Scientists and atheism.

[Lord Kenneth]

Are most scientists atheists?

Is there any statistic on this?

What about pysicists, biologists in particular?

Or is the ratio between atheist/scientist and atheist/common joe larger or smaller, as well?

[B.P.]

True scientists never prove something is true or false. They tend to look for facts that lend support or that fail to support their hypotheses – they never really claim to KNOW things. Therefore, a true scientist will never say that they know there is no god. He/she may instead say something about how likely it is that there is a god. That being said, I remember reading once that most (over 50%) scientists find no reason to believe in god and choose not to spend their limited resources on the things of religion. I’ll see if I can find the reference and post it later today.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Are most scientists atheists?

Is there any statistic on this?

What about pysicists, biologists in particular?

Or is the ratio between atheist/scientist and atheist/common joe larger or smaller, as well?
I don't have any numbers for you at present. I believe the percentage of scientists who are atheistic is higher than for the general population. I don't know about "most", that would depend on the specific numbers.

[zakur]

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htmThe follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by B.P.
True scientists never prove something is true or false. They tend to look for facts that lend support or that fail to support their hypotheses – they never really claim to KNOW things. Therefore, a true scientist will never say that they know there is no god. He/she may instead say something about how likely it is that there is a god. That being said, I remember reading once that most (over 50%) scientists find no reason to believe in god and choose not to spend their limited resources on the things of religion. I’ll see if I can find the reference and post it later today.
You're saying a couple things here that are kinda shaky.

1) When you talk about "true" scientists, you come dangerously close to going true Scotsman. I think for the purpose of the present discussion, we should stick to people who actually pursue scientific research for a living. I will leave it up to Dark Cobra what level that should include: PhDs in science, or do you want to count lab techs too? Everyone in the research community, or the elite such as Nobel winners?

2) Some things are so well supported by evidence that it is perfectly reasonable to say we "know" them. For example, I would be willing to say that I "know" that genetic information is encoded in the DNA double helix in our chromosomes.

3) Please do not confuse "know" and "believe". I see no conflict for a scientist either believing in a god or believing there is no god, so long as he/she understands that it is just a belief. In science it is OK to make assumptions, but one should never lose track of what assumptions one has made.

Some religions are more compatible with science than others. I personally know a grad student in molecular biology who is a Biblical literalist and young earth creationist. I just don't get it, if all the answers are in the bible, what's the point in doing research to learn new things?

[arcticpenguin]

Zakur,

Thanks for the numbers. I would like to point out that members of the National Academy of Sciences is a pretty elite group, and the numbers may differ if you widen the field.

[arcticpenguin]

DC,

Here's a link with some interesting stuff:
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/hri/newsweek.html

[B.P.]

arcticpenguin,

Thanks for the thoughts but I respectfully disagree. A scientist ALWAYS accepts a degree of doubt. No matter how strong the evidence, there is always a chance that new evidence or information will change the way we think about things. Scientists know this. It is part of the self-correcting mechanism that makes science work.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Dark Cobra,

From my experience, I would say it depends on the field.

Most Physicist I know are atheists. A few are Deists. Very few physicists are religious, or buy into any kind of belief system that actually claims to know something about God. Likewise beliefs like dualism and idealism are very rare amongst them. I would say this is probably due to the degree of logical thought and skepticism required for modern physics. In order to understand modern physics, you must be prepared to question even the most intuitively obvious and self-evident of assumptions. Once you abandon the intuitive constructs of classical physics, abandoning belief in things like Gods and an afterlife is pretty easy.

Among Chemists, and particularly Biologists, Theism is more common, although it usually a very vague form of theism that they just don't give much thought to. Mostly it just seems to be a matter of the religious beliefs they picked up when they were young lingering on. Any aspect that clearly contradicts something they know, they abandon, and anything else, they just don't think about.

B.P.

Two things to consider.

1) Most atheists define the term to mean lack of belief in God, and not active belief that there could not possibly be any sort of God.

