilliant, and others that would strike you as no smarter than your average scientist, but what really sets them apart is their passion and diligence, and in many cases their ability to drive their grad students really hard.
 
Bobby_Jim said:
So I wonder… people who persevere through a PhD in science end up spending a long time in an academic environment - 8-10 years, counting undergraduate education.

What if you compare to non-science people who spend similar length of time pursuing research in a unversity setting… PhDs in economics, humanities, etc. I wouldn’t count ‘professional’ doctoral degrees such as law & medicine because these do not tend to be the open-ended research of the more academic pursuits.

Certainly my experience is that the academics in the humanities (outside of traditional-minded religious universities) are often very critical of faith & religion. Postmodernism rules in that setting, and as such the attitudes toward religion are sometimes way off the deep end.
Click to expand...
I would expect that the more one delves into science, the more likely they are to embrace atheism. This, I think, would put all of academia at risk.
 
1 Cor 1:19-25

For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the learning of the learned I will set aside.”

Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?

For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith. For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
 
Robert_Sock said:
I would expect that the more one delves into science, the more likely they are to embrace atheism. This, I think, would put all of academia at risk.
Click to expand...
I doubt that all of academia is at risk from studying science.
 
Bobby_Jim said:
I also have to question, regarding the title of the thread, what is meant by “higher up scientists”.

There isn’t really a hierarchy so to speak, other than what universities may have, with professors, associate professors, assistant professors, which is more about seniority and tenure as opposed to importance. There are scientists who are famous, including Hawking and Tyson, but that doesn’t correlate with how smart or influential they are either. As it happens, Hawking is very highly regarded as a physicist having made some seminal contributions. Tyson has a very credible academic record in astronomy but as far as impact on the field I would not put him in the same category at all. What he does have is good on-screen charisma and a talent for explaining science to a general audience in a way that doesn’t cut corners. He also has a compelling life story. All of this makes him a good ambassador for science and science education, although lately he has been pushing the anti-religion agenda as well which is unfortunate. But I wouldn’t really call him a “high-up” scientist, although he does have a nice bully pulpit for himself at this point.

I’m trying to think off the top of my head other scientists who are household names… the main characteristic for that is you have to be a good self-promoter. I can say that among Nobel prize winners there are some who would strike you as actually quite brilliant, and others that would strike you as no smarter than your average scientist, but what really sets them apart is their passion and diligence, and in many cases their ability to drive their grad students really hard.
Click to expand...
Stephen Hawking has a new passion, searching for aliens.
space.com/29999-stephen-hawking-intelligent-alien-life-danger.html

But he’s a truly amazing and remarkable man, who I have the highest regard for.
 
PonderingJak said:
I’m speaking specifically about Steven Hawking and Neil Degrade Tyson. They are perceived as geniuses and are extremely smart in terms of science. I’m a high school freshman wanting to see if God exists or not, and this fact came up. And it really made me wonder. Space is incredibly big, and maybe is endless, but we’re stuck in the Milky Way with a very small sun (compared to other suns). That’s one scientist’s reason for being an atheist. He’s an astrologist and spent a lot of time studying the stars, and he noted that there are many things that could easily kill us if we were on a collision course, and there’d be no way to save anyone of that happened. Can anyone help answer my question? I got a little bit off track, but still want to know why people perceive as extremely smart are atheists and vehemently deny the existence of God
Click to expand...
I think this could be answered along the lines of history. For if we study history, then we won’t repeat it’s mistakes.

So with regard to scientists who are usually scholarly people, very intelligent on the whole, they would have the very same pitfall as the first fallen angels had. Namely intelligence so great that noone, even God, can tell them different from what they think. Which we find in history … the fallen angels, smart, but … short on humility.
 
Where I live, science is at risk from religion. The Fundies, or certain very loud ones among them, keep wanting to ban evolution from the science books and make that a central issue and a perennial Big Deal in state and local school politics. For a while they got “warning stickers” put on the books that the ideas in it are only theories and there are other theories that may be valid, or some nonsense. :whacky:

In Catholic schools, they teach creationism in religion class (and that Genesis is not to be construed as literal – in agreement with the CCC) and evolution in science class. 🤷

Some Catholics have been fooled into thinking that Christians must oppose evolution. I’m guess a very few percentage of non-Christians have any idea that the Catholic Church supports scientific study of evolution. I think the opposition to evolution by a few loud, uninformed or just plain stupid “Christians” has done more damage to the way scientists view religion than maybe anything else. They rightfully get to make comments about “flat earth” societies, etc. And since I have the ability to think, I can hardly blame them. 🤓

So at least where I live, the religious politically activist nutcases are doing everything they can to make their belief in God so idiotic that nobody with a clear mind wants to associate with them … scientists or rational-thinking Christian or just about anybody who isn’t a fool. These are the types who say the earth is only 6000 years old and dinosaur relics are all some sort of conspiracy I guess or that “carbon dating” is that inaccurate. :takeoff:

But since Catholics mingle with those same people in pro-life activities, and pro-life and school politics enjoy similar spotlight, it is almost impossible for an observer to tell that the Catholics may want to stop abortions, but they don’t want to turn science into religion class. I’d rather be a scientist with integrity than a Christian who participates in giving the public false impressions of Christian teachings that makes us look like troglodytes and spreads lies as God’s truth. :yukonjoe:

Because we’ve evolved more than the troglodytes so we have more swag. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top