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.'"

Comments

Makes sense

[pinkj]

Why focus on fervently opposing religion when there are so many more interesting scientific things to do?

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Not 'more' interesting. Religion isn't interesting when discussing science. It has no relation.

Likewise, there will be an equal reluctance to discuss the NBA draft, and politics. Only extremists view this as persecution, by insisting there is a relevance to spiritual matters.

In other words, were I a religious fellow, I would have no interest in what scientists say about religion. In the same manner, I don't gather political insight from celebrities.

Re:Makes sense

[Austerity Empowers]

Why focus on opposing religion since you can't prove it wrong? The whole topic is a waste of time.

Re:Makes sense

[His Shadow]

That would make sense if too many religionists weren't Hell bent on forcing religion back into aspects of culture we've been successfully removing religion from in the first place.

Re:Makes sense

[AffidavitDonda]

While you can't prove that there is no god (or similar esoteric entity), you can still prove that certain forms of religion are wrong and self-contradicting. Like Islam, Christianity and all this creationist stuff...

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Why focus on fervently opposing religion, when it is unscientific to spout rhetoric either way?

The existence/non-existence of God is a moot point as far as science is concerned, because no experiment can prove either side right. Thus, it is not scientific to make any such assertions. What a scientist chooses to believe behind closed doors is their business, as long as it does not interfere with their scientific objectivity.

(related, on religion bashing)

Really, Atheists believe that a person's purpose is specific to the individual person, and that person's individual will. (as opposed to glorifying or appeasing some deity.) The religious CHOOSE to pander to a deity, and regardless of if that deity is real or not, that is their choice. Why are the atheists so down on the theists?

Some atheists claim it is because the theists are evangelical about their beliefs, but from where I sit, that is quite a specious argument; The mere existence of the "darwin fish" bumper ornaments illustrates this fact.

If you ask me, it is because the Atheists believe they need to liberate the superstitious from their beliefs, and "set them free", just as strongly as the religious feel they need to "Spread God's Word", and "Bring Salvation" to the masses.

In short, BOTH believe they are "Right", and argue that fact to the annoyance of everyone else around them.

The actual atheist, (the one that feels personal choice is king) would have no problem with religious people, because those people CHOOSE to be religious.

I don't know what to call the evangelical "atheist", but they are every bit as hypocritical and annoying as the evangelical religious types, and for exactly the same reasons-- Both are actively trying to tell you what you should think, and purporting themselves as being "Right."

Regardless of who is castigating whom; ("Godless Heathen!", and "Stop believing in the tooth fairy!" are equivalent slurs in my estimation.) the mode of operation is the same, so denouncing that behavior whilst simultaneously engaging in it is the very definition of hypocrite.

I have nothing against actual atheists, and I have nothing against quiet religious practitioners. What I have a problem with is evangelists, who seem intent on trying to "Convert" me. I am quite capable of making up my own mind, thank you. Sadly, this is true of both sides of this rather sordid little coin.

Really, the BEST solution, is to just leave it well enough alone, and to stop feeding the trolls. Why should it matter what my personal beliefs are? Even for a scientist, it doesn't make any sense to make this into an issue, except to sell magazines, news articles, and to instigate scandal and sensationalism. If the scientist can do his or her job, and do so in an emprically validated, and fully rigorous methodology, what difference does it make if they worship XENU, Christ, Vishnu, Shiva, $Deity, or no deity at all?

That's right-- it DOESN'T. Thus, this is a NON ISSUE, and matters only to people who want to feel "RIGHT", about something that can be logically proven, that nobody is "RIGHT."

I REALLY hate stories like this one.

Re:Makes sense

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Why focus on opposing religion since you can't prove it wrong? The whole topic is a waste of time.

While the existence of an all-powerful deity or deities is not falsifiable - a hell of a lot of conclusions that people come to based on that premise are. When the actions they take because of those conclusions are destructive then they do need to be opposed.

Re:Makes sense

[xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D]

That's not true. You can't disprove the existence of God, but there's a lot of religious beliefs that you can prove wrong. You can prove astrology and fortune-telling wrong, or parts of the Book of Genesis, for instance.

Re:Makes sense

[TeXMaster]

While you can't prove that there is no god (or similar esoteric entity), you can still prove that certain forms of religion are wrong and self-contradicting. Like Islam, Christianity and all this creationist stuff...

Not really. Although you can show quite simply how much of the factoids contained in their sacred books are inconsistent with what science shows us, this does neither prove the religion wrong, nor it proves them to be self-contradicting.

First of all, nothing (not even in the sacred books themselves) says that the sacred books are supposed to be read literally (and no, their claiming of being the Word of God does not automatically imply that they should be read literally). Of course, this does raise the question on who and when and how can go beyond the literal meaning, and the moment religion becomes an instrument of power, rather than more simply a collection of ethical rules and myths and stuff to support it (which is pretty soon in the history of every religion, of course), the powers-to-be claim to hold the only possible key to interpretation (e.g. the Church was strongly opposed to having a Bible in the new languages that formed across Europe, rather than in Latin, because then "everybody could read it", where 'reading' is to be intended not (only) in the literal sense, but more in the deeper sense of trying to understand the deepest meanings of the Book). By the way, except for the literal creationists, creationism by itself is not incompatible with what science tells us about the universe, although compatible approaches (such as intelligent design) are scientifically useless.