2) Most common conceptions of God are things that a scientist can, and probably will, say doesn't exist. You are correct that in science there is no absolute knowledge, but there is knowledge. I know that the God described in the Bible does not exist. This knowledge is based on empirical evidence. I am as certain of that as I am of things like gravity. That isn't 100%, but it is pretty darn close. Now when it comes to things like the Deistic conception of God, I have no certainty either way. The concept is defined in such a way that there can never be any evidence either way.


Dr. Stupid

[B.P.]

Stimpson J. Cat,

I see your point. I think it is a matter of semantics. Some define atheism as a lack of a belief in a deity. Others say that that is agnosticism. It all depends on how you define your terms.

I wish I had your certainty about the God of the bible (or of other books). It would make life a lot easier to have a greater degree of certainty – one way or the other. Every time I think I’m leaning in one direction, doubts and new possibilities come to mind. Truthfully, I don’t really care which is correct – I’d just like to know. Sadly, it is difficult to test matters of faith in a laboratory.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by B.P.
True scientists never prove something is true or false. They tend to look for facts that lend support or that fail to support their hypotheses – they never really claim to KNOW things. Therefore, a true scientist will never say that they know there is no god. He/she may instead say something about how likely it is that there is a god. That being said, I remember reading once that most (over 50%) scientists find no reason to believe in god and choose not to spend their limited resources on the things of religion. I’ll see if I can find the reference and post it later today.

:confused: Was Einstein a true scientist or not?

Is your "true scientist" anything like a "true Christian" or "true Muslim", etc. ?

[B.P.]

Dark Cobra,

I found the reference but it looks like zakur beat me to it (see post above). Here is the reference if you would like to read the article for yourself:

Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham. Leading scientists still reject God. Nature 394, 313 (23 Jul 1998).

c4ts & Whodini,

I like the way Carl Sagan put it in The Demon-Haunted World. When talking about proving the existence of an invisible dragon in someone’s garage, and finding no proof, he says, “the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same delusion.” Note that he does not say there is no dragon. He essentially takes the stand that it has not been proved.

Sagan further says that science whispers, “Remember, you’re very new at this. You might be mistaken. You’ve been wrong before.” We should doubt (test) the atheist’s view as much as the thiest’s.

Also, Albert Einstein (and most scientists for that matter) very often find that their hypotheses are not correct. Einstein often changed his mind (consider his notion of a cosmological constant). He later called this the greatest mistake of his life. To me, this admission made him a hero. He did the best he could and always kept his eyes open to see better ways.

Consider also Richard Feynman’s philosophy of science. He was well known for his position that we never know the answers and that we should change our position if new information comes along. He was thrilled to drop old ideas (even if he had invested years in them) if it looked like a new idea was better.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by B.P.
[B]Dark Cobra,

I found the reference but it looks like zakur beat me to it (see post above). Here is the reference if you would like to read the article for yourself:

Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham. Leading scientists still reject God. Nature 394, 313 (23 Jul 1998).

c4ts & Whodini,

I like the way Carl Sagan put it in The Demon-Haunted World. When talking about proving the existence of an invisible dragon in someone’s garage, and finding no proof, he says, “the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same delusion.” Note that he does not say there is no dragon. He essentially takes the stand that it has not been proved.



It seems to me that only the less intelligent theists and all atheists have such a conception of "God" as an existent existing amongst other existents. Sagans analogy is therefore completely misplaced, unless you are only interesting in attempting to refute either atheists conceptions of "God", or stupid theists conceptions of "God"?

[DialecticMaterialist]

I believe Shermer made a study on this and found something like 60 percent of scientists adhered to some religion and/or spirtuality while the rest were not religious. However Shermer also found that among TOP scientists(NAS and Nobel Prize winner level) about 95 percent did not adhere to any belief in a God or a religion.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It seems to me that only the less intelligent theists and all atheists have such a conception of "God" as an existent existing amongst other existents. Sagans analogy is therefore completely misplaced, unless you are only interesting in attempting to refute either atheists conceptions of "God", or stupid theists conceptions of "God"?

"He's not existant, he's mega-uber-existant."

Ian, first of all, metaphysical sleight of hand can't save God. It's bad theory, it's shot through and through, as epistemologically holy as is possible.

