Does science point away from a God or lean towards?

[Undesired Walrus]

Given the complexities of the universe, I often hear those who have a firm basis in a belief in God say "Science is ever proving that the construction and formulation of the universe is only the result of a God".

Often I hear people say that maths proves it, or the distruption in the so and so causes this, but I ask:

Any of it true?

 

[Jackalgirl]

Given the complexities of the universe, I often hear those who have a firm basis in a belief in God say "Science is ever proving that the construction and formulation of the universe is only the result of a God".

Often I hear people say that maths proves it, or the distruption in the so and so causes this, but I ask:

Any of it true?

It's a nice thought, but as far as I'm aware, none of it is provable. It's all a philosophic theory, based on the assumption that things can't "just happen". I imagine that if you found a specific argument about, say, the maths, and posted it here, one or several of our very bright resident mathematicians would be all over it in an instance. And any evolution-related arguments can be explored via talkorigins.org.

 

[Beerina]

And philosophically, I have a huge problem with holding us accountable for our actions according to some reward/punishment scheme set up deliberately without proof.

If you are looking to filter for people who are "good", i.e. do things without need for reward or punishment, "threats without proof" is an odd way to go about it.

 

[Upchurch]

Often I hear people say that maths proves it, or the distruption in the so and so causes this, but I ask:

Any of it true?

You should really ask those making the claim. I would be very interested in seeing the "maths".

 

[Tricky]

The percentage of atheists is much higher among scientists than in the population in general. I think you have your answer.

 

[T'ai Chi]

But is that a sign of the times? The percentage of religious people among scientists way back when was high. So what?

 

[Upchurch]

The percentage of atheists is much higher among scientists than in the population in general.

Is it? In the US, even, or is that globally?

In my class of physics majors in college, I never knew what their religious beliefs were, but one of them became a Catholic priest (I think) after graduation. Granted, that's a non-representative sample and only one out of eight people, but I'd be curious just how non-representative that is.

 

[drkitten]

But is that a sign of the times? The percentage of religious people among scientists way back when was high. So what?

Higher than it was among the general public? I rather doubt that -- and would be interested to see the evidence you can bring to the contrary.

At any rate, the implication is fairly clear. It's the same logic that I use when I ask the professors at the local law school for a recommendation about whom to use if I need a lawyer; the experts in the field (especially as a group) are more likely to have an accurate opinion than the non-experts like my Uncle Roger the tax protestor.

Presumably physicists, in particular, are as familiar as anyone with the details of "the construction and forumulation of the universe." If, as a group, they find those details to be a less-than-compelling argument for the existence of God, why should someone unfamiliar with the details be given more credence?

 

[Tricky]

Is it? In the US, even, or is that globally?

In my class of physics majors in college, I never knew what their religious beliefs were, but one of them became a Catholic priest (I think) after graduation. Granted, that's a non-representative sample and only one out of eight people, but I'd be curious just how non-representative that is.

Well, I'm trying to find some statistics, but I recall seeing some polls in the past. Still, you only need see how creationists rail against "atheist scientists" as opposed to "atheist encyclopedia salesmen" or "atheist chartered accountants."


ETA:

Here's one article. It is by an atheist organization, but it is referring to an article in Nature.

 

[drkitten]

Is it? In the US, even, or is that globally?

The only data I have been able to find (quickly) involve the US -- but the numbers there support the claim that scientists are less religious. For example, one survey suggests that 60% of US scientists reject God, and that number gets even higher (80-90%, depending upon how you read the numbers) among "leading scientists."

The corresponding numbers for the general population are in the single digits, according to the Templeton Foundation.

In my class of physics majors in college, I never knew what their religious beliefs were, but one of them became a Catholic priest (I think) after graduation. Granted, that's a non-representative sample and only one out of eight people, but I'd be curious just how non-representative that is.

12% active belief in God isn't unreasonable, given the numbers above. Of course 12% actively believing in God enough to seek ordination is a little unusual.... but I don't think that your "non-representative sample" is bizarre enough to question the overall findings....

 

[drkitten]

Well, I'm trying to find some statistics, but I recall seeing some polls in the past. Still, you only need see how creationists rail against "atheist scientists" as opposed to "atheist encyclopedia salesmen" or "atheist chartered accountants."

Doesn't follow. "Atheist scientists" are a threat precisely because they are a relatively powerful and authoritative group that's directly opposed to the creationist policy agenda. More accurately, "scientists" as a whole tend to be opposed to creationism (and in a relative position of power, so their opposition is effective), and "atheist" is a convenient tag that can be used to demonize the group, regardless of its accuracy (for example, Ken Miller is very firmly not an atheist, despite being an evolutionist. I suspect that particular subtlety does not come out very often when he gets villified.) No one particularly cares whether "chartered accountants" are in favor of creationism or not; they have no special authority or bully pulpit.