Secondly, when you go look at the substance of the religions, these are not inherently wrong, nor self-contradicting. What is contradicting (or more specifically substantially hypocrite) is most of the time the behavior of many believers.

Re:Makes sense

[Mr. Freeman]

No, you can't.

Jesus fucking christ, I'm fucking sick of all this god damn bullshit "science is comparable with religion" nonsense. Science isn't a fucking daycare, we do NOT have to make everyone happy.

The core principles of science are that you can NEVER PROVE a single thing. You can ONLY DISPROVE hypotheses through experimentation. The "law" of gravity is really just a theory with a lot of support (experiments) to back it up. If gravity does not work like we think it does then it is conceivable that an experiment could be designed to disprove it by demonstrating that it does not hold for some circumstance. We have not explored 100 percent of every possible circumstance. It's possible there's a planet a million billion light years away that doesn't have gravity for some reason. If and when we find that planet then we'll have to reconsider gravity.

Religion can never be disprove. If there is truly an omnipotent being then that being could change the result of ANY experiment performed. Thus, the results of ANY experiment designed to disprove the existence of god can't be trusted because some omnipotent being could have simply fucked with the results.

For example, we have carbon dating techniques and other methods of dating that say we've found dinosaur bones that are some number of million years old. This would seem to disprove religions that state the earth is only 6000 years old. However, the RELIGIOUS argument (not scientific argument) is that god could have placed them there 6000 years ago and messed with the concentration of carbon-14 in their bones (or the rock or plants around the bones, or whatever) to make it appear that those bones are older than 6000 years. Furthermore, he could have not fucked with the C-14 and he could simply be messing with the instruments that we use to measure the concentration. Yes, if there is truly an omnipotent being then he could, theoretically, be messing with every carbon dating experiment ever performed.

There simply isn't any way to disprove god and because of that, the existence of god is not something science will ever explore. Any scientist telling you different is a quack.

Religion is not science and science is not religion. There's no link between the two, people need to stop trying to "reconcile" them.

Re:Makes sense

[Dragonslicer]

While the existence of an all-powerful deity or deities is not falsifiable - a hell of a lot of conclusions that people come to based on that premise are. When the actions they take because of those conclusions are destructive then they do need to be opposed.

Which isn't really opposing religion, but opposing assholes, and that's something that should be done regardless of religion.

Re:Makes sense

[Tanktalus]

You're right. There is no relation. At least, not scientifically. And therein lies the issue: far too many people look to science as a way to deny religion. They are manufacturing a discord when, apparently, even many top scientists don't have a problem doing both. It's pure bologna, and that's the entire point of the study.

The top scientists don't have a problem with religion. The most unscientific don't have a problem with religion. It's only those in the middle, those who think they know science but probably don't, which have a problem, statistically speaking. In other words, there shouldn't be a relationship. Any discord evidenced in public is purely manufactured.

Of course, I have to wonder who, or what group, started the manufacture. But that's another topic.

Re:Makes sense

[phantomfive]

The core principles of science are that you can NEVER PROVE a single thing. You can ONLY DISPROVE hypotheses through experimentation

Well I just proved that the hypothesis has been disproven. So take that! Ha!

More seriously, you have this imaginary God that you've created and used in your example, but claims of specific religions ARE falsifiable. I gave some examples here, but once again, religions ARE testable. If you think otherwise, you aren't being creative enough. To consider specific religions:

Buddhism: if you follow the eight-fold path, your suffering will end. Extremely testable. If you follow the eight-fold path, and you are still suffering, then man, they led you astray.
Tantric yoga: do these exercises and meditations and eventually you will have a kundalini rising (enlightenment). So if you do them, and you don't have a kundalini rising, then you know tantra is worthless (either that or your teacher sucks).
The Bible: Those who believe shall be able to do miracles, such as drink poison and not get hurt, or heal the sick (Mark 15:17). So if you follow Christ and you can't do those things, then......yeah, you've just falsified it.

What difference does it make if there was a God who created the world six thousand years ago and made it look older? In practical terms, it only matters if he is still doing things today. So focus on that. Tell crazy people that belief in a God that did something and then disappeared without a trace is utterly useless and impractical. Which it is.

Re:Makes sense

[jbssm]

Actually I did look it up: "A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3]"

Re:Makes sense

[IICV]

Religion can never be disprove. If there is truly an omnipotent being then that being could change the result of ANY experiment performed. Thus, the results of ANY experiment designed to disprove the existence of god can't be trusted because some omnipotent being could have simply fucked with the results.

Even though in theory a generic omnipotent deity could affect the outcome of any given scientific study and create a false null result, in practice most religions make specific claims about their deities. For instance, a common one is that God listens to prayer and will heal the sick if we pray for them. However, when we actually studied whether or not this happens, we found a null result. This means that either:

1. God doesn't heal the sick, or
2. God only heals the sick if they are not currently part of a study to determine if He heals the sick.

Those are the only two options. There's no way omnipotence can get you out of that observed result. 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.

It's these sorts of specific truth-value claims that science can verify, and every single time we've tried it we've come up with a null result, or the result that it's got nothing to do with God.

Re:Makes sense

[Wain13001]

the sword cuts both ways though...if not more strongly in the other direction than you seem to be swinging it.

Religion is used to fervently oppose science by those uneducated masses who understand neither their own religion or science. Honestly this is where in my experience those who are pro-science and anti-religion get their frustration with religion from.

