Posted by: nofaith ®
12/05/2002, 15:17:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
> Isn’t it safe to assume that at least some of the scientists
> with religious background had the capability to have become
> ex-religious, but they still CHOSE to be believers having all
> the scientific knowledge?Yes, they all were capable of becoming ex-religious. That they didn't does not tell us how rational their decision is; people have the capability to make rational decisions all the time, and many don't. > Conversely, isn't it safe to assume that some of the
> scientists who are believers now, didn't have a very religious
> background? This is possibly the case for a few of them. The question is: did science cause them to come to that conclusion? Of course, even if the answer is "yes," it still does not tell us how rational their decision was. Belief in God is a personal decision; one's background and experiences will play a role. You cannot point to one thing and claim it is the sole reason. In the end, this statistic shows one thing: 40% of scientists have a belief in God, for some reason or other. Without a study giving their reasons, we are left to speculation, which is a dangerous way to make conclusions. Perhaps a more probing question is: why is the average significantly lower for scientists than those of other professions? Does science give them a reason to reject God? I find it far more significant that a large portion of scientists rejects the popular opinion than that a minority maintains the popular opinion. As analogy (don't criticize me too harshly), consider the following imaginary statistic (which probably has little basis in reality): 40% of Mormons who research the Book of Abraham papyri believe it was translated through the gift of God. It is somewhat significant that a large portion research it and don't stop believing. But it is far more significant that a huge portion has rejected the more common belief. It is more likely to stay with the status quo, which could explain a large portion of the 40%, IMO. -Dan
|
Posted by: Martin ®
12/05/2002, 18:33:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
(Sorry Dan, Bahman continues to block me so I have to post here)Bahman, I have no idea where you got your 40% figure, but at first glance at least it sounds suspiciously like the deeply flawed and completely non-credible "statistics" that RC cited a while ago. His "statistics" were FAR too loose and broad and lax to qualify as reliable evidence of anything, and it wouldn't surprise me if yours suffer from the same kinds of fatal methodological flaws. You'll have to cite the evidence for us to evaluate. Instead of relying on them, you should instead examine the following citations: Leading scientists still reject God, from the particularly estimable scientific journal Nature, and Fact: Intelligent people tend to be more secular
- Martin
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/05/2002, 21:49:05
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thanks, your response is much more mellow than I expected and I am not going to criticize you for nothin (i.e. anything)!!To start off, I should mention that I am also sometimes frustrated at those otherwise 'rational' looking people who believe in something as irrational as the Adam & Eve story! Now I am going to diverge in two directions (I decided against a new thread for now). 1) You say: "why is the average significantly lower for scientists than those of other professions? Does science give them a reason to reject God?"
That is a good question and the answer is probably yes, but to some extent. Actually, as I understand it, that exact question was the main reason for that 'infamous' survey. You may know what happened but here is a brief nutshell. The survey in 1996 was an exact replica of a survey that had been done in 1916. It was done to see the effect of science on belief in the space of 80 years. Very strangely, the result wasn't what you'd expect: Almost the same percentage of scientists were still believers. I am surprised too. The question is: If science should lead people away from religion, why it didn't in such a long 'scientific period' of time? 2) You (properly) used the term 'rational' in your post, and that's another of my 'pet peeves!" Let's start off by me asking you to define it. But keep in mind that I'm going to try to dissect it to death! PS to Martin: As expected I didn't read your post, but I can make an off the cuff remark too: Maybe those 40% were the BRIGHTEST!
|
Posted by: james ®
12/06/2002, 09:36:58
Author Profile Mail author
|
I have a friend who is a member of the Mensa society. He tends to be very skeptical and even a bit cynical about other religions. I still think he has some sentimental attachments to his religion of upbringing. I never have questioned him about that, as tempting as it was. I just value his friendship too much to offend him. So, I don't really know where he is on the scale of religious experience, but I am sure its pretty low.
|
Posted by: The Vines ®
12/06/2002, 09:06:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think one must look at the field of science to get a clearer idea of this reality.I studied physics and chemistry for a good number of years, and never once did I feel my faith threatened. Physics does not necessarily offer to the student much to think about in terms of human existential issues. You are so worried about understanding the theory, the math, and all that you don't even come close to thinking about much more... Chemistry... pretty much the same. Biology... well things start changing... The Judaeo-Christian idea of creation is quickly questioned... But that says very little about the possibility that there be a creative force. Cognitive sciences... I will bet you that most of these folks are not believers, or at best agnostics. Why, because their job is to figure out why people believe... They deal with existential issues, and genetic predispositions... with cultural phenomena, and so forth. If someone is studying how the religious phenomenon of spirituality connects with the brain, there is a tendency to see God as created in the head a bit more than if your studying the something like the Schroedinger wave function equation... I think scientists are like any other person... We all seek meaning in life. Some find it in religious feeling and thought, even though they are fluent in the language of a scientific field. TV
Modified by The Vines at Fri, Dec 06, 2002, 19:35:39
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/06/2002, 09:22:22
Author Profile Mail author
|
I am not disagreeing with what you are saying, mainly because they are all possibilities. However, I have a different kind of a question.Since science, the way we know and you described, is not changing many minds about religion, what do non-believers think or hope to accomplish that, in the years to come?
