Religious belief among scientists

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Brazilian Marcelo Gleiser -- a theoretical physicist dedicated to demonstrating science and religion are not enemies.

A physics and astronomy professor whose specializations include cosmology, 60-year-old Gleiser was born in Rio de Janeiro, and has been in the United States since 1986.

An agnostic, he doesn't believe in God -- but refuses to write off the possibility of God's existence completely.

"Science can give answers to certain questions, up to a point," Gleiser pointed out.

"This has been known for a very long time in philosophy, it's called the problem of the first cause: we get stuck," the physicist, a father of five, said.

"We should have the humility to accept that there's mystery around us."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.a...ist-marcelo-gleiser-science-does-not-kill-god
Click to expand...
^ Makes eminent sense to me.


Here is how belief breaks down among scientists:

Medical & biological sciences:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 51%
Atheist or agnostic - 41%

Chemistry:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 55%
Atheist or agnostic - 39%

Geosciences:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 50%
Atheist or agnostic - 47%

Physics:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 43%
Atheist or agnostic - 46%
https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

^^ I have no idea why chemists have a higher level of religious faith. My hypothesis: chemists are not as familiar with cosmology, deep time, and evolution as physicists and geoscientists. IMO, those are the types of scientific questions which are predisposed towards making one think about the philosophy of an ultimate reality and the nature of divinity.
 
I don't think it would be right to put Atheists and Agnostics in the same category.

And I do not believe you can totally exclude Agnostics from theists or deists either.

And I'll tell you why, as theists and deists struggle with their beliefs just as much as Agnostics and may really all be the very same thing.

I know you Christian Soldiers out there will cast me to hell for saying that- BUT THAT's OK!

Many people will claim to be CHRISTIANS even though they are not- and they know they are not! For example- The Illuminati who originated from early scientists.

Just my personal thoughts on the matter.

Atheists are the only easily identifiable entity and are in a class all by themselves, as they do not believe in a higher source- END OF STORY- PASS THE PEANUTS!

Everyone else may very well be agnostics- and of course many will not admit it!
 
Last edited:
Geeko Sportivo said:
I don't think it would be right to put Atheists and Agnostics in the same category

And I do not believe you can totally exclude Agnostics from theists or deists either.
Click to expand...

I agree, unfortunately as far as I could tell the Pew survey did not make any distinction to tease apart atheists and agnostics.

I actually think honest-to-goodness genuine atheists are a small minority among scientists.

And I'll tell you why, as theists and deists struggle with their beliefs just as much as Agnostics and may really all be the very same thing.

I know you Christian Soldiers out there will cast me to hell for saying that- BUT THAT's OK!

Many people will claim to be CHRISTIANS even though they are not- and they know they are not! For example- The Illuminati who originated from early scientists.

Just my personal thoughts on the matter.

Atheists are the only easily identifiable entity and are in a class all by themselves, as they do not believe in a higher source- END OF STORY- PASS THE PEANUTS!

Everyone else may very well be agnostics- and of course many will not admit it!
Click to expand...

I believe almost all Christians have doubts, or go through periods of doubt and skepticism. In that sense the boundary between theist and agnostic is undoutedly fluid and diffuse - not crisp and clear..
 
Cypress said:
^ Makes eminent sense to me.


Here is how belief breaks down among scientists:

Medical & biological sciences:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 51%
Atheist or agnostic - 41%

Chemistry:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 55%
Atheist or agnostic - 39%

Geosciences:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 50%
Atheist or agnostic - 47%

Physics:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 43%
Atheist or agnostic - 46%
https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

^^ I have no idea why chemists have a higher level of religious faith. My hypothesis: chemists are not as familiar with cosmology, deep time, and evolution as physicists and geoscientists. IMO, those are the types of scientific questions which are predisposed towards making one think about the philosophy of an ultimate reality and the nature of divinity.
Click to expand...
I’m all about the mystery, not the tenets, not the dogma, I didn’t mind some of the ritual or traditions, but religion, overall, isn’t my thing.
 
