Only 10% Of The Nobel Prize Winners Are Atheist ?

[DanielWilson]

Hi all,

 

I was very surprised to discover that only 10% of the Nobel prize winners are atheist:

 

Link 1

 

Link 2

 

Link 3

 

Link 4

 

 

This info contradicts everything I've heard before, that there is a strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity.

 

For example:

 

Here at minute 1:45.

 

Here at minute 16:00.

 

And here.

 

How do you explain this?

 

[DanielWilson]

Bias perhaps?

 

Definitions of what is an Atheist or how the question is asked?

 

What is a atheist ?

What is a agnostic ?

What is a deist ?

Is a deist some one who worships the sun, or the moon, or is it something else.

 

What is the difference between a pantheist and a deist.?

 

The definition of a god or gods is historically what ever people want it to be or are imprinted with when they are young.  

 

An Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God/Gods.

 

Very simple.

[DanielWilson]

What is god ?

 

Would a pantheist be regarded as an atheist or not.

 

Yes, if you say that God = Reality, then you are an Atheist.

[DanielWilson]

What is god ?

 

 

God = Supreme being, creator, omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all-present).

[DanielWilson]

Are you referring to the old testament, monotheist god, invented by maybe the Israelites/Jews/Egyptians/(tribes in the middle east at the time), or are you perhaps referring to the new testament invented in 325AD by the Romans which today is based on the concept of Jesus, sun of god, who I understand some christian groups now argue is god instead of just being the sun of god. 

 

Would this supreme being respond to prayers from those inclined to try, and perform miracles etc ? Does one need to worship said deity, or not.

 

Or

 

From Pantheism the universe is omnipresent, and it responds to all physical events (omniscient, omnipotent) like an automaton. The universe is because it can be. We are all part of the universe, and always will be, without religion. 

 

I suspect anyone who disagrees with your definition of god would be an atheist in your eyes. However a person worshiping the planets as gods and praying to them, also have a definition of god. Indeed the Egyptians had multiple gods in the form of Isis Horus etc. 

 

Interestingly under Islam many stories about Jesus are mentioned but he is not a god, he is is just another profit a bit like Mohammed. 

The Moslems worship a monotheist god derived from the old testament and pray at least 6 times a day, does this make them better than Christians who perhaps worship a false god, if they think Jesus was a god.  

The Moslems worship a monotheist god derived from the old testament and pray at least 6 times a day, does this make them better than Christians.

 

Jews, Christians and Muslims are all praying to the same God, and believe in the same God.

Edited January 18, 2020 by DanielWilson

[Mutex]

Possibly winning the Nobel prize is not an accurate indicator of intelligence!

 

Also a Nobel does not mean you are perfect, smart, never wrong, it does not mean you have exceptional logic or reasoning skills, in other words it does not make you special in any way. 

 

Nobel prize winners and Nobel prize awarders are just normal people like you and me, that they do or do not believe in a god makes no difference at all to the prospects of that claim to be correct or not. 

[hazelm]

Interesting conversation you two have going.  It says a lot.  Like, first, you must agree n who/what is god.  And that goes much further than either of you have gone.   Especially when you spell the word "god" instead of "God". 

 

And yes, Daniel, it comes as a surprise to those who work so very hard to deny any god - hard enough that fear causes them to deny any talk of religion on science forums.  Good to see people who are not afraid to tackle the topic.   Who knows?  Maybe 90% of scientists believe in a God as described by most Christians.  We'll never know.

 

As I said, interesting conversation as you bounce definitions back and forth.

[GAHD]

oh no, new wave...

Point the first: If you are a voodoo priestess, a soufi, a taoist, a bhuddist, a muslim, a jew, a christian, or whatever...you are still athist for every single other religion on that list.

Point the second: Science and religion cover completely different territories. You can't reproduce the burning bush on command (or part seas, or whatever mythical action) belief in the fairy tale requires faith. When you flick the lightswitch in your apartment the light turns on, when you login to email you get to read what's there, and your car continues along making 20000-180000 explosions per minute as you drive it all because those fairy tales can be reproduced on command.

