# Christians: Why are scientists more likely to be non-believers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2013, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322 "2013-07-01T06:22:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/201 "2013-07-02T20:54:48Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > But as stated, it’s a fairly recent (19th century) movement. Once you get out of the Bible Belt, and a few other small areas in the U.S., it’s defintely not that common. A [third of Americans](http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/Say-Bible-Literally.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Religion%20-%20Religion%20and%20Social%20Trends) take the Bible literally; that’s pretty common. It’s not some tiny fringe movement. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/202 "2013-07-02T21:05:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And what _would_ be? Good question. One would rather expect those who claim that atheists are more intelligent than everyone else to provide an answer, rather than merely linking to studies about IQ scores and hoping that no one’s familiar with the facts about IQ tests. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/203 "2013-07-02T21:06:28Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Good question. One would rather expect those who claim that atheists are more intelligent than everyone else to provide an answer, rather than merely linking to studies about IQ scores and hoping that no one’s familiar with the facts about IQ tests. No. What would be acceptable to _you_? Only you can answer that one. ---
**Author:** ![Kenm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kenm)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/204 "2013-07-02T21:12:46Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Not necessarily, but a scientist should as a matter of occupation be the person discovering or inventing, not just using the tools that resulted from other people’s discoveries or inventions. OK. Medical doctors of whatever stripe and mechanics aren’t scientists, despite using the scientific method every waking moment, unless they discovered penicillin, the germ theory and the one-shot cure for cancer. Got it. Poor Thomas Edison and Karl Benz. Lousy pair of mechanics. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/205 "2013-07-02T21:13:49Z")
I’m unaware of any rigorous, reliable measure of intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/206 "2013-07-02T21:35:59Z")
> [@Kenm](#): > > OK. Medical doctors of whatever stripe and mechanics aren’t scientists, despite using the scientific method every waking moment, unless they discovered penicillin, the germ theory and the one-shot cure for cancer. Got it. > > Poor Thomas Edison and Karl Benz. Lousy pair of mechanics. I don’t recall asserting that no physician was ever acting as a scientist. Whether Edison might sometimes have played the role of a scientist or a mechanic pales before the fact that he was primarily a thief, a pirate, a fraud, and a liar – by profession and occupation I mean. I understand that as a human being he was primarily a bastard and and asshole. Bit accepting your definition for the sake of discussion – that people who apply the scientific method are scientists, I would have to say that then that most of the scientists I encounter are cleaners, janitors, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, and car wash staff. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/207 "2013-07-02T21:46:46Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I wouldn’t expect it to be, since scores on IQ exams are not meaningful measures of intelligence. Spoken like anyone from a subgroup that scores low on IQ. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/208 "2013-07-02T21:56:31Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Spoken like anyone from a subgroup that scores low on IQ. Knock it off or take it to The BBQ Pit. Do not engage in name-calling or attempts at sneaking personal insults into the thread in Great Debates. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/209 "2013-07-02T22:07:04Z")
If you’re only interested in the question of why scientists aren’t likely to be literalist Christians, then the answer is simple: Literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong, untrue, incorrect, a lie, and any other such description you choose to attach to it, and it is impossible to be a scientist without being sufficiently aware of the world to realize that. To a scientist, the claim that the Bible is literally true is exactly equivalent to the claim that God is a liar. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/210 "2013-07-02T22:18:08Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If you’re only interested in the question of why scientists aren’t likely to be literalist Christians, then the answer is simple: Literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong, untrue, incorrect, a lie, and any other such description you choose to attach to it, and it is impossible to be a scientist without being sufficiently aware of the world to realize that. To a scientist, the claim that the Bible is literally true is exactly equivalent to the claim that God is a liar. I think the OP was actually looking for the Biblical Literalist’s viewpoint/reasoning for the purported statistic, but as has already been said, this probably isn’t the right place to ask for that, and in the right place, the answer you get, unless it’s the same as yours, will be inherently incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/211 "2013-07-02T22:19:41Z")