Secondly, you have not demonstrated that the most intelligent theists share your metaphysical presuppositions. Nor, I would venture, have you even bothered to find out for yourself. You have merely presumed it out of your egotism.

What has been shown is that amongst those who's job is to systematically and accurately understand the universe, fewer believe in God. That's all. The tacit suggestion that this owes to the inferiority of the theory is naturally there. While it is wise to reject God-theory on the force of it's own failings, I find these statistical facts rather telling.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by synaesthesia

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It seems to me that only the less intelligent theists and all atheists have such a conception of "God" as an existent existing amongst other existents. Sagans analogy is therefore completely misplaced, unless you are only interesting in attempting to refute either atheists conceptions of "God", or stupid theists conceptions of "God"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"He's not existant, he's mega-uber-existant."

Ian, first of all, metaphysical sleight of hand can't save God. It's bad theory, it's shot through and through, as epistemologically holy as is possible.


Jesus, give us a break Syn! I haven't even addressed your other post in that other thread yet. (Basically I haven't been able to be bothered since it completely ignored the points in my previous post)

Now you can argue against the existence of X as much as you like. But since I do not believe in X either, but in fact believe in Y, it is all rather pointless! Do you understand??

Oh yes, as I have mentioned before, God is not a theory. It is a metaphysical hypothesis (just like materialism is). Further evidence (if more were needed), that you do not have a clue about my conception of God.



Secondly, you have not demonstrated that the most intelligent theists share your metaphysical presuppositions.



Intelligent theists would provide intelligent arguments, yes? Now perhaps you or anyone else could provide an intelligent argument for the "god of the gaps" (which is essentially the type of god implied by invisible dragons, unicorns etc).


Nor, I would venture, have you even bothered to find out for yourself. You have merely presumed it out of your egotism.

What has been shown is that amongst those who's job is to systematically and accurately understand the universe, fewer believe in God. That's all.



So what? Appealling to authority is an informal logical fallacy. You need to provide actual arguments. Moreover you need to provide arguments against my conception of "God", not a strawmans.



The tacit suggestion that this owes to the inferiority of the theory is naturally there. While it is wise to reject God-theory on the force of it's own failings,



God is not a theory as I have informed you on innumerous occasions. The hypothesis of an appropriately defined God has no failings as far as I can see apart from arguably the problem of evil.




I find these statistical facts rather telling.


Can you not understand that simply because the majority of people believe something, this does not make it more likely to be true? Besides, if scientists went blabbing on about the existence of God and an afterlife they'd probably never have got their positions in the first place!

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Did it ever occur to you that the reason that atheists primarily argue against these "stupid conceptions of God", is because those are the ones that the majority of the people we have to deal with believe in?

I am perfectly happy to debate any conception of God that you, or anyone else, feels like presenting. It is not reasonable for you to pop into a debate on one conception of God, and say "aha, that is not my conception of God, so you are just making strawman arguments". If the argument does not apply to your conception of God, then you can usually safely assume that the argument was not intended to apply to your beliefs. Unless the person making the argument is trying to claim that his argument is applicable to all conceptions of God, you have nothing to complain about.

Dr. Stupid

[Q-Source]

.
In 1916, Leuba (http://www.moonchild.ch/Library/briefs/AScience.html) found that among Scientists, 42% of them believed in God, many years later, other people replicated the same study and found that the percentage was 40%. So, it seems that there is a high percentage of Scientists who believe in God.

The study has many shortcomings (one of them is the sample).

I wonder, how is it possible that people who work everyday with the scientific method cannot apply the same scrutinity and logical reasoning to the God question?


Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

Among Chemists, and particularly Biologists, Theism is more common, although it usually a very vague form of theism that they just don't give much thought to.

This is true.

I just met a PhD in Chemistry. We were talking about God and I asked him, how he -being a Scientist- could believe in something like God?. He told me that in Chemistry, there are some events that Science cannot explain, some chemical reactions that are amazing, out of any rational explanation. So, he implies that they have to be super natural phenomena, created by God. :rolleyes:

What a fool...