The extreme distrust of intellectualism throughout the US in particular is a major block in the advancement of society on a wide variety of fronts, and most often that distrust is manufactured as a form of religious views attacking scientific foundations and research.

Re:Makes sense

[IICV]

Uhm. Have you read Genesis recently? Here's an online copy; let's go through it line by line.

• Gen 1: God creates the heavens and Earth. Before there is light. Meaning that the Earth was created before the Sun, or in fact before there was such a thing as electromagnetic radiation (depending on how you want to interpret it). This is objectively wrong either way.
• Gen 3: God creates light. Before the Sun. This means that there's light on Earth, without the Sun. This is objectively wrong.
• Gen 7: Apparently, the sky is made out of water? Must be why all our spaceships are built like submarines and have propellers. Except they aren't, because this is objectively wrong.
• Gen 11: Seed-bearing, land based plants and trees were the first kind of life on Earth? That's objectively wrong. Keep in mind that we still don't have a sun yet, either - plants and trees were created before the Sun, though oddly enough after there was light on Earth, which is simply ridiculous (and objectively wrong).
• Gen 14-18: We finally get the Sun! Man, now those plants have something to eat, besides this weird light that comes from nowhere. Note, however, that the moon was created after the first plant life, which is objectively wrong. Also, the Sun was created before the rest of the stars, which is objectively wrong. (oh yeah and the Earth was created before the rest of the stars as well, which is objectively wrong)
• Gen 20: Living creatures in the water? Cool, that's right (finally). But immediately from there we get birds? Not okay.
• Gen 24: Livestock were created before wild animals? Livestock existed before there were people to domesticate them? How is that even supposed to make sense? Also, this is the Garden of Eden, which in some interpretations means that there was no such thing as death and Adam and Eve wandered around naked. What would they do with livestock, unless God was already planning the Fall?

The rest of it is stuff about people which you've asked me not to mention; however, I'm sure you get the picture. There's plenty of stuff in in Genesis that's absolutely 100% wrong regardless of your interpretation.

Re:Makes sense

[XaXXon]

No, I'd say that it didn't need fixing and you didn't fix it. There are too many of them and they're too loud. It doesn't matter how many there are, there are too many.

Re:Makes sense

[MightyMartian]

And where do the Creationists and other Literalists come into this? The first volleys against science weren't by scientists or by pro-scientific groups, they were by Biblical Literalists who believed (and still believe) that any science that goes against their beliefs is wrong, if not outright evil?

Where do very organized and well-funded groups like the Discovery Institute and AIG enter your little picture? All I see is you basically blaming the science side of the equation. Seems pretty lop-sided to me.

Re:Makes sense

[gtall]

And, you are fill of shit. You are assuming what you wish to prove, namely that religion comes from imaginary friends. Science is silent on the issue. And at its core, all religions are not Taliban. Christianity with its turn the other cheek. Buddhism with its notion of seeking enlightenment without hurting other people or beings.

You wish to argue that religion causes people to justify all kinds of inhumanity. Granted. However, were it not for religion, those who practice inhumanity would simply choose some other handy rationale for justifying inhumanity. Consider Christian charities that give without quid pro quo. There are Islamic charities that do similar work. There are Jewish and Buddhist and Hindu charities which similarly give help merely because helping others is good.

If you are going to damn every religion because of fanatics, you can choose to damn every human endeavor, no matter how good, for those who would pervert it. You have no depth of perception, and in fact, are no better than the those who you would damn.

Re:Makes sense

[nine-times]

I think some of the conflict actually has nothing to do with science or God per se, but it's much more about people wanting to argue with each other for one reason or another. I hate to use this terminology, but it's a "culture war".

It's someone saying, "I don't like they way you live your life. I don't like the way you talk about thinks or think about things, and I feel threatened by the decisions you make, so I'm going to get together with my like-minded friends and argue talk about how you're a horrible person."

It comes from both camps. Sometimes it's because the one side is genuinely threatening to the other, but often enough, I think it's just because of the nice little ego boost that comes from calling someone else stupid. Plus, it's very upsetting for some people to admit that they might not understand something. For someone to say something you don't understand, to admit that you don't understand, and then to admit that they might not be wrong-- for some people that is in itself a terrifying threat.

The real deal is that the scientific method can never really disprove the existence of God, so there can be no genuine conflict between science and the belief in God. And none of the major religions actually command you to be petty and ignorant and to disbelieve your experience. All the pettiness on both sides are just people being petty. There is no battle between God and science.

Re:Makes sense

[Pharmboy]

Or god is malevolent, and just doesn't like certain people. The whole idea that "God answers prayers" means that god would be picking winners and losers: ie, kiss his ass, grovel a little bit pray hard to him and he *might* save your daughter from leukemia. If you don't, then he tell you to piss off, and she dies. The Abrahamic religions seem to support the idea that he *is* that kind of an asshole. Vengeful and jealous (per the actual wording in the bible and to a degree, the koran). Sorry, that doesn't sounds like an omnipotent or omniscient being, that sounds like a bully with an inferiority complex.

Re:Makes sense

[Culture20]

Just out of curiosity, what parts of Genesis are provably wrong? And please don't say how man was made, how the earth as we know it was made or anything like that. You can show a likelihood of another explanation but none of that has been proven over anything else.