Point the third: Skepticism is proportionate to intelligence. Byt where science does not yet tread lots of the big brains follow the same logic as Roko's Basilisk.  Essentially the MOST logical thing to do is to worship every possible god you are aware of "just in case" and ESPECIALLY worship the evil ones like The Basilisk or Kek, That Basilisk link will lead you to understand WHY that logic holds sound(and also why it's stupid).

Point the fourth: The Nobel isn't just about being Smart or doing Science. Obama has one, and he's just rich and slightly above the normal curve.

[hazelm]

oh no, new wave...

 

Point the first: If you are a voodoo priestess, a soufi, a taoist, a bhuddist, a muslim, a jew, a christian, or whatever...you are still athist for every single other religion on that list.

 

Point the second: Science and religion cover completely different territories. You can't reproduce the burning bush on command (or part seas, or whatever mythical action) belief in the fairy tale requires faith. When you flick the lightswitch in your apartment the light turns on, when you login to email you get to read what's there, and your car continues along making 20000-180000 explosions per minute as you drive it all because those fairy tales can be reproduced on command.

 

Point the third: Skepticism is proportionate to intelligence. Byt where science does not yet tread lots of the big brains follow the same logic as Roko's Basilisk.  Essentially the MOST logical thing to do is to worship every possible god you are aware of "just in case" and ESPECIALLY worship the evil ones like The Basilisk or Kek, That Basilisk link will lead you to understand WHY that logic holds sound(and also why it's stupid).

 

Point the fourth: The Nobel isn't just about being Smart or doing Science. Obama has one, and he's just rich and slightly above the normal curve.

GAHD,  am I right that some of those Nobel prizes are in no way related to science?  Ex:  the peace prize?  It is a nice award but is it science?

 

That said, my wayward contribution to this conversation is what has been a constant wish of mine. I have read many non-believing scientists explain why there is no god.  And most do make good logic.  What I have long wished for is to hear a believing scientist explain how he sees it possible that there is a god.  I just want to hear both sides.  And an answer other than "just in case".  Who was the scientist who said he would believe "just in case there is"? 

[GAHD]

GAHD,  am I right that some of those Nobel prizes are in no way related to science?  Ex:  the peace prize?  It is a nice award but is it science?

 

That said, my wayward contribution to this conversation is what has been a constant wish of mine. I have read many non-believing scientists explain why there is no god.  And most do make good logic.  What I have long wished for is to hear a believing scientist explain how he sees it possible that there is a god.  I just want to hear both sides.  And an answer other than "just in case".  Who was the scientist who said he would believe "just in case there is"? 

Probably this one, but he's not the only to make a similar argument.

[DanielWilson]

GAHD,  am I right that some of those Nobel prizes are in no way related to science?  Ex:  the peace prize?  It is a nice award but is it science?

 

That said, my wayward contribution to this conversation is what has been a constant wish of mine. I have read many non-believing scientists explain why there is no god.  And most do make good logic. What I have long wished for is to hear a believing scientist explain how he sees it possible that there is a god.  I just want to hear both sides.  And an answer other than "just in case". Who was the scientist who said he would believe "just in case there is"? 

 

Try here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvILvxYbFA&feature=youtu.be&t=3m24s

[hazelm]

Probably this one, but he's not the only to make a similar argument.

Right.  Blaise Pascal.  Thank you.  I once had a friend ask me if there really was a hereafter.  I said if there is you'll enjoy it; if not,  you'll never know.  So, don't worry about it.  Fair?

[hazelm]

Try here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvILvxYbFA&feature=youtu.be&t=3m24s

Thank you, Daniel.  I'll have to wait until the rest of the tenants wake up or they'll slaughter me for disturbing their dreams.

[hazelm]

Yes exactly there is no clear definition of what a god is, even within people of the same religions.

 

I am sticking with little g, you missed my other deliberate miss spellings in the sun of god, The sun being what most christian festivals are based around probably because the religion was brought into existence by emperor constantine who was involved with sun worship. He called the council of narceu in about 322 AD and created from all the factions what he hoped would be a unifying religion for everyone in the Roman empire, the rest his history. 

 

The Pantheist or new age definition of god is basically in line with Daniels old testament definition, but no miracles. If you believe the universe exists and you are a part of it and then you are pantheist. Amusingly the Pantheist definition of god would include demi gods as described in the various religions if they existed also :)

 

 

Some one who believes in the old testament god would define a Pantheist as an Atheist 

 

As for your afterlife,

in Zen Buddhism, what you do in this life echos through into the next.