Q-S

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Q-Source
.
In 1916, Leuba (http://www.moonchild.ch/Library/briefs/AScience.html) found that among Scientists, 42% of them believed in God, many years later, other people replicated the same study and found that the percentage was 40%. So, it seems that there is a high percentage of Scientists who believe in God.

The study has many shortcomings (one of them is the sample).

I wonder, how is it possible that people who work everyday with the scientific method cannot apply the same scrutinity and logical reasoning to the God question?

But among the theists, they presumably don't all agree on the same god.

The ability of the human brain to compartmentalize things is impressive.

[Kullervo]

You know, we don't get many idolators showing up here, but to me, that's one of the most reasonable religions of all.

You have your idol, it really exists, you worship it, maybe sacrifice to it, and give it credit for the good things that happen to you.

Who can deny that your god exists?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

But among the theists, they presumably don't all agree on the same god.



Does it change that they still believe in something supernatural?

They can call it whatever they want, it is still the same.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Q-Source



Does it change that they still believe in something supernatural?

They can call it whatever they want, it is still the same.

Should God in all cases be considered to be "supernatural"?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Should God in all cases be considered to be "supernatural"?

Most definitions insist on this. If "god" is indistinguishable from "nature", then what is the point of calling it god? Just call it nature. If god "controls" nature, then god is supernatural.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Should God in all cases be considered to be "supernatural"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Most definitions insist on this. If "god" is indistinguishable from "nature", then what is the point of calling it god? Just call it nature. If god "controls" nature, then god is supernatural.



Could you tell me if our consciousnesses are indistinguishable from the physical processes occuring in the brain?

[Franko]

Are most scientists atheists?

That depends on your definition of "Scientists".

Are the high priests of the SETI institute "Scientists", or just religious fanatics?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


It seems to me that only the less intelligent theists and all atheists have such a conception of "God" as an existent existing amongst other existents. Sagans analogy is therefore completely misplaced, unless you are only interesting in attempting to refute either atheists conceptions of "God", or stupid theists conceptions of "God"?

Could you point me to any threads on this forum where you haven't appeared to be a total ass?



( clue: Atheists do not have a conception of God. )

----
Atheists do not have a conception of God.
----


That's interesting then, because you typed "God" instead of "god(s)", for example.

So clearly you do have a conception of what a god would be like if it existed.

----
Are most scientists atheists?
----


I'd like to ask the question:

Is the association between being a scientist and being an atheist statistically significant?

We could set up a chi-square test for starters. A 2x2 table would look something like:

(A for Atheist, S for Scientist, NA and NS for Not, etc.)

.....S NS
A|___|___|

NA|___|___|

And then go around asking people and fill in the table with your tallys.

If we'd all do this in a similar fashion (and some other assumptions reasonably satisfied), then we could combine our tables and explore the question.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Could you tell me if our consciousnesses are indistinguishable from the physical processes occuring in the brain?
They appear to be indistinguishable. Do you have any evidence that they can be distinguished? How would one perform tests for this?

For that matter, show me how your concept of God is distinguishable from nature. If you can do this, explain how your concept of God is not supernatural.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
Are most scientists atheists?
----


I'd like to ask the question:

Is the association between being a scientist and being an atheist statistically significant?

We could set up a chi-square test for starters. A 2x2 table would look something like:

(A for Atheist, S for Scientist, NA and NS for Not, etc.)

.....S NS
A|___|___|

NA|___|___|

And then go around asking people and fill in the table with your tallys.

If we'd all do this in a similar fashion (and some other assumptions reasonably satisfied), then we could combine our tables and explore the question. The problem with this: how do you define "scientist"? Clearly, someone who makes their living studying science is one, but what about a university student who is majoring in Biochemistry? Is someone who extensively versed in particle physics due to an interest a "scientist"?

The term "scientist" seems to have a very fuzzy definition.

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
Atheists do not have a conception of God.
----


That's interesting then, because you typed "God" instead of "god(s)", for example.

So clearly you do have a conception of what a god would be like if it existed.

Using the singular form of a noun instead of the plural form shows "clearly" that you have a conception of singular--form-of-noun, if it existed? Wha?

