# 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:** 22
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/421 "2013-07-13T05:49:29Z")
> [@huck](#): > > I do believe the things you listed. I will add that I also believe in the trinity and that Christ is present in the Eucharist. But I don’t believe these things based on scripture really. It’s because (a) I had an experience (internal and personal) that convinced me of their truth, despite my then-tendency and preference to disbelieve them; and (b) because once I accepted those things I found myself happier and more useful, less selfish. So it’s rational for me to believe, although I do not claim to intellectually understand any of it, nor do I expect anyone else ot be convinced. Thanks for your response. I’m sure that you are aware that because of the way our brains are built, many people have extraordinary internal experiences. Saying that to be believed they must be checked against outside reality in no way means I doubt they are experienced. But more relevantly, I have read of many people becoming devoutly fundamentalist and born again because of these experiences, and their vision of what God wants differs greatly from yours. Not to mention that people in other religions also have visions of other gods. If you mean that these visions are only sufficient to make you change your path without attempting to get anyone else to change, fine. There is no need for a vision to be “real” (that is, matches external reality) in order to make one happier. But clearly you think your vision was real in the sense that it proved something about God. > [@](#): > > In answer to your second question, perhaps it’s the legal training (or the legal temperament)–the greatest law for Christians is to love your neighbor as yourself. So writings (or interpretations of those writings) inconsistent with treating other people lovingly are wrong. In the same way that the US Constitution makes certain provisions about how government should be limited and rights be protected; lots of laws are passed which are contrary to those provisions (and others are interpreted and applied in unconstitutional ways). Those laws are invalid. Don’t you think fundamentalists are well aware of this not very original rule? What if they truly believe that preventing or discouraging sin will help their neighbor achieve eternal salvation, and that outweighs just letting them sin. Christianity, which at its heart claims to have the one true way to salvation, through Jesus, is particularly bad about this. Religions not thinking they have a monopoly on salvation are more willing to live and let live. Clearly there is a lot of disagreement about what is constitutional and what is not, but no belief in an ultimate answer - decisions can be overturned by a later court. I wonder if there is a correlation between originalists and the highly religious. It wouldn’t surprise me. Certainly some people speak of the Founders as if they were a pantheon, not men doing an extraordinary, but imperfect, job. ---
**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 13, 2013, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/422 "2013-07-13T06:07:59Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > […] It points out that while spontaneous generation does not happen today, and certainly as a matter of course like people believed 200 years ago, it had to happen at some point. […] > I said poorly written because the text could be misinterpreted, which you demonstrated. But I’m all for the author cramming in something to make the students think. > Of course my post was conjecture - but nothing written there flies in the face of science. Your outrage is misplaced. “It.” There you go with the misidentified antecedent again. The point I was trying to make is that life had to begin on earth at some point. Don’t put words in my mouth–I specifically said it was _not_ by “spontaneous generation.” I also don’t believe in the writer adding ‘creative writing.’ I might suppose that if I were to ask a naturalist (if that is the proper word) by what means life originated on earth, he/she might say “by spontaneous generation,” assuming they don’t prevaricate and talk around the subject, condescending to me. To sum it up: The results of the experiments by Redi and Pasteur flatly contradict the notion that life originated on earth spontaneously. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/423 "2013-07-13T06:30:21Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > You filter my responses to fit your preconceived ideas as much as does our Fundy friend JohnClay. > > I do not believe you are sincere in your inquiries. I USED to be a fundy. And I am quite sincere in my inquiries - I was after the responses of Christians. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/424 "2013-07-13T13:01:57Z")
> [@huck](#): > > But I don’t believe these things based on scripture really. It’s because (a) I had an experience (internal and personal) that convinced me of their truth, despite my then-tendency and preference to disbelieve them What happened to you, exactly, that led you to such specific beliefs? > [@](#): > > In answer to your second question, perhaps it’s the legal training (or the legal temperament)–the greatest law for Christians is to love your neighbor as yourself. That’s not the greatest law for Christians. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/425 "2013-07-13T13:05:12Z")