|
Posted by: The Vines ®
12/06/2002, 19:27:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi Bahman:You ask Since science, the way we know and you described, is not changing many minds about religion, what do non-believers think or hope to accomplish that, in the years to come? Well I think what changes peoples' minds is taking a look at all the evidence and the lack thereof regarding religious phenomena and the mind. Becoming a specialist in a specific scientific field does not mean one will necessarily investigate these issues. In fact some may not be interested at all in discovering these things for themselves. I think that as culture increases, the approach to knowledge in general is becoming broader and more comprehensive as success equates more and more with a wider and more fluent understanding of knowledge as a whole, and not so restricted. Take for example the multitude of scientific writers who produce books for the layman public. The most successful ones are those whose approach to the subject is able to touch a multitude of disciplines through examples and so forth. I think overall, the media age is pushing individuals to a wider and broader cultural approach. It is inevitable that such a very dominant paradigm as the religious one become an intense item of investigation for anyone who seriously wants to have a public life, or even an influential one. Furthermore, with the impact of the religious paradigm in the scientific world, most of the time not favorable, it is probable that in time, more and more scientists will want to actually become fluent with the realities of religion, if not for anything else, for political reasons pertaining to their field, financing and so forth. On the other hand, take Carlo Rubbia, the celebrated Italian physicist and Nobel Prize Winner as an example. He believes in God, and is public about it, as he sees a creator in the design of the Universe... Think about how that makes sense in a country like Italy where the Vatican has its hands everywhere, and where the word of the Pope has such impact; a country that is religious AND superstitious from top to bottom, and where there is no public place, or school that doesn't have a cross in every room. I think it is clear that the impact of science is very related to the personal interest and motivation the individual's surroundings will provide one way or another. TV
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/06/2002, 23:43:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
"On the other hand, take Carlo Rubbia, the celebrated Italian physicist and Nobel Prize Winner as an example. He believes in God, and is public about it, as he sees a creator in the design of the Universe... Think about how that makes sense in a country like Italy where the Vatican has its hands everywhere, and where the word of the Pope has such impact; . . . "Do you think he is the only one? I bet there are multitudes like him who live in different places, even in the US. I can dig up the article I read, if you wish.
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/07/2002, 23:07:45
Author Profile Mail author
|
"Since science, the way we know and you described, is not changing many minds about religion, what do non-believers think or hope to accomplish that, in the years to come?"I disagree. Seeing things in a scientific manner has surely changed people's beliefs more than you seem to think. I would also say that non-believers are waiting for the day when everything in the universe could be explained without a God. Seeing as there would not be much use in having a God, many people would then make the logical assumption that, since there is no need for Him, He doesn't exist.
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/08/2002, 00:16:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
"I disagree. Seeing things in a scientific manner has surely changed people's beliefs more than you seem to think."I was basing my statement on the study that showed scientists' beliefs haven't changed much in 80 years. Did you miss that, or you don't agree with the study, or what? "I would also say that non-believers are waiting for the day when everything in the universe could be explained without a God. Seeing as there would not be much use in having a God, many people would then make the logical assumption that, since there is no need for Him, He doesn't exist." Ok, that is a valid "waiting!" And I ask for it! As for my opinion, I'd say the opposite will be proved: that God exists whether we like it or not or we "have use for him or not!"
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/08/2002, 01:54:56
Author Profile Mail author
|
"I was basing my statement on the study that showed scientists' beliefs haven't changed much in 80 years. Did you miss that, or you don't agree with the study, or what?"I was basing my statement on personal experience. I know of many people who believe less in a God (or not at all) because of science showing us the way better than religion. It is my opinion (based on previous arguments) that if He exists, God is outside of our universe, seemingly having no use other than to wind up the cogs of the universe and let it go at its own pace.
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/08/2002, 02:08:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
"I was basing my statement on personal experience. I know of many people who believe less in a God (or not at all) because of science showing us the way better than religion."But of course you agree that in such matters 'personal experience' is a far cry from 'statistical evidence.' "It is my opinion (based on previous arguments) that if He exists, God is outside of our universe, seemingly having no use other than to wind up the cogs of the universe and let it go at its own pace." This seems to me to be a new twist and I can meet you more than half way!
1) God outside of our universe? I can't think of any other way.
2) Wind up the cogs and let it go? That very well may be the case.
3) Having no use? I'm not sure. If the first two are true, then there must be some 'use' or 'purpose' or whatever. I don't know what to think!
