Most Scientists Believe In God

[PK1]

The contradiction between science and religion is a mostly communist dogma, for financial gains. Scientists are not supposed to like dogmas.

---
I don't think "contradiction" is accurate.

Real scientists seek knowledge via evidence, and are agnostic beyond that horizon between known & unknown, although logical theories are fun.

Religion is not interested in evidence, but engages in imaginary ideas to fill the gaps in its knowledge base, then tries to sell its/his authority (dogma) to the masses for political gain.
.

 

[Campbell]

View attachment 63202

What you just wrote is the most ignorant collection of meaningless words I've ever seen....'course I'm just 81.

 

[the_human_being]

View attachment 63202

What you just wrote is the most ignorant collection of meaningless words I've ever seen....'course I'm just 81.

Well, be optimistic. Perhaps one day you will grow up.

 

[sealybobo]

83% of the general public believes in God.

Only 51% of scientists.

Why's that?

I wonder how many of those scientists believe in virgin birth. And if they do consider themselves Christians, how do they explain these things scientifically?

I suspect most of them believe in a creator but don't think it ever visited. Or they are cherry pickers

 

[Weatherman2020]

83% of the general public believes in God.

Only 51% of scientists.

Why's that?

Scientists are smart.

Source Link missing, go figure.

 

[PK1]

83% of the general public believes in God.

Only 51% of scientists.

Why's that?

Scientists are smart.

Source Link missing, go figure.

---
The source for that correction (33% of scientists believe in "God", not 51%) was in the OP, which has a link to the 2009 Pew survey.
.

 

[anotherlife]

The contradiction between science and religion is a mostly communist dogma, for financial gains. Scientists are not supposed to like dogmas.

---
I don't think "contradiction" is accurate.

Real scientists seek knowledge via evidence, and are agnostic beyond that horizon between known & unknown, although logical theories are fun.

Religion is not interested in evidence, but engages in imaginary ideas to fill the gaps in its knowledge base, then tries to sell its/his authority (dogma) to the masses for political gain.
.

You could swap the two explanations and it would still make sense. Everything is evident within the bounds of its assumptions. Repeatable too. Whether scientific or religious. This is why we call them axioms.

 

[PK1]

The contradiction between science and religion is a mostly communist dogma, for financial gains. Scientists are not supposed to like dogmas.

---
I don't think "contradiction" is accurate.

Real scientists seek knowledge via evidence, and are agnostic beyond that horizon between known & unknown, although logical theories are fun.

Religion is not interested in evidence, but engages in imaginary ideas to fill the gaps in its knowledge base, then tries to sell its/his authority (dogma) to the masses for political gain.
.

You could swap the two explanations and it would still make sense. Everything is evident within the bounds of its assumptions. Repeatable too. Whether scientific or religious. This is why we call them axioms.

---
My assumption is that your axioms are in your subjective head (mind), whereas scientific axioms are based on "objective reality" that is shared by multiple observers.

The evidence used by scientists is observable and/or measurable and experienced in the same objective manner by many scientists to form a body of knowledge that results in practical creations, such as boats, cars, trains, airplanes, space ships, electrical generators, light bulbs, radio, TV, computers, etc.

What practical use has resulted from religious axioms?
.

 

[GaryDog]

The contradiction between science and religion is a mostly communist dogma, for financial gains. Scientists are not supposed to like dogmas.

---
I don't think "contradiction" is accurate.

Real scientists seek knowledge via evidence, and are agnostic beyond that horizon between known & unknown, although logical theories are fun.

Religion is not interested in evidence, but engages in imaginary ideas to fill the gaps in its knowledge base, then tries to sell its/his authority (dogma) to the masses for political gain.
.

You could swap the two explanations and it would still make sense. Everything is evident within the bounds of its assumptions. Repeatable too. Whether scientific or religious. This is why we call them axioms.

---
My assumption is that your axioms are in your subjective head (mind), whereas scientific axioms are based on "objective reality" that is shared by multiple observers.

The evidence used by scientists is observable and/or measurable and experienced in the same objective manner by many scientists to form a body of knowledge that results in practical creations, such as boats, cars, trains, airplanes, space ships, electrical generators, light bulbs, radio, TV, computers, etc.

What practical use has resulted from religious axioms?
.

Genital mutilation obviously. Dem bitches no longer get pleasure! Hail Allah!

 

[sealybobo]

83% of the general public believes in God.

Only 51% of scientists.

Why's that?

Scientists are smart.

Source Link missing, go figure.

---
The source for that correction (33% of scientists believe in "God", not 51%) was in the OP, which has a link to the 2009 Pew survey.
.

Lady on NPR today was talking about "forced" conversions. There are all kinds of forced conversions. From back in the day where you either converted or died, to today where if you aren't a member of the church you might not get a good job because they only hire fellow catholics/protestants/jews/mormons/born agains/whatever.

The most common reason people convert is marriage. Your spouse is a Catholic and his or her parents want you to be married in the catholic church, so one person has to convert.

Anyways, scientists are only human. They are susceptible to

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

 

[sealybobo]

Or your parents raised you so you don't want to disappoint. Or you don't want to go to hell. Scientists who believe in god may also just believe in a generic creator. If they believe in virgin births and miracles then they are dealing with cognitive dissonance.

