# 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:** 17
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/321 "2013-07-05T02:50:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In that case, my auto mechanic is a scientist. Does he distill his own gasoline? ---
**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 5, 2013, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/322 "2013-07-05T05:11:44Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > How about Bolsheviki? I would say they are 100% atheists. Just because they were officially all atheists doesn’t mean that they _really_ all were. It’s not the kind of question you could have gotten honest answers for. ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/323 "2013-07-05T05:48:01Z")
Certainly not in _this_ thread. ---
**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 5, 2013, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/324 "2013-07-05T06:09:10Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > Yes that’s why I went to another forum. I was responding to “You will never learn or grow if you do not talk to outsiders” from DrFidelius. And what did you learn from that other forum? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/325 "2013-07-05T07:15:41Z")
> [@](#): > > **Der Trihs** …because it claims to be better, to have a special inside take on what is right and good. If it’s no better, then that adds “liar” and/or “self deluded” to its list of flaws, and eliminates the one excuse it has to be taken seriously when it lectures and browbeats everyone on what it thinks is “moral”. And few of those “other institutions” exist anymore, either. > > When an organization or person makes a claim to moral authority, then it gets held to a higher standard than one that does not. And the Church’s alleged moral authority is by your own argument limited to no better than a Middle Ages King/thug. I’m not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but I do seem to recall that participants in the Eucharist must confess their mistakes, unkindnesses, selfish deeds, and other “sins” before participating in Communion. No one claims to be without flaws. Not even the Pope. I don’t think Catholics go into the Confessional to talk about how wonderful they are. Do you consider yourself a moral authority? Do you, like the Church that you disparage, have flaws and strong opinions that are sometimes expressed in hostile words? Could some of your posts be considered “lecturing” or browbeating? Are you always right? Should we hold you to a higher standard? To me, there seems to be a lot of irony in your posts about the Church. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/326 "2013-07-05T09:20:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And what did you learn from that other forum? > [@](#): > > the reason is that christians usually don’t go into scientific fields while atheists usually go into scientific stuffs > > my point is that they are NOT atheists because they are scientists, but they are scientists because they are atheists. > [@](#): > > Because they don’t rely on faith. They want evidence, scientific proof > [@](#): > > Two reasons these scientists are this way – and both are just my opinion: > Scientists sell their soul (mind, will, emotions) to Mother Nature. > Students (potential scientists) are taught a Godless universe. > > And for the record, I do not believe scientists are as intelligent as the general public thinks they are. > > After conversing with them here for seven years, I have seen them unable to apply the simplest of Sunday school lessons, such as Daniel’s three friends in the fiery furnace, to why we think the way we do. > > Constant repetition to the point of exhaustion, zigging and zagging through mazes of ridicule & anger venting are the norm, when one has to deal with scientists here. > > Put Biblically, the tares have outgrown the wheat. > > Hal Lindsey made the point that the science/theologian combination in people peaked at Isaac Newton, then split. > > I believe the scientific method spelled the beginning of the end for those who should worship God in spirit and in truth. > > And I believe the downward spiral will culminate during the Tribulation period, which will consist of Satan’s religion (Scientism) against God’s. I think that guy is an atheist troll though based on other factors. > [@](#): > > For most of recorded history the most educated people were the clergy. It is not education that causes one to believe or disbelieve a certain thing it is what is being taught to those partaking of the education. If a certain worldview is prevalent in an institution of learning it is probable that those that are educated in that environment will conform to that worldview. > [@](#): > > Maybe because they r looking for proof. > [@](#): > > **Why are scientists more likely to be non-believers?** > They aren’t. > > Im a scientist and I believe in God. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/327 "2013-07-05T10:06:10Z")
So, nothing substantively different than you received here, only said in a less engaging and entertaining way. ---
