# Physicists are from Mars, biologists are from...? (Atheism thread) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2001, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295 "2001-05-23T14:14:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/21 "2001-05-24T18:03:57Z")
**Tars Tarkas** , I’m not sure how you arrived at “atheist persecution” from **Ben** ’s statement. Care to elaborate? As I read it, **Ben** is challenging (as I do) **Libertarian** ’s continued fascination with the supposed persecution of religious beliefs by scientists. I feel the aforementioned “persecution” exists primarily within **Libertarian** ’s subjective experience, and is therefore lacking much in the way of objective evidence. Atheists may use “scientifically based” arguments to advance ideas about the nonexistence of a supreme being, but peer-reviewed scientific journals are resoundingly silent on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Bad\_Astronomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f05b48/32.png) [@The\_Bad\_Astronomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Bad_Astronomer)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/22 "2001-05-24T18:20:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\* > Bad Astronomer > > > [@](#): > > > > 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’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). > > \*\* Ah, good. I wasn’t sure about that. Anyway, I think that God is not necessarily outside of science’s realm. If there is a Prime Mover, then perhaps there is evidence for one. If so, then the scientific method applies. Certainly, creationism makes predictions, and if you try to follow them through you see they are based on incorrect understanding of physics, math, astronomy, biology, etc. But creationism is but one of thousands of flavors of religion. ---
**Author:** ![Podkayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Podkayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Podkayne)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/23 "2001-05-24T18:42:56Z")
Thanks for the rundown, **edwino**. **Bad Astronomer** : Nope, sorry, I’m not a Mars person–I work on Saturn’s rings. But Heinlein didn’t write any Saturn stories, per se, so I’m stuck with Poddy. By the way, my one-word reply to people with questions about that vile Fox moon hoax show is, “[Badastronomy.com](http://Badastronomy.com)!” You’ve got the most accessible point-to-point rundown I’ve seen. Plus, if they wander around your site, maybe they’ll learn a thing or two. _sigh_ It’s so sad to see a Great Debates thread degenerate into a hugfest. ; ) ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/24 "2001-05-24T18:47:38Z")
Um … I do some astronomy too! (Hey, everybody, pay attention to meeeeeeeee!) Unfortunately, the astronomy I pursue is more of the stellar than the planetary variety. I built and maintain a website I call “the Internet Stellar Database” at [http://www.stellar-database.com](http://www.stellar-database.com), which serves up just about everything you’d want to know about most nearby stars (including how far they are from _each other_). It’s running entirely on one server in my den, honest! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/25 "2001-05-24T19:56:01Z")
Tracer What a fantastic page! I’ve bookmarked it. Hardcore > [@](#): > > As I read it, Ben is challenging (as I do) Libertarian’s continued fascination with the supposed persecution of religious beliefs by scientists. I feel the aforementioned “persecution” exists primarily within Libertarian’s subjective experience, and is therefore lacking much in the way of objective evidence. Did I take an improper inference from the quote above? Here it is again for your convenience: “Religion is just an ordinary conviction in the mind and it is enfeebled when we accumulate knowledge, because it is essentially based upon ignorance.” Bad Astronomer > [@](#): > > If there is a Prime Mover, then perhaps there is evidence for one. If so, then the scientific method applies. As I understand it, the scientific method, as an epistemology, applies solely to things that are repeatable, and not necessarily to things for which there is evidence. That is, it is strictly tautological and can prove only what is hypothesized. The implications of its results, however, might be evidence of something else besides just the hypothesis, since evidence can be interpreted non-tautologically. For example, if scientists succeed in producing life from non-life, it can be argued that that success is evidence that God might have done the same thing! To test for a Prime Mover, it must not only create a universe out of nothing — repeatedly — but it must somehow “create” a Prime Mover that has always existed. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/26 "2001-05-24T21:10:00Z")
Libertarian, your quote from Joseph McCabe supports my point. This was a man born in 1867 who was a well-known Atheist, _ **not** _ a scientist. If you intend to portray him as somehow representing the field of Science attacking the realm of Faith, I think you are sorely missing the mark. He may have tried to use logic and “scientific evidence” to bolster his argument, but this can hardly be said to indicate an “Inquisition” against Faith waged by Science. Joseph McCabe was nothing more than an atheist who promoted his beliefs, and did so quite a long time ago. ---
