A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Pew Poll: Slightly Over Half of Scientists Are Not Atheist
You are right, I assumed that "higher power / universal spirit corellated with a deity, which I still think is correct but I will change to non-Atheist instead.
Don't bother arguing that belief in a universal spirit is the same as Atheism: it clearly is not. Same with "higher power".
Well if 51% percent of scientists are believers then I should be a believer too!
Why are scientists so much more likely to be atheists than the average non-scientist population? Is it because learning reduces the ability to believe in magical/supernatural explanations? Or is it, like my church teaches, scientists are controlled by atheists?
Scientists are notoriously not aware of the rigid limitations of their own discipline, or the physical and philosophical reasons for those limitations. Moreover, the excessively large amount of fraud in science indicates that there is a narcissistic element amongst scientists that exists there which probably greatly exceeds that in the general population.
But the major factor is probably the substitute religion of evolution which places the human self at the top of the "evolveds" and the presumptive "intellects" at the top of the top. In other words, the religion of personal aggrandizement and the church of intellectual arrogance siezes their phsyches.
Atheist scientists actually know nothing which proves Philosophical Materialism, nor do they actually know any thing about the universe itself which empirically refutes basic Thiest claims. So their secular religion has no more basis than is provided by Radical Skepticism: pure denialism, based on no logic or evidence or rational support. In other words, a blind, religious belief.
Atheism is a cult of the self; scientists are vulnerable to it.
As a "scientist" I can tell you that some scientists believe in God and are very devout in their faith. Others are not. Some are undecided or unsure or just don't care. A lot of people (like me) have been told by their parents that talking about religion in a public place isn't polite. So we are like other people as far as I can see.
Most scientists would say that studying science doesn't give anyone a special perspective on religion compared to other people. Science can't experimentally prove or disprove that God exists or not in the normal way. So knowing that limit, most scientists keep their mouth shut.
In my opinion, it's only a very few scientist who want to go out on TV and become celebrities who make a big noise about God in the media. I am not criticizing them, I am just saying they are not representing us. Most scientists are shy and don't do that.
One of the few instances where scientists get professionally involved into religion, is if some new discovery inadvertently raises ethical concerns. Then we have to stop work and ask whether people are comfortable with this new invention. This is because scientists are experts with science only, whereas ethics has to be discussed by elected and religious leaders, and the public at large. If the public decides democratically that this is ethically incorrect and we should stop, then we stop.
7 comments:
Robot clicks link.
Link says 33%
Yet they believe much less according to what you posted. Scientists less rational?
You are right, I assumed that "higher power / universal spirit corellated with a deity, which I still think is correct but I will change to non-Atheist instead.
Don't bother arguing that belief in a universal spirit is the same as Atheism: it clearly is not. Same with "higher power".
Well if 51% percent of scientists are believers then I should be a believer too!
Why are scientists so much more likely to be atheists than the average non-scientist population? Is it because learning reduces the ability to believe in magical/supernatural explanations? Or is it, like my church teaches, scientists are controlled by atheists?
Scientists are notoriously not aware of the rigid limitations of their own discipline, or the physical and philosophical reasons for those limitations. Moreover, the excessively large amount of fraud in science indicates that there is a narcissistic element amongst scientists that exists there which probably greatly exceeds that in the general population.
But the major factor is probably the substitute religion of evolution which places the human self at the top of the "evolveds" and the presumptive "intellects" at the top of the top. In other words, the religion of personal aggrandizement and the church of intellectual arrogance siezes their phsyches.
Atheist scientists actually know nothing which proves Philosophical Materialism, nor do they actually know any thing about the universe itself which empirically refutes basic Thiest claims. So their secular religion has no more basis than is provided by Radical Skepticism: pure denialism, based on no logic or evidence or rational support. In other words, a blind, religious belief.
Atheism is a cult of the self; scientists are vulnerable to it.
Re: Stan.
I disagree with most of what you are saying.
As a "scientist" I can tell you that
some scientists believe in God and are very devout in their faith. Others are not. Some are undecided or unsure or just don't care. A lot of people (like me) have been told by their parents that talking about religion in a public place isn't polite. So we are like other people as far as I can see.
Most scientists would say that studying science doesn't give anyone a special perspective on religion compared to other people. Science can't experimentally prove or disprove that God exists or not in the normal way. So knowing that limit, most scientists keep their mouth shut.
In my opinion, it's only a very few scientist who want to go out on TV and become celebrities who make a big noise about God in the media.
I am not criticizing them, I am just saying they are not representing us. Most scientists are shy and don't do that.
One of the few instances where scientists get professionally involved into religion, is if some new discovery inadvertently raises ethical concerns. Then we have to stop work and ask whether people are comfortable with this new invention. This is because scientists are experts with science only, whereas ethics has to be discussed by elected and religious leaders, and the public at large. If the public decides democratically that this is ethically incorrect and we should stop, then we stop.
I don't see how any of this conflicts with what I said in the comments above; care to be more explicit?
Post a Comment