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.'"
Why focus on fervently opposing religion when there are so many more interesting scientific things to do?
This shouldn't absolutely be a 'don't ask don't tell' thing, but if the guy does his job properly leave him be...
Also, several nutcases in science have nothing to do with religion, like the MMR "controversy", HIV denialists, etc, etc
how long until
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.
The surest path to atheism is open discussion of religion.
"and even among the third who are atheists, many consider themselves 'spiritual.'"
What does the word "even" mean in this sentence? Spirituality is a part of the human psyche. Although we often connect the two, spirituality has little to do with faith. In fact, science is a great source of awe and wonder, feelings that we might call "spiritual" feelings.
Who do you think is running the homeless shelters and tackling social problems in much of the world?
Wow way to be tolerant. Who gives a rip what other people think, no one is making you believe or think that. So why do you have to rip on people who don't think the same exact way that you do?
Sounds like the makings of a seriously intolerant person who iis just a hop, skip and jump away from being a racist.
Way to be narrow minded. Thinking like that is what expands science...oh wait no it doesn't. It not listen to what anyone else around you says and trying things on your own, and testing new ideas that maybe everyone else doesn't agree with, but doing it anyway. Tolerance should one of the main foundations of science and thought in this day and age.
Science can tell you "why" also, such as why the Earth is round. I don't see why can can't just leave questions unanswered and we have to make up an answer for them. Perhaps in thousands of years science will progress to the point where it is possible to answer some questions previously thought impossible. A "God of the gaps" is a silly god.
> Science is purely objective
But scientific community is far from. And you need publications and grants.
scientists, in general, do not have strong views against religion. Scientists are used to politely disagreeing with people that do not share their views, and having their views challenged and proven wrong.
it is the uneducated that have complete certainty in their opinions want to kill everyone that disagrees with them.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
My experience in the community is just that no one cares unless it starts effecting your science or hypotheses. Theist or atheist, if you're good at what you do no one cares. If you go around preaching to other scientists, yeah, you're opening yourself up for ridicule. But I think that is true in any field outside of the more religious areas of the US.
They don't, though. Thats the thing. God's all about war and violence and punishment and judgement, and Christianity worships fear more than love. Maybe there are still some out there, but the idea of the true Jesus Christian who is a pacifist and loves thy brother is extinct in my part of the US.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
Dude. Secular organizations tackle the same issues. Religion does not have a monopoly on compassion. At least a secular organization does not try to indoctrinate, which is a form of mental abuse in my book.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
I think there are two kinds of spiritual people:
1) Those that believe in religion in addition to science
2) Those that believe in religion instead of science
I mean, science does not prove or disprove whether there is a soul or if there's an afterlife or any of those things that means we're more than flesh and blood who doesn't have any other purpose than our own. These people may call themselves spiritual but they're not threatened by scientific discovery because the divine exists outside time and space and the realm of science.
Then there are the people who care very much about worldly "facts" or perhaps "axioms" are the word since they exist without proof only by Holy Scripture, like that the world is 6000 years old, all men come from Adam shaped of mud and Eve shaped from a rib, the earth is the center of the universe and so on. They are hostile to science because science is dangerous to their religion, every time evidence builds that these facts are wrong it threatens their religion as a whole. To them the Bible or Qur'an can't be wrong, where science and religion clash science must yield.
I think a very nice follow-up question to that study would be: "If something that is established religious doctrine in your belief was contradicted by observational evidence, what would you be more inclined to believe?" That is where I think scientists and many religious folks would go their separate ways.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Because scientists don't live in a societal vacuum. Personalities DO matter.
People haven't advanced much. 700 years ago, you either believed in the bible or you were burned at the stake. 70 years ago in Germany or the Soviet Union, you "believed" in Hitler or Stalin respectively, or you were sent to the concentration camp. 7 years ago, you went "hoo-rah!" with invading Iraq, or you were person non grata some places.
Even today there are these cherished beliefs you CANNOT question. They are all over society. Not just in third world, in first worlds you get ostracized all the time from these little factions or even jailed for voicing the wrong thing. People love their fucking little beliefs and love even more making sure that you believe the same thing they do or at the least you STFU if you don't. Hell, it happens at places like /. or Digg if you go against groupthink - it's one of the fundamental truths about humanity.
From the summary:
And you know why this is? Because there is nothing to be gain and a lot to be lost in actively opposing religion. Just go to someplace relatively mainstream like the Hannity forum and look at some of the extreme nutters on there. There are people in this country that will kill you because you think abortion is okay, fundamentalism isn't a purely middle east thing. Maybe the repercussions aren't as bad, but a scientist who actively opposes religion in this country where the money still says "In God We Trust" and after every speech the President has to say "God Bless America" still has some balls.
It's not at a level of going "**** Allah" in Afghanistan to be sure, but I'm sure real obstacles would be put in that person's path by someone with both faith and power.