Phantasmal said:
I’m all about the mystery, not the tenets, not the dogma, I didn’t mind some of the ritual or traditions, but religion, overall, isn’t my thing.
Click to expand...

I totally get that. I hate the type of Protestant Christianity where one sits in a Pew and has to listen to some Pastor lecture you.

I like the Quaker service because it is utterly free of any lecturing and is very personal.

The thing I like about the Orthodox service is the focus on mysticism, ritual, and the lack of any lecturing or preaching.
 
Cypress said:
I agree, unfortunately as far as I could tell the Pew survey did not make any distinction to tease apart atheists and agnostics.

I actually think honest-to-goodness genuine atheists are a small minority among scientists.



I believe almost all Christians have doubts, or go through periods of doubt and skepticism. In that sense the boundary between theist and agnostic is undoutedly fluid and diffuse - not crisp and clear..
Click to expand...

I certainly appreciate your comments and your honesty about this!
 
Cypress said:
^ Makes eminent sense to me.


Here is how belief breaks down among scientists:

Medical & biological sciences:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 51%
Atheist or agnostic - 41%

Chemistry:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 55%
Atheist or agnostic - 39%

Geosciences:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 50%
Atheist or agnostic - 47%

Physics:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 43%
Atheist or agnostic - 46%
https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

^^ I have no idea why chemists have a higher level of religious faith. My hypothesis: chemists are not as familiar with cosmology, deep time, and evolution as physicists and geoscientists. IMO, those are the types of scientific questions which are predisposed towards making one think about the philosophy of an ultimate reality and the nature of divinity.
Click to expand...


Thanks. I hereby convert to your religion.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
I certainly appreciate your comments and your honesty about this!
Click to expand...
This would be a more realistic way of reporting out people's position on faith.

Some scholars have argued that simply asking people whether or not they believe in God is not sufficient to really capture the attitudes people have toward the existence of a deity. Richard Dawkins came up with a seven-point scale to determine people’s beliefs with more precision:

1. Absolute certainty in God’s existence.

2. High degree of confidence in God’s existence, but with some doubt.

3. Leaning toward belief in God’s existence, but with less confidence.

4. Completely neutral—equal degree of probability that there is or is not a God.

5. Leaning toward rejection of the belief in God(s).

6. High degree of confidence that God does not exist, but with some doubt.

7. Absolute certainty in the nonexistence of God(s).

Simply asking people the yes/no question, “Do you believe in God,” makes it seem like there are only 1s and 7s out there. However, a majority may fall in categories 2 through 6.


Source credit: Mark Berkson, PhD, professor of religious studies.
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
^ Makes eminent sense to me.


Here is how belief breaks down among scientists:

Medical & biological sciences:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 51%
Atheist or agnostic - 41%

Chemistry:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 55%
Atheist or agnostic - 39%

Geosciences:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 50%
Atheist or agnostic - 47%

Physics:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 43%
Atheist or agnostic - 46%
https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

^^ I have no idea why chemists have a higher level of religious faith. My hypothesis: chemists are not as familiar with cosmology, deep time, and evolution as physicists and geoscientists. IMO, those are the types of scientific questions which are predisposed towards making one think about the philosophy of an ultimate reality and the nature of divinity.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as an 'ultimate reality' or absolute reality. The branch of philosophy known as phenomenology defines what 'reality' means.
There is no theory of science called 'cosmology'. There is no theory of science about past unobserved events. The Theory of Evolution is not science. It is a religion. The Theory of Abiogenesis is not science. it is a religion. The Theory of Creation is not science. It is a religion. The Theory of the Big Bang is not science. It is a religion. The Theory of the Continuum is not science. It is a religion.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not use supporting evidence. No theory is ever proven True. It is not possible to prove True or False any theory about a past unobserved event.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with argument extending from that. Religions do not necessarily require a god or gods or even to be organized in any way. The circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. It is also called the Argument of Faith, or simply 'faith'.

