Majority scientists don't believe in God?

yes or no?
I think so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/how-scientists-can-believe-in-god

I think this pretty well sums it up - a good scientist can differentiate between a "proof" and a "belief".

Additionally, here are some notable Religious scientists: (from Wikipedia)

Sir Robert Boyd (1922–2004): A pioneer in British space science who was Vice President of the Royal Astronomical Society. He lectured on faith being a founder of the "Research Scientists' Christian Fellowship" and an important member of its predecessor Christians in Science

John Archibald Wheeler (1911–2008): American theoretical physicist who was largely responsible for reviving interest in general relativity in the United States after World War II. One of the later collaborators ofAlbert Einstein, he tried to achieve Einstein's vision of a unified field theory. He is also known for popularizing the term black hole, and for coining the term wormhole. He was a lifelong Unitarian.

Stephen Meyers (1958–): Physicist and earth science. Meyers wrote Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt. Worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991. Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute and Vice President and Senior Fellow at the DI

Robert T. Bakker (born 1945): Paleontologist who was a figure in the "dinosaur Renaissance" and known for the theory some dinosaurs were Warm-blooded. He is also a Pentecostal preacher who advocatestheistic evolution and has written on religion.

Brian Kobilka (born 1955): He is an American Nobel Prize winner of Chemistry in 2012, and is professor in the departments of Molecular and Cellular Physiology at Stanford University School of Medicine. Kobilka attends the Catholic Community at Stanford, California.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i think you are asking the wrong question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just adding on a bit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

 

intelligent design is god.

 

Should this thread be moved to the 'religion' forum? There have been complaints about too much 'god stuff' in the science forums.

I don't know whether anyone has ever surveyed scientists as a whole. (How should we define 'scientist'?)

But I think that there is evidence from smaller surveys that suggest that scientists might be significantly less likely to believe in God than the general public. I don't know whether that means that a majority of scientists don't believe.

My own impression is that scientists who do believe are significantly less likely to be textual literalists or 'fundamentalists'. Oftentimes scientists who are simultaneously religious seem to have well-informed and nuanced views of the relationship between science and religion. Perhaps that's the result both of their being highly educated and of their having had to face these issues in their own lives.

 

They see that God is not needed as an explanation for anything and that anything but a very liberal interpretation of the Bible doesn't comport with what they know about how the world works.

You can't be a scientist and let religion affect your own field of study. There are no "Young Earth" geologists.

 

But there is no intelligent design, therefore, no intelligent god.

 

The same arguent can be reversed. Atheist scientists who are well-informed on the bible can also have a nuanced view of the relationship of science and religion. David Bohm is a perfect example of such a balanced view.

But nowhere does Bohm speculate on the existence of a "sentient intelligence"as the fundamental causality of the universe, he used the term "insight intelligence", which is a nuanced but profoundly different view.

 

you don't consider genius intelligent?
some say love has an intelligence that we can't measure.
remember, there is exactly zero evidence that life arose naturally.
no lab results.
no computer simulations.
no drafts.

on the other hand we are faced with "something" that can create life and remain anonymous.

i have no idea what the answer is, but i CAN say i am more than what 5 pounds of chemicals can say.

it's also a safe bet that science is hard at work to explain consciousness.

 

It depends on your interpretation of "consciousness". Is the slime mold conscious? It has no brain but can find food through a maze with unerring precision. It is clearly conscious, but it has no intelligence because it has no brain.

Is electricity flowing frome positive to negative a conscious act? Is it an intelligent act? But it always functions in the same way, unerringly. I believe people tend to make this more complicated than it is. There are attractive and repulsive forces in physics, as well as chemistry, it seems to be a Natural phenomenon and exists throughout the universe.

This function is seemingly intelligent, because of its consistency, and if we stretch our imagination, we can say there is an pseudo- intelligent interaction between all things.

But in theism the wall is reached at "intentional motive". Love? C'mon, that is a little too simple. Cause and effect is an implaccable function of the universe. It has nothing to do with emotional investment. That function emerges along a few lines in the evolution of species.
Swans mate for life. Love? Humans often do not mate for life, but they still call it love?
The word is a human invention to try and explain what are the ingredients of attraction (love) and repulsion (hate).

 

Not true.

