2/3 of scientists believe in God

Freeman

VIP Member
Sep 30, 2009
3,080
128
85
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

addis-darwin-bday-cartoon.jpg
 
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.
 
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

addis-darwin-bday-cartoon.jpg

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…”
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
50 Nobel Laureates and scientists who believe in God | PALLAYI
One of My favorite scientists is Newton (from the West) - RIP
8897600d344dd1febe525fd4f7a4e0c3.jpg

" 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
Ibn+al-Haytham--The+First+Scientist.jpg


"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”
 
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!
 
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

addis-darwin-bday-cartoon.jpg

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.
 
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?
 
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

addis-darwin-bday-cartoon.jpg

528-56.gif


528-57.gif


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:
50 Nobel Laureates and scientists who believe in God | PALLAYI
One of My favorite scientists is Newton (from the West) - RIP
8897600d344dd1febe525fd4f7a4e0c3.jpg

" 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
Ibn+al-Haytham--The+First+Scientist.jpg


"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.
 
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top