That's a rather anomalous variety of "running homeless shelters" and "tackling social problems". The UNHCR runs refugee camps, mostly in war zones and former war zones; it doesn't run soup kitchens in Brazil, or generally in any way attempt to improve the lot of poor people in non-warzones.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I haven't read the books, but that article is crap. The entire thing just says "evolution is clearly happening, so we should reinterpret the bible to say that God just got he ball rolling." It is an exercise in altering religious views to conform to modern science, not an exercise in scientific thought. It is just arguing that we should modify religion to become a "God of the gaps", which is a silly argument indeed.
So, in other words, updating science to better correspond with reality is good science. Updating theology to better correspond with reality is bad theology.
Kind of "heads I win, tails you lose" situation.
"Tolerance should one of the main foundations of science and thought in this day and age."
Not tolerance of superstition. Superstition is not science, and deserves no respect.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I would be more interested in the percentages per field. You can't classify all scientists under one banner as some fields are 'softer' than others so people with religious views are able to function. Other fields are strongly incompatible with religious views. Also, there will likely be a strong impact from the population in general so in a country like the US where almost everyone is religious, this will mean that there will be a significant population of scientists who hold religious views albeit lower than the population in general. In other countries where religion is less strongly entrenched the percentages are likely to be significantly lower.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
I think what the OP is saying is that religions, for all of their wonky beliefs, actually do a lot of good in the world. It's an effective set of organizations that have made many positive contributions to society, historically and currently, and can be a strong motivator for social justice and poverty issues.
For every church group that opposes birth control in Africa on "moral" grounds, there is usually one that is there handing out condoms. We just hear a lot about the former, and less about the latter.
It's not a silly argument at all. It's the difference between delusion and a sunny disposition. Choosing to believe what a religion says even when there's clear incontrovertible evidence to the contrary is more or less mental illness, not a legitimate religious belief. One can legitimately claim that there's a god for the simple reason that we can't prove that there isn't to any reasonable certainty.
It's that viewpoint which tends to cause scientists to clam up about religion rather than necessarily any reason to hide it. I went to a very liberal school and a significant number of my professors were practicing Catholics. Perhaps it's a biased sample, but I can't imagine them saying they were at such a liberal institution if they were feeling it would damage their careers.
Atheism is much more common among scientists than among the general population, as is agnosticism.
Or maybe "scientists" are more honest about it?
The truth is that most people that claim to be Christians are not able to discuss any particular point of the primary source document, and probably haven't been to a church service in years. So while many people claim to be Christians, in a factual sense it really isn't true since in a very real way they can not describe any of the things that define Christianity.
I can say I'm a brain surgeon all day long (hey, I took a biology class once), yet I know nothing at all about brain surgery.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
you can still prove that certain forms of religion are wrong and self-contradicting
The core principles of science are that you can NEVER PROVE a single thing.
Why do you assume the poster meant he would use science to prove "that certain forms of religion are wrong and self-contradicting", rather than mathematics? If a religious book makes factual statements, then those statements can be mapped onto the symbols of a predicate logic system. By manipulating those symbols, you could probably prove that at least some really are contradictory.
Religion does not have a monopoly on compassion.
No, but certain religions promote compassion, which makes its followers more likely to be compassionate. One can be compassionate without religion, and one can act on those compassionate ideas, but it would take a sociology study to determine whether compassionate religions have a noticeable benefit to society. But, it's human nature to do more "good" things if there's a social stigma discouraging not doing "good" things.
At least a secular organization does not try to indoctrinate, which is a form of mental abuse in my book.
Like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which stipulates the use of Windows computers in all the efforts to which it contributes? Forced indoctrination is neither a secular nor religious thing. Money is power, and where there's power, there'll be abuse. Religion neither fosters it, nor does non-religiosity prevent it. The responsible parties are the individuals, not the religion or lack thereof.
The argument that religion has anything to do with abuse is merely the other side of the coin that says religion promotes social good, which you've argued against in the preceding statements.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Either God doesn't heal the sick in the first place, or He's a douchewidget who will refuse to heal the sick if they're part of a study.
At least, assuming a strong/strict reading of "God listens to prayer and will heal the sick if we pray for them."
In practice, I suspect the experiment you're describing isn't testing actual religious claims. Most religious adults won't claim that God heals any sick person every time any person prays for them, but will instead state there may be number of factors involved, including the faith and/or conduct of the person praying, the faith/conduct of the person being prayed for, and some larger ineffable plan or "God's will." It isn't as if there no believers who've ever noticed that even well-prayed-over adherents suffer misfortune, injury, and death.
Now, you can say that their justifications are non-falsifiable, and speculate that they're post-hoc, and that's true, and people who tend towards rationalist epistemologies will probably take that route. But it remains the case good rationalist can't say that the experiment you're describing really thoroughly examines hypotheses other than the strict one.
In other words, possibility 3 -- that God sometimes heals individuals according to criteria unaccounted for by the study -- is outside the bounds of the experiment.
Tweet, tweet.