# 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:** 24
**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 15, 2013, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/461 "2013-07-15T07:12:46Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > Does that mean you believe life could not have started without divine intervention, and Pasteur’s experiments go some way towards proving that? Or have I misunderstood? Well, isn’t that what he said? ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/462 "2013-07-15T11:16:38Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > Anyway, personally I find it interesting and most people I’m around believe it including everyone in my work place and home. Also there is “Pascal’s Wager”… even though I don’t find that compelling. Talking to them about my thoughts might weaken their faith… though sometimes the opposite happens. BTW about the duration of hell - I was talking to a pastor about it on facebook and in a recent sermon he only talked about “the wages of sin is death” and about “eternal life” just for the saved - he no longer mentioned anything to do with eternal torment. > It has been interesting being able to ask some questions in front of the congregation… I feel like I’m being diplomatic. The pastor didn’t have much of an answer to this thread’s topic so I was giving him ideas - like maybe the devil is involved, etc. My wife is happier when I go to church and seem to be open-minded. I think my behaviour is showing that I am trying to believe but I’ve got honest difficulties. > It seems odd that you are apparently a Christian yet you discourage me for being somewhat open-minded about Christianity. BTW just because I’m considering something doesn’t mean I’ll end up believing in it. On the other hand some Christians such as my fundy sisters won’t even look at that duration of hell website even though it was written by a Christian. They’re sure that their current beliefs are all correct. (I asked them that) If you’re not sure what to believe, do you think searching is the right way to go? It sounds like you’re looking for a representation of the world that matches how you feel it to be. It’s important to be open-minded, but only as far as the facts allow. Why not look at the evidence and base your world view on that? To pick a faith based on its compatibility with your pre-existing beliefs, and to therefore allow it to shape your other beliefs, would be a huge mistake. > [@dougie\_monty](#): > > Well, isn’t that what he said? I was trying to avoid putting words in your mouth. The position I described is also a really bad one to take, so I preferred to hear it from you rather than assume the worst. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/463 "2013-07-15T12:45:05Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > Why not look at the evidence and base your world view on that? Sounds like he’s doing that. Else he’d still be a Christian. ---
**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 15, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/464 "2013-07-15T21:35:46Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Who said anything about blindly trusting anything? I’m not a Christian so I don’t think faith is a virtue. I do think however that wikipedia is a better single source than an other single source I can think of. It’s fast too. Bruno seems like a really cool guy and all, but life is short so I’m not reading an entire biography on him. Especially not if all the relevant points of view are already presented on wiki. If you’re determined to continue believing that Bruno was an astronomer while professional historians of science have written clearly that he wasn’t, there’s nothing I can do to force you to accept reality. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. > [@](#): > > Please offer a quote from your source that says he wasn’t an astronomer, along with your sources citation. The source was a translation of Bruno’s _The Ash Wednesday Supper_ by Edward A. Gosselin and Lawrence Lerner; the authors have strong credentials in the history of science. They wrote a biographical sketch for the introduction. The entire sketch looks at Bruno’s life, works, and beliefs, and establishes that he never did anything that could reasonably be classified as science. If you read it, then you’ll know a lot about Bruno that you don’t currently know. If you’re determined not to learn anything, then as I said, I can’t help you. ---
**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 15, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/465 "2013-07-15T22:00:08Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > […]I was trying to avoid putting words in your mouth. The position I described is also a really bad one to take, so I preferred to hear it from you rather than assume the worst. [Shrug] Fair enough. I like to think that spontaneous generation _is_ the specific issue Redi and Pasteur were taking up, and that they tested it in the most practical way available. ---
**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 15, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/466 "2013-07-15T22:28:28Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > [Shrug] Fair enough. I like to think that spontaneous generation _is_ the specific issue Redi and Pasteur were taking up, and that they tested it in the most practical way available. They were tested a very specific hypothesis about life arising from non-life, and falsified it. They were not testing any hypotheses about life arising in a chemical soup over a period of tens of millions of years. ---
**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 15, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/467 "2013-07-15T22:31:40Z")
> [@huck](#): > > De rigeur? Really? I’ve spent many years around liberal Christians and never once has one shared such an experience with me. You must be acquainted with quite a few to have so many confiding in you. BTW, my old friend **Liberal** said he became a Christian using almost exactly