**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 5, 2013, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/328 "2013-07-05T10:24:56Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Do you consider yourself a moral authority? Do you, like the Church that you disparage, have flaws and strong opinions that are sometimes expressed in hostile words? Could some of your posts be considered “lecturing” or browbeating? Are you always right? Should we hold you to a higher standard? Do I claim to have a pipeline to a Supreme Being? No. Am I trying to pass laws to oppress people, am I killing people with lies in the name of “morality”? No. I don’t claim to have magic powers that give me the right to declare what is right and wrong for everyone else. So no, I’m nothing like them. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/329 "2013-07-06T08:09:51Z")
> [@](#): > > **Der Trihs** : Do I claim to have a pipeline to a Supreme Being? No. Am I trying to pass laws to oppress people, am I killing people with lies in the name of “morality”? No. I don’t claim to have magic powers that give me the right to declare what is right and wrong for everyone else. > > So no, I’m nothing like them. So you are saying that you _don’t_ have flaws and strong opinions that are sometimes expressed in hostile words? You never lecture or browbeat? You do not consider yourself a moral authority? And you don’t claim that you are always right? You are not like them in some ways, but you may be quite like them in others. So your conclusion that you are “nothing like them” is irrational. You can start with just the notion that you and the members of the Church might all have belly buttons and go from there on ways that you might be alike. You have left my original questions totally unanswered. You have an interesting list of how you are _not_ like them. Strangely enough, you and I share these traits and I am a Christian. But I do have flaws and strong opinions (sometimes expressed in hostile ways). My former students would be the first to tell you that I lecture and “browbeat.” Of course, I think I’m right, even though I have often been shown to be wrong. And, like you, most of the time I consider myself a moral authority only for myself. But now and then I can be a little pompous and defiant about other people’s moral choices. You and I and many Christians have a lot in common. Aren’t we glad we are not like the Pharisees? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/330 "2013-07-06T08:40:51Z")
**JohnClay** , many of the things you “learned” from that other forum are based on ignorance. The quote about Sir Isaac Newton is erroneous, for example. Mendel, a monk born almost a hundred years after Newton’s death, is considered “the father of modern genetics.” The statement about people becoming scientists because they are atheists is irrational. If that were true, all atheists would be scientists. I am a Christian, but much of what you quoted expresses a lack of real thought. ---
**Author:** ![micro12](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecccb3/32.png) [@micro12](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/micro12)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/331 "2013-07-06T08:57:17Z")
People in general have no excuses these days with internet access & that goes for scientists. Google “did man live at the same time as dinasours” or " man made objects in rock" if a scientist or any one else for that matter believes in evolution after looking at evidence for 30 mins they are deluding themselfs. My belief is the statement" why are more scientists likely to be non believers" is not true as a percentage of all mankind . If you get the drift ? ---
**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 6, 2013, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/332 "2013-07-06T09:34:23Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > So you are saying that you _don’t_ have flaws and strong opinions that are sometimes expressed in hostile words? You never lecture or browbeat? You do not consider yourself a moral authority? And you don’t claim that you are always right? I have flaws, I often use hostile words, I lecture and browbeat when I feel like it, but I don’t consider myself a moral authority nor do I think I’m always right. > [@micro12](#): > > People in general have no excuses these days with internet access & that goes for scientists. Google “did man live at the same time as dinasours” or " man made objects in rock" if a scientist or any one else for that matter believes in evolution after looking at evidence for 30 mins they are deluding themselfs. :rolleyes: Sorry, no. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming; it’s a fact no matter how much it offends certain people. It’s a settled issue in science; the debate now is in the details, not about whether or not it happens. > [@micro12](#): > > My belief is the statement" why are more scientists likely to be non believers" is not true as a percentage of all mankind . If you get the drift ? No, I don’t actually, that’s not a very coherent sentence. