Intelligence and Religiosity

[Kbertsche]

... Of course many scientists will be Christian when the alternative is ostracization or even death. This is in contrast to more modern times in the West, where one can be non-Christian or Christian, without necessarily being ostracized or killed. And with that pressure thus removed, it's turned out that scientists tend to be less religious than the general population, and tha leading scientists (ex: those in the US National Academy of Sciences) tend to be less religious than the general population. This is explained, in part, by what I discussed in the OP: analytic thinking promotes religious non-belief/disbelief, and since analytic thinking is more prevalent amongst scientists, this means religious non-belief/disbelief is more prevalent amongst scientists.

" The Origins of Reigious Disbelief"
http://www.ascs.uky.edu/sites/defaul...3%20TiCS_0.pdf

"As a first example, why are scientists less religious than the general population [67]? To begin with, analytic thinkers are likely to be more attracted to science than are intuitive thinkers. The scientific enterprise selects for and encourages a materialistic understanding of the world that in many ways is counterintuitive [68]. Scientific training further cultivates habitual use of analytic thinking, possibly rendering it less cognitively effortful with practice. Moreover, we speculate that scientific subcultures enjoy high levels of existential security and generally operate in the context of societies with strong secular institutions, where religious displays are less normative. In scientific communities, disbelief is common and more pronounced among the most prestigious members [67]; therefore, conformity and prestige-driven cultural learning processes might further encourage disbelief. These various pathways converge in creating a subculture of majority nonbelievers (23-24)."

You and your quote are probably correct that scientists are less religious than the general population. (However, I believe that there is conflicting data on this question, depending on how questions about religion are asked.)

But it is also a historical fact that the great pioneers of modern science (Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Maxwell, Faraday, etc.) tended to be MORE religious than the general population. Newton wrote more on theology than he did on science. As Barbour has written:

Source: Ian Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion, p. 48

Without belittling advances that occurred elsewhere, one can say that seventeenth-century England was the turning point in the history of science, and that the Puritans were its chief agents. Seven out of ten members of the Royal Society were Puritans--a ratio far out of proportion to the population as a whole; most of the virtuosi were active churchmen, and many of the clergy encouraged or themselves took part in scientific pursuits.

© Copyright Original Source

[Jichard]

You and your quote are probably correct that scientists are less religious than the general population. (However, I believe that there is conflicting data on this question, depending on how questions about religion are asked.)

Cite the data then.

But it is also a historical fact that the great pioneers of modern science (Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Maxwell, Faraday, etc.) tended to be MORE religious than the general population. Newton wrote more on theology than he did on science.

Laplace, Poisson, Hume (yes, psychology is a science), Darwin (for modern biology), Huxley, etc.

You might want to take a look at non-English scientists as well, like those in France.

As Barbour has written:

Source: Ian Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion, p. 48

Without belittling advances that occurred elsewhere, one can say that seventeenth-century England was the turning point in the history of science, and that the Puritans were its chief agents. Seven out of ten members of the Royal Society were Puritans--a ratio far out of proportion to the population as a whole; most of the virtuosi were active churchmen, and many of the clergy encouraged or themselves took part in scientific pursuits.

© Copyright Original Source

The smaller one's sample size, the easier it is to get a ratio that's out-of-skew simply due to chance, as opposed to a real effect. That's particularly problematic with a sample size of just 10 people in the Royal Society.

In any event, your point is interesting, but is it consistent with scientific evidence on the religious views of large numbers of scientists living at that time? Because looking at 10 scientists isn't particularly persuasive, if it's not backed up by data on large numbers of scientists. After all, I was just as easily able to list 5 leading pioneers of modern science who weren't Christian.

[Kbertsche]

Cite the data then.

Sorry, but I'm too swamped with work this week to hunt it down. Remind me next week if no-one else comes up with references in the mean time.

Laplace, Poisson, Hume (yes, psychology is a science), Darwin (for modern biology), Huxley, etc.

You might want to take a look at non-English scientists as well, like those in France.

Apples and oranges. I'm talking mainly about those who brought science from its idealistic Greek conception to its modern conception, which is based on experiment (Bacon), mathematics (Kepler), and theoritecal abstraction (Galileo), and which was carried further by Newton, Boyle, and others in the seventeenth century. The folks that you list are mostly much later. (And note that Kepler and Galileo ARE non-English.)

The smaller one's sample size, the easier it is to get a ratio that's out-of-skew simply due to chance, as opposed to a real effect. That's particularly problematic with a sample size of just 10 people in the Royal Society.