What the original person said doesn't make much sense to me, but what you said in response makes even less.

[Plutarck]

Someone else posted this site earlier in another thread, and it includes references to many studies on IQ and some on statistical comparison of belief in god amongst scientists in various fields: http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html

STUDIES Of SCIENTISTS

1. William S. Ament, 1927
C. C. Little, president of the University of Michigan, checked persons listed in Who's Who in America: "Unitarians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Universalists, and Presbyterians [who are less religious] are… far more numerous in Who's Who than would be expected on the basis of the population which they form. Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics are distinctly less numerous."

Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the least religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in Who's Who as in the U.S. population.

2. Lehman and Witty, 1931
Identified 1189 scientists found in both Who's Who (1927) and American Men of Science (1927). Only 25 percent of those listed in the latter and 50 percent of those in the former reported their religious denomination, despite the specific request to do so, under the heading of "religious denomination (if any)." Well over 90 percent of the general population claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25 percent suggests far less religiosity among scientists.

Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists as non-Unitarians.

3. Kelley and Fisk, 1951
Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious values and research competence. [How these were measured is unknown.]

4. Ann Roe, 1953
Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attend… All the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no part in their lives… A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not interested.'"

5. Francis Bello, 1954
Interviewed or questionnaired 107 nonindustrial scientists under the age of 40 judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. Of the 87 responses, 45 percent claimed to be "agnostic or atheistic" and an additional 22 percent claimed no religious affiliation. For 20 most eminent, "the proportion who are now a-religious is considerably higher than in the entire survey group."

6. Jack Chambers, 1964
Questionnaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, "The highly creative men… significantly more often show either no preference for a particular religion or little or no interest in religion." Found that the most eminent psychologists showed 40 percent no preference, 16 percent for the most eminent chemists.

7. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965
Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in American Men of Science (1955) on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. Of the 642 replies, 38.5 percent did not believe in an afterlife, whereas 31.8 percent did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The Gallup poll taken about this time showed that two-thirds of the U.S. population believed in an afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than the typical adult.

----
The problem with this: how do you define "scientist"? Clearly, someone who makes their living studying science is one, but what about a university student who is majoring in Biochemistry?
----


If one has any degree in a scientific field (as determined by the majority of universities) and one is practicing one or more of these areas for their occupation.

----
Using the singular form of a noun instead of the plural form shows "clearly" that you have a conception of singular--form-of-noun, if it existed? Wha?
----


You used the singular, so you feel if there is a god there is only one of them.

You also used the capital G version, which usually refers to the Judeao-Christian variety.

When I say "god", what picutre pops into your mind?

Some conception I bet, but you probably won't admit.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky

They appear to be indistinguishable. Do you have any evidence that they can be distinguished? How would one perform tests for this?

For that matter, show me how your concept of God is distinguishable from nature. If you can do this, explain how your concept of God is not supernatural.

I would say that if our consciousnesses are indistinguishable from certain physical processes (namely those in the brain), then it seems difficult to deny that God's consciousness (should he exist) is indistinguishable from certain physical processes.

Now tell me. Are our consciousnesses supernatural? If not then why are you declaring finite consciousnesses (ie ourselves) not to be supernatural, and yet you're declaring an infinite consciousness to be supernatural? If both are indistinguishable from particular physical processes, that is to say if our consciousnesses are indistinguishable from physical processes within the brain, and God's consciousness is indistinguishable from all the physical processes in the Universe as a whole, then why are you declaring one type of consciousness, ie the infinite consciousness to be supernatural, and the finite consciousness, ie our consciousnesses, not to be supernatural? Since both are either actually equivalent, or are a logical function of particular physical processes, I submit your position is inconsistent.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I would say that if our consciousnesses are indistinguishable from certain physical processes (namely those in the brain), then it seems difficult to deny that God's consciousness (should he exist) is indistinguishable from certain physical processes.