 

[GaryDog]

I believe that god created the planet in 6 days and a talking snake and a naked lady ruined it within 45 minutes because SCIENCE!!!!!

 

[anotherlife]

The contradiction between science and religion is a mostly communist dogma, for financial gains. Scientists are not supposed to like dogmas.

---
I don't think "contradiction" is accurate.

Real scientists seek knowledge via evidence, and are agnostic beyond that horizon between known & unknown, although logical theories are fun.

Religion is not interested in evidence, but engages in imaginary ideas to fill the gaps in its knowledge base, then tries to sell its/his authority (dogma) to the masses for political gain.
.

You could swap the two explanations and it would still make sense. Everything is evident within the bounds of its assumptions. Repeatable too. Whether scientific or religious. This is why we call them axioms.

---
My assumption is that your axioms are in your subjective head (mind), whereas scientific axioms are based on "objective reality" that is shared by multiple observers.

The evidence used by scientists is observable and/or measurable and experienced in the same objective manner by many scientists to form a body of knowledge that results in practical creations, such as boats, cars, trains, airplanes, space ships, electrical generators, light bulbs, radio, TV, computers, etc.

What practical use has resulted from religious axioms?
.

Such objectivity exists in religious studies too. It is closer to the objectivity of social sciences and economics, rather than that of natural sciences. And even with that, the general question of the usefulness of mathematics in natural sciences is classified a religious debate.

 

[anotherlife]

I believe that god created the planet in 6 days and a talking snake and a naked lady ruined it within 45 minutes because SCIENCE!!!!!

Is that why the snake is a fallic symbol?

 

[PK1]

Or your parents raised you so you don't want to disappoint. Or you don't want to go to hell. Scientists who believe in god may also just believe in a generic creator. If they believe in virgin births and miracles then they are dealing with cognitive dissonance.

---
Since religion and its beliefs are primarily cultural phenomena, a minority of scientists are susceptible to social/philosophical ideas that science does not explore.
However, the elite scientists (NAS members) are much less susceptible; only 7% believed in a personal god (1998 report by Larson & Witham).

Due to its objectivity & evidence-oriented methodology, science transcends cultural boundaries with a common language ... reflective of our common observations beyond individual fantasies & those referenced in religious books by unknown authors.
.

 

[sealybobo]

Or your parents raised you so you don't want to disappoint. Or you don't want to go to hell. Scientists who believe in god may also just believe in a generic creator. If they believe in virgin births and miracles then they are dealing with cognitive dissonance.

---
Since religion and its beliefs are primarily cultural phenomena, a minority of scientists are susceptible to social/philosophical ideas that science does not explore.
However, the elite scientists (NAS members) are much less susceptible; only 7% believed in a personal god (1998 report by Larson & Witham).

Due to its objectivity & evidence-oriented methodology, science transcends cultural boundaries with a common language ... reflective of our common observations beyond individual fantasies & those referenced in religious books by unknown authors.
.

I can tell just by doing my own personal poll the people who REALLY believe in God is a lot less than most people think.

Chances are the person who says they believe don't believe any of the organized religions. They simply can't imagine there isn't a creator. They admit it isn't a belief based on evidence.

People can figure out religions are made up but it doesn't dawn on them maybe God is too.

Debating God used to be fun before moses lied and said God talked to him

 

[PK1]

The contradiction between science and religion is a mostly communist dogma, for financial gains. Scientists are not supposed to like dogmas.

---
I don't think "contradiction" is accurate.

Real scientists seek knowledge via evidence, and are agnostic beyond that horizon between known & unknown, although logical theories are fun.

Religion is not interested in evidence, but engages in imaginary ideas to fill the gaps in its knowledge base, then tries to sell its/his authority (dogma) to the masses for political gain.
.

You could swap the two explanations and it would still make sense. Everything is evident within the bounds of its assumptions. Repeatable too. Whether scientific or religious. This is why we call them axioms.

---
My assumption is that your axioms are in your subjective head (mind), whereas scientific axioms are based on "objective reality" that is shared by multiple observers.

The evidence used by scientists is observable and/or measurable and experienced in the same objective manner by many scientists to form a body of knowledge that results in practical creations, such as boats, cars, trains, airplanes, space ships, electrical generators, light bulbs, radio, TV, computers, etc.

What practical use has resulted from religious axioms?
.

Such objectivity exists in religious studies too. It is closer to the objectivity of social sciences and economics, rather than that of natural sciences. And even with that, the general question of the usefulness of mathematics in natural sciences is classified a religious debate.

---
Math is a tool used in comparing & correlating variables reflecting reality as we know it. Math/statistics is used in all scientific research, whether physical, bio, or social. It helps to keep science objective, but requires a logical methodology to provide value.

What objectivity is there in religion? The followers of one "authority" all "see" the same "God"?
.

 

[OZman]

 

[OZman]

 

[PK1]

View attachment 63822

---
These quotes can easily be taken out of context and become meaningless.
For example, Einstein's theories & math equations seem to reflect reality pretty well ... if you understand them.

.