In any event, your point is interesting, but is it consistent with scientific evidence on the religious views of large numbers of scientists living at that time? Because looking at 10 scientists isn't particularly persuasive, if it's not backed up by data on large numbers of scientists. After all, I was just as easily able to list 5 leading pioneers of modern science who weren't Christian.

You have completely misread Barbour's quote! Go back and re-read it, and think a bit. In the English language, "seven out of ten" is another way of saying "70%". It does NOT imply that there are only 10 total members. Do you really think that the British Royal Society had only 10 total scientists as members throughout the entire seventeenth century?!? Do you have a clue as to what the Royal Society is?!?

Barbour is saying that 70% of the members of the world's most prestigious scientific society in the seventeenth century were Puritans, and that most of these were very devout in their faith.

[Kbertsche]

Cite the data then.

Here's something to get you started. Elaine Howard Ecklund of Rice University has been doing some detailed studies of the religious faith of scientists. Here's the beginning of a popular-level article on her studies from livescience:

Source: livescience

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

© Copyright Original Source

[tabibito]

Sorry, but I'm too swamped with work this week to hunt it down. Remind me next week if no-one else comes up with references in the mean time.



Apples and oranges. I'm talking mainly about those who brought science from its idealistic Greek conception to its modern conception, which is based on experiment (Bacon), mathematics (Kepler), and theoritecal abstraction (Galileo), and which was carried further by Newton, Boyle, and others in the seventeenth century. The folks that you list are mostly much later. (And note that Kepler and Galileo ARE non-English.)


You have completely misread Barbour's quote! Go back and re-read it, and think a bit. In the English language, "seven out of ten" is another way of saying "70%". It does NOT imply that there are only 10 total members. Do you really think that the British Royal Society had only 10 total scientists as members throughout the entire seventeenth century?!? Do you have a clue as to what the Royal Society is?!?

Barbour is saying that 70% of the members of the world's most prestigious scientific society in the seventeenth century were Puritans, and that most of these were very devout in their faith.

That brings up an interesting point: Is English Jichard's mother tongue. Missing the difference between "seven out of ten" and seven out of the ten" might indicate that it isn't.

[Sea of red]

Sorry, but I'm too swamped with work this week to hunt it down. Remind me next week if no-one else comes up with references in the mean time.



Apples and oranges. I'm talking mainly about those who brought science from its idealistic Greek conception to its modern conception, which is based on experiment (Bacon), mathematics (Kepler), and theoritecal abstraction (Galileo), and which was carried further by Newton, Boyle, and others in the seventeenth century. The folks that you list are mostly much later. (And note that Kepler and Galileo ARE non-English.)


You have completely misread Barbour's quote! Go back and re-read it, and think a bit. In the English language, "seven out of ten" is another way of saying "70%". It does NOT imply that there are only 10 total members. Do you really think that the British Royal Society had only 10 total scientists as members throughout the entire seventeenth century?!? Do you have a clue as to what the Royal Society is?!?

Barbour is saying that 70% of the members of the world's most prestigious scientific society in the seventeenth century were Puritans, and that most of these were very devout in their faith.

What about the pioneers of modern astronomy and physics? Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Hoyle, Dirac, Feynmann, and later types like Hawking and Peter Higgs are/were non-theists.

The question isn't really 'do scientists believe in god?'. The real question is: what value do scientists find in religion? How much do they accept and why?

[Kbertsche]

What about the pioneers of modern astronomy and physics? Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Hoyle, Dirac, Feynmann, and later types like Hawking and Peter Higgs are/were non-theists.

The question isn't really 'do scientists believe in god?'. The real question is: what value do scientists find in religion? How much do they accept and why?

Einstein was definitely a theist, though he thought God was impersonal. He had very strong comments against those who would try to use his work to support atheism.


I know that some of the others that you mention are/were atheists. I know that Compton, Millikan, Charles Townes, and Freeman Dyson and numerous others are/were theists.

I like the following quote from Schroedinger:

[klaus54]

What about the pioneers of modern astronomy and physics? Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Hoyle, Dirac, Feynmann, and later types like Hawking and Peter Higgs are/were non-theists.

The question isn't really 'do scientists believe in god?'. The real question is: what value do scientists find in religion? How much do they accept and why?

Science is not a popularity contest.

This whole thread is profoundly stupid.

Scientific method cannot prove or disprove theism.

Period.

P.S. Since we're judging theism by percent of scientist who were/are, I offer Lamaitre, one of the two scientists who proposed the Big Bang hypothesis (the other being the atheist, Friedman.)

[Sea of red]

Einstein was definitely a theist, though he thought God was impersonal. He had very strong comments against those who would try to use his work to support atheism.