> [@huck](#): > > The questions I posed to you were prompted by my knowledge of things that Grayling and Harris have said (still haven’t watched the videos, but isn’t the Harris speech the one where he begins by saying that liberal Christians are better than extremists because they don’t crash planes into buildings? if so, I am not impressed with either the delivery or the content) Watch them and tell me if they contain any untruths, and let me know if you still have trouble understanding my answer. I’m not asking that you be impressed. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/426 "2013-07-13T13:06:27Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > So what I would propose is what if both sides are wrong (and right). What if god both exists and does not exist simultaneously? What if the only “correct” view is to be both a theist AND and atheist? And what if the only way to understand what that means, if anything, is through one’s personal experience? What if pigs fly? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/427 "2013-07-13T13:12:21Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > I was after the responses of Christians. No real one’s around here that I can tell, just cherry pickers. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/428 "2013-07-13T16:19:34Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > To sum it up: The results of the experiments by Redi and Pasteur flatly contradict the notion that life originated on earth spontaneously. Except that is not the case, as has been pointed out to you in post #383. ---
**Author:** ![huck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@huck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/huck)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/429 "2013-07-13T16:21:34Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Thanks for your response. I’m sure that you are aware that because of the way our brains are built, many people have extraordinary internal experiences. Saying that to be believed they must be checked against outside reality in no way means I doubt they are experienced. But more relevantly, I have read of many people becoming devoutly fundamentalist and born again because of these experiences, and their vision of what God wants differs greatly from yours. Not to mention that people in other religions also have visions of other gods. If you mean that these visions are only sufficient to make you change your path without attempting to get anyone else to change, fine. There is no need for a vision to be “real” (that is, matches external reality) in order to make one happier. But clearly you think your vision was real in the sense that it proved something about God. > > Don’t you think fundamentalists are well aware of this not very original rule? What if they truly believe that preventing or discouraging sin will help their neighbor achieve eternal salvation, and that outweighs just letting them sin. Christianity, which at its heart claims to have the one true way to salvation, through Jesus, is particularly bad about this. Religions not thinking they have a monopoly on salvation are more willing to live and let live. > Clearly there is a lot of disagreement about what is constitutional and what is not, but no belief in an ultimate answer - decisions can be overturned by a later court. I wonder if there is a correlation between originalists and the highly religious. It wouldn’t surprise me. Certainly some people speak of the Founders as if they were a pantheon, not men doing an extraordinary, but imperfect, job. Yes, I do know that people have hallucinations; I haven’t had any that I know of. But I don’t and never have argued that anyone else should be convinced by the experience I had (I’ve never even described it to anyone and likely never will). As I’ve said, accepting it as truth has made my life better and does no one any harm that I can see. Certainly there are going to be differences of opinion about Christianity, lots who disagree with me, quite a number particularly in the US at present who want to use Christianity and the bible as weapons in causes I consider unjust and unwise. But that doesn’t seem to be a reason for me not to believe as I do, let alone evidence that my faith is assisting the religious right. I assure you that in general fundamentalist Christians think at least as badly of me and my ilk as you and Kable do. You are quite right that constitutional law (any law) is full of difficulties of interpretation and necessarily evolves. This doesn’t seem to be a good reason to throw out the constitution though, rather the opposite. And it is an interesting idea that bible literalism and Originalism might correlate to some extent–certainly there’s a distaste for ambiguity and flexibility underlying both. ---
**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 13, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/430 "2013-07-13T17:28:08Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > Except that is not the case, as has been pointed out to you in post #383. Pointed out to me, eh? This is the text of Post #383: "Redi and Pasteur showed that molds and bacteria do not appear in a few days in spoiling foodstuffs without an existing spore or seed. That is not the same question as to whether complex chemicals can, given years and steady energy input, bootstrap themselves to self-replicating reactions. " It probably isn’t, but I fail to see any support for that hypothesis either. Where do you get the complex chemicals in the first place? This puts me in mind of monkeys typing Shakespeare. And what do you mean by “steady energy input?” I think if I tested this (heaven knows how!) against the scientific method, which is a must, it wouldn’t pass muster. “Bootstrap” indeed! Hawkeye had the best comment on this when he told Frank, “Why don’t you pull yourself up by your own jockstrap?” 