Slashdot Mirror
What Scientists Really Think About Religion
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post has a book review of Science and Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Rice University sociologist Elaine Ecklund, who spent four years doing a detailed survey of 1,646 scientists at elite American research universities. The study reveals that scientists often practice a closeted faith, worrying about how their peers would react to learning about their religious views. 'After four years of research, at least one thing became clear: Much of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. The '"insurmountable hostility" between science and religion is a caricature, a thought-cliche, perhaps useful as a satire on groupthink, but hardly representative of reality,' writes Ecklund. Unsurprisingly, Ecklund found that 64% of scientists are either atheists (34%) or agnostic (30%). But only five of the 275 in-depth interviewees actively oppose religion; and even among the third who are atheists, many consider themselves 'spiritual.' 'According to the scientists I interviewed, the academy seems to have a "strong culture" that suppresses discussion about religion in many areas,' says Ecklund. 'To remove the perceived stigma, we would need to have more scientists talking openly about issues of religion, where such issues are particularly relevant to their discipline.'"
Well, as long as it's closeted, I don't care what safety blanket they need to survive the realities of life. Let them believe in Dog. But never, ever let them get away with fusing it into their science. Religion is at best "outside the realm" of science, which is a polite way of saying it's irrelevant to reality, which is a polite way of saying it's a harmful delusion. Fine with me if you live your life that way, but keep it to yourself.
Oh, and fuck Jesus.
is, whether someone who can jump to any conclusion can be trusted not to conclude on a scientific issue where there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.
Almost by definition, a scientist should not believe. If s/he does believe then they are only practicing science, they are not a scientist.
Perhaps, if we have less believers and more scientists then the facts of 'global warming/oil disaster/insert issue here' would be more obvious and less disguised behind various dogma.
Because Religion is the largest cause of backward thinking, and rejects all forms of change.
Because Religion is the idea that there's an all knowing entity in singular or multiple forms that has the power to control all, but doesn't because you have free will, and if you don't believe you're going to die and live in fiery damnation forever.
Because the current leaders of the Theological foundation still believe they "talk to god" on a daily basis.
Because if religion is allowed to exist in it's current state it will be the downfall of all mankind.
q: Why do the god(s) let Priests molest children?
a: they worship a god that doesn't really exist so the real one chooses not to interact.
"Why focus on fervently opposing religion when there are so many more interesting scientific things to do?"
Because religion opposes freedom, replacing it with submission to the dictates of humans who claim their insight comes from their imaginary friends.
Religion can be weak, but at the core it is all "Taliban", an excuse for utter savagery and for resistance to knowledge. The only people who defend religion are the religious. That's part of being brainwashed.
There is no middle ground. There is no reason to pretend otherwise except to deceive religionists to save yourself from their wrath. Their ideology justifies any conduct to route around their insane belief system, which is why politicians manipulate these simpletons rather than argue with them.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Sure, but regardless of how contradicting they are, religions are still the source of most wars in the world.
Even without the logic contradictions, we would still have enough elements to ban all religions, based on the damage they cause to the fabric of society alone.
You take your religion and I'll take science and we'll see who can build the better shoulder to listen to. I'll take psychology over spirituality any day.
Ah, however your conclusion rests on an unstated assumption: that religion is incorrect.
If the naturalists are right, and we only have this life to worry about, then of course the naturalists have figured out the best way to live an effective life. Indeed the Christians would agree: If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. 1 Cor 15:19
But if the Christians are right, and there is an afterlife to contend with, then the shoulder of Jesus suddenly becomes much more attractive.
Believing something doesn't make it true. Not believing something doesn't make it false.
Most scientists at elite universities don't actively oppose religion. But almost every "modded up" post on slashdot strongly opposes and is actively hostile to religion. I wonder what that says about the slashdot crowd?
Religion is superstition, therefore assholery.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Drivel. Lies.
Religion has been deliberately opposing science since the first doctors were burned as witches.
Want a list? Off the top of my head:
* Evolution.
* Abiogenesis.
* Archeology
* Paleontology.
* Cosmology.
* Just biological materialism, as most religious people are still stuck in with vitalism.
* Plate tectonics and generally geology.
* Radiometry and thus.
* Medicine, germ theory as opposed to curses by witches.
* Psychiatry as opposed to spiritual possessions.
* Meteorology, as opposed to divine punishment.
* SETI, yes most religious people I know deny life outside of Earth on religious grounds only.
To say that there are no conflicts between science and religion is a barefaced lie.
Relidiots have to be buried in evidence to shake them, their next step? Denialism! All those scientists are lying! It's a conspiracy!
So you have to hammer evidence into their faces to break the wall, do they change their ways? No!
When a relidiot can't fight the truth anymore, rather than admitting their religion is bunk and that they shouldn't make real-world assertions based on fantasies they claim to have misinterpreted, mistranslated or mistaken as literal what really was a "metaphor".
And then proceed to state that all the rest of their superstitious beliefs are *still* true.
The fact that a minority of scientist keep their religion in secret doesn't prove that religion is compatible with science, it only proves that religious beliefs can survive even among scientists as long as they are kept sheltered from critical thought.
But... the future refused to change.
Throwing religious rhetoric around to stifle scientific advancement helps no one.
In some cases it would (had my rhetoric been enough to stop them).
Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
Sorry your post is a regurgitated mess of truth tidbits you were fed by some idiot.
There is an evident conflict between any ideology of inerrant revelation and one of skeptical investigation, you just choose not to see it.
The only way out is by the usual method of weaseling out by smudging the word religion until it doesn't resemble any actual religion in the world.
Here I'm talking about real world examples of scientifically proved wrong opinions held by large numbers of members from a major religion and you are trying to downplay it as "some cleric somewhere disagreed with something a scientist said".
When you choose to subtract yourself from the real world it's easy to say there isn't a conflict between your incredibly bizarre definitions of science and religion that no ordinary person could guess.
My guess? You are an idiot.
But... the future refused to change.