Physicists are from Mars, biologists are from...? (Atheism thread)

Great Debates
1

In this GQ thread, Chronos posted,

As a biologist and an atheist I found this statement intriguing.

I don’t know if it’s true or not, I know of no supporting evidence, and it goes against my assessment of the religiosity of my biologist colleagues (although I work at a college with affiliations to an orthodox Jewish university;j).

However, if evidence exists for this conclusion (and if you know of any, please contribute it), I’m curious to know why a split regarding religion exists between the disciplines.

Perhaps individuals are drawn to physics by virtue of a desire to discover the “hidden force” which sets nature in motion, thereby verifying a preformed religious hypothesis. Whereas biology may hold more appeal for those with a reductionist bent, who wish to tease out from the extraordinary complexity of life, the basis for a self-sustaining “intelligence,” requiring no captain at the wheel and nobody to get the ball rolling. (BTW, no offence is intended if my characterizations are overly broad)

Then again, the divergence may occur as a result of training.

For myself, I entered biology with preformed atheist notions. And although I genuinely enjoyed my physics classes, I never considered a career in the physical sciences. My training indeed solidified my atheism. I marvel at the “logic” of cellular engineering, of metabolic pathways, of complex ecosystems, and of instinctive behaviors, but find my degree of amazement enhanced by the notion that the origins and character of these phenomena ultimately have a knowable, physical basis. I get a similar kick out of stargazing, watching the trajectory of a frisbee, and playing with lasers.

Do physicists and biologists differ in their tendencies toward atheism? And if they do, what is the basis for this difference?

2

I’ve been associated with physics departments at three different universities and optics departments at two, and I have to admit that I’ve not del;ved deeply into this question. Nevertheless, the professors and students I’ve been associated with seemed to be a pretty mixed bag, with believers of various flavors mixed in with the agnostic, the atheistic, and the apathetic. I know there were a lot of Catholics and Jews, but the other groups seemed well represented as well.

At one place a religious argument broke out and eventually ended up in the pages of the journal Physics Today (in the Letters section). This caused one of the professors – a deceptively quiet British guy with a truly devastating sense of humor – to issue a hack advertising circular that had among its Sale items the following:

**
Existence of God Disproved ------ $1.00

Existence of God Proved --------- $1.50

Benevolent Deity ---------------- $2.00

**

3

My high school biology teacher was religious.

4

What a fascinating question. Here’s an article, “Leading scientists still reject God” by Edward J. Larson, Larry WithamNature 394, 313 (23 July 1998) that I think breaks down the stats by field. Unfortunately, I’m at home, and I can’t access it without the institutional subscription. Maybe someone else can read it?

Nature article.

I’m in astronomy, and I know three people (out of a department of perhaps fifty) who are practicing religionists–though it’s quite likely there are others who I don’t know of. The outnumbered religionists will probably tend to keep quiet about it.

When I was an undergrad, one of my physics profs has a picture of a the Pope tacked up next to his Q-machine. I assumed it was a gag, and almost laughed and said, “Ha! Funny! The Pope!” but for some reason my tact was at a high ebb, and I didn’t–which was lucky, since I found out later that he’s a devout Catholic.

It’s . . . refreshing, as an atheist, to finally find myself in the majority. I’m spoiled, I realize. My husband’s cow-orkers found out that he’s an agnostic, and their heads nearly exploded.

I’m not sure what differences might exist between biologists and physicists . . . except that physicists are dealing with a more fundemental subject–biologists can model the behavior of their systems based on chemistry and physics, but physicists don’t have another discipline to fall back on. Cells are made of molecules, and molecules are made of atoms, and atoms had nuclei and electrons, and that’s about as far as a biologist has to know, whereas the physicist is left wondering what quarks are made of. Either it’s elephants all the way down, or at some level there’s a cutoff–something fundemental–and maybe that’s god?

5

[quick aside: Cal, I thought I read elsewhere that you’re a published author, and here I see you’re also involved in science, specifically, optics. Have you published papers in the field of optics? I wonder if we’ve published your work. We’re a publisher in the heart of Washington, DC.]

6

I’ve seen the heads of cow-orkers explode before. Not a pretty sight. :smiley:

But sincerely, you make a very interesting point about the fundamental difference between biology and physics. Pity the poor mathematicians and logicians who have nothing to fall back on but their own subjective consciousnesses. Maybe that’s why so many of them go mad! When they realize that all their proofs are Godelianly tautological, they can have everything from epiphanies to nervous breakdowns.