**Author:** ![choosybeggar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@choosybeggar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choosybeggar)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/27 "2001-05-24T22:05:21Z")
The data so far (such as they are) do not support the notion that there exists a gap between the religiosity of physicists and biologists. I’ll email **Chronos** , tell him that this thread is here, and ask him if he wishes to contribute. However, if he doesn’t show up soon, nobody produces evidence that physicists are less likely to be atheist than biologists, then the debate topic, namely the reason for the difference, is moot. Mods, please don’t let the sun rise on this thread without someone, anyone, producing substantive evidence that we have a genuine debate going here. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/28 "2001-05-24T22:08:59Z")
Hardcore: I think you’re right. As I began to search for evidence to back my suspicion, I uncovered very little of it, but I uncovered a _lot_ more that indicates I have held an exaggerated estimation of the contempt that scientists might have for people of faith. Apparently, I made two errors in reason: (1) I extrapolated the specific to the general, and (2) I synthesized an undistributed middle. One of my first encounters with an atheist here was with one who said that if he encountered my God he would rip out His heart with a sword (or some such), which was pretty familiar stuff in my dealings with hand-stabbling atheists. I attribute my number one error perhaps to my own skittishness which I ought not to hold because of the many counter-examples among the atheists here, like you and Gaudere, for example. As to my second error, I likely distributed the 90% of exalted scientists who are reported to be atheists into a population of atheists who hold religion in contempt, when it is entirely possible that the scientists do not hate religion, but merely do not practice it. Sort of like I don’t hate homosexuality, I just don’t do it. Nor do I hold homosexuals (or homosexuality) in contempt. All I can say in my defense is that it is hard sometimes to see where we ourselves are unreasonable. But that’s one thing that’s good about this place. We get to see how others see us. I found this in my search that really impressed me. [Some guy](http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/things.htm) was _really_ ripping into the Creationists, but he disclaimed himself with what I considered to be great aplomb: > [@](#): > > The following is not intended as an attack upon the Bible as inspirational, divinely inspired, or of literary merit. Nor is it in any way an attack upon Christianity or any other religion, or upon the moral fabric of American society (although, inevitably, many creationists will see it as such, since any questioning of their own views is seen as an attack upon God Himself, and all that’s holy). Neither is it an attack upon those who see divine purpose or design in evolution, or view evolution as the handiwork of a divine Hand. It most emphatically IS intended as a verbal pie-in-the-face to those who insist that the Bible is to be read as an accurate science book and description of the natural world. I hope it is an affront to those who demand that Genesis, in particular, be taken as literal, historical fact. And most particularly, I wish to be downright offensive to those who would remove evolution from our public schools or insert into schools sectarian religious teachings under the guise of “scientific creationism”. Now, all that said, be forewarned that, when dealing with people of faith who have had disproportionate exposure to the hand-stabbers, it might help your cause to be empathetic. Tell them what you told me, that atheism is not a science, and what the fellow I quoted said, that when you attack Creationists, you aren’t attacking their faith, but their perversion of science. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/29 "2001-05-24T22:41:01Z")
What a well-reasoned and intelligent post! Particularly the part where you think I’m right 😉 Great site, by the way. Another in the long list of bookmarks you have contributed to my collection. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/30 "2001-05-24T22:54:48Z")
Hardcore: Thanks. I found a most interesting site, [The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences](http://www.ctns.org/). I’m reserving an opinion for the moment until I dig deeper, but so far, I must say I’m very impressed. It gives tons of history and context on the Theory of Evolution, along with how creationism evolved. I believe (again, so far) that this is the most well-balanced and informative site I’ve seen yet. Their mission statement is short and sweet: “CTNS strives to bridge theology and the natural sciences through research, education and public service.” Here’s an excerpt from the site: > [@](#): > > I advance three propositions. The first is that Darwin’s most significant intellectual contribution is that he brought the origin and diversity of organisms into the realm of science. The