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/08/2002, 02:24:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
You've twisted my words.1) How do you know that there isn't an outside of the universe? If it is possible for a God to exist, why not an outside of the universe, say, a sea of many universes? 2)I said that winding up the cogs was God's ONLY use. I didn't say he didn't have one. If everything happened independantley (excuse spelling) of God, then He wouldn't have a use. But I didn't say EVERYTHING was independant of God. I believe neither that ther is an outside to the universe, nor that the creation of the universe was God's doing. What I said before was not my actual view. My actual view is that there is no God (as if you couldn't have guessed that). What I was saying before would become my belief IF a God was definately proven, and the details of His existence not known. But since this has not happened, it is not my belief. It's a bit like a priest theorising how the universe would be without a God.
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/08/2002, 02:31:19
Author Profile Mail author
|
. . . and have been misreading you a lot (don't call it a twist please). And I am ready to call it quits, if you don't mind.
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/08/2002, 02:34:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Sure. Quits shall be called.I'm sorry of accusing you of twisting. I have had bad recent experiences with that, and am subsequently paranoid.
|
Posted by: TLC ®
12/10/2002, 21:55:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman Sir; With the human kind being 3.5 million years on the planet and religion being only a few thousands, what makes everyone think that religion has made any kind of a significant lasting foothold? It hasn't been here long enough to prove anything of a lasting quality.Science is changing peoples thoughts about religion. I think your problem, like so many others , is that you want to witness significant changes in your short lifetime. There are still a few "flat worlders" left, but most now agree that it is spherical shaped. But 1000 years ago, it was considered heretical to think otherwise. I feel that 10,000 years from now, our present concepts will be considered almost neanderthalic. TLC
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/11/2002, 01:09:19
Author Profile Mail author
|
I was thinking more in the range of, say, 100!So you don't think that 80 years of exponential science developement without apprecaiable change in religious belief has any significance?
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/11/2002, 03:21:03
Author Profile Mail author
|
In 'The Universe In A Nutshell' it has a small section about exponential growth. It's quite interesting. On the subject of scientific articles, exponential growth has doubling times of less than forty years. So in 80 years' time, there should be double, if not triple, the amount of science in the world (theoretically). If this does not have a significant impact on religion then I don't know what will.(I am aware that a lot of science has little role in the argument over God's existence. However, increase in science means increase in the scientific method, which DOES deal with the issue of an existing God)
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/11/2002, 03:30:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
First, according to the numbers you cite, the amount of science should've been quadrupled, or more.Second, of course you note that when I used the term 'exponential' I really didn't mean to quantify it that precisely. And I don't know if anyone in casual conversations tries to make it, or to mean it, that precise. But that's a sdie issue anyway.
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/11/2002, 04:57:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
By exponential I mean 'growing at the same rate'. Secondly (even though I didn't say firstly), I do not see how how you came to the conclusion that science should quadruple, without prior knowledge of the numbers Hawking was using when he said that exponential growth gives doubling times of less than 40 years (he chose this number because in the previous paragraph he said that an exponential population growth of 1.9% would mean the population roughly doubles over 40 years. I haven't actually checked that, so I must attend to that now).
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/11/2002, 05:15:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
To me 'doubling times of 40 years' means that it doubles every 40 years. Therefore in 80 years, it is multiplied by 4. If my understang is not correct, please clarify.PS: I'm still curious to know about Jerry Springer!!
What do you know about the opera they are producing about him in the UK?
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/12/2002, 03:33:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
1)I did the maths last night, and it turns out that if the population is 6,000,000,000 today, an increase of 1.9% every year results in 12,700,000,000 (roughly double) in 40 years time.Doing the maths for 80 years time, the population would be 27,000,000,000, an increase by a factor of 4.5 from the present day, so you are close in assuming it is 4 times as large. Be careful with these kinds of calculations, because the population grows at 1.9% of the population of that year, not constantly at a rate of 1.9% of 6,000,000,000. I used to remember the two diiferent names for interest in maths. Can anyone remind me of them?
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/12/2002, 03:58:59
Author Profile Mail author
|
Note that my "assumption" came about of only your statement that the population doubles every forty years. Therefore, without any other information, one is led to deduce that it would quadruple in 80 years, and would be multiplied by 8 in 120 years, and so on. It's as simple as that!Now, you went the long way with the 1.9% rate, which is fine, and is actually the basis for the numbers you suggested and I used.
PS: The small differences in the outcome of your more precise calculations and my rough estimate is due to the original approximation that is used when saying "doubles in ABOUT 40 years."
|
Posted by: TLC ®
12/13/2002, 21:21:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hey there Bahman; I'd almost forgotten that I had stuck my nose in here.You are probably right on your 80 years as having significant change in religious beliefs, given the present (exponential?) rate of scientific advancement. I know that scientific advancement is on an upward parabolic shaped curve that steepens with time, but I'm not sure that exponential applies. What's your data on this? I always tend to overstate periods of time, just to make sure that the idea in question has ample time to materialize. TLC
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
12/14/2002, 00:53:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
"I know that scientific advancement is on an upward parabolic shaped curve that steepens with time, but I'm not sure that exponential applies. What's your data on this?"I was just using 'exponential' very casually and not mathematically. Maybe it is parabolic. But I don't think it is linear.
|
|