the same language that you do, and he was equally reticent about sharing the experience. I believe there are similar Dopers, but I can’t recall any at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/468 "2013-07-15T22:40:21Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yeah, _suuure_ they did. Christians are always going around giving Christianity credit for things that have nothing to to do with it, preceded it, or actively were opposed by it. A Bible-derived legal system would be a theocracy. > > Knowledge of evolution has increased enormously since Darwin’s time. > > And the basic argument is that morality came from evolution, not the other way around. Look up the Magna Carta, it is heavily influenced by the Bible. Also, > **[Charter of Liberties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Liberties)** > > The Charter of Liberties, also called the Coronation Charter, or Statutes of the Realm, was a written proclamation by Henry I of England, issued upon his accession to the throne in 1100. It sought to bind the King to certain laws regarding the treatment of nobles, church officials, and individuals. The nineteenth-century historians Frederick Maitland and Frederick Pollock considered it a landmark document in English legal history and a forerunner of Magna Carta. > The document addressed abuses ... Charter of Liberties ‘1.) I, Henry, by the grace of God having been crowned the King of England, shall not take or sell any property from a Church upon the death of a bishop or abbot, until a successor has been named to that Church property. I shall end all the oppressive practices which have been an evil presence in England.’ There is no supporting evidence for morality coming from evolution. Hitler and stalin are good examples. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/469 "2013-07-15T22:52:51Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > **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. How about this: ‘Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton’s best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.”[97]’ -Isaac Newton ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/470 "2013-07-15T23:03:22Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > 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. How about the failures of Miller and Urey to produce any chiral amino acids? We are still waiting for this, let alone nucleic acids coming from scratch. If you dont think the Bible is anything special (from your next post), I invite you to look for any fulfilled prophecies in any other text. ---
**Author:** ![Okieshowedem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/okieshowedem/32/7278_2.png) [@Okieshowedem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okieshowedem)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/471 "2013-07-16T00:40:10Z")
Any religion that has so many different brands can only cause confusion. The Creator Who’s Name is Yahweh is not the author of such confusion. > [@JohnClay](#): > > There was a Q & A session at a church about whether there is one way to God/Heaven and I asked why scientists, who supposedly seek the truth objectively, would be more likely to conclude that Christianity isn’t true. The pastor said that he didn’t know. > > I asked if it could be the devil leading them astray… > > He said maybe and also suggested that the scientists might be more reluctant about giving their whole life over to Jesus. > > I’m starting to think that maybe that is true… maybe scientists like independence rather than dogma. (On the other hand scientists might say that we “know” that evolution is true, etc) What do the Christians out there think? > > There was only one other “question”. It was from an 18 year old that I’ve been told has a mind of an 8 year old. He said something about there being no suffering, etc, in Heaven. I thought it was interesting that the skeptical question would involve a lot of intelligence while the believer just showed a child-like faith. > > After the service I suggested to the pastor that maybe it was about faith vs evidence or something… e.g. even though the doubting Thomas was provided proof, Jesus said that blessed are those who believe without the same kind of evidence. I also mentioned that Jesus quoted scripture about not putting God to the test when tempted by the devil. On the other hand scientists like to do repeatable tests. > > Now I recall a verse about human wisdom being foolishness in God’s eyes… i.e. though scientists may be “wise”, they might be wrong (“foolish”) about God. > > BTW recently I have been considering about praying to God to reveal himself but I haven’t done it yet… maybe because I don’t feel ready to commit my life to God. I used to be a young earth creationist but now I am an agnostic. > > So Christians - why would people who are very intelligent and supposedly objective be more likely to be non-believers? ---
**Author:** ![Okieshowedem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/okieshowedem/32/7278_2.png) [@Okieshowedem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okieshowedem)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/472 "2013-07-16T00:54:00Z")
When the Real Hebrew Messiah walked here He said we are FOOLS if we don’t believe ALL that he prophets have spoken. Luke 24:25. Now when we read the Scriptures and we understand what Yahshua Ben Nun said in Yahshua 10:12-14 then we believe the Scriptures over to lying preacher boy and the deceived world teacher we see that Galileo was a FOOL. Don’t be deceived only believe ALL that the prophets have spoken. Okie > [@RedFury](#): > > Quite a bit longer if we are to follow Catholic Doctrine: > > [**On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture**.[49][50] In March 2008 the Vatican proposed to complete its rehabilitation of Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls.[51] In December of the same year, during events to mark the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s earliest telescopic observations, Pope Benedict XVI praised his contributions to astronomy.