😛 A “bootstrap” hypothesis has no place in science. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/431 "2013-07-13T18:02:03Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > Pointed out to me, eh? This is the text of Post #383: > "Redi and Pasteur showed that molds and bacteria do not appear in a few days in spoiling foodstuffs without an existing spore or seed. That is not the same question as to whether complex chemicals can, given years and steady energy input, bootstrap themselves to self-replicating reactions. " > > It probably isn’t, but I fail to see any support for that hypothesis either. Where do you get the complex chemicals in the first place? This puts me in mind of monkeys typing Shakespeare. And what do you mean by “steady energy input?” I think if I tested this (heaven knows how!) against the scientific method, which is a must, it wouldn’t pass muster. > “Bootstrap” indeed! Hawkeye had the best comment on this when he told Frank, “Why don’t you pull yourself up by your own jockstrap?” 😛 A “bootstrap” hypothesis has no place in science. Life doesn’t come from spontaneous generation, that’s true. Where do you think life came from? ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/432 "2013-07-13T18:17:25Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > It probably isn’t, but I fail to see any support for that hypothesis either. Where do you get the complex chemicals in the first place? This puts me in mind of monkeys typing Shakespeare. And what do you mean by “steady energy input?” I think if I tested this (heaven knows how!) against the scientific method, which is a must, it wouldn’t pass muster. > “Bootstrap” indeed! Hawkeye had the best comment on this when he told Frank, “Why don’t you pull yourself up by your own jockstrap?” 😛 A “bootstrap” hypothesis has no place in science. So, you admit that the hypothesis is not, as you say, flatly contradicted by the work of Redi and Pasteur. Thanks. That was all I wanted. ---
**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 13, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/433 "2013-07-13T21:20:57Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > So, you admit that the hypothesis is not, as you say, flatly contradicted by the work of Redi and Pasteur. Thanks. That was all I wanted. And you imply that you have a sense of honesty that could pass for a used-car dealer’s. Almost. Thanks. That was something _ **I** _ wanted. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/434 "2013-07-13T21:22:26Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > No real one’s around here that I can tell, just cherry pickers. There is no other kind. Just different cherries is all. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/435 "2013-07-13T21:33:42Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > “It.” There you go with the misidentified antecedent again. The point I was trying to make is that life had to begin on earth at some point. Don’t put words in my mouth–I specifically said it was _not_ by “spontaneous generation.” > I also don’t believe in the writer adding ‘creative writing.’ I might suppose that if I were to ask a naturalist (if that is the proper word) by what means life originated on earth, he/she might say “by spontaneous generation,” assuming they don’t prevaricate and talk around the subject, condescending to me. > To sum it up: The results of the experiments by Redi and Pasteur flatly contradict the notion that life originated on earth spontaneously. Ah, finally I understand what you are getting at. That experiment in no way proves that life cannot have originated spontaneously - in the sense of life from non-life. It did prove that the model of life originating spontaneously from rotting meat and the like was false. They had no knowledge of DNA, no knowledge of the chemical structure of life, no knowledge even of viruses and other non-living yet reproducing things. Abstracting the results of an experiment far beyond its limits is just plain wrong. I have no idea of life coming from self-reproducing molecules is spontaneous or not to you. And, because of the constraints I mentioned, science texts today are boring. Some creative writing would really help. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/436 "2013-07-13T21:47:48Z")
> [@huck](#): > > Certainly there are going to be differences of opinion about Christianity, lots who disagree with me, quite a number particularly in the US at present who want to use Christianity and the bible as weapons in causes I consider unjust and unwise. But that doesn’t seem to be a reason for me not to believe as I do, let alone evidence that my faith is assisting the religious right. I assure you that in general fundamentalist Christians think at least as badly of me and my ilk as you and Kable do. They think much worse of you, actually. Your beliefs don’t hurt and probably help yourself and other people. I may think you are wrong, but you are less wrong than a Red Sox fan. 