# Literalist Christians only please: Why are scientists more likely to be non-believers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 3, 2013, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509 "2013-07-03T03:53:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/1 "2013-07-03T03:53:16Z")
This is based on [Christians: Why are scientists more likely to be non-believers?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=695259) > **[Yahoo Search - Web Search](https://search.yahoo.com/)** > > The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web. > [@](#): > > …You asked what percentage of scientists are atheists, so I’ll summarize the results of the two studies. > > The first one says that 52% of scientists have no religious affiliation, compared to 14% of the general public. (“No religious affiliation” isn’t exactly the same as being an atheist.) This survey questioned scientists at “elite research universities.” > > The second one surveyed “greater” scientists (defined as those belonging to the National Academy of Sciences). It found that 65% of biological scientists expressed a “disbelief in a personal God”, and 79% of physical scientists. Most of the others were agnostics. Only 7% expressed a “belief in a personal God.”… Why would people who are very intelligent and supposedly objective be more likely to be non-literalist Christians? In the original thread of 200+ posts I don’t think any literalist Christians answered. It was just non-Christians and liberal Christians and they said the answer was that literalist Christians are wrong. But I want to hear what literalist Christians think - their answer wouldn’t be “because literalist Christianity is wrong”. They would defend literalist Christianity. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16435755#post16435755](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16435755#post16435755) Apparently about 30% of Americans take the Bible literally so surely there would be some out there that can post on this thread. > **[In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally](https://news.gallup.com/poll/148427/Say-Bible-Literally.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Religion%20-%20Religion%20and%20Social%20Trends)** > > Three in 10 Americans view the Bible as the literal word of God, similar to what Gallup has measured in the past two decades but down from the 1970s and 1980s. Close to half, 49%, view the Bible as the inspired word of God, but do not believe... I consider this to be a different topic to the original thread. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/2 "2013-07-03T06:33:38Z")
I daresay that on a site dedicated to fighting ignorance you’re not going to find a lot of literalist Christians. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/3 "2013-07-03T06:59:43Z")
That is similar to my question… i.e. scientists also try to fight ignorance. I wonder where I could post this to get a reply from a literalist Christian? Or maybe I could invite people to sign up here and post here… ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/4 "2013-07-03T07:09:05Z")
What do you mean by literalist? For example my theology is quite similar to that of Jonathan Edwards and I think people like Joel Osteen are annoying and saccharine but I also believe in the Framework hypothesis which allows for theistic evolution and an Old Earth: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework\_theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_theory) ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/5 "2013-07-03T08:08:07Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > What do you mean by literalist? For example my theology is quite similar to that of Jonathan Edwards and I think people like Joel Osteen are annoying and saccharine but I also believe in the Framework hypothesis which allows for theistic evolution and an Old Earth: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework\_theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_theory) Thanks for that interesting link. It is quite convincing… Anyway I am looking for Christians that aren’t going to say “scientists get turned off of Christianity due to people taking Genesis literally when it obviously isn’t literal”. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/6 "2013-07-03T08:13:38Z")
Qin Shi Huangdi: I’d like to hear your opinion in this thread: > **[Liberal Christians: Genealogies in the Bible?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=695452)** > > I initially asked this in Christians: Why are scientists more likely to be non-believers? Since I didn’t seem to get any replies from Christians and since that thread is full up of non-Christian arguments I thought I’d create its own thread here. ... ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/7 "2013-07-03T09:19:16Z")
From what I’ve seen on sites such as _Answers in Genesis_, much of modern science is a deliberate turn away from God. Not necessarily at the individual level. But pretty much the whole edifice of, say, Cosmology, is built upon human pride assisted by the Devil’s tomfoolery. They can’t reject all science of course; they’re spreading their nonsense via the internet after all. But to them there is real science (true scotsman science), and god-hating, agenda-driven science. To such fundies, it’s not at all surprising therefore that science largely attracts atheists and/or converts believers to unbelievers. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/8 "2013-07-03T09:29:01Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > That is similar to my question… i.e. scientists also try to fight ignorance. I wonder where I could post this to get a reply from a literalist Christian? There are lots of forums out there where you can find them. The movie “Expelled” gives a pretty fair showing of their views with regards to science. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/9 "2013-07-03T09:40:41Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > There are lots of forums out there where you can find them Ok thanks… but I’d need to find a forum where atheists are allowed to post as well. > [@](#): > > The movie “Expelled” gives a pretty fair showing of their views with regards to science. Thanks. BTW until I started university I was a young-earth creationist - but teachers and the librarian at the Christian school I went to weren’t interested in it when I tried to talk them into it. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/10 "2013-07-03T10:43:12Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > There are lots of forums out there where you can find them. The movie “Expelled” gives a pretty fair showing of their views with regards to science. Fair warning: “Expelled” uses some particularly odious editing tricks and quite a few significant lies. > **[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#Claims_that_film_producers_misled_interviewees)** > > Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a 2008 American propaganda film directed by Nathan Frankowski and starring Ben Stein. It is presented as a documentary promoting the conspiracy theory that academia oppresses and excludes people who believe in intelligent design. It portrays the scientific theory of evolution as a contributor to communism, fascism, atheism, eugenics, and in particular Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust. Although intelligent design is a pseudoscientific relig Expelled opened i... ---
**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 3, 2013, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/11 "2013-07-03T12:29:21Z")
To find out what literalist conservative Christians (at the extreme) think of science and scientists, try conservapedia on the topic of ‘scientism’. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/12 "2013-07-03T13:48:07Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Fair warning: “Expelled” uses some particularly odious editing tricks and quite a few significant lies. > > [Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#Claims_that_film_producers_misled_interviewees) I think that’s all true and I don’t at all endorse “Expelled” except as an example of how fundamentalists look at science, which I do agree is odious and dishonest, but no less sincere that how liberal Christians do things. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/13 "2013-07-03T14:10:08Z")
I don’t think I qualify as a literalist, but I find your deification of scientists strange. Scientists are not objective. They are people with a point of view and biases that affect what they think and believe just the same as anyone else. The best ones strive to eliminate these biases but none do so perfectly. The good thing about the way science works, when it does, is that if the biases are different then scientists seek to convince other people with evidence and that this process moves the understanding along. There is a consensus and someone comes up with a theory that challenges the consensus. That person is shouted down and marginalized but works until they come up with enough evidence to convince others and the consensus slowly changes. Then at some point the new theory becomes the consensus. It is sometimes said that science moves ahead one funeral at a time. Intelligent people are prone to arrogance and to overestimate the importance of intelligence. It makes sense to me that such people would reject the idea of a God that they have to answer to. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/14 "2013-07-03T14:26:57Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Scientists are not objective. They are people with a point of view and biases that affect what they think and believe just the same as anyone else. The best ones strive to eliminate these biases but none do so perfectly. Yes. So if we say in your first sentence “Scientists are not _entirely_ objective”, then I agree. > [@](#): > > The good thing about the way science works, when it does, is that if the biases are different then scientists seek to convince other people with evidence and that this process moves the understanding along. There is a consensus and someone comes up with a theory that challenges the consensus. That person is shouted down and marginalized but works until they come up with enough evidence to convince others and the consensus slowly changes. Then at some point the new theory becomes the consensus. It is sometimes said that science moves ahead one funeral at a time. You probably expected this response, but: that’s not how science is supposed to, or usually, works. You are not supposed to try to find evidence to support a pre-existing conclusion. You have empirical data that cannot be explained (completely) by existing models. You make a hypothesis and corresponding model. You test that model. That’s all there is to it. It is also considered science to just do investigation without necessarily the aim of forming a model. Conflicts can happen, usually at the hypothesis stage, but generally once a model has been exercised fully and makes accurate predictions, chances are it will only ever be added to or tweaked. The popular perception that science is frequently overturned is very different to the reality. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/15 "2013-07-03T14:35:20Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > I don’t think I qualify as a literalist, but I find your deification of scientists strange. Please cite where someone deified scientists. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literalist-christians-only-please-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662509/16 "2013-07-03T16:29:51Z")
**JohnClay** , there are not enough literalist Christians on this board to make up a minyan and they pretty resolutely avoid Great Debates. You already have one thread open on this topic, so I am closing this one.