Why are some scientists averse to religion?

[hallenrm]

Lately I am developing a strong feeling that many regular hypographers are rather averse to religion.

 

For example the following quotes

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallenrm

What I was wondering is why this thread does not find place in the recent posts? Is it a new administrative policy of Hypography science forums? But that can't be true there is a thread with the word religion in its title that is appearing at the moment in the recent posts.

 

I will respond to the point raised by Clay in a moment!

 

The Theology Forum is blocked from "Recent Posts". We are a science site and do not wish to promote or solicit these discussions. There are plenty of other sites for the endless creationism debates.

 

This prompted me to think a bit, and I did, the result of my initial thoughts are as follows:

 

Where the science differs from religions

 

Unlike most religions science does not believe in the existence of a supernatural being, often called God, to explain the unknown. It tries to study the unexplained phenomenon, and then based on logic and past knowledge tries to explain them. Often scientist will say that they do not believe in God because as Clay said it

 

Some atheists claim to believe that there is no God, some of us just lack belief in a God. I, for example, do not claim a belief that there is no God because I couldn't provide a reason or proof for believing that. I simply claim that I don't believe in God and that I do not believe it is possible to prove that God does or does not exist. As a skeptic, I don't believe anything without evidence.

 

However, this is not always a foolproof stance, because as many of us are very well aware of, in the modern era, evidence whether in support or as a contradiction can often be tailored, manufactured or plain simple ignored by the powerful and wealthy.

 

Science also differs from religion in that it refuses to be a moral police force which most of religions indulge in. But by refusing to do so, it also loses the power to offer succor to the helpless and hopeless desperate persons. Only religion can help in such situations because they proclaim that any hardship can be overcome by the power of prayer.

 

Where Science and religions are similar

 

Science and religions because often they are equally powerful have some similarities too. Both rely on some sort of authority as the last word, be it the Koran for Muslims, Vedas for Hindus or the Holy scriptures for Christians. Scientists too believe that the words of some reputed scientist, say Einstein, is sufficient to end an argument.

 

So these are the initial thoughts, I am still thinking! In the meanwhile why don't you try to help me too, say by countering my thoughts.Believe me, I will be most grateful for your help.:xx: B)

[InfiniteNow]

Science is a method by which theories and hypotheses are proposed and tested to explain the world around us and better understand what is going on. They are continually refined and rejected when proven non-applicable.

 

Religion does not. Religion speaks of truths and absolutes, and most scientists recognize that it is silly to think of the world in such terms. What is proposed by religion cannot be tested (most often that is...).

 

 

That's the abstract short-hand version. If you want my personal opinion, I'd start going off on cultural manipulation, population control, fear of the unknown, inability to describe events rationally and the like, but that's better done over a beer.

 

 

Cheers. :xx:

[hallenrm]

Science is a method by which theories and hypotheses are proposed and tested to explain the world around us and better understand what is going on. They are continually refined and rejected when proven non-applicable.

 

Very true, Nobody in his senses can ever dipute that! :cup:

 

Religion does not. Religion speaks of truths and absolutes, and most scientists recognize that it is silly to think of the world in such terms. What is proposed by religion cannot be tested (most often that is...).

 

True once again, that is really the state of affairs at present. But what I am thinking, and I may be wrong, is the following question. Can't we really expand on the concept of religion, keeping some of the valuable traits of most religions and discarding those that have proved to be of no value or socially unproductive, as you have mentioned in the last paragraph.

 

Anyway, thanks a lot for joining me in this discussion! ;)

[InfiniteNow]

Can't we really expand on the concept of religion, keeping some of the valuable traits of most religions and discarding those that have proved to be of no value or socially unproductive, as you have mentioned in the last paragraph.

Anything is possible, my friend.

 

My guess, however, is that far too many people would not like a change in their truths. They are comfortable, and often continue to fear the unknown, fears which tend to be greatly ameliorated by the stories of their religion. While you and I and many others on this site do not approach the world with such anxiety and fear, many who share the planet with us find solace in the truths of their religion and are likely to hold strongly to those comforting and mystical concepts despite their lack of empirical support.

[hallenrm]

Just a random thought, why not people like you and me attempt to start a new religion on that line. Afterall there are a lot of religions and most of them had very few adherents to begin with. :doh:

[Cedars]

Why are some scientists averse to religion?

I think the word some should be exchanged for most. One can be adverse to religion and still believe in a God, scientist or not. Even a God that [insert religions name here] has adopted as their absolute authority. And I would guess it is that absolute authority that would turn away a scientifically motivated thinker from the religions.

 

Most scientists I have met (which are not a great number I admit) fall under agnostic. I also know an atheist scientist where if asked by anyone outside what they consider a friend situation will claim to believe just to avoid the any potential blowback from the believing crowd (specifically stated to me, loss of grants, donations, etc to keep research going and even job loss).

Where the science differs from religions. Science does not believe in the existence of a supernatural being, often called God, to explain the unknown. It tries to study the unexplained phenomenon, and then based on logic and past knowledge tries to explain them.