Now tell me. Are our consciousnesses supernatural? If not then why are you declaring finite consciousnesses (ie ourselves) not to be supernatural, and yet you're declaring an infinite consciousness to be supernatural?
Because we have a great deal of evidence for finite consciousnesses, and not a shred for infinite consciousnesses. If they exist, they appear lie outside the natural realm of consciousness, i.e. the brain. That is, unless you can find a natural location for the "infinite consciousness" and show how natural processes affect it, as you can with human consciousnesses.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian

If both are indistinguishable from particular physical processes, that is to say if our consciousnesses are indistinguishable from physical processes within the brain, and God's consciousness is indistinguishable from all the physical processes in the Universe as a whole, then why are you declaring one type of consciousness, ie the infinite consciousness to be supernatural, and the finite consciousness, ie our consciousnesses, not to be supernatural?
I cannot discern any physical processes which influence God's consciousness. Indeed, I cannot discern God's consciousness at all. If you can design a test that shows that a stimulus in the natural world affects God's consciousness, then I will concede the point. There are many such tests for human consciousness.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Since both are either actually equivalent, or are a logical function of particular physical processes, by what criteria are you able to declare the infinite consciousness supernatural, and yet the finite consciousness not supernatural??
LOL. Are you actually declaring human consciousness and God's consciousness to be equivalent? "Thou art God", as Heinlen says? Good for you. You've effectively reduced God to human status. I've always thought He was a human creation.

But to try to address your point. All human consciousnesses are associated with a physical brain, manipulation of which will affect the consciousness. To suggest a consciousness which is not associated with a physical brain is outside any experience of nature, hence, supernatural. As soon as you can show me (not just suggest) how manipulation of "nature" affects God's consciousness, then I will accept that God is not supernatural.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Whodini

I'd like to ask the question:

Is the association between being a scientist and being an atheist statistically significant?

It is statistically significant, just read one of the many studies about it.

About the chi-square test. Remember that correlation does NOT mean in any way causation.

All the results about atheism and science do not imply that science causes people to become atheist. It just means that on average we can find a stronger relationship between atheism and science, than theism and science.

[Win]

Q:

About the chi-square test. Remember that correlation does NOT mean in any way causation.

Tell that to Stimpy. ;)

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

...it seems difficult to deny that God's consciousness (should he exist) is indistinguishable from certain physical processes.

I thought you were anti-materialist.


Ian:
Now tell me. Are our consciousnesses supernatural? If not then why are you declaring finite consciousnesses (ie ourselves) not to be supernatural, and yet you're declaring an infinite consciousness to be supernatural?

God is by definition supernatural. In fact, this is an assertion that theists hold (and desperately need) in order to avoid presenting objective evidence.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Q-Source


It is statistically significant, just read one of the many studies about it.

About the chi-square test. Remember that correlation does NOT mean in any way causation.

All the results about atheism and science do not imply that science causes people to become atheist. It just means that on average we can find a stronger relationship between atheism and science, than theism and science.
Correlation does not mean causation, but it implies possible causation. If A and B show a strong correlation, then it is most likely that one of five relationships is present:

A causes B
B causes A
C ("C" could be more than one thing) cause both A & B
C + A cause B
C + B cause A

I think the case of scientist/atheists correlations is clearly a case of C causing A & B, With C being the traits of using critical thinking and discarding magic and superstition. A person, lets say a pathologist, who refuses to beleive magical explanations for disease is also likely to reject magical explantions for the universe.

Admittedly, "cause" is probably the wrong word here, since it is not a 1 to 1 correlation. Perhaps, "creates the environment for" would be better, if more verbose.

[Q-Source]

Tricky,

I may be wrong, but you should not use the word "cause" in your definition. Correlation could imply a cause as one of many possible explanations but it is not always the case.

Even "C" is incorrect to explain what correlation means because we are only considering the relationship between A and B.

This is an accurate definition:

1 : the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone www.m-w.com

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
Atheists do not have a conception of God.
----


That's interesting then, because you typed "God" instead of "god(s)", for example.

So clearly you do have a conception of what a god would be like if it existed.
I really doubt that my attempt at subtlety escaped you, but just in case;
my point was, that Atheists by definition, reject the concept of God.
While I'm sure there is some deep subconscious meaning to my
capitalization of God, my conscious reason, is that, it falls
within commonly accepted rules for capitalization in the written
English language.