Copernican Revolution consisted in a commitment to the postulate that the universe is governed by natural laws that account for natural phenomena. Darwin completed the Copernican Revolution by extending that commitment to the living world. > > The second proposition is that natural selection is a creative process that can account for the appearance of genuine novelty. How natural selection creates is shown with a simple example and clarified with two analogies, artistic creation and the “typing monkeys,” with which it shares important similarities and differences. The creative power of natural selection arises from a distinctive interaction between chance and necessity, or between random and deterministic processes. > > The third proposition is that teleological explanations are necessary in order to give a full account of the attributes of living organisms, whereas they are neither necessary nor appropriate in the explanation of natural inanimate phenomena. I give a definition of teleology and clarify the matter by distinguishing between internal and external teleology, and between bounded and unbounded teleology. The human eye, so obviously constituted for seeing but resulting from a natural process, is an example of internal (or natural) teleology. A knife has external (or artificial) teleology, because it has been purposefully designed by an external agent. The development of an egg into a chicken is an example of bounded (or necessary) teleology, whereas the evolutionary origin of the mammals is a case of unbounded (or contingent) teleology, because there was nothing in the make up of the first living cells that necessitated the eventual appearance of mammals. > > I conclude that Darwin’s theory of evolution and explanation of design does not include or exclude considerations of divine action in the world any more than astronomy, geology, physics, or chemistry do. Let me know what you think. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/31 "2001-05-24T23:03:02Z")
As summoned, I arrive. Ya gotta love the SDMB: Any offhand comment in any old thread can be dissected and analyzed in excrutiating detail. And yes, that’s a good thing. I was basing that comment on an article I had seen in _Scientific American_, which seems to have been based on the same data as the _Nature_ article that **Podkayne** linked (by the way, Poddy, congratulations. That’s the first time I ever saw vB break a URL in _two_ places). I recalled that the belief rate was higher for physicists than for biologists, but either the SciAm article didn’t mention the specific numbers, or (more likely) I didn’t remember them. I’ve also found, in my personal experience, that there seem to be a good number of religious folks in physics (although I have little to no firsthand knowledge of biologists), so it seemed reasonable to me. It’s certainly possible that I was wrong, or at least, not as right as I thought. Since this is GD, I might as well say a few words more. I, personally, am a physicist, and I believe that God created the world. I don’t, however, that His methods resembled those outlined in Genesis in anything other than the most superficial manner: I believe that the entire act of Creation took less than a Planck time (how much less, I’m not willing to say), and occured somewhere in the neighborhood of 10[sup]10[/sup] years ago. I’ve never seen any sort of inconsistancy between science and religion, and in fact, I consider science to actually reinforce my beleif. But then, that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/32 "2001-05-24T23:11:58Z")
Welcome to Great Debates, Chronos! What an honor! Hardcore Here’s another excerpt from that site I mentioned above that deals with that ICR thing about the human eye. It’s worded so perfectly that it’s ending is almost, well, surprising! > [@](#): > > The creative role of natural selection must not be understood in the sense of the “absolute” creation that traditional Christian theology predicates of the Divine act by which the universe was brought into being ex nihilo. Natural selection may rather be compared to a painter which creates a picture by mixing and distributing pigments in various ways over the canvas. The canvas and the pigments are not created by the artist but the painting is. It is conceivable that a random combination of the pigments might result in the orderly whole which is the final work of art. But the probability of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa resulting from a random combination of pigments, or St. Peter’s Basilica resulting from a random association of marble, bricks and other materials, is infinitely small. In the same way, the combination of genetic units which carries the hereditary information responsible for the formation of the vertebrate eye could have never been produced by a random process like mutation. Not even if we allow for the three billion years plus during which life has existed on earth. The complicated anatomy of the eye like the exact functioning of the kidney are the result of a nonrandom process — natural selection. ---