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/333 "2013-07-06T10:59:40Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > **JohnClay** , many of the things you “learned” from that other forum are based on ignorance. I see them as just being opinions rather than facts. > [@](#): > > The quote about Sir Isaac Newton is erroneous, for example. Mendel, a monk born almost a hundred years after Newton’s death, is considered “the father of modern genetics.” He said “Hal Lindsey made the point that the science/theologian combination in people peaked at Isaac Newton, then split.” He said it “peaked” then… not that the science/theologian combination disappeared straight away… > [@](#): > > The statement about people becoming scientists because they are atheists is irrational. If that were true, all atheists would be scientists. His statement is similar to saying priests become priests because they’re originally catholics rather than priests being more likely to be catholics because in the process of becoming priests they become catholic. Just because not all catholics are priests doesn’t mean that that statement is disproved. > [@](#): > > I am a Christian, but much of what you quoted expresses a lack of real thought. Why don’t you answer my question then in the post rather than just criticizing other people? ---
**Author:** ![Twoflower](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/twoflower/32/22_2.png) [@Twoflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twoflower)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2013, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/334 "2013-07-06T16:46:10Z")
> [@micro12](#): > > People in general have no excuses these days with internet access & that goes for scientists. Google “did man live at the same time as dinasours” or " man made objects in rock" if a scientist or any one else for that matter believes in evolution after looking at evidence for 30 mins they are deluding themselfs. > My belief is the statement" why are more scientists likely to be non believers" is not true as a percentage of all mankind . If you get the drift ? Here’s the answer to the OP about what “literal” Christians think. A complete lack of understanding of what constitutes “evidence”; and a total conviction that anyone who thinks differently than they do is misleading themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2013, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/335 "2013-07-08T11:03:38Z")
**Der Trihs** , your last response was fair enough. **JohnClay** , I haven’t answered your statement because it is resumptive and at this late date, many others have already expressed my understanding. In a debate, I criticize what the posters say, not the posters themselves. **Der Trihs** and I seem to have a long-standing tradition of attempting to be very straight with each other. Notice that it seemed to work out well in this thread. Facts are more reliable than opinions. Someone had asked you what you had learned from the other place. You quoted opinions. Why not listen to yourself for opinions or research factual information? It is not a criticism of a person to say that her or his statement is based in ignorance. After all, we are all ignorant about different things. Backing up your claims with facts is essential in a debate. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2013, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/336 "2013-07-08T11:09:59Z")
**JohnClay** , your comparison of people becoming priests because they are Catholic doesn’t tell the whole story of why some Catholics are priests and some are not. All Roman Catholic priests are Catholic… But not all scientists are atheists and not all atheists are scientists. Your analogy breaks down. ---
**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 8, 2013, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/337 "2013-07-08T11:21:47Z")
> [@micro12](#): > > The majority of people are non believers so that goes for scientists too. Doesn’t it ? What are you talking about? The only way this statement could possibly be true is if you define “believer” as “someone who believes exactly what I believe.” ---
**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 8, 2013, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/338 "2013-07-08T12:06:32Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > I’ve already heard enough from outsiders. I want to hear from literalist Christians. Take a look at the topic of ‘Scientism’ on Conservapedia. It’s a fairly unvarnished statement of what is the extreme conservative/fundamentalist/literalist answer to your inquiry. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/339 "2013-07-09T03:00:36Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > I have no problem with you criticizing the Catholic church in the Middle Ages. I do have problems with you claiming that it’s vastly worse than many other screwed-up institutions at many other times. Quit misquoting me. At no point did I ever say anything that implied that you can’t criticize it. Speaking of misquotes. Who made a general statement comparing Catholics to other screwed up middle age institutions? I think you think that I did. However I just noted that most witch trials at the time of Bruno that I read about were started by them. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/340 "2013-07-09T03:05:12Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > It is not a matter of what Captain Amazing or anyone else “likes”, but a matter of historical fact. The case of Galileo’s trial was not motivated by the church being “anti-science” and neither was anything related to Bruno. Galileo was certainly sanctioned for his heliocentrism. Bruno was a heliocentrist as well, maybe it was a coincidence. > [@](#): > > In fact, Bruno was never a scientist. Among other things wiki says he was an astronomer. That’s a science of sorts. > [@](#): > > You’ve have been shown these things, with real cites rather than just Wikipedia articles. I trust wiki better than any religious apologist “real cites.” Usually wiki cites a number or real cites rather than cherry picked ones. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=18)