[52]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Galileo_Galilei) ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/473 "2013-07-16T01:41:35Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > If you’re not sure what to believe, do you think searching is the right way to go? Of course! > [@](#): > > It sounds like you’re looking for a representation of the world that matches how you feel it to be. It’s important to be open-minded, but only as far as the facts allow. I am skeptical about “facts”… I’d rather talk in terms of “evidence”. > [@](#): > > Why not look at the evidence and base your world view on that? To pick a faith based on its compatibility with your pre-existing beliefs, and to therefore allow it to shape your other beliefs, would be a huge mistake. I don’t see it being a “huge mistake”… some people are Christian and some are atheist and it doesn’t seem to make such a big deal which they are… though as far as Pascal’s Wager goes it would be a huge mistake not to be a Christian. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/474 "2013-07-16T01:44:07Z")
BTW like I said I don’t find Pascal’s Wager to be compelling. ---
**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 16, 2013, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/475 "2013-07-16T06:44:13Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > They were tested a very specific hypothesis about life arising from non-life, and falsified it. They were not testing any hypotheses about life arising in a chemical soup over a period of tens of millions of years. _“They were tested a very specific hypothesis…”_ Better brush up on your grammar. _“[They] falsified it…”_ How dare you! I recognize no mendacious motive on the part of Redi or Pasteur in those experiments. Let’s have an explanation of what was falsified, Buster–with details! _Chemical soup? Millions of years?_ I have heard of those terms, of course, and I know damn well neither of those two biologists ever did; the terms sound like something cooked up by a press agent, a PR maven, or someone else just as committed to fraud. ---
**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 16, 2013, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/476 "2013-07-16T07:18:43Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > _“They were tested a very specific hypothesis…”_ > > Better brush up on your grammar. > > _“[They] falsified it…”_ > > How dare you! > > I recognize no mendacious motive on the part of Redi or Pasteur in those experiments. Let’s have an explanation of what was falsified, Buster–with details! > > _Chemical soup? Millions of years?_ > I have heard of those terms, of course, and I know damn well neither of those two biologists ever did; the terms sound like something cooked up by a press agent, a PR maven, or someone else just as committed to fraud. Aw gee, I made a typo. However you don’t appear to know much about science. Falsification means that they set up an experiment to test the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, the restricted definition, which let them show it did not happen. Which they did, and thus they falsified the hypothesis. But thanks for demonstrating your total ignorance of the scientific method. Do you object to the chemical soup or the tens of millions of years? (It might be hundreds of millions.) Or are you objecting to a non-magical explanation of the origin of life? ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/477 "2013-07-16T09:00:18Z")
I was just looking at Genesis 1 and 2 again… one thing that stood out was that it said the Earth was created before the Sun - even before light… ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/478 "2013-07-16T12:14:33Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > If you’re determined to continue believing that Bruno was an astronomer while professional historians of science have written clearly that he wasn’t, there’s nothing I can do to force you to accept reality. Cite where they say he wasn’t an astronomer. > [@](#): > > The source was a translation of Bruno’s _The Ash Wednesday Supper_ by Edward A. Gosselin and Lawrence Lerner; the authors have strong credentials in the history of science. A quote please, where they say he wasn’t an astronomer, and then cite where they get their information. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/479 "2013-07-16T12:24:21Z")
> [@Okieshowedem](#): > > When the Real Hebrew Messiah walked here He said we are FOOLS if we don’t believe ALL that he prophets have spoken. Luke 24:25. That kind of makes Jesus a hypocrite doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/480 "2013-07-16T13:04:29Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > I just read the wiki on a number of them from the Bruno time period. As I said before most all I checked said they were led by Bishops, Friars, etc. Nah. You just went out and cherry-picked some figures and you are relying on the fact that silly stuff like “_The Burning Times_” has overwhelmed serious scholarship on the topic on the internet. That is like your silly implication that Bruno was punished for trying to advance science. Bruno was a religious freethinker with a nasty disposition regarding anyone who disagreed with him. He was successively thrown out from, (or fled), multiple cities and countries, both Protestant and Catholic, across Europe until he was finally tried on the grounds that he was an ordained priest who denied the sacramental reality of the Eucharist. His execution was certainly wrong from the perspective of the 21st century and was very likely carried out as a violation of the protocols of the Inquisition at the time. However, “science” had nothing to do with his execution; the conflict was entirely religious in nature. No accusation lodged against him, by either Catholic or Protestant accusers, ever brought up his cosmology or his dabbling in the proto-science that was extant at the time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=25)