Uhm. Have you read Genesis recently? Here's an online copy; let's go through it line by line.

Okay, that will be fun! Just make sure to follow GP's rules about creation myth and miracles. Saying "miracles are unscientific, thus impossible" is like saying "peanutbutter is not meat, thus indigestible." I'm also adding chapters to your quotes. Let's begin.

* Gen 1:1: God creates the heavens and Earth. Before there is light. Meaning that the Earth was created before the Sun, or in fact before there was such a thing as electromagnetic radiation (depending on how you want to interpret it). This is objectively wrong either way.

Objectively wrong, or subjectively wrong assuming that modern astronomers are correct? Were any of us there to observe?

* Gen 1:3: God creates light. Before the Sun. This means that there's light on Earth, without the Sun. This is objectively wrong.

Lots of things make light without the Sun, my computer screen for example. Photons are not made solely by stars.

* Gen 1:7: Apparently, the sky is made out of water? Must be why all our spaceships are built like submarines and have propellers. Except they aren't, because this is objectively wrong.

Yes, apparently there was a lot of water orbiting Earth for some reason. Apparently it all fell in Genesis chapter 7.

* Gen 1:11: Seed-bearing, land based plants and trees were the first kind of life on Earth? That's objectively wrong. Keep in mind that we still don't have a sun yet, either - plants and trees were created before the Sun, though oddly enough after there was light on Earth, which is simply ridiculous (and objectively wrong).

Why ridiculous? There's barely been a few days yet. Are the plants going to die without the Sun? My grandmother uses a grow light for her violets. Remember, there's light from verse 3.

* Gen 1:14-18: We finally get the Sun! Man, now those plants have something to eat, besides this weird light that comes from nowhere. Note, however, that the moon was created after the first plant life, which is objectively wrong. Also, the Sun was created before the rest of the stars, which is objectively wrong. (oh yeah and the Earth was created before the rest of the stars as well, which is objectively wrong)

The plants have been eating already. See above. You seem to be doing a lot of "Miracles can't happen because I believe the way I see the world work is the way it always works and has worked" and you're also not focusing on anything provable unlike what GP asked. I refuse to comment further on your other points which are more of the same. In the future, when attempting to discuss whether religious texts are provably false, focus on internal inconsistencies or _recorded_ (human witnessed) historical inaccuracies.

Re:Makes sense

[Rei]

Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved? -- Carl Sagan, 1996

In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." -- Carl Sagan, "Pale Blue Dot", 1994

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. -- Carl Sagan, 1987

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. -- Carl Sagan

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. -- Carl Sagan, 1996

Sounds like not just an atheist, but someone hostile to religion, no? Yet Sagan, the guy who wrote the dragon in my garage, considered himself an agostic. So in this survey, he'd come across as "agnostic", and possibly even "spiritual".

I find nothing in this survey surprising. One can be agnostic, spiritual, but a firm disbeliever in a personal god and most organized religion, and the opposition to the scientific process that comes from it. Only people like Dawkins would fit into "Anti-religion atheist" category.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

However, when we actually studied whether or not this happens, we found a null result. This means that either:

God doesn't heal the sick, or
God only heals the sick if they are not currently part of a study to determine if He heals the sick.

Or, it could be that God does heal the sick in response to proper prayer, but the prayers in the study were not proper for any number of reasons. Or that God does heal the sick in response to prayer, and also heals sick people if they're part of a control group.

Re:Makes sense

[travellersside]

If the many quiet and pleasant religionists (not my chosen word, I'm just working from the phrase) don't do anything to curtail the few loud and obnoxious ones, if they don't step up and deny any connection at all, then they are providing a tacit endorsement of the loud and obnoxious ones - they are, by their silence, allowing the obnoxious ones to represent them too. If they don't speak up, how can we even know that they disagree or for that matter, exist? Don't try to shift the blame onto a minority, all religionists are responsible in one way or another.

Re:Makes sense

[Zerth]

"When I was a child, I used to pray to God for a bicycle. But then I realised that God doesn't work in that way

- so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips

Re:Makes sense

[shutdown -p now]

The real deal is that the scientific method can never really disprove the existence of God, so there can be no genuine conflict between science and the belief in God.

Scientific method can, however, disprove a particular theory about God - the one that involves making assertions about where he is and what he does. Whenever that happens, you get a bunch of people really pissed ouf about their particular image of God. That's why Darwin was attacked so aggressively for his writings, for example.

Re:Makes sense

[shutdown -p now]

Buddhism: if you follow the eight-fold path, your suffering will end. Extremely testable. If you follow the eight-fold path, and you are still suffering, then man, they led you astray.

Nah, you just haven't been following the path closely enough.

Tantric yoga: do these exercises and meditations and eventually you will have a kundalini rising (enlightenment). So if you do them, and you don't have a kundalini rising, then you know tantra is worthless

Nah, you just haven't been doing the exercises good enough.

The Bible: Those who believe shall be able to do miracles, such as drink poison and not get hurt, or heal the sick (Mark 15:17). So if you follow Christ and you can't do those things, then......yeah, you've just falsified it.

Nah, you just haven't been believing hard enough.

Do I need to continue?

To make falsifiable predictions, the input needs to be objectively measurable. How do you measure faith?

Re:Makes sense

[ChinggisK]

You would not defend religion unless you were religious, therefore you are a superstitionist with no credibility.