That is science. Proveable statements, rather than the approach religion tries to offer. "I/we dont know" is a more honest answer than "goddidit". While some think religion does not have the responsiblity of proof, I personally dont buy that line. "Gotta have faith" is an excuse, not a reason.

Science also differs from religion in that it refuses to be a moral police force which most of religions indulge in. But by refusing to do so, it also loses the power to offer succor to the helpless and hopeless desperate persons. Only religion can help in such situations because they proclaim that any hardship can be overcome by the power of prayer.

Tell that to people being wheeled into surgery for a heart bypass (as an example). They may thank god for the help they are about to recieve but the truth is, its people weilding the knives, using hard won knowledge and years of trial and error, that will allow that believer to wake up and live another day. One could spend most of a day listing all the ways science has helped the hopeless and desperate. Medicine, agriculture, technology, etc. all have a base in science. Reminds me of this saying (I dont know the author, and it may not be an exact quote):

 

"Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can feed himself for a lifetime".

 

I have always found this saying to be especially true when comparing religion and science. Religion is a placebo for the real issues surrounding people. It may offer comfort to a group of people but it yields no answers for the problem.

 

Additionally I would add that I find science not taking a morale stance on general issues to be a comfort rather than a problem. Its better now that science has diagnostics for mental health issues rather than religions answers of 'possession'. Its better for people to know that while they may suffer from depression, or a host of other issues, they fall within the 'normal' range for people. Religions answer: its the sufferers fault (ya didnt believe hard enough, gods testing ya, you just need to pray, etc). I am not sure why anyone would want to go back to that for the answers and reject the possiblity that science may have a better grasp of what is real.

Scientists too believe that the words of some reputed scientist, say Einstein, is sufficient to end an argument.

 

This thread talked of such things.

From: Steve Makohin ([email protected])

Subject: Re: 92% past great scientists believed in God

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism

Date: 2003-03-12 22:05:29 PST

 

Snippet of post:

"In Albert Einstein's case, he openly admitted to the use of the fudge-factor in his formula, and his rationale for using it. Nobody else had a better theory, or one that was more viable. It turns out that the parts of Einstein's theory that were based on science ended up being correct, and the part that was introduced because of Einstein's religious bias, turned out to be wrong."

 

So 'Einstein says' does not stop an arguement. Continued experimentation corrected the flaws in the original idea.

More of the original quoted post here:

http://www.geocities.com/mn_cedars/einstein.htm

[Tormod]

Just a random thought, why not people like you and me attempt to start a new religion on that line. Afterall there are a lot of religions and most of them had very few adherents to begin with. :surprise:

 

Why on Earth should you? I see no reason to create more religions. Why not just pick one of the gazillions already there? I'd rather dabble with philosophy and science than with religion of any kind.

[hallenrm]

Why on Earth should you? I see no reason to create more religions. Why not just pick one of the gazillions already there? I'd rather dabble with philosophy and science than with religion of any kind.

 

That brings us back to square one! Why are some scientist members of Hypography averse to the word religion?

[CraigD]

Lately I am developing a strong feeling that many regular hypographers are rather averse to religion.

I’d not describe myself as adverse to religion, but as having strong bad associations with it. I also have good associations with it, but it’s a feature of human psychology that we tend to more strongly recall bad associations than good.

 

My strongest bad associations were formed during the years that I was a tutor at a small college in southern West Virginia. There, I was assailed, sometimes several times a day, with the complaints of students who truly believed that mastering Math and Science was at best unnecessary, and at worst an offense against God, when all that is really important in life is accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior and awaiting the soon-to-come Rapture, and that every really valuable bit of information in the world was to be found in the Holy Bible. These people held Math and Science, which I loved, in barely and sometimes not even concealed contempt. I found them difficult to like, and by association, their religion.

 

Intellectually, I realize that my sampling of Christianity was not a fair representation of all Christians or of all believers of all the world’s religions. I’ve know and admired many people with strong Christian and other religious beliefs, one of my main teen-age role models being my high school Religion teacher, a Dominican priest. Still, my initial emotional reaction upon encountering a “true believer” is often one of aversion, which I must quickly control, or miss out on having meaningful communication with the majority of my fellow human beings.

[pgrmdave]

Central to this thread seems to be a good, acceptable definition of 'religion'. What do you think religion is, hallenrm?

[hallenrm]

My strongest bad associations were formed during the years that I was a tutor at a small college in southern West Virginia. There, I was assailed, sometimes several times a day, with the complaints of students who truly believed that mastering Math and Science was at best unnecessary, and at worst an offense against God, when all that is really important in life is accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior and awaiting the soon-to-come Rapture, and that every really valuable bit of information in the world was to be found in the Holy Bible. These people held Math and Science, which I loved, in barely and sometimes not even concealed contempt. I found them difficult to like, and by association, their religion.

 

That's indeed a very commendable confession!

 

One of the few things that I admire in Christianity is the institution of confession. Though, not being a Christian, I have never experienced it first hand, but from the images that I gather from movies, I think it is a very desirable institution in any civil society. Though with the advent of blogging and e-forums, any person belonging to any religion can confess and hence open the doors for a change of heart, still the act done in a solemn building with the attached feelings make the acts of confessions in Christianity a commendable institution.