Creationists similarly rail against "activist judges" -- Judge Jones called that one in his Dover decision -- despite the fact that legal opposition to creationism is manifestly not "activism." Similarly, "atheist judges" come under a lot of fire, despite the fact that most of the current Federal bench are Republican appointees and almost none of them are card-carrying atheists. But it's much easier to criticize someone if you don't have any particular regard for the facts. And what creationist does? The simple fact is that the judges speak from a particular position of authority and privilege that the creationists don't have, and in many cases don't have a hope of getting. Easier to try to minimize the authority of scientists and judges than to acquire it yourself.

 

[Loss Leader]

Given the complexities of the universe, I often hear those who have a firm basis in a belief in God say "Science is ever proving that the construction and formulation of the universe is only the result of a God".

Often I hear people say that maths proves it, or the distruption in the so and so causes this, but I ask:

Any of it true?

How can one prove the existence of something that does not even have a consistent operational definition?

 

[Tricky]

Doesn't follow. "Atheist scientists" are a threat precisely because they are a relatively powerful and authoritative group that's directly opposed to the creationist policy agenda. More accurately, "scientists" as a whole tend to be opposed to creationism (and in a relative position of power, so their opposition is effective), and "atheist" is a convenient tag that can be used to demonize the group, regardless of its accuracy (for example, Ken Miller is very firmly not an atheist, despite being an evolutionist.

It was meant as an interesting (and tongue-in-cheek) observation rather than a logical argument. (Think "Crimson Permanent Assurance".)

Another interesting observation is that creationsists seem to be playing both sides against the middle on this. From one side (as in the OP) they say that science supports God. From the other side, they rail because scientists are against God. Of course "they" are not a monolithic group, but they seem to have a common goal.

 

[Beleth]

Depends on what you mean by God.

If one's definition of God is so nebulous as to include all of nature, then yeah, science points to God.

If one's definition of God is specific like "The being called 'El' in the Old Testament, or the being called 'Yahweh' in the Old Testament, or the being called 'God' in the New Testament, but not the being called 'Allah' in the Koran", then science points away from God.

If one's definition of God is something like "an intelligent non-material non-temporal entity who created the material temporal universe", then science tends to paint such an entity into an ever-smaller corner. Whether science will ever paint such an entity out of existence entirely is unknown at this point.

 

[ceo_esq]

The percentage of atheists is much higher among scientists than in the population in general. I think you have your answer.

Assuming that to be true, how does it answer the question of whether science as such points towards or away from the existence of God? It seems as though there are many other possible factors that could play a role in explaining the correspondence (including, but not limited to, increased self-selection for careers in science by people who incline toward atheism).

 

[triadboy]

Assuming that to be true, how does it answer the question of whether science as such points towards or away from the existence of God? It seems as though there are many other possible factors that could play a role in explaining the correspondence (including, but not limited to, increased self-selection for careers in science by people who incline toward atheism).

One explanations is - well-read, intelligent, worldly, unafraid, curious, "scientific" people tend to be more atheist.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Does science point away from a God or lean towards

Science points toward another question, no matter how many questions have been asked, or answered.

DR

 

[Undesired Walrus]

You should really ask those making the claim. I would be very interested in seeing the "maths".

Complexity of DNA, Newton etc.. blah blah..

 

[This Guy]

Assuming that to be true, how does it answer the question of whether science as such points towards or away from the existence of God? It seems as though there are many other possible factors that could play a role in explaining the correspondence (including, but not limited to, increased self-selection for careers in science by people who incline toward atheism).

It would seem to me that if science "points toward God" those "inclined toward atheism" that enter the science fields would be led toward a belief in God, and would have a tendency to leave atheism, and move toward some form of Deity belief/worship.

I think the references posted above tend to dispute that that has happened.

I would think that those entering the fields of science would be made up, more or less from the same belief backgrounds as those in the general population, on a percentage basis. The apparent fact that that percentage drops once they have become scientist (however that is defined ) would at least imply that science tends to point away from a belief in a Deity.

 

[Puppycow]

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins gives the "Ultimate 747" as an argument against God*. Postulating a God, does not answer any mystery because it raises the question of what created God. If things can't "just happen" then God can't "just happen" either, can he? The big bang is indeed mysterious, but it is no less unreasonable to imagine that the universe "just happened" than to imagine that God "just happened". Since God brings us no closer to understanding the ultimate truth, Occam's razor says cut him out.

Imagine a theory that the world rests on the back of a giant turtle. As a scientific explanation, this doesn't help much because it raises the question of what does the giant turtle rest on. God is like that.

*God defined as what most religious people think of as God, rather than some vague pantheistic definition such as the universe itself is God.