And this, children, is what we call ad hominem .

Re:Makes sense

[jesset77]

when you go look at the substance of the religions, these are not inherently wrong, nor self-contradicting.

Look, not to be antagonistic or anything, but you've just got done saying "The books are not to be taken literally, the authorities which publish the books are not to be trusted, and a majority of the actions of the believers are contradicting and hypocritical".

That being understood, when you say "When you go look at the substance of the religions, these are not inherently wrong, nor self-contradicting." then where exactly are you asking us to look? Where should one find the "substance" of a religion if not in the textual doctrine, not in the governing practices, nor in the popular implementation? Saying that the text is better interpreted "figuratively" puts us in the position where the text does not paint a picture for us but instead reflects the image of whatever we read into it. The reason I ask all of this is that I fear what you mean by the "substance" of the religions may be nothing more than what you are personally reading into it. Unfortunately every believer will be tickled by his image in that mirror, so there is no truth to be found there, either.

Put simply, I will find your interpretation contradictory and you will find my interpretation contradictory because each naturally depends upon our personal contexts. This question devolves into either "Is the text literal and can it be judged that way?" or "Is the text figurative with a trusted interpreter who can render it into something literal we can judge?" or "Is the text figurative and capable of a personal interpretation which forwards more people than it hinders, so that society as a whole nets a benefit?" I see no positive results from any of those three razors, and no other way to judge the doctrines.

To me, all major religious doctrines appear to have the same mentally anesthetic effect as any superstition and are used by large organisations to pacify and manipulate large masses of people. I know it sounds bleak, but I see greater demonstrable and practical value in learning about the world from interacting with it, instead of reading about or being preached to about best the practices of hundreds of generations back. We should learn lessons from our past and from our ancestors, not mandates.

Re:Makes sense

[imgod2u]

Ya. I mean all those people who didn't want penicillin, modern plumbing, flight, electricity, smallpox vaccines, the internet you're typing this on, etc. are doing so well.

Do you even realize the insane irony of making the "we don't want your advancements" argument on the internet?

Re:Makes sense

[Xyrus]

Your examples easily fail, because religion does not nail anything down.

You followed the eight fold path and you're still suffering? Well you haven't mastered it yet. You believe in God but you can't perform miracles, well you're not believing enough. You cast a love spell and the guy/girl didn't go for you, well then the cat you used wasn't black enough.

There is always some sort of out, or loophole, or SOMETHING that allows a religion to weasel out of its own claims. Or rather, all the successful religions allow that kind of leeway.

You CANNOT construct a falsifiable test where faith is involved. Faith is subjective, not objective. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence you bring to the table. Some people may be swayed, but most people do easily let go of their faith despite whatever evidence you have.

Re:Makes sense

[Wildclaw]

But if the Christians are right, and there is an afterlife to contend with, then the shoulder of Jesus suddenly becomes much more attractive.

I am a firm believer that if God exists, he is an intelligent being who would not want to associate with people who spent their lives believing in him without adequate proof. Therefore, he will only allow atheists into heaven.

Re:Makes sense

[Shirakawasuna]

I can't defend everything said by the GP, but I disagree with some of what you said.

First, science is not silent on the issue of ontology. It has a fairly clear methodology for the rejection of hypotheses and by practicality, those which do not meet rigorous standards are treated as effectively false (e.g. moon leprechauns). It is often silent when it comes to religious claims, however. There are a few obvious reasons (and I certainly couldn't name all the reasons):

1) We grow up in cultures where NOMA is stressed and religion is supposed to be private (except in politics and innuendo... and when it violates the status quo!). This is a comfortable scenario (in some ways) for both science and society in general - conflict is avoided. Science could be taught to anyone and there isn't supposed to be a fear of losing your religion. Religious people can be scientists without fearing that conflict (and they do very good work).

2) Science is usually fairly silent when it comes to pseudoscience or otherwise false/unpredictive claims. There isn't going to be a lot of discussion of religious claims in the primary literature (aside from polls) because they aren't useful in science. They're less productive than a confused undergrad's failed experiment (like mine...).


Of course I agree that most members of religions (and most people) are basically decent, or at least average, and that extreme members of any group can unfairly give them a bad name. This is true for any group, as you point out. However, context is important here. First, by discussing well-verified claims as on the same level as fanciful stories and myths (which we do in NOMA), we indulge in a kind of epistemological relativism that gives the extremism some undeserved legitimacy. When claims don't have to be defended but can be waved away as personal, religious beliefs, shouldn't you expect very strange beliefs to be considered acceptable (to an individual)? But I'm starting to rant again... sorry.

I am not saying that extremists are the only people reading their religions correctly or who are honest about their beliefs. However, they at least take the questions very seriously, I would say more seriously than most, and they have very clear religious substrates for their beliefs and actions: religious social movements and sacred texts, which will often call for sacrifices, ostracization, discrimination, and inequality right along with calls for peace and charity. It is not coincidence that someone can find their religion to support almost anything they'd like to do and receive the tacit social support that comes with NOMA- and religion-positive societies.

tl;dr: if a religion simply asked that you treat others as you would like to be treated and to give charitably, no one would have any basis for criticizing religion for the atrocities of the religious. Instead, there are oftentimes vague, fairly inconsistent religious instruction manuals with built-in prejudice supported by society and social groups. We can thank basic human decency for the fact that most people ignore the horrible parts of their religions.