In Pantheism, what you were when you were alive still exists and gets reused eventually ie recycled.

In Valhala, you get to go and fight then die then come back to life again and do it all again for eternity, interspersed with feasts etc.

In Christianity and I think also Islam, you get to burn in hell

or in Christianity listen to harps sat on a cloud or in Islam have 20 virgins waiting on your every need(dont know where the virgins come from, and dont ask a moslem, they dont like it, also dont mention bacon sandwiches).  

Which of the above is most plausible.

Some one who believes in the old testament god would define a Pantheist as an Atheist 

No,  I didn't miss your "sun of....".  It registered.  As for the rest, that ties right in with the old adage:  You should never talk  religion or politics in a gathering unless you know exactly to whom you are speaking.  Especially not religion , although I think politics is more flammable.  Politics is best avoided.  But discussing religion can be interesting if - as you are showing - you can first agree on definitions.  Or be constantly identifying from where you are coming. 

[hazelm]

I must be a genius :) BUT surely the most logical thing to do is to ignore the existence of gods, unless they prove their existence to you, in which case you can request mental help, oe become a prophet and create a religion of your own like Mohammed did. If you were an emperor and thought it would be good for your empire to have a common religion you could create one like Constantine did. If you hoped the Egyptians would allow you back after kicking you out, you could wander around in the desert for 40 years before deciding to follow the well establised trade route between Egypt to Palestine and settle a new country like the Jews did.  

Then, too, it may depend on why the person started the conversation.  He/she may be interested in worshiping.  Or, he may simply be curious about how and why people worship as they do - if they do.  Like discussing philosophy, maybe?  In fact,  I have a philosophy book around here somewhere that lists Jesus as a great philosopher.  Never gets into religion, just presents his philosophies about how we can  live the best life.

 

It really is possible to simply be interested in something - how it works and maybe why - without wanting to be part of it.   An open mind?  A curious mind?

Edited January 19, 2020 by hazelm

[GAHD]

I must be a genius :) BUT surely the most logical thing to do is to ignore the existence of gods, unless they prove their existence to you, in which case you can request mental help, oe become a prophet and create a religion of your own like Mohammed did. If you were an emperor and thought it would be good for your empire to have a common religion you could create one like Constantine did. If you hoped the Egyptians would allow you back after kicking you out, you could wander around in the desert for 40 years before deciding to follow the well establised trade route between Egypt to Palestine and settle a new country like the Jews did.  

just to be clear: skepticism is proportionate to intelligence, but intelligence isn't always proportionate to skepticism... ;) It's one of the darkly funny things about the Dunning Kruger effect.

 

As for most logical...philisophy on that really comes down to your stance on causal vs acausal actors and weather you find spiritual blackmail to be effective and/or justified.

Edited January 20, 2020 by GAHD
actors

[Vmedvil2]

just to be clear: skepticism is proportionate to intelligence, but intelligence isn't always proportionate to skepticism... ;) It's one of the darkly funny things about the Dunning Kruger effect.

 

As for most logical...philisophy on that really comes down to your stance on causal vs acausal actors and weather you find spiritual blackmail to be effective and/or justified.

I agree with GAHD, all you got is basically that , "God will send me to hell" , I have already proven that using virtual hell's and digital immortality anyone with sufficient computer science or programming knowledge can send someone to hell forever inside a computer(http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34693-should-rapist-be-sent-to-pain-amplifiers-for-the-crimes/), furthermore using the 666 mark in my Bible:Spells thread anyone can send anyone to hell under that dogma(http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36149-bible-spells-satanic-mark/), do you have anything else worse than that cause that seems to be kinda played out? Basically sending people to hell is something that only God used to be able to do but with modern technology we have creeped up on the powers of God meaning if humans can do it what makes it special? God's Power is waning....... To the point that anyone can do it Good or Evil so whats the point of believing in God or that archaic religion. The reality of it is a mind bent on doing Evil could torture you for no reason without any access to God's Power and Jesus wouldn't save you from being tortured either in real life it is much more dark, you would pray for a nice Police Officer or Federal Agent with computer knowledge rather than God or Jesus.

Edited January 20, 2020 by VictorMedvil