Why are some scientists averse to religion?

[perplexity]

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.

In 2004, 67% of Britons said they believed in God or a higher power, according to a polled sample:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518375.stm

 

And according to the 2001 National Census census no more than 10,357 (of a 52 million total) cited "Atheism" as their religion.

 

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/for2004/FocusonReligion.zip

 

--RH.

[hallenrm]

The figure in the statistics quoted by Turtle that I found most revealing is

 

Refused to reply to question 4,031 11,246

,

 

A huge jump indeed! Americans have started thinking, atleast they seem to be confused.

 

:cocktail:

[ughaibu]

Perplexity: Thanks. Including "a higher power" makes the question rather vague, a pity. From your second link I see 263,989 answered "no religion", so there's a considerable disparity between the figures, dependent on the question, either way.

 

Edit: I see the above figure is from the a total of 2,515,439 polled, not the full country.

[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.

Even when it is referring to the anthropic principle. :shade:

[ughaibu]

Turtle: Here's an article concerning the results of a recent poll: Religion does more harm than good - poll | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

[Rade]

I think one answer to the OP question--"why are some scientists averse to religion" is that they are reluctant to use certainty as a way to attain knowledge. Religion uses a method of belief to attain "certain knowledge". Science on the other hand uses observation to attain "uncertain knowledge". Scientists are averse to any religious position that claims knowledge with certainty via belief of that which can be observed (eg., claims made by creationists). Also we have those scientists that are not averse to religion--they have no problem using belief to help them explain with certainty those aspects of thinking that can never be open to observation (eg., concept of god).

[Tormod]

I think most scientists do not have an aversion to religion, and I certainly don't think people here at Hypography do. I may seem as one who has an aversion to religion, but it is not entirely true: I have many religious friends (also here at Hypography) and I support freedom of religion, including the right to not have a religion.

 

Science and religion are not irreconcilable, but they do differ vastly in that one is based on redemption and punishment while the other is based on curiosity and discovery. The irony is that religion claims to know the truth, while science only wants to get us closer to it.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Group HUG!!!! LOL

Religion gives people a place to go to be together and listen to stories that reinforce their belief system.

Science gives people a place to go to be together and listen to stories that shake their belief system.

One group appears to be more fearless than the other but both have many things in common. Perhaps it's the commonalities that make some of the scientists uneasy?

[Boerseun]

Perhaps it's the commonalities that make some of the scientists uneasy?

What gave you the idea the scientists are 'uneasy' about anything? The scientists might become slightly miffed or even irritated at some stage to explain the same thing over and over and gosh-darned over again:

 

Science and Religion are not comparable and don't play in the same sandbox. The one is spiritual, the other empirical. Now stop imagining scientists are quesy or uneasy about anything. If you're in doubt as to your belief, fair enough, but don't project your insecurities towards science.

 

Wait - I lied: Scientists do get quesy. Normally, when they have to ask for grant money.

[Vagabond -SC2-]

One could easily post the same question different ways:

Why are some scientists not averse to religion?

Why are some non-scientists averse to religion? and so on.

 

Being a scientist, raised roman catholic and know a lot of scientists and medical doctors (wife is is a doctor). Now I no longer attend mass on a regular basis, but my wife does so do a lot of our friends. I am not averse to religion at all if it helps someone in any way then great.

 

I guess I have a problem with these types of thread for a couple of reasons basically based (i feel) on a lot of peoples assumptions and definitions (which are never stated and are different for everyone. For example: believing in a god (higher power etc.) to some does not entail being religious, while others would associate believing in a god to be religious.

 

Now, that may not be clear so let me try and explain. For me, yes I believe in a god / Supreme Being, but I am not religious. I feel that religions are run by humans and humans tend to mess things up.

 

As for taking some of the data that was posted and drawing conclusions such as an increase in people refusing to answer and then state a reason is unfounded and a personal and bias guess at best.