Re:Makes sense

[nine-times]

Scientific method can, however, disprove a particular theory about God

Not entirely. For one thing, the scientific method never really claims to bring about absolute and indisputable truths. It's more like a method for finding sensible and useful theories. The scientific method can build support for one theory or show another theory to be unsupported by a set of knowledge and data. That's about the extent of its power.

Plus, if there were an all-powerful intelligence controlling the world, it's true that he could make your data say whatever he likes. Of course, if you subscribe to that vision of a god, one who goes around planting fake evidence and deceiving us, then I hardly see the point in trying to understand anything.

Re:Makes sense

[Mr. Slippery]

But if the Christians are right, and there is an afterlife to contend with, then the shoulder of Jesus suddenly becomes much more attractive.

And if the Muslims are right and there is an afterlife but not the Christian one...?

And if the Hindus are right and there is reincarnation, but you've wasted this life with Christian mumbo-jumbo rather than seeking to unify your atman with Brahman...?

And if the Frisbeetarians are right, but you've wasted this life with Christian mumbo-jumbo rather than figuring out how to get your soul off the roof when you die...?

Evidence that there's an "afterlife": zero.

Evidence that if there were an "afterlife", adopting any given form of Christianity would net you some sort of advantage in such: zero.

Re:Makes sense

[Requiem18th]

Except it is not really just "assholes" we are also talking about old ladies that none the less vote against the rights of gay people to live together and teach their grandsons that God created every animal separated and that evolution is a lie made by the devil, supported by Satanists.

What are you suggesting we do? Shall we punch the grannies or let them do as they please unopposed?

The alternative is an education campaign, winning mind share among kids by illustrating holes in their claims and the key evidence, as well as debating and debunking people in power who push religion pacifically.

Re:Makes sense

[laddiebuck]

Except for a few happy periods in its history, there has always been something of an anti-intellectual trend in the US. Perhaps it has to do with the people who originally came here and the way the revolution is portrayed in its history books, but there is a great deal of reverse snobbery, and that goes against intellectualism too.

Re:Makes sense

[Pseudonym]

Religion has been deliberately opposing science since the first doctors were burned as witches. Want a list?

No, I don't want a list, and neither should you. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". I don't care if some cleric somewhere disagreed with something a scientist said. I'm also only partly interested in developments (e.g. cdesign proponentsists) that are largely confined to one country. (Don't get me wrong, such developments are important, but do nothing to prove or disprove a general statement.)

If you truly claim to be pro-science, you should demand nothing less than a systematic study of available evidence to see if religion in general is opposed to science in general. You could, perhaps, start by reading the book mentioned in TFA.

The inconvenient thing about all this is that no matter what your preconceived biasses are, reality tends not to support them. Do you think there's no conflict between science and religion? Sorry, you're wrong. Do you think that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion? You're wrong about that, too.

It's seductive, I know, but if it's a choice between a simplistic fantasy and a complex and interesting reality, I'll take reality.

Re:Makes sense

[imgod2u]

Those aren't advancements; they're political/social changes. Science discovers facts; it does not set policy. Anti-intellectualism is not choosing not to implement a particular finding or method; it's sticking your head in the sand and refusing to even acknowledge its there for some retarded concept that the danger will be gone "if you keep all that devil knowledge out".

Knowing how to, say, trade one person's life for another is very different than actually doing it. Whether or not something should be done is outside the realm of science and deep in philosophy and politics. You demonstrate the exact ignorance and knee-jerk fear that we're speaking of when you try to conflate the two.

Re:Makes sense

[LordLucless]

No. Every scientific test has the unwritten assumption of Ceteris paribus - "all else being equal". It means that the test is assuming an otherwise neutral environment. Part of that assumption is that the universe is based on rational laws. If there actually exists a force that can transcend rational laws (a deity) then science goes out the window whenever that force choses to get involved, as it's basic assumption (a rational universe) is invalid.

talking more opely about issues of religion...

[arcite]

To that I say; What does god need with a Starship?

An idea

[JamesP]

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

Re:An idea

[ahankinson]

I agree with you in principle. Assuming an objective mind then yes, that's the way the scientific method is absolutely supposed to work.

In reality, though, if the scientific community were concerned about absolute objectivity, publication of negative results would be much more highly distributed and have a greater impact, on par with the impact of the publication of positive results. As it is now, however, there are only a few journals dedicated to publishing negative results, and a result that does not show a positive correlation with your hypothesis is usually a sign that your paper will not get published.

A human being that has dedicated months or years of their life to a certain topic has a highly vested interest in producing a favourable result. The community has developed accepted workarounds for this, though. If an observation does not match a hypothesis, it's almost expected that you'll change your stated hypothesis to fit the outcome so that you can present a successful result. That's not how it's *supposed* to work though, and while it usually doesn't affect things too much, it leaves much more up to the person to interpret than simply reporting a negative result and re-testing with a new hypothesis.

So, to respond directly, your "wrong order of procedure" is actually used all the time. It's just sometimes people claim absurd things, and then we notice it. But it's not necessarily because they got the scientific method wrong; it's just that they have a personal axe to grind.

Particularly relevant

[PCM2]

'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.'"

Which is where, exactly? Just because a scientist is studying the Big Bang theory, which has implications for the creation of the universe, doesn't make a nice, frank discussion about the Book of Genesis over tea "particularly relevant to the discipline."

