# 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:** 30
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/581 "2013-07-17T09:22:22Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Sorry, but i could tread water for a day if my life depended on it, and there are better swimmers than me. You are forgetting flying creatures too. You see, **reef**. It’s answers like this that are so off-putting. We know you are smart enough, so there is only one conclusion, and that is that you are not an honest debater. What I would like to know is why? Why would someone do this, you don’t feel ashamed while typing the stuff you do? Could you give me an honest answer? Are you capable of that? ---
**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 17, 2013, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/582 "2013-07-17T11:11:00Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > [http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14\_1/j14\_1\_110-116.pdf](http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_1/j14_1_110-116.pdf) > > This is a little off topic, but maybe you can cite some intermediate or previous trilobites with simple eyes. Or you can admit that the trilobite eye was extremely complex to begin with. Why don’t you [read this,](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html) and if you have any questions that aren’t covered there we can discuss them. ---
**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 17, 2013, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/583 "2013-07-17T11:21:46Z")
My earnest companions, why bother. Although everyone here is using English words, some are clearly speaking a different language than others. A person who believes that debate is a matter of who can throw the most quotes is not on the same playing field as a person who believes that quotes are only useful to illustrate a concept. A person who believes in raising objections to individual points is not concerned whether his objections compose an internally coherent system. And a person who deliberately confuses the formation of sedimentary rocks with the explanation of why they are found where they are _now_ is not likely to accept anything else about geology. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/584 "2013-07-17T11:35:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why don’t you [read this,](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html) and if you have any questions that aren’t covered there we can discuss them. Cool. I was browsing and in the biology section, [CB105](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html) is better on the technical side than what I said at post 545. It also reminded me that there are whole “new” - we suppose - classes of [xenonucleic acids](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno_Nucleic_Acid) (XNAs) that have the same base pairs but a different “backbone” and can undergo normal evolution. ---
**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 17, 2013, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/585 "2013-07-17T11:39:25Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > Cool. I was browsing and in the biology section, [CB105](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html) is better on the technical side than what I said at post 545. > > It also reminded me that there are whole “new” - we suppose - classes of [xenonucleic acids](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno_Nucleic_Acid) (XNAs) that have the same base pairs but a different “backbone” and can undergo normal evolution. I just figured that if **reef shark** was going to go down the same standard list of questions we’ve heard a thousand times before, why not just provide the standard list of answers? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/586 "2013-07-17T12:20:19Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Allow me to explain what should be bleedingly obvious. If you are making a positive claim, such as “Bruno was an astronomer”, the burden of proof is on you to justify it. Thus far all you’ve given us is a Wikipedia article. That’s right I justified it with the wiki article. > [@](#): > > You’ve been told repeatedly that Wikipedia has no source for the claim that Bruno was an astronomer. No you, and only you, just said that once. > [@](#): > > I, on the other hand, have read and referenced a biography of the man by two scholars with strong strong credentials in the history of science, which clearly shows that you are wrong. Please quote where they clearly show that I am wrong. > [@](#): > > Likewise for you to demand to know what sources Dr. Gosselin and Dr. Lerner used is odd. You asked what source Wiki used. So I ask what source your good doctors used. But I guess you don’t need one since you can’t produce a quote that supports your claim in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/587 "2013-07-17T12:26:05Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > [Archaeological Evidence for the Biblical Flood](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/evidence-noahs-flood-ark-real-robert-ballard-archeologist-titanic_n_2273143.html). > > I know, not world-wide, but it was all the world the writers knew. You believe in Noah’s ark Professor? If we are to believe the Genesis stories as real then the dating between the Bible flood and the Titanic guys flood is off by about 2000 years. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/588 "2013-07-17T12:32:43Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > For the third time, you’ve cited an endtimes prophecy, claiming it is inaccurate. > > MT 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: > > Let me know what year this all happened please. The moon doesn’t have any light to give. So that’s strike one against the Matthew prophecy. (Also, the stars will fall from heaven? Presumably onto earth - really?) Strike two is that the early Christians expected the end times to happen in their own time. Strike three is that it didn’t happen and it’s been over 2000 years. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > Cite please, Cambrian strata where? > > Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. > > This includes the earth, not implying plants in space. Show me where a hominid fossil lays along side a fossil of a cambrian creature (ex. Trilobites). You do that, then you have a case. We both know you can’t do that though. In fact, you can’t show any hominid fossils where they are not expected (via evolutionary theory) to be. Another blow against creationism and a global flood. In short, the global flood ‘theory’ has been falsified. Why can’t plants live in space if they can live without the Sun? Why do they need photosynthesis at all? If they can live without the Sun they can live without food, heat, and a whole host of other things. In short, your position is ridiculous. Also, I will take your silence on the moon and your prior post as a concession that you do think that the moon generates it’s own light - as the Bible teaches - as opposed to reflecting light from the Sun, as science has shown. I’m curious, since this is your implied position, does this mean you deny the moon landings as well, since the astronauts would have melted when they landed on the lesser light that is the moon? Your position is becoming more and more bizarre and laughable. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/589 "2013-07-17T12:36:21Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > You believe in Noah’s ark Professor? If we are to believe the Genesis stories as real then the dating between the Bible flood and the Titanic guys flood is off by about 2000 years. No, I don’t believe in Noah’s ark. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/590 "2013-07-17T12:43:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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. Did I? Are you suggesting Catholics didn’t burn people to death? > [@](#): > > 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. So you’re claim is that the Catholic Church tortures and burns people to death because of their “disposition” and that’s supposed to make it better? > [@](#): > > His execution was certainly wrong from the perspective of the 21st century… I’m glad to know you think it was wrong from the “perspective of the 21st century”, but the way you write, you make it sound like you don’t think it is wrong in general. > [@](#): > > 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. OK I see, that makes it alright.:rolleyes: Anyway: > [@wiki](#): > > The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic doctrines of his philosophy and **cosmology**. Luigi Firpo lists these charges made against Bruno by the Roman Inquisition:[19] > > holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers; > holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation; > holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ; > holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus; > holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass; > **claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;** > believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes, and; > dealing in magics and divination. Bolding mine. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/591 "2013-07-17T12:45:22Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > No, I don’t believe in Noah’s ark. I didn’t think you would. As I recall you believe in the historicity of the bare minimum number of miracles that you think will gain you entrance into heaven. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/592 "2013-07-17T12:49:22Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > I didn’t think you would. As I recall you believe in the historicity of the bare minimum number of miracles that you think will gain you entrance into heaven. What an interesting conceit. False, but interesting. Tell me, has this overtly confrontational style of yours ever convinced anybody of anything? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/593 "2013-07-17T12:50:00Z")
**Reef shark** sounds like a real Christian. Has he answered the OP yet? **Reef shark** , why are scientists more likely to be non-believers? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/594 "2013-07-17T12:57:23Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > What an interesting conceit. False, but interesting. OK, from prior talks I’m pretty sure you believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and of course that angels sang to you personally. Any other literal Bible miracles you believe in? Please be specific. > [@](#): > > Tell me, has this overtly confrontational style of yours ever convinced anybody of anything? Generally not the person I’m debating, they get too defensive, I think it’s psychology. However, my girlfriend renounced her faith and became an atheist after I showed her some of my online debates with other Christians. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/595 "2013-07-17T13:03:20Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > OK, from prior talks I’m pretty sure you believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and of course that angels sang to you personally. Any other literal Bible miracles you believe in? Please be specific. No, off topic. I dropped by to show there was some scientific evidence for the Flood, although not worldwide, since that was being discussed. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/596 "2013-07-17T13:11:52Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Did I? Are you suggesting Catholics didn’t burn people to death? Nope. Straw man. > [@Kable](#): > > So you’re claim is that the Catholic Church tortures and burns people to death because of their “disposition” and that’s supposed to make it better? Nope. Different. You are trying to imply that the Church attacked Bruno for his scientific endeavors and I am noting that your claim is wrong. > [@Kable](#): > > I’m glad to know you think it was wrong from the “perspective of the 21st century”, but the way you write, you make it sound like you don’t think it is wrong in general. Only in your mind. > [@Kable](#): > > OK I see, that makes it alright.:rolleyes: No. It does not make it right. It does, however, indicate that your claim is wrong. > [@Kable](#): > > Anyway: > > > [@wiki](#): > > > > The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic doctrines of his philosophy and **cosmology**. Luigi Firpo lists these charges made against Bruno by the Roman Inquisition:[19] > > > > holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers; > > holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation; > > holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ; > > holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus; > > holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass; > > **claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;** > > believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes, and; > > dealing in magics and divination. > > Bolding mine. Both your cherry picking and your error are noted. All of the accusations are religious in nature, even your weird attempt to include the belief in a plurality of universes as science when it is a philosophical position that has nothing to do with science. (Plurality of worlds is not a claim for life on other planets, but a claim that there are multiple universes. As a scientific proposition, (still pretty weak), that is not something that preceded the 20th century and had no part in Bruno’s ideas.) ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/597 "2013-07-17T13:21:29Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Nope. Straw man. How so? > [@](#): > > Nope. Different. You are trying to imply that the Church attacked Bruno for his scientific endeavors and I am noting that your claim is wrong. No I said the Church attacked Galileo for his scientific endeavors. I think I also mentioned that it was hard to put a pro-science spine on the Burning of Bruno. What were you saying about straw men? > [@](#): > > No. It does not make it right. It does, however, indicate that your claim is wrong. Do you think it was wrong to burn Bruno? > [@](#): > > Both your cherry picking and your error are noted. > All of the accusations are religious in nature, even your weird attempt to include the belief in a plurality of universes as science when it is a philosophical position that has nothing to do with science. (Plurality of worlds is not a claim for life on other planets, but a claim that there are multiple universes. As a scientific proposition, (still pretty weak), that is not something that preceded the 20th century and had no part in Bruno’s ideas.) Bruno’s cosmology was listed as one of the reasons they killed him. So sorry. You seem really attached to this. Are you Catholic? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/598 "2013-07-17T13:23:08Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > No, off topic. I dropped by to show there was some scientific evidence for the Flood, although not worldwide, since that was being discussed. I didn’t think you would want to answer. Which pretty much does answer my question. Thanks for dropping by to show that there is some scientific evidence of floods but think everyone knew that already. ---
**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 17, 2013, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/599 "2013-07-17T13:24:12Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > . . . > > Generally not the person I’m debating, they get too defensive, I think it’s psychology. However, my girlfriend renounced her faith and became an atheist after I showed her some of my online debates with other Christians. And here I thought _I_ was a dull person to date. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/600 "2013-07-17T13:30:26Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > And here I thought _I_ was a dull person to date. Women love atheists. I think it’s that whole bad boy thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=31)