 

I did like to see that Atheism was listed as a religion because to me religion is based on a belief and atheism is based on belief as much as any established religion.

 

Another quick thing that often gets confused is comparing religion to science. Rade posted that “Religion uses a method of belief to attain "certain knowledge".

That is not entirely true and religion is based on belief and one believes what their religion teaches. Also comparing religion to science is not correct one should really compare theology and science, theology being the study of god and science being the study of the physical universe. Perhaps I have the wrong mind set but religion is not a study it is a system of beliefs (most simply).

[Tormod]

For me, yes I believe in a god / Supreme Being, but I am not religious. I feel that religions are run by humans and humans tend to mess things up.

 

I did like to see that Atheism was listed as a religion because to me religion is based on a belief and atheism is based on belief as much as any established religion.

 

How utterly messy.

 

And no, atheism is not based on belief. In any case, not on the *same* belief, and certainly not on submission to any rules written by a supreme being, so you can't classify atheism as "another religion". A philosophy, perhaps, but not a religion. Atheism is not paganism either.

 

However, I fail to see the relevance of your stabbing at atheists in this thread.

 

Non-theistically,

Tormod

[Vagabond -SC2-]

My apologies I did not mean to stab at atheists and did/do not feel that I did.

 

It does get messy and perhaps i did not type it out clearly but basically you can not clump all people who believe in a god as religious.

 

If one defines religion as a set of thoughts or ideas based on a belief (is this not an excepted definition?). Thus Christians are people who believe that a god exists (they have no proof - the idea is based on a belief) is a type of religion. Then one could also define the belief that there is no god (again no proof it is a belief) is a religion by definition (Atheism).

 

I never suggested, hinted at nor stated that Atheism was paganism.

[Pyrotex]

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

I can only speak for myself, but I will try to answer your question.

 

But first, I would like to relate a study that was reported on National Public Radio a few months ago. They asked a large number of people about their religion or faith, and about their education and intelligence (as measured by the difficulty or complexity of the work they do). The numbers below may not be totally accurate, but this is how I remember them.

 

Among high school educated, 75% belonged to a formal religion and 85% believed there was a god.

Among college graduates, 60% belonged to a formal religion and 70% believed there was a god.

Among PhD graduates, 40% belonged to a formal religion and 40% believed there was a god.

Among the highest ranking of education/intelligence, scientists at the cutting edge of advanced research, fewer than 30% belonged to a formal religion and only 20% believed there was a god.

 

This seems to indicate that among the least educated, there are believers who do not go to church; among the best educated, there are church-goers who do not believe.

 

This correlation may (may!) have nothing to do with intelligence per se, but with scope of knowledge. Speaking for myself, I understand at least the basic principles of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, cosmology, electronics, and a host of others. I can just get my hands around quantum theory, and I believe I understand Relativity and Evolution to a great depth (though there are those who disagree with me).

 

Where do I look for "mysteries"? What is out there (for me) that is inexplicable and unexplainable? What is there in biology, cell structure, genetics that is so bizarre and 'miraculous' that it boggles my mind? To be honest, not much. Sure, there are unanswered questions everywhere, but few if any of them are beyond all hope of answering.

 

I see about me an understood universe, a rational universe. What mysteries there are, are like chili peppers on my scrambled eggs--they do not render the eggs inedible. On the contrary, they add flavor and spice and interest.

 

But (as I can only imagine) what is the universe to someone who is only a high school graduate? To someone who indeed is unable to attain even that education? Everywhere they look, the universe is totally beyond any smidgeon of hope of comprehension. What is it all about? They are surrounded by the unknowable, the mysterious, the forbidding, the fearful, the incomprehensible and the babble of scientists who they do not trust.

 

These people turn to religion and god for a structure of understanding. We all need a structure of understanding, or we wander around baffled and afraid and very, very, very vulnerable.