Re:Particularly relevant

[pagaboy]

If you've got a full meal ahead of you, have a read of The Mind of God by Paul Davies or Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship by John Polkinghorne (Physics).

With a bit less time, for a snack, nibble on the short article Creation and Evolution not Creation or Evolution by R J Berry (Geneticist) and you should start to have a few ideas for conversation with biscuits.

Re:Particularly relevant

[smidget2k4]

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.

Re:Particularly relevant

[pagaboy]

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.

Re:Particularly relevant

[TeXMaster]

"Very few Christians believe much of the Old Testament."

Huh? The OT is part of the bible and is part of the basis of Christianity. Being a Christian REQUIRES one to believe the OT.

It doesn't require you to believe the literal text of any part of the Bible. The only requirement for being a Christian is following (the example set by) Christ. (Which, by the way, not many self-proclaimed Christians try to do at the best of their possibilities, and obviously even less manage to pull off).

Re:Particularly relevant

[hedwards]

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.

Re:Particularly relevant

[PCM2]

Actually, it may be. On a very philosophical level. Basically on the question whether or not the people writing those old stories had some insight that we only rediscover.

I don't dispute your assertion, but since I started out quibbling with the submitter's specific wording, I'll quibble with yours. The question is whether religious issues are "particularly relevant to the discipline" of science. They are not. Philosophers produce insight. Scientists produce data. A scientific study can be valid or invalid, conclusive or inconclusive. You very rarely hear one scientist describe another scientist's work as "insightful." Interesting, yes. Important, potentially. But scientists are not typically in the insight business.

Could these topics be particularly relevant to someone else's discipline? Of course. Just not a scientist's.

In the closet? Interesting choice of words

[DNS-and-BIND]

Why would anyone need to be "in the closet" about anything? This implies discrimination and penalties for the way you think. Scientists should be above such petty things. Science is purely objective, why do the personalities of those who practice it matter? Reproducible results are all that matter.

If there is a discrimination problem, what should be done about it? The usual answer is education, but scientists are already educated. I was often taught that education was an effective remedy for small-mindedness, and the uneducated are far more inclined to be closed-minded. Come to think of it, it was educated people who told me that.

other side of the coin

[tverbeek]

And in other news, studies show that many people who are members of organized religion, also accept the scientific method and its conclusions.

Never underestimate the ability of the human mind to hedge its bets.

The surest path to atheism

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The surest path to atheism

[bertok]

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.

That's a cute platitude, but since you're apparently a rational, scientific-minded person, I'd like to see your evidence of this. It doesn't comport with my personal experience.

The method used by the Communists to reduce the power and influence of religions was to change the school curriculum to teach all religions equally, side-by-side, instead of just Christianity.

It's brutally effective.

Once the students can't tell the difference between one creation myth and another, and everything starts to blend into an ever more ridiculous set of children's stories, very few are left that can still take their "own" religion seriously any more.

Religion versus Spirituality

[LKM]

"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.

Re:Religion versus Spirituality

[Mr Thinly Sliced]

I just want you know your post is deserving of mod points.

I don't get mod points anymore because in this sort of situation previously I'd look for a funny comment involving poo and other body functions and mod that up.

That's why I don't get mod points anymore.

But if I had points and there were no poo posts, you'd get it dude.

Re:There is nothing wrong with being spiritual

[CRCulver]

All the money that is given to the church could be used to eliminate homelessness or other social problems.

Who do you think is running the homeless shelters and tackling social problems in much of the world?

Re:There is nothing wrong with being spiritual

[protektor]

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.

Re:Science answers how.

[smidget2k4]

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.

Re:In the closet? Interesting choice of words

[ceeam]

> Science is purely objective

But scientific community is far from. And you need publications and grants.

There are a lot of problems with this book

[JoshuaZ]

Ecklund is spinning the data, possibly to fit her pet hypothesis. For example, she claims that about half of scientists are "traditionally religious" but by her own data, 34% are atheists, 30% are strong agnostics, and 8% are believe in a higher power which they explicitly don't believe is "God." Given that, it is very hard to claim that half the scientific population is traditionally religious when three quarters aren't even theists. There are also some odd choices she makes in her definition of scientists. So for example, she includes all the social sciences but not mathematicians (something which I philosophically agree with but find sociologically suspect). There's an excellent analysis of her data by Jason Rosenhouse of her data at http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2010/05/scientists_and_religion.php. The most striking thing about the data, regardless of how Ecklund wants to spin it as showing scientists are religious, is how much less religious scientists are than the general population. Atheism is much more common among scientists than among the general population, as is agnosticism. Moreover, what religions are common if one looks at the theistic breakdown is very different. Evangelical Christianity for example is a much smaller percentage then one would get from a representative sample of theists.

Re:There are a lot of problems with this book

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

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.

Well of course

[wisnoskij]

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.

Re:In the closet? Interesting choice of words

[smidget2k4]

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.

Not real science.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Please check the domain names of both articles linked. "beliefnet" and "scienceandreligion". Check some articles in each. All bullshit.

This is obviously biased. What kind of "scientists" did they interview? Mathematicians? Chemists? Physics? Biologists?

I'm sure you'll find more Atheists among Biologists and Quantum Physicists than among Mathematicians.