🙂 With that out of the way, let me see if I can summarize your reasoning: You had an internal experience =\> which convinced you that God and Jesus were real =\> which convinced you to believe in a subset of the Bible =\> which caused you to believe in just causes (our mutual definition) and not to try to push others into your beliefs. Compare with some hypothetical person who had an experience, became convinced in God and Jesus, became convinced that a subset of the Bible should be followed, and became convinced that this subset included what we’d call unjust causes. I’ll stop there. Except to ask you think how we both agree on whether a cause is just or unjust. > [@](#): > > You are quite right that constitutional law (any law) is full of difficulties of interpretation and necessarily evolves. This doesn’t seem to be a good reason to throw out the constitution though, rather the opposite. And it is an interesting idea that bible literalism and Originalism might correlate to some extent–certainly there’s a distaste for ambiguity and flexibility underlying both. I’m certainly not advocating throwing out the Bible. It, like all great literature, has things to teach us. I’m just saying that it should be treated like other documents from the time, with no special power. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/437 "2013-07-13T21:55:57Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > Pointed out to me, eh? This is the text of Post #383: > "Redi and Pasteur showed that molds and bacteria do not appear in a few days in spoiling foodstuffs without an existing spore or seed. That is not the same question as to whether complex chemicals can, given years and steady energy input, bootstrap themselves to self-replicating reactions. " > > It probably isn’t, but I fail to see any support for that hypothesis either. Where do you get the complex chemicals in the first place? This puts me in mind of monkeys typing Shakespeare. And what do you mean by “steady energy input?” I think if I tested this (heaven knows how!) against the scientific method, which is a must, it wouldn’t pass muster. > “Bootstrap” indeed! Hawkeye had the best comment on this when he told Frank, “Why don’t you pull yourself up by your own jockstrap?” 😛 A “bootstrap” hypothesis has no place in science. Amazing. Have you ever read about work in the origin of life on earth? I think you can figure out where the energy came from, and we have an example of a self-replicating molecule, RNA, which does not have to be the simplest such molecule. And complex molecules are much simpler than Shakespeare. How do you think life got started? ---
**Author:** ![huck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@huck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/huck)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/438 "2013-07-13T22:28:33Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > They think much worse of you, actually. Your beliefs don’t hurt and probably help yourself and other people. I may think you are wrong, but you are less wrong than a Red Sox fan. 🙂 > With that out of the way, let me see if I can summarize your reasoning: > > You had an internal experience =\> which convinced you that God and Jesus were real =\> which convinced you to believe in a subset of the Bible =\> which caused you to believe in just causes (our mutual definition) and not to try to push others into your beliefs. > > Compare with some hypothetical person who had an experience, became convinced in God and Jesus, became convinced that a subset of the Bible should be followed, and became convinced that this subset included what we’d call unjust causes. > > I’ll stop there. Except to ask you think how we both agree on whether a cause is just or unjust. > I’m certainly not advocating throwing out the Bible. It, like all great literature, has things to teach us. I’m just saying that it should be treated like other documents from the time, with no special power. Assuming you are an atheist, I think we agree on what is a just cause based on principles of equal rights, caring for the poor and disadvantaged, that religion should not interfere with government and vice-versa ,etc (though there are doubtless specific causes we would not agree upon. I think my faith reinforces those principles but I held them before I went back to the Church. I happen to view the bible approximately the same way you do, but it’s the “should” that troubles me in your statement. I know lots of people who view scripture as the word of God (to be interpreted and understood, not to be taken literally as written) who are extraordinary, spending virtually all the time and money they can spare working for others. I don’t feel I’m in a position to say what they “should” believe about it, only that if the bible is used to promote hatred and unkindness, or to force one’s religion on others, it is used wrongly. It is so odd to see such hostility expressed here (not by you, Voyager) against liberal Christians. I wish some of you (maybe even Harris and Grayling) could come along to my church and meet the folks–not to convert you, just so you could see and talk to people who do their very best to promote the welfare of others and oppose actions that are unjust. I think those who denounce them would have a harder time despising them in person than as straw people on the internet. ---
**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 13, 2013, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/439 "2013-07-13T22:54:54Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > There is no other kind. Just different cherries is all. That’s true. It is impossible to _not_ cherry-pick, because of all the contradictions. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/440 "2013-07-14T01:21:11Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > And you imply that you have a sense of honesty that could pass for a used-car dealer’s. Almost. Thanks. That was something _ **I** _ wanted. I’m not the one who is taking the conclusions from experimental results far beyond where they can reasonably be taken. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=23)