**Author:** ![choosybeggar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@choosybeggar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choosybeggar)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/33 "2001-05-24T23:21:28Z")
Actually, mods, the kids are having fun playing in here. Why rain on their good time? Can I take back my request to close the thread? ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/34 "2001-05-24T23:48:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hardcore \* > **Great site, by the way. Another in the long list of bookmarks you have contributed to my collection.** Did you notice it was recommended by **Dr.Matrix**? ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2001, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/35 "2001-05-24T23:54:19Z")
**Lib** , where did you get the idea that natural selection was a random process? ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/36 "2001-05-25T03:27:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hardcore \* > \*\*As I read it, **Ben** is challenging (as I do) **Libertarian** ’s continued fascination with the supposed persecution of religious beliefs by scientists. \*\* Indeed I was. Tars, I have started a Pit thread on Lib’s original comments to which I was referring, if you’re interested in the context: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=71973](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=71973) Despite his comments about how he’s rethought his views on scientists, I have found other recent comments of his to be so slimy that I thought a Pit thread was in order. -Ben ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/37 "2001-05-25T04:07:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > \*\*Did you notice it was recommended by **Dr.Matrix**? > \*\* **jab1** , I guess I missed it, because I didn’t even notice that he had posted to this thread; nevertheless, I really like the site as a suggested read for a creationist, due to its simplicity. Libertarian I kinda have mixed feelings about the CTNS site. One of the first items I opened was [this](http://www.meta-library.net/evoprov/index-frame.html), and there’s Duane Gish giving his “evolution is not a science – evolution is a great evil” speech. Almost like listening to someone scrape their fingernails across the blackboard, though I must admit to watching with a “train wreck” sort of fascination. It’s easy to see why so many are seduced by his folksy, Southern Baptist preacher type of delivery. At least the side of Science was well represented, with Eugenie Scott and others getting equal time at this particular gathering. And the representatives from CTNS did seem to come down firmly on the side of science, though obviously positing a supreme being behind it all. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/38 "2001-05-25T04:45:22Z")
I have to drive past the “Gish Road” exit from Interstate 880 North every day on my way to work. I just hope that road’s not named after Duane. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/39 "2001-05-25T09:39:08Z")
Jab > [@](#): > > Lib, where did you get the idea that natural selection was a random process? Where did you get the idea that I had that idea? Because I said the ending was surprising? Hardcore Believe me, it’s better to put Gish and company on display in a forum like theirs alongside reputable scientists of faith. That way, people can see for themselves who makes a better argument. Pretending they don’t exist might raise a whole set of questions of its own. Ben Please stop hijacking Great Debates to advertise your Pit rant. You already linked to it in your own thread. That’s called cross-posting around here. ---
**Author:** ![knappy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@knappy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/knappy)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295/40 "2001-05-25T14:25:54Z")
One possible explanation for physicists believing in God more than biologists is the subject matter in question. I would describe the current state of biology and evolution as classical, in the sense that it embodies an elegant underlying mathematical model which is clearly consistent, intellectually satisfying, and apparently complete. As a result, biologists may be likely to say, like Laplace, that they have no need of a hypothesis regarding God. Some may disagree , but I believe there is no evidence that any explanations needed for the diverse and complex fields of biological study can’t be found within the current theories of biology. In other words, we believe we’ve got the big picture, and the rest is just details. With physics, you’ve got an unsatisfying situation where we basically don’t have the big picture. We do have 2 medium-sized pictures (i.e., the quantum & classical levels), but they don’t appear to fit together easily. Then there’s the fact that quantum physics is profoundly weird. Biology doesn’t have anything weird like this. There’s a variety of possible reactions to this weirdness (hey, Frank Tipler), and for some, it may lead them to religious belief. Side point: You might get the impression that physicists are more spiritual than biologists by browsing the popular science books at the bookstore, but I suspect this method of surveying beliefs is quite skewed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-are-from-mars-biologists-are-from-atheism-thread/66295.md?page=3)