But, regardless of their findings, and differently from religion, truth is not a poll, and that's not how science works. It doesn't matter what many people "think" or "believe" about it. There is no compelling evidence in favor of the existence of god, and lots of evidence against it. The mere idea violates many fundamental laws of physics. It defies logic. Therefore, There are NO gods. The scientific method leads us to understand that there are no gods. Many different areas of science confirm the same finding (for example, History explains how gods where invented, Psychology explains why, Physics explains why god isn't possible, Biology, Archeology and Quantum Physics explains what really happened).

I can't stress this enough. The scientific method doesn't take polls into account. It doesn't matter if 99% of the people believe the earth is flat. Evidence shows otherwise, and that's all that matters. /In one of the linked sites, there is an article titled "How old do you think the world is?" //Who cares what you think about it? It is ~4.5 billion years old. What you believe doesn't matter, and doesn't change the truth. ///Also, regarding aggression against religion, it is NOT a bad thing. We need to be more aggressive against them, as aggressive as they are against reason.

Re:Here one angle

[Zaphod The 42nd]

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.

Re:There is nothing wrong with being spiritual

[Antisyzygy]

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.

Spirituality and science

[Kjella]

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.

Re:In the closet? Interesting choice of words

[rolfwind]

Science is purely objective, why do the personalities of those who practice it matter?

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:

But only five of the 275 in-depth interviewees actively oppose religion

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.

Re:There is nothing wrong with being spiritual

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:Tom Cruise

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Denial of the holy spirit is the one unforgivable sin.

Can't be worse than using goto, can it?

Re:There is nothing wrong with being spiritual

[couchslug]

"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.

Re:Tom Cruise

[fyngyrz]

I don't want to fuck the FSM... I want to eat the FSM!

Re:Tom Cruise

[mikael_j]

Wow, it's so obvious now, I think I've figured out how to actually avoid an unpleasant afterlife if there is a god.

If you just make sure that several religions end up fighting over the right to send your soul to their version of hell then you could probably negotiate a pretty sweet deal ("Ok, I'll go to your hell but you have to skip the torture. And I want a nice house, and a maid, and hot girls. Also, I'd like to go to your heaven on the weekends").

Which fields?

[GreatDrok]

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.

Re:There is nothing wrong with being spiritual

[ahankinson]

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.

Not really

[renoX]

>While you can't prove that there is no god (or similar esoteric entity), you can still prove that certain forms of religion are wrong and self-contradicting.

Not really, you can show inconsistency in religions but does this mean that the religious people will accept these inconsistencies as proof?
No! They will most likely reject the 'proof'..
Given that religions don't follow rationality, how could a rational argument be considered as a proof by religious people??

Einstein on Religion

[bezenek]

Some past scientists were in a position where they could speak about religion without fear. Unfortunately, I am not certain that is the case today. Examples from Einstein:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I think this one is of interest given our religious-values/anti-socialist Republican party:

One strength of the Communist system ... is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
(Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years, 1950)

-Todd

What about mathematics?

[chrb]

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.

Re:There is nothing wrong with being spiritual

[steelfood]

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.

Re:You don't need to prove anything

[Garwulf]

"Sure, but regardless of how contradicting they are, religions are still the source of most wars in the world."

Um, excuse me? Since when?

I'm working on a graduate degree in military history, and while religious wars do exist, religion tends to be the minority cause. Most wars don't start because of religion at all.

That said, religious wars are among the more brutal ones, right up there along with civil wars. But even when it comes to ethnic cleansing, ethnicity will frequently trump religion as an excuse for the atrocity.

If you want a single thing to blame warmongering on, then blame human ambition - that's about as close as you'll ever get to an explanation.

3.

[weston]

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.

Breakdown per field

[tylersoze]

I'd be more interested to see the percentages by scientific field. I'll wager that theoretical physics, you know the people that actually understand how the universe works on a deep level, and evolutionary biologists, the ones that understand how life works, are much less religious as a whole.

But what was the point?

[dfenstrate]

The usefulness of the Bible depends partially on the maturity of the reader. With your bestiality argument, it appears you are in need of my help.

Now, it wouldn't be accurate to call me a Christian, but I have come to appreciate the good Christianity has done for mankind, especially as I see what fills the same role in it's absence.

For the moment let's assume the Bible is (among other things) our forbears passing on important lessons in the most effective way they knew.

They start the Bible with creation. Why? (Well, aside from the fact that the 'story' begins with the start of existence.)Was this 6,000 year old passage to serve as a lecture on how the universe was assembled? Would the specifics have been relevant or useful to anyone before the last 400 years? Who would start this story with an explanation of gravitational forces? Of the Newtonian physics pulling together sufficient mass to create a self-sustaining fusion machine that lights up our solar system? Would a history of the species of the earth meant anything? Would telling the tale of evolution, and of all the extinct creatures they never saw, have served any purpose?

Here we are, maybe six thousand years since the book of Genesis was written, and we're only now beginning to uncover the physical processes that made the universe and our world unfold. What place would this information had six thousand years ago?

None.

You are (besides the cow-f*cking cheap shot) 100% technically correct in your assessment of the literal truth of the book of Genesis.

You also miss the point entirely.

The point is this:

This world is here for a reason. You are here for a reason. You are not an accident. The implication: Your life has a point. There is something you, and no other, are meant to do. Find it, and live up to it.

Could this simple message, only casually hidden, have helped people you've known in your life?