Please note that people of faith, just like atheists, fill a broad spectrum. There are many who consider their faith too personal to share, so it could be you have faithers in your midst without even knowing it, as you say. I think it’s a shame that science and faith are still at odds after all these years, despite breakthroughs in epistemology and metaphysics that make the two seamlessly compatible.

7

Molecular biologist-in-training. I work at a large medical school, and nearly everyone here is not religious. I can count the openly religious people on one hand. I am an optimistic agnostic with atheistic leanings, although I was raised conservative Jewish.

Physics deals with the building block of the universe. It deals with the true mysteries of the universe, as physics by definition is examining the most fundamental levels of our surroundings. As Rutherford (I think) said “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.” Since physics researches the laws of the universe on their very fringe, it is not hard to imagine a point where those laws break down. This is the realm of the supernatural, as scientific questions cannot be asked where the laws of science cease to exist. Einstein professed himself to be religious because he considered studying the “mystery” of the universe to be akin to religion.

In biology, we deal with the fundamentals of God’s pinnacles of creation – living organisms. Keep in mind we are taught all of our lives that we are the end points of creation, and we have been elevated above the animals by God. Both of these are heavily de-emphasized in biology. What I do every day requires me to examine the striking similarities between a fruit fly and a man. I make a living taking apart the fruits of creation piece by piece. Usually, we end up with a hodgepodge of complicated feedback loops that do anything but reinforce the picture of a beautiful creation. Instead, every day biological life looks more and more evolved. Humans sit on one fork of an unremarkable phylogenetic tree. Our massive prefrontal corticies are only results of some strange natural selection not completely unlike a peacock’s tail or a cheetah’s sprinting ability.

Unfortunately, since biology is based entirely on physics and chemistry, we can scientifically answer all of our questions (unlike in physics). Much of the “mystery” drops out of the equation.

I had read that Nature article before. It applies directly to this debate. Larson repeated a study performed by Leuba in 1914 and 1934. Leuba questioned scientists about personal belief in God and belief in human immortality. He also stratified it into “lesser” and “greater” scientists by membership in the National Academy of Sciences.

Larson repeated the study in 1998, and also broke it into biological versus physical scientists in the NAS. The trend seems fairly obvious : In 1914, 27.7% of “greater” scientists had a personal belief in God, while 52.7% had a personal disbelief. By 1998, 7% had a belief while 72.7% had a personal disbelief. The numbers are similar for belief in human immortality.

In 1998, 5.5% of NAS biologic scientists believed in God. 7.1% believed in immortality. Physicists and
astronomers were only slightly higher – 7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality.

Larson, EJ, Witham, L. “Leading scientists still reject God.” Nature 394, 313 (1998).

8

Oh, I have to know. Do you do Mars work? I mean, given your name and all…

I’m in astronomy too, though maybe not so much Bad stuff. :wink:

9

Well, i’m a biologist, i believe in God, and my handle is from a martian, so i believe i am quallified to post in this thread. Now i am not an active church-goer, i think God has better things to do than worry about whether i go to church, i feel it is more the idea that counts. With biology, i like seeing how things are created from the simplist compounds, where some people seem to think it demistifies everything and leaves no room for God, i see it as further proof of the wonders of God’s works. I will agree that scientists in general have a low percentage of religious people.

And, no, i am not a fundie, i don’t believe the world is 6000 years old, and i don’t try to go around convincing people to “find God or you will burn.” If God really cared about dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s, he wouldn’t of bothered to give us free will.

In addition, Libertarian is probably having a heart attack from the lack of capital i’s in this post.

10

[hijack]

Wow! The Bad Astronomer! [bowing… scraping…]

Are you Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer? I love your web site!

[/hijack]

Here’s an interesting juxtaposition…

From Joseph McCabe, The Psychology of Religion:

From Jesus of Nazareth:

Tars:

It’s all good. :wink:

11

Wow… I wanna see a Cow-ork. Is that like a regular orc, or is that closer to an ogre? Or is that what orcs use as a source of meat?

12

Cow-orkers are pretty messy when their heads explode, but what breaks my heart is when it happens prematurely to the little calf-orkers.

13

dantheman:

I are indeed a published author, but in real life I’m an Optical Engineer, with a doctorate in physics. Writing is my hobby (and not a particularly lucrative one, I must note. I work to support my writing habit.)

14

dantheman:

I are indeed a published author, but in real life I’m an Optical Engineer, with a doctorate in physics. Writing is my hobby (and not a particularly lucrative one, I must note. I work to support my writing habit.)

I’ve published several papers in JOSA, Physica Status Solidi, Optics Letters, and other tchnical journals. Not mention Parabola (The Magazine of Myth and Tradition), Scientific American, and New Jersey History. It’s my fond desire to be published in Mad.

15

Please elaborate or link to threads regarding the breakthroughs. I’m very curious.

Also please explain why you think it’s such a shame. Aside from my theoretical obejections to faith, I have no desire for it. I feel profound fulfillment even in the absence of faith.

16

Thanks! But I suspect you won’t for long. I plan on publishing a series of pages showing why creationism is not only not science, but is in fact quite wrong.

I know of many scientists who are religious, many who are agnostics, and others who are atheists. In most cases, the religion need not be at odds with the science.

However, with creationism, I think they are at odds. All the evidence of modern astronomy points to an old Universe, and creationism demands a 6000 year old Universe. These are contradictory concepts; both cannot be true. A (young Earth) creationist astronomer must either ignore all the evidence or alter it somehow to fit his/her world view, and that ain’t science.

I don’t know if you are a creationist, but you appear to be sympathetic to it being taught in school (as I read in another thread). That’s why I started off the way I did here. Sorry if this winds up being a hijack!

17

Let me guess- they’re still at odds because “bigotted scientists” have an “Inquisition-level tolerance” for religion, right?

:rolleyes:

-Ben

18

Just want to say that it was a link from The Bad Astronomy webpage that first brought me to the Straight Dope. So it’s all Phil Plait’s fault.

19

Yeah, those poor atheists, they are sooooooooooo persecuted. Just look at the public atheist floggings on CNN! The atheist/lion fights on ESPN! The Presidental Palace made from the skulls of the Atheist minority.

Blame here goes both ways, from creationists who can’t understand the words “metaphor” and “story” to athiests with “i’m right and everyone else is stupid” mentalities. One of the athiests i know is so “hot dog” on atheism that he brings it up repeatedly, several times a day. He is more annoying that a Jack Chick fanatic. If i wasn’t a Christian, i’d smack 'im around some. Maybe i should anyway, then when he gets all mad “i thought you were a christian,” i’ll be like “Hey, now i’m not, you got your wish, Mo-Fo!” and kick 'em in the spleen.

Naahh…

20

Hmmm. Well…

ChoosyBeggar

Wow, there’s lots. Probably my favorite is the work of Macksood Aftab, a Muslim. He begins with the contemporary western view (itself a recent breakthrough) that justifies faith by the epistemology of experience, and develops it nicely, weaving it together with the work of Iqbal, noting that “Iqbal is trying to point out that, intellectual reason and intuition are inseparable, and that in the act of comprehending something by intuition, the intellect plays an indispensable role, which cannot be discounted… Iqbal saw both of these avenues as complimentary, towards ultimate knowledge.”

Iqbal, incidentally, had already provided an important breakthrough of his own regarding Kant’s grandest impediment, his fear that noumanal objects (objects that lie outside all possible experience) cannot be derived from phenomenal objects (objects that are directly experienced) by developing intuition (and other forms of knowledge) as a valid form of experience.

If you’re a regular reader of this forum, you’ll recognize those points from my posts. It is entirely possible that your subjective experience and mine might differ since our respective consciousnesses are closed to one another.

Well, it’s a shame because there is no reason for us to be enemies. I grant you your experience that there is no evidence for God as far as you are concerned. I ask only that you grant me my experience that God does exist in it. We each have our own moral journey.

Bad Astronomer

I’m afraid you’ve taken a wrong inference. I don’t subscribe to creationism except to the extent that I believe that God is the metaphysical cause of existence, something that will be outside the purview of your pages (assuming you stick to science).

Ben

And because bigotted people of faith have an inquisition-level of tolerance for science. Both sides are equally ignorant and destructive.

I can sense from your sarcasm and rolled eyes that you still harbor a grudge against me for the points I made in your thread, despite that I left from it as you requested. The topic there was not how to debate debate against evolutionists (which would have raised the point in the previous paragraph) but how to debate effectively against creationists. I stand by my opinion that attacking their faith is a mistake on so many levels.

Nimune

Me, too!