> [@Kenm](#): > > So, a scientist has to walk around with a lit Bunsen burner in a back pocket and wear a particle accelerator, like a halo. > [@Kenm](#): > > OK. Medical doctors of whatever stripe and mechanics aren’t scientists, despite using the scientific method every waking moment, unless they discovered penicillin, the germ theory and the one-shot cure for cancer. Got it. > > Poor Thomas Edison and Karl Benz. Lousy pair of mechanics. You’re making yourself look stupid with your childish false dichotomies. I repeat: you obviously do not know what the scientific method is. It’s actually not the same as putting on a white coat and using a petri dish. Practising medicine may seem “sciency”, but it’s not the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/212 "2013-07-02T22:20:34Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Knock it off or take it to The BBQ Pit. Do not engage in name-calling or attempts at sneaking personal insults into the thread in Great Debates. > [/Moderating] Sorry, I was not really sure how to illustrate bias of judgement that might come across insulting regardless. For more on IQ and intelligence I cite: > **[Intelligence quotient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_outcomes)** > > An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from a set of standardized tests or subtests designed to assess human intelligence. Originally, IQ was a score obtained by dividing a person's mental age score, obtained by administering an intelligence test, by the person's chronological age, both expressed in terms of years and months. The resulting fraction (quotient) was multiplied by 100 to obtain the IQ score. For modern IQ tests, the raw score is transformed to a normal distribut Sc... Edited to add that my comments can not be seen as even slightly insulting if IQ is meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/213 "2013-07-02T23:03:51Z")
I’m going to chime in, as a scientist\*, that most doctors and medical folks are not scientists. They take a lot of science courses, but that’s not the same thing as doing actual science. **Voyager** had it right in his fist post on this subject. Unless medical doctors are doing actual medical research, then they are not engaged in scientific work. Are they likely to be more familiar with the scientific method than your average Joe? Sure. But being familiar with the scientific method is not the same as being a scientist. \*or at least a former one. Can’t say I still “practice”. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/214 "2013-07-02T23:24:36Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > But, again, you can be Christian and not take the bible so narrowly literally. The fact is, historically, most Christians haven’t believed in a 6 day creation. Even Augustine of Hippo, one of the most preeminent of the early Christian thinkers, condemned it. Thought so. It’s the typical “buffet religion” where you get to pick and chose what’s true or not. Please, a little rationality won’t hurt. I promise. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/215 "2013-07-03T01:31:29Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Thought so. It’s the typical “buffet religion” where you get to pick and chose what’s true or not. > > Please, a little rationality won’t hurt. I promise. I don’t really see how that follows, or at least why you’d condemn it. Would you prefer somebody say, “While it’s obvious that the world wasn’t created in 6 days, I’m going to choose to believe it was?” ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/216 "2013-07-03T02:39:00Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Spoken like anyone from a subgroup that scores low on IQ. Ooh, you’re clever, aren’t you? In the past, comparisons of two groups based on IQ scores have been used to argue that certain races are superior to others, that the wealthy are superior to the poor, and that men are superior to women. These days you don’t hear the argument that one group is superior to another based on IQ scores very often, but if you’d like to try leading a revival of it, you’ve got some historic company. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/217 "2013-07-03T03:19:29Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > You are a fascinating case. So, things outside of your current worldview just don’t exist at all, do they? I’m an agnostic so there is a possibility that God exists. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/218 "2013-07-03T03:27:03Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > A lot of people will say that they are Young Earth Creationists (or will answer “yes” to a question that’s equivalent to such a position) and will also say that they think that dinosaurs are really neat and they like to read about them, see movies about them, or see their bones in museums. When they are questioned about the contradiction in this, they will say, “Huh, contradiction, I don’t understand.”… In case you didn’t know, Creationists have said for decades that dinosaurs existed with humans - they are the “dragons” in history and the “behemoth” in Job. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/219 "2013-07-03T03:32:11Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If you’re only interested in the question of why scientists aren’t likely to be literalist Christians, then the answer is simple: Literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong, untrue, incorrect, a lie, and any other such description you choose to attach to it, and it is impossible to be a scientist without being sufficiently aware of the world to realize that. To a scientist, the claim that the Bible is literally true is exactly equivalent to the claim that God is a liar. The question is directed at literalist Christians (hence the “Christians:”) - I’m not interested in why non-literalists think literalists are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/220 "2013-07-03T03:43:13Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > A [third of Americans](http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/Say-Bible-Literally.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Religion%20-%20Religion%20and%20Social%20Trends) take the Bible literally; that’s pretty common. It’s not some tiny fringe movement. I didn’t say it was fringe, but that it wasn’t the majority. Okay, it might not be as concentrated as I implied – I was wrong there. From your own cite: > [@](#): > > Implications > > The percentage of Americans taking a literal view of the Bible has declined over time, from an average of 38% from 1976-1984 to an average of 31% since. However, highly religious Americans – particularly those of Protestant faiths – still commonly believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. And again, it is a _recent_ school of thought. The three largest branches of Christianity – Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican do _not_ take the Bible literally, nor are they anti-science. Look, I’m not defending those who reject science because, “God said so.” But the idea that Christian automatically = anti-science is ludicrous. Of course, if you choose to believe otherwise, I’m not going to waste my time arguing with you. You haven’t proven yourself to be objective about this subject in the past. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=12)