[ughaibu]

You'll also find confession is one of the key-points of EST, Landmark, Scientology, etc.

[hallenrm]

Central to this thread seems to be a good, acceptable definition of 'religion'. What do you think religion is, hallenrm?

 

To me a religion is something you share with a community, it gives you a feeling of belonging. Belief in it is like an insurance policy. Rationally you may know that an insurance policy is not the best investment for you but you subscribe to one because of your fear of the unknown, the unpredictable like the 9/11 incident. If you had some reason to believe that a close relation was in those towers at that time, you could do nothing else but to pray, that s/he was not there and even if there somehow escapes. That hope only a religion can offer at the moment!:omg:

[Turtle]

One of the few things that I admire in Christianity is the institution of confession. Though, not being a Christian, I have never experienced it first hand, but from the images that I gather from movies, I think it is a very desirable institution in any civil society. Though with the advent of blogging and e-forums, any person belonging to any religion can confess and hence open the doors for a change of heart, still the act done in a solemn building with the attached feelings make the acts of confessions in Christianity a commendable institution.

 

This concept of christianity as a whole is skewed, inasmuch as only the catholics (as far as I know) practice confession as you have seen it portrayed. Moreover, in the catholic tradition, to not confess to a priest in their view is to forsake salvation. Yet another threat from self authorized religious authorities. Not commendable. :omg:

 

From the Statistical Abstract of the United States:Figures in thousands.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/population/

 

Religious Group 1990 2001

 

Adult population, total 1 175,440 207,980

Total Christian 151,496 159,506

Catholic 46,004 50,873

Baptist 33,964 33,830

Protestant-no denomination supplied 17,214 4,647

Methodist/Wesleyan 14,174 14,150

Lutheran 9,110 9,580

Christian-no denomination supplied 8,073 14,150

Presbyterian 4,985 5,596

Pentecostal/Charismatic 3,191 4,407

Episcopalian/Anglican 3,042 3,451

Mormon/Latter-Day Saints 2,487 2,787

Churches of Christ 1,769 2,593

Jehovah's Witness 1,381 1,331

Seventh-Day Adventist 668 724

Assemblies of God 660 1,106

Holiness/Holy 610 569

Congregational/United Church of Christ 599 1,378

Church of the Nazarene 549 544

Church of God 531 944

Orthodox (Eastern) 502 645

Evangelical 2 242 1,032

Mennonite 235 346

Christian Science 214 194

Church of the Brethren 206 358

Born Again 2 204 56

Nondenominational 2 195 2,489

Disciples of Christ 144 492

Reformed/Dutch Reform 161 289

Apostolic/New Apostolic 117 254

Quaker 67 217

Full Gospel 51 168

Christian Reform 40 79

Foursquare Gospel 28 70

Fundamentalist 27 61

Salvation Army 27 25

Independent Christian Church 25 71

 

Total other religions 5,853 7,740

Jewish 3,137 2,831

Muslim/Islamic 527 1,104

Buddhist 401 1,082

Unitarian/Universalist 502 629

Hindu 227 766

Native American 47 103

Scientologist 45 55

Baha'I 28 84

Taoist 23 40

New Age 20 68

Eckankar 18 26

Rastafarian 14 11

Sikh 13 57

Wiccan 8 134

Deity 6 49

Druid (NA) 33

Santeria (NA) 22

Pagan (NA) 140

Spiritualist (NA) 116

Ethical Culture (NA) 4

Other unclassified 837 386

 

No religion specified, total 14,331 29,481

Atheist (NA) 902

Agnostic 1,186 991

Humanist 29 49

Secular (NA) 53

No religion 13,116 27,486

 

Refused to reply to question 4,031 11,246

[CraigD]

From the Statistical Abstract of the United States:Figures in thousands.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/population/

 

Religious Group 1990 2001

Adult population, total 175,440 207,980

Total Christian 151,496 159,506…

Total other religions 5,853 7,740…

No religion specified, total 14,331 29,481…

Refused to reply to question 4,031 11,246...

Very interesting.

 

The fraction of adults self-identifying as Christian decreased from 86% to 77%, adults self-identifying as having any religion decreased from 90% to 80%. Even assuming all of the “Refused to reply” are actually religionists, they still decrease from 92% to 86%.

 

I’ve long assumed that the “about 80% of US self-identifies as Christian, a few percent as other” statistic was fairly unchanging, but it appears I was wrong. Thanks for showing us data, Turtle – one can never get too much of it. :omg:

[ughaibu]

I would be surprised if even 50% of people in the UK believe that there's a god, but if a census is taken many will state the denomination entered on their birth certificate.

[Turtle]

I would be surprised if even 50% of people in the UK believe that there's a god, but if a census is taken many will state the denomination entered on their birth certificate.

 

The UK may have a similar publication to the Statistcal Abstract published every year and available in all libraries in the US. The speculation on how/why people in the UK might respond requires some support to have validity.:cocktail: :shrug: