• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scientists and atheism.

You know, we don't get many idolators showing up here, but to me, that's one of the most reasonable religions of all.

You have your idol, it really exists, you worship it, maybe sacrifice to it, and give it credit for the good things that happen to you.

Who can deny that your god exists?
 
arcticpenguin said:

But among the theists, they presumably don't all agree on the same god.


Does it change that they still believe in something supernatural?

They can call it whatever they want, it is still the same.
 
Q-Source said:



Does it change that they still believe in something supernatural?

They can call it whatever they want, it is still the same.

Should God in all cases be considered to be "supernatural"?
 
Interesting Ian said:
Should God in all cases be considered to be "supernatural"?

Most definitions insist on this. If "god" is indistinguishable from "nature", then what is the point of calling it god? Just call it nature. If god "controls" nature, then god is supernatural.
 
Tricky said:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Should God in all cases be considered to be "supernatural"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Most definitions insist on this. If "god" is indistinguishable from "nature", then what is the point of calling it god? Just call it nature. If god "controls" nature, then god is supernatural.

Could you tell me if our consciousnesses are indistinguishable from the physical processes occuring in the brain?
 
Are most scientists atheists?

That depends on your definition of "Scientists".

Are the high priests of the SETI institute "Scientists", or just religious fanatics?
 
Re: Re: Dark Cobra's Reference

Interesting Ian said:


It seems to me that only the less intelligent theists and all atheists have such a conception of "God" as an existent existing amongst other existents. Sagans analogy is therefore completely misplaced, unless you are only interesting in attempting to refute either atheists conceptions of "God", or stupid theists conceptions of "God"?

Could you point me to any threads on this forum where you haven't appeared to be a total ass?



( clue: Atheists do not have a conception of God. )
 
Re: Re: Re: Dark Cobra's Reference

----
Atheists do not have a conception of God.
----


That's interesting then, because you typed "God" instead of "god(s)", for example.

So clearly you do have a conception of what a god would be like if it existed.
 
----
Are most scientists atheists?
----


I'd like to ask the question:

Is the association between being a scientist and being an atheist statistically significant?

We could set up a chi-square test for starters. A 2x2 table would look something like:

(A for Atheist, S for Scientist, NA and NS for Not, etc.)

.....S NS
A|___|___|

NA|___|___|

And then go around asking people and fill in the table with your tallys.

If we'd all do this in a similar fashion (and some other assumptions reasonably satisfied), then we could combine our tables and explore the question.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Could you tell me if our consciousnesses are indistinguishable from the physical processes occuring in the brain?
They appear to be indistinguishable. Do you have any evidence that they can be distinguished? How would one perform tests for this?

For that matter, show me how your concept of God is distinguishable from nature. If you can do this, explain how your concept of God is not supernatural.
 
Re: Re: Scientists and atheism.

Whodini said:
----
Are most scientists atheists?
----


I'd like to ask the question:

Is the association between being a scientist and being an atheist statistically significant?

We could set up a chi-square test for starters. A 2x2 table would look something like:

(A for Atheist, S for Scientist, NA and NS for Not, etc.)

.....S NS
A|___|___|

NA|___|___|

And then go around asking people and fill in the table with your tallys.

If we'd all do this in a similar fashion (and some other assumptions reasonably satisfied), then we could combine our tables and explore the question.
The problem with this: how do you define "scientist"? Clearly, someone who makes their living studying science is one, but what about a university student who is majoring in Biochemistry? Is someone who extensively versed in particle physics due to an interest a "scientist"?

The term "scientist" seems to have a very fuzzy definition.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dark Cobra's Reference

Whodini said:
----
Atheists do not have a conception of God.
----


That's interesting then, because you typed "God" instead of "god(s)", for example.

So clearly you do have a conception of what a god would be like if it existed.

Using the singular form of a noun instead of the plural form shows "clearly" that you have a conception of singular--form-of-noun, if it existed? Wha?

What the original person said doesn't make much sense to me, but what you said in response makes even less.
 
Someone else posted this site earlier in another thread, and it includes references to many studies on IQ and some on statistical comparison of belief in god amongst scientists in various fields: http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html

STUDIES Of SCIENTISTS

1. William S. Ament, 1927
C. C. Little, president of the University of Michigan, checked persons listed in Who's Who in America: "Unitarians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Universalists, and Presbyterians [who are less religious] are… far more numerous in Who's Who than would be expected on the basis of the population which they form. Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics are distinctly less numerous."

Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the least religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in Who's Who as in the U.S. population.

2. Lehman and Witty, 1931
Identified 1189 scientists found in both Who's Who (1927) and American Men of Science (1927). Only 25 percent of those listed in the latter and 50 percent of those in the former reported their religious denomination, despite the specific request to do so, under the heading of "religious denomination (if any)." Well over 90 percent of the general population claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25 percent suggests far less religiosity among scientists.

Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists as non-Unitarians.

3. Kelley and Fisk, 1951
Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious values and research competence. [How these were measured is unknown.]

4. Ann Roe, 1953
Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attend… All the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no part in their lives… A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not interested.'"

5. Francis Bello, 1954
Interviewed or questionnaired 107 nonindustrial scientists under the age of 40 judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. Of the 87 responses, 45 percent claimed to be "agnostic or atheistic" and an additional 22 percent claimed no religious affiliation. For 20 most eminent, "the proportion who are now a-religious is considerably higher than in the entire survey group."

6. Jack Chambers, 1964
Questionnaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, "The highly creative men… significantly more often show either no preference for a particular religion or little or no interest in religion." Found that the most eminent psychologists showed 40 percent no preference, 16 percent for the most eminent chemists.

7. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965
Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in American Men of Science (1955) on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. Of the 642 replies, 38.5 percent did not believe in an afterlife, whereas 31.8 percent did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The Gallup poll taken about this time showed that two-thirds of the U.S. population believed in an afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than the typical adult.
 
Re: Re: Re: Scientists and atheism.

----
The problem with this: how do you define "scientist"? Clearly, someone who makes their living studying science is one, but what about a university student who is majoring in Biochemistry?
----


If one has any degree in a scientific field (as determined by the majority of universities) and one is practicing one or more of these areas for their occupation.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dark Cobra's Reference

----
Using the singular form of a noun instead of the plural form shows "clearly" that you have a conception of singular--form-of-noun, if it existed? Wha?
----


You used the singular, so you feel if there is a god there is only one of them.

You also used the capital G version, which usually refers to the Judeao-Christian variety.

When I say "god", what picutre pops into your mind?

Some conception I bet, but you probably won't admit.
 
Tricky said:

They appear to be indistinguishable. Do you have any evidence that they can be distinguished? How would one perform tests for this?

For that matter, show me how your concept of God is distinguishable from nature. If you can do this, explain how your concept of God is not supernatural.

I would say that if our consciousnesses are indistinguishable from certain physical processes (namely those in the brain), then it seems difficult to deny that God's consciousness (should he exist) is indistinguishable from certain physical processes.

Now tell me. Are our consciousnesses supernatural? If not then why are you declaring finite consciousnesses (ie ourselves) not to be supernatural, and yet you're declaring an infinite consciousness to be supernatural? If both are indistinguishable from particular physical processes, that is to say if our consciousnesses are indistinguishable from physical processes within the brain, and God's consciousness is indistinguishable from all the physical processes in the Universe as a whole, then why are you declaring one type of consciousness, ie the infinite consciousness to be supernatural, and the finite consciousness, ie our consciousnesses, not to be supernatural? Since both are either actually equivalent, or are a logical function of particular physical processes, I submit your position is inconsistent.
 
Interesting Ian said:


I would say that if our consciousnesses are indistinguishable from certain physical processes (namely those in the brain), then it seems difficult to deny that God's consciousness (should he exist) is indistinguishable from certain physical processes.

Now tell me. Are our consciousnesses supernatural? If not then why are you declaring finite consciousnesses (ie ourselves) not to be supernatural, and yet you're declaring an infinite consciousness to be supernatural?
Because we have a great deal of evidence for finite consciousnesses, and not a shred for infinite consciousnesses. If they exist, they appear lie outside the natural realm of consciousness, i.e. the brain. That is, unless you can find a natural location for the "infinite consciousness" and show how natural processes affect it, as you can with human consciousnesses.


Interesting Ian said:

If both are indistinguishable from particular physical processes, that is to say if our consciousnesses are indistinguishable from physical processes within the brain, and God's consciousness is indistinguishable from all the physical processes in the Universe as a whole, then why are you declaring one type of consciousness, ie the infinite consciousness to be supernatural, and the finite consciousness, ie our consciousnesses, not to be supernatural?
I cannot discern any physical processes which influence God's consciousness. Indeed, I cannot discern God's consciousness at all. If you can design a test that shows that a stimulus in the natural world affects God's consciousness, then I will concede the point. There are many such tests for human consciousness.

Interesting Ian said:
Since both are either actually equivalent, or are a logical function of particular physical processes, by what criteria are you able to declare the infinite consciousness supernatural, and yet the finite consciousness not supernatural??
LOL. Are you actually declaring human consciousness and God's consciousness to be equivalent? "Thou art God", as Heinlen says? Good for you. You've effectively reduced God to human status. I've always thought He was a human creation.

But to try to address your point. All human consciousnesses are associated with a physical brain, manipulation of which will affect the consciousness. To suggest a consciousness which is not associated with a physical brain is outside any experience of nature, hence, supernatural. As soon as you can show me (not just suggest) how manipulation of "nature" affects God's consciousness, then I will accept that God is not supernatural.
 
Re: Re: Scientists and atheism.

Whodini said:

I'd like to ask the question:

Is the association between being a scientist and being an atheist statistically significant?

It is statistically significant, just read one of the many studies about it.

About the chi-square test. Remember that correlation does NOT mean in any way causation.

All the results about atheism and science do not imply that science causes people to become atheist. It just means that on average we can find a stronger relationship between atheism and science, than theism and science.
 
Interesting Ian said:

...it seems difficult to deny that God's consciousness (should he exist) is indistinguishable from certain physical processes.

I thought you were anti-materialist.


Ian:
Now tell me. Are our consciousnesses supernatural? If not then why are you declaring finite consciousnesses (ie ourselves) not to be supernatural, and yet you're declaring an infinite consciousness to be supernatural?

God is by definition supernatural. In fact, this is an assertion that theists hold (and desperately need) in order to avoid presenting objective evidence.
 

Back
Top Bottom