[ughaibu]

"The modern Diderot has got to learn [mathematics] in self defense, because no society is safe in the hands of its clever people." Lancelot Hogben

[Pyrotex]

"I am willing to concede, in the spirit of democracy, that the opinion of one idiot is as good as the opinion of one genius. But I draw the line at concluding that the opinions of two idiots are twice as good as the opinion of one genius."

-- Enrico Fermi

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

What gave you the idea the scientists are 'uneasy' about anything? The scientists might become slightly miffed or even irritated at some stage to explain the same thing over and over and gosh-darned over again:

My statement was made tongue-in-cheek and was meant to get a rise, and hopefully a chuckle.

I'm going to restate what I said and I hope you can turn down the burner just a tad.

Religion gives people a place to go to be together and listen to stories that reinforce their belief system.

Science gives people a place to go to be together and listen to stories that shake their belief system.

One group appears to be more fearless than the other but both have many things in common. Perhaps it's the commonalities that make some of the scientists uneasy?

 

In the above statements, I use the term 'story' to describe a series of events because that's really all a story is. Cause and effect is also a series of events.

 

Please explain again why you got so upset about it.

 

Each group has a belief system. One is based upon identifications that can be reproduced and verified (at least hopefully) and the other is based upon identifications that, well, are taken on faith to be accurate.

 

As a matter of fact, each group becomes uneasy when their belief system is shaken up. Of the two, however, only scientists are supposed to be open to contradictory evidence. One would seem to conclude then that scientists would welcome with open arms anything that showed there was weakness in their belief system. I haven't witnessed that however. Or should I just take it on faith?

 

In a recent speech to the National Press, Michael Crichton listed a series of things that our society believes to be true but that are, according to him, fallacies. One of them was the belief that the scientific 'peer review' system was alive and well. According to him, the peer-review system is responsible for stopping advances in science and not, as is commonly thought, helping it move forward. He gave as the most famous example (of which he said there are many), the electron microscope. The inventors were unable to get the theory behind it taken seriously or published. I believe he said they were later given a Nobel Prize for it.

 

If Crichton is correct about peer review, what does that say about the ease with which the authorities in the scientific establishment accept new ideas?

[Boerseun]

As a matter of fact, each group becomes uneasy when their belief system is shaken up. Of the two, however, only scientists are supposed to be open to contradictory evidence. One would seem to conclude then that scientists would welcome with open arms anything that showed there was weakness in their belief system. I haven't witnessed that however. Or should I just take it on faith?

Yes. Scientists are open to to contradictory evidence, but not evidence, as you put it, that will 'shake their belief systems', for there are none. There is only evidence. Scientists do not 'believe' in evidence, but they do draw some remarkable conclusions from it. There is no 'belief system'. Please understand that, now.

In a recent speech to the National Press, Michael Crichton listed a series of things that our society believes to be true but that are, according to him, fallacies. One of them was the belief that the scientific 'peer review' system was alive and well. According to him, the peer-review system is responsible for stopping advances in science and not, as is commonly thought, helping it move forward. He gave as the most famous example (of which he said there are many), the electron microscope. The inventors were unable to get the theory behind it taken seriously or published. I believe he said they were later given a Nobel Prize for it.

Of course there will be cases that can illustrate basically anything you want to have illustrated. But that doesn't mean as a rule that it's the truth. If it wasn't for the peer review mechanism, then Science would have been plodding along wasting an enormous amout of research, talent and knowledge to persue such things as alchemy, the fountain of youth, expansion theory, snake oil, etc. I think Michael Crichton had his head up his posterior orifice when he made that particular comment.

If Crichton is correct about peer review, what does that say about the ease with which the authorities in the scientific establishment accept new ideas?

Unfortunately, that is true. But then, seeing what good it is doing us in filtering the unbelievable amount of trash out of proper science, I think it does way more good than bad. Science is impossible without peer review, and, besides, electron microscopes don't come along every day.