Although Isaac Newton did not teach religion at Trinity (as he was supposed to), he nonetheless held strong religious beliefs which, like other scientists of faith, means that what he did for science he also did in order to better understand the mind of God. Galileo didn't lose his faith even though he was punished (house arrest, suppression of his writings) for opposing the Ptolemaic views of a Pope. Any real scientist will ignore almost anything any religious leader says about science, and if he or she cannot, then they are not much of a scientist. Newton, for example, knew both greek and latin, and wrote extensively on the idea that a mistranslation of the word 'trinity' from the greek had essentially changed christianity into a polytheistic religion. These writings were published posthumously. They had to be, because if they had come to the attention of the church, Newton would likely have been burned at the stake. At the time, they did so for much less a transgression. Religion's role in human culture is very different from that of science, but it does have a place. I for one have never believed that religion's purpose was to promote ignorance of science or for that matter, anything else. Science, on the other hand, promotes only skepticism. This is not the same thing as ignorance, but many religious folk will mistake if for that because it makes science seem more accessible to them. I think this is what has set the stage for the revival of religion's attack on science over the last two decades.

Although Einstein was not an observant Jew, it was very clear from his work and his writings that he believed in at least an organizing principle to everything he managed to work out about the universe.

Young Earth Creationists, on the other hand, as well as those who quote scripture to discredit the Theory of Evolution, peddle the worst sort of scientific ignorance possible to their audiences and congregations, and also push hard to get religious education, if you can even call it that, into public schools. The thrice translated Christian scripture was never intended to be used as a science textbook, much less the Torah from which the book of Genesis and much of its text originated. The book of genesis was argued about amongst rabbinical scholars (and such debate was actually encouraged in that faith) for literally millennia before there was anyone who self-identified as Christian, including Christ himself. The first commandment forbids idolatry, by the way. This is why the Torah is revered among Jews as though it were a person (but not a G-d). When you promote scripture as the unerring word of a Deity, you are elevating that text to the status of an idol. If your religion fails to get the first commandment right, what are the chances your religion really understand any of the others? And originally, there were a lot more than just 10 of them, by the way. 613 to be exact. Elevating ANY religious leader or what they may say to the same status as an idol is pretty much the same sin, and for the same reason.

YEC and other ID pushers have seen fit to adopt much of my litany of men of science who were also of strong religious faith and have even added some questionable folks to the list to lend support to YEC and Darwin deniers who somehow managed to become regarded as scientists, at least by peers with similar questionable credentials and agendas. It really isn't that hard to find out which ones publish in both scientific and religious journals and websites. At least, I've had no difficulty identifying such scientific impostors because most make no attempt to hide their ignorance of basic science when they write 'science' articles for distribution through religious hacks. It would be easier if all educational institutions with a religious agenda were regulated to include the words 'doctor of divinity' on each and every degree they issue.

That said, I don't think that faith should be a disqualification for becoming a scientist. Willful ignorance about basic science as described definitely should. It runs counter to everything science stands for to accept anything that has not been vetted by scientific methodology and provisionally accepted as scientific fact, much less something not really vetted at all by most faiths, like their scripture.

 

what we are all then ? why don'twe kill ourselves to disintegrate into same atoms ?
i don't want to die. this is because of intelligent 'design'.

 

Why should we kill ourselves, even if in the end we are all made of atoms from stardust?

No, you don't want to die, because you want to live. Some people do commit suicide, is that because of intelligent design or are they not subject to intelligent design? That would be very odd, don't you agree?

 

this feelings, the desire, this is what i keep on calling god.
i don't advocate dangerous Abrahmic god who wants to nuke 'infidels' like me.
scientist too know this, the non existence of a single, different entity in the universe is not possible.
'the universe is single a event and we are not rightly involved in it' ~ Adi Da.
w.r.t. above sentence, our body matter is at right place, but the feelings are not.
that's why we have theism, atheism. people don't enjoy life but get concerned with such things. these things are of old age.
i understand people become atheists to oppose religion and it is natural mechanism to protect oneself from bondages.
but atheism and theism have boundaries. with atheism life is hopeless and with theism life is filled with over optimism never time is given for pessimism.

 

people commit suicides cause thier feelings are hurt or sometimes they dissappear. people hurt each other as they are no involved in single event.

 

what do you call it when something HAS been vetted by science and acknowledged in respected journals but yet isn't revealed to the masses?

accumulating small changes is a crock of shit.

 

Mold isn't conscious. It's alive but not conscious. Without a brain there is no consciousness. Even with a primitive brain there is probably no consciousness.

 

What do you call it?