Now, you'll be a bit ahead of your classmates next semester..:D

[B.P.]

To have causation, one must establish three conditions. These include:

1. Correlation
2. Time-order (the cause must precede the effect)
3. No other variable(s) that may be influencing the correlation

That third one can be tricky. For example, crime rate and ice cream sales in Chicago are highly correlated. At first glance, it would appear that ice cream consumption causes crime (or visa versa). On further examination, it becomes clear that they both have causal relationships with temperature - and nothing to do with eachother.

----
Now, you'll be a bit ahead of your classmates next semester..:D
----


Considering I teach, yeah, probably.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Whodini


Considering I teach, yeah, probably.

That explains a lot about the education system...

----
About the chi-square test. Remember that correlation does NOT mean in any way causation.
----


Well, of course.

But one can say quite a bit from having statistically significant correlation.

We could also look and see if the odds of being an atheist if you are a scientist, etc., are statistically significant.


----
All the results about atheism and science do not imply that science causes people to become atheist. It just means that on average we can find a stronger relationship between atheism and science, than theism and science.
----


Technically, yes, that is true.

But I never said anything about causation. I was talking about association all along.

----
my point was, that Atheists by definition, reject the concept of God.
----


No.

Atheists have no belief in any god(s). They still have conceptions of god(s).

Does a big blank come to your mind when you think "god(s)"?

Riiight.


----
While I'm sure there is some deep subconscious meaning to my
capitalization of God, my conscious reason, is that, it falls
within commonly accepted rules for capitalization in the written
English language.
----


Obviously you are talking about the Judeao-Christian variety, which is the most common in your culture. Most of the articles you religiously read about religion are about Creationism I'd imagine.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


That explains a lot about the education system...


Considering you don't have any degrees (because you're 16), not even a high-school diploma?

Considering you probably spend most of your time playing online games?

C'mon, you got anything better whipper snapper?

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Whodini



Considering you don't have any degrees (because you're 16), not even a high-school diploma?

Considering you probably spend most of your time playing online games?

C'mon, you got anything better whipper snapper?

And is any of that relevant? I fail to see how. :rolleyes:

It is relevant because you are talking about the "education system", but you are still a brat in high-school, so you don't really have any education yet, certainly not enough to critique me and imply that my teaching explains the poor state of affairs in the education system.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Whodini
It is relevant because you are talking about the "education system", but you are still a brat in high-school, so you don't really have any education yet, certainly not enough to critique me and imply that my teaching explains the poor state of affairs in the education system.

Maybe Dark Cobra is talking about HIS own experience.

He probably has a poor quality education.

Originally posted by Q-Source

Maybe Dark Cobra is talking about HIS own experience.
He probably has a poor quality education.


Q-Source, have you been paying attention?

I said:

----
Considering I teach, yeah, probably.
----


Then he said

----
That explains a lot about the education system...
----


,which is a jab at me.


I'm not going to take that from someone who probably thinks mastering a "rocket-jump" is a valuable real-world skill.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Whodini

I'm not going to take that from someone who probably thinks mastering a "rocket-jump" is a valuable real-world skill.
Resorting to strawman arguments will do nothing to put you in a superior position, either morally or intellectually.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Whodini

Q-Source, have you been paying attention?

Yes

I was being ironic with DC's opinion. :confused:

I said:

----
I'm not going to take that from someone who probably thinks mastering a "rocket-jump" is a valuable real-world skill.
----


arcticpenguin said:

----
Resorting to strawman arguments will do nothing to put you in a superior position, either morally or intellectually.
----


Two things:


1. Get off Dark Cobra's leg and let him answer for himself.

2. Is it a strawman if I was already correct on high-school and that he plays computer games, and that fact that I said "probably"?

Answer: No.

Seems to be plausible inference. I bet he plays Quake or the equivalent shoot-em-up.

[Thumper]

As a trained physicist and mathematician, as a current student in a political science program attempting to hold on to the 'science' aspect in my new field of choice (not always an easy problem), I find most of the problems with this series of posts deals with attempting to use empirical logic in a field that, quite often, uses normative logic.