Attempting to prove a circular argument either True or False is the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory of science must be falsifiable. A non-scientific theory simply remains the circular argument it started as.

Science is not people at all. It is not scientists. It is just the set of falsifiable theories themselves.
 
Cypress said:
This would be a more realistic way of reporting out people's position on faith.
Click to expand...

Some scholars have argued that simply asking people whether or not they believe in God is not sufficient to really capture the attitudes people have toward the existence of a deity. Richard Dawkins came up with a seven-point scale to determine people’s beliefs with more precision:

1. Absolute certainty in God’s existence.

2. High degree of confidence in God’s existence, but with some doubt.

3. Leaning toward belief in God’s existence, but with less confidence.

4. Completely neutral—equal degree of probability that there is or is not a God.

5. Leaning toward rejection of the belief in God(s).

6. High degree of confidence that God does not exist, but with some doubt.

7. Absolute certainty in the nonexistence of God(s).

Simply asking people the yes/no question, “Do you believe in God,” makes it seem like there are only 1s and 7s out there. However, a majority may fall in categories 2 through 6.


Source credit: Mark Berkson, PhD, professor of religious studies.

I have to take issue with this professor. Items 1-3 are a belief in a god or gods. Items 5-7 are a belief in no god or gods. Item 4 is atheism.
 
Into the Night said:
There is no such thing as an 'ultimate reality' or absolute reality. The branch of philosophy known as phenomenology defines what 'reality' means.
There is no theory of science called 'cosmology'. There is no theory of science about past unobserved events. The Theory of Evolution is not science. It is a religion. The Theory of Abiogenesis is not science. it is a religion. The Theory of Creation is not science. It is a religion. The Theory of the Big Bang is not science. It is a religion. The Theory of the Continuum is not science. It is a religion.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not use supporting evidence. No theory is ever proven True. It is not possible to prove True or False any theory about a past unobserved event.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with argument extending from that. Religions do not necessarily require a god or gods or even to be organized in any way. The circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. It is also called the Argument of Faith, or simply 'faith'.

Attempting to prove a circular argument either True or False is the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory of science must be falsifiable. A non-scientific theory simply remains the circular argument it started as.

Science is not people at all. It is not scientists. It is just the set of falsifiable theories themselves.
Click to expand...

You are like a broken record.

True reality, a higher reality, ultimate reality (take your pick) exists independently of our minds. Our minds do not have direct access to true or higher reality. The reality we perceive or feel that we understand is filtered, shaped, interpreted by our sensory perceptions, our neurology, our psychology, and on the beliefs we hold at any given time.
 
Cypress said:
You are like a broken record.

True reality, a higher reality, ultimate reality (take your pick) exists independently of our minds. Our minds to not have direct access to true or higher reality. The reality we perceive or feel that we understand is filtered, shaped, interpreted by our sensory perceptions, our neurology, our psychology, and on the beliefs we hold at any given time.
Click to expand...

Prove it.
 
Facts are the only thing keeping mankind alive you foreskin lipped brain void


Tell us why you didn’t vote for Obama?
 
Cypress said:
^ Makes eminent sense to me.


Here is how belief breaks down among scientists:

Medical & biological sciences:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 51%
Atheist or agnostic - 41%

Chemistry:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 55%
Atheist or agnostic - 39%

Geosciences:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 50%
Atheist or agnostic - 47%

Physics:
Believes in God or theistic higher power - 43%
Atheist or agnostic - 46%
https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

^^ I have no idea why chemists have a higher level of religious faith. My hypothesis: chemists are not as familiar with cosmology, deep time, and evolution as physicists and geoscientists. IMO, those are the types of scientific questions which are predisposed towards making one think about the philosophy of an ultimate reality and the nature of divinity.
Click to expand...

Interesting. My dad was both a Christian and a chemist. He was, however, an atheist until he and my mom met.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top