Einstein was most certainly not a theist. He lived in a time where the identity of atheism was strongly connected to the politics of communism, so it's no surprise the man really didn't like the word. It's clear he didn't believe in an anthropomorphic god of theism (deism) but instead had a kind of pantheisic style belief about he universe - using god a synonym for nature and natural law.

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being" - Einstein

So he was more of an agnostic pantheist.

[Sea of red]

Science is not a popularity contest.

This whole thread is profoundly stupid.

Scientific method cannot prove or disprove theism.

Period.

P.S. Since we're judging theism by percent of scientist who were/are, I offer Lamaitre, one of the two scientists who proposed the Big Bang hypothesis (the other being the atheist, Friedman.)

You actually know about Alexander Friedman, eh? I'm impressed.

[klaus54]

You actually know about Alexander Friedman, eh? I'm impressed.

Not personally.

[Kbertsche]

Einstein was most certainly not a theist. He lived in a time where the identity of atheism was strongly connected to the politics of communism, so it's no surprise the man really didn't like the word. It's clear he didn't believe in an anthropomorphic god of theism (deism) but instead had a kind of pantheisic style belief about he universe - using god a synonym for nature and natural law.

This is nonsensical doublespeak. What is a pantheist if not a type of theist?!?

We agree that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. His view of God was more pantheistic (as you say), similar to Spinoza's view of God. But he was a theist nonetheless.

Perhaps you need to look up "pantheism" in a dictionary to see that it is, indeed, a form of theism?

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being" - Einstein

So he was more of an agnostic pantheist.

Einstein was certainly not a Christian. But this is not the same as an atheist, even from a Jesuit perspective. Perhaps he was overstating the case to distance himself from the Jesuits, or perhaps he was not clear on the distinctions. In any case, he frequently referred to God in his speaking and writing, e.g.:

Source: Einstein

The theory {of quantum mechanics} says a lot, but does not bring us any closer to the secrets of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice.

The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not.

I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious.

What I'm really interested in is whether God could have made the world in a different way; that is, whether the necessity of logical simplicity leaves any freedom at all.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sea of red]

This is nonsensical doublespeak. What is a pantheist if not a type of theist?!?

We agree that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. His view of God was more pantheistic (as you say), similar to Spinoza's view of God. But he was a theist nonetheless.

Perhaps you need to look up "pantheism" in a dictionary to see that it is, indeed, a form of theism?

Einstein was certainly not a Christian. But this is not the same as an atheist, even from a Jesuit perspective. Perhaps he was overstating the case to distance himself from the Jesuits, or perhaps he was not clear on the distinctions. In any case, he frequently referred to God in his speaking and writing, e.g.:

Source: Einstein

The theory {of quantum mechanics} says a lot, but does not bring us any closer to the secrets of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice.

The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not.

I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious.

What I'm really interested in is whether God could have made the world in a different way; that is, whether the necessity of logical simplicity leaves any freedom at all.

© Copyright Original Source

Einstein used god as a way of asking if the parameters of the universe could be varied, or if fundamentals made the laws of physics the way they are, and a final theory of physics could be derived. It had nothing to do with religion and more to do with his commitment to determinism - which is why he dismissed a lot of interpretations of QM. This is why in your very own quote you see Einstein saying "He is not playing dice" as a reference to QM being deterministic in his view. You don't know this stuff?

As for pantheism: http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm

So what's the difference between Atheism and Pantheism? As far as disbelief in supernatural beings, forces or realms, there is no difference. World Pantheism also shares the respect for evidence, science, and logic that's typical of atheism.

[Kbertsche]

As for pantheism: http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm

Source: pantheism.net

So what's the difference between Atheism and Pantheism? As far as disbelief in supernatural beings, forces or realms, there is no difference. World Pantheism also shares the respect for evidence, science, and logic that's typical of atheism.

© Copyright Original Source

Did you notice the qualifiers in your quote, which I highlighted? Your quote is not a definition, but an apologetic argument for similarity between pantheism and atheism.

Here is a dictionary definition for pantheism: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pantheism

Source: dictionary.reference.com

pantheism
[pan-thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1.
the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2.
any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

© Copyright Original Source

Yes, a pantheist may be similar to an atheist in many ways. However, a pantheist believes in a god; an atheist does not. A pantheist is a type of theist, not an atheist.

Claims that Einstein was an atheist are simply wrong. You might as well try to claim that 2+2=5.

[Kbertsche]

That brings up an interesting point: Is English Jichard's mother tongue. Missing the difference between "seven out of ten" and seven out of the ten" might indicate that it isn't.

Yes, perhaps English is his second language, he has no clue what the Royal Society is, and doesn't realize that it had many more than 10 members. If so, I may have replied a bit too harshly to him.