Science is empirical. You formulate hypotheses, run experiments, make observations, create theories, etc... All is based upon observation and measurement. Science is unable to deal with things that cannot be measured. In all honesty, I find that to be one of the greatest strengths of science. If facts do not conform to theory, you change theory.

Religion (and philosophy, etc.) are normative. They don't examine what is, they examine what ought to be. Observation and measurement are (from what I can tell) are absent. The scientific method holds no sway in this realm. If facts do not fit theory, don't toss the theory.

Science makes life easier and healthier and brighter etc... Normative disciplines make it more valuable. An artist may not be able to explain how his/her pigments are different colors, but he/she can definitely paint something that makes spirits soar. Science describes what is happening in life. Religion and philosophy and art make life more valuable.

As for those discussions on whether scientist can 'know' anything... come on. David Hume (philosopher) already made these arguments. True, we can never know with 100% accuracy that the sun will rise in the morning, yet we plan our lives that the sun will rise. Scientists are the same. Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory -- a scientific theory in all that that title entails. Evidence could come up tomorrow that contradicts Evolution. Yet all (reasonable) scientists treat it as fact, basing their research and resources on it. That is as it should be. For centuries, Newton's Laws reigned supreme in physics. There were treated as fact, and much physics was built upon them. Yet, when Einstein's reativity theories showed them to be lacking, science moved on.

BTW: If we're taking a poll, count this Mathematical Physicist a devout Roman Catholic.

[Kullervo]

Hello Thumper -

Just for my own curiousity, do you believe that mathematics fits your characterization of science?

And moving from physics to PoliSci - pshew - interesting progression. I won't ask why.

[Thumper]

Whitefork, I don't quite understand what you mean by:
"...do you believe that mathematics fits your characterization of science?"

[Kullervo]

A request for clarification of this:
Science is empirical. You formulate hypotheses, run experiments, make observations, create theories, etc... All is based upon observation and measurement. Science is unable to deal with things that cannot be measured. In all honesty, I find that to be one of the greatest strengths of science. If facts do not conform to theory, you change theory.
This seems to exclude mathematics from the git-go. So, I was hoping you'd expand a bit for my benefit here.

And if you wouldn't mind I have a thread in Science that I'm looking for opinions on, and you might be in a position to offer some: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13624

[Thumper]

Ok. I gotcha, whitefork. Good question.

Mathematics is the language of science. I forget who said it, so I'll take credit (and royalties) for it. =)

When we make measurements, we are able to put numbers to obseved phenomena. The formulating of hypotheses and the checking of those hypotheses, and the creation of theory all involve mathematics to a great degree.

If you are able to write an equation to describe how different variables interact (e.g. force, mass, and acceleration), then you have summed up a lot of information in one short sentence.

There are two types of theories in science: descriptive and fundamental (with a lot of grey area between them). Descriptive theories just say what is happening. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are an example of this type, as they just say the planets move in ellipses, etc. Fundamental theories unite different descriptives into one. Newton's Laws of Motion are an example of this second type, for they unite, among others, Kepler's Laws into one overarching law. Descriptive theories are predictive, but for a much more limited realm than are fundamental theories.

Oops... sorry I went off on a tangent. Students used to love it when I did that, because it meant at least 5 minutes of uninterrupted nap time. =)

[Kullervo]

See everybody? I can ask non-leading and non-inflammatory questions!

(How's Bambi?)

[Thumper]

Originally posted by whitefork
(How's Bambi?)

Bambi is doing well. It's Flower I worry about.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Whodini
It is relevant because you are talking about the "education system", but you are still a brat in high-school, so you don't really have any education yet, certainly not enough to critique me and imply that my teaching explains the poor state of affairs in the education system.

Saying I don't have any real education yet is quite an exaggeration.

My insult was a cheap shot.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Whodini

I'm not going to take that from someone who probably thinks mastering a "rocket-jump" is a valuable real-world skill.

What the hell is a "rocket-jump"?

The games I play are usually Counter-Strike and some GameCube games. I don't play games much often anymore.

What I do for entertainment is irrelevant to what I said, anyways.