2/3 of scientists believe in God

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
55,010
Reaction score
13,599
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
so the majority DO believe in God, and in their field of science....?

i thought so...

there was some chart floating last week saying just the opposte from another poster.
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,908
Points
48
Location
My Shack
Of course 1/3 of that 2/3 are just afraid to say they do not believe in God.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
99,147
Reaction score
32,993
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
it's variableaccording to discipline, of course biologists are less believers than other scientists because of the impact of darwinism religion! :doubt:

Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | LiveScience

And, perhaps peripherally related, today is the anniversary of this quote:

March 30, 1863 Abraham Lincoln proclaimed this a day of prayer and fasting: “It is the duty of nations as well as men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God…”
 

Defiant1

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,579
Reaction score
1,178
Points
290
Of course 1/3 of that 2/3 are just afraid to say they do not believe in God.

If they don't have the backbone to stand up for their own principles how are we supposed to have any confidence in their theories?
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,908
Points
48
Location
My Shack
Of course 1/3 of that 2/3 are just afraid to say they do not believe in God.

If they don't have the backbone to stand up for their own principles how are we supposed to have any confidence in their theories?
got me but just let people know you are an atheist down here in the bible belt.

I no longer care since I am retired and do not need a job or anything.
 

amrchaos

Pentheus torn apart
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
9,498
Reaction score
932
Points
215
Location
Miami
2/3 of scientists believe in god?

I thought the number was higher--like 80 or 90%

Anyway, there was a time that it was required to believe in god before you were taught the greater secrets of reality. So if this continues as is, no scientist will believe in god by the year 3000!

So this is not good news for you freeman. Time is on the non-believers side in this situation.
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,908
Points
48
Location
My Shack
There was also a time when the church would kill you for science.

The earth is not the center of the solar system. Had to recant or die.
 
OP
Freeman

Freeman

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
3,080
Reaction score
128
Points
85
50 Nobel Laureates and scientists who believe in God | PALLAYI
One of My favorite scientists is Newton (from the West) - RIP

" The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God... And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be doe.... We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature.... And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy."

and Ibn Alhaytham from the East


"We start by observing reality … we try to select solid (unchanging) observations that are not
affected by how we perceive (measure) them. We then proceed by increasing our research and
measurement, subjecting premises to criticism, and being cautious in drawing conclusions… In
all we do, our purpose should be balanced not arbitrary, the search for truth, not support of
opinions.
Hopefully, by following this method, this road to the truth that we can be confident in, we shall
arrive to our objective, where we feel certain that we have, by criticism and caution, removed
discord and suspicion.
Yet we are but human, subject to human frailties, against which we must fight with all our human might. God help us in all our endeavors”
 

amrchaos

Pentheus torn apart
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
9,498
Reaction score
932
Points
215
Location
Miami
You know--there are more than 100(probably around 150) scientists that won the Nobel Prize, right freeman. Does not quite match up with the 2/3 theory does it?


By the way--the reason some people will not tell you their beliefs is due to Theology being such a sensitive topic that some people may attack you. I can't hold it against a person if they refuse to tell me what they believe in terms of religion. But a madman can!
 

del

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
52,099
Reaction score
10,832
Points
2,030
Location
on a one way cul-de-sac
it's variableaccording to discipline, of course biologists are less believers than other scientists because of the impact of darwinism religion! :doubt:

Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | LiveScience

And, perhaps peripherally related, today is the anniversary of this quote:

March 30, 1863 Abraham Lincoln proclaimed this a day of prayer and fasting: “It is the duty of nations as well as men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God…”
lincoln and darwin were born on the same day; darwin was probably more actively religious than lincoln, though.
 

Newby

Does it get any better?
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
9,094
Reaction score
1,748
Points
190
2/3 of scientists believe in god?

I thought the number was higher--like 80 or 90%

Anyway, there was a time that it was required to believe in god before you were taught the greater secrets of reality. So if this continues as is, no scientist will believe in god by the year 3000!

So this is not good news for you freeman. Time is on the non-believers side in this situation.
Why are there 'sides'? Are you planning on forcing something on the other 'side' when you've reached a majority or something? Despite the constant blathering to the opposite, you are free to believe as you wish, nothing is forced on you. There is no need for 'sides', unless you intend to use your 'side' for something?
 
R

rdean

Guest
it's variableaccording to discipline, of course biologists are less believers than other scientists because of the impact of darwinism religion! :doubt:

Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | LiveScience





Looks like someone got their numbers reversed. I suspect more scientists DON'T believe in mysticism than do.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews conducted from May 1 to June 14, 2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

---------------------

Notice only 3% admit to being evangelical. Bet it's only the "social sciences". They need evangelical scientists so they can say gays are sick and pretend it's based on something other than religion.
Also, only 6% of scientists admit to being Republican and only 9% conservative. Not many educated care to associated with failed ideology. That's just fact.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

rdean

Guest
50 Nobel Laureates and scientists who believe in God | PALLAYI
One of My favorite scientists is Newton (from the West) - RIP

" The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God... And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be doe.... We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature.... And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy."

and Ibn Alhaytham from the East


"We start by observing reality … we try to select solid (unchanging) observations that are not
affected by how we perceive (measure) them. We then proceed by increasing our research and
measurement, subjecting premises to criticism, and being cautious in drawing conclusions… In
all we do, our purpose should be balanced not arbitrary, the search for truth, not support of
opinions.
Hopefully, by following this method, this road to the truth that we can be confident in, we shall
arrive to our objective, where we feel certain that we have, by criticism and caution, removed
discord and suspicion.
Yet we are but human, subject to human frailties, against which we must fight with all our human might. God help us in all our endeavors”
The book you cite is a piece of shit. It quotes Albert Einstein. Wonder who made that up?

On the other hand, a "real" letter from dear Albert:

Einstein's letter: God and superstition | Science | The Guardian

An abridgement of the letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind from Princeton in January 1954, translated from German by Joan Stambaugh. It will be sold at Bloomsbury auctions on Thursday
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. With friendly thanks and best wishes

Yours, A. Einstein

--------------------------------------

That's the problem with those on the right. They just "make shit up" and then give each other "knowing" looks and say, "See, we were right". But it's all delusion.
 
OP
Freeman

Freeman

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
3,080
Reaction score
128
Points
85
Newton is more accurate and lightened than einstein!
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,659
Points
48
Location
Maine
FAITH and science are in no way in conflict with each other unless your faith is based on fairy tales.

I know many militent atheists believe differently, of course, but that's because they don't understand the concept of faith.

And FWIW, I suspect most of them don't really understand science all that well, either.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top