Interesting.
I would be curious to know if these people believe in a god because they were told to, because they had it beaten into their psyche as children, because they have no self-worth, because they can’t take responsibility for their own actions, or because they don’t believe in evolution.
Ever since I was little, as far back as I can remember, I have been a watcher and observer. Human and social behavior have always fascinated me, and I have always watched, listened, and observed how and why people do and say things. Although I have never studied it, psychology has kind of been a hobby of mine all of my life. The more I listened, the more I witnessed, the more I understood why certain people do and say the things they do.
My mother was what I call a “church hopper”. Every few months she was dragging me and my sister to a different church. I really didn’t think anything of it at the time, because I was too fascinated watching and listening to the different sects of religion and how they were really all basically the same.
From my life long observations of the religious sects, they all have the same basic functions: to dominate and control by emotional and mental tactics.
Based on my observations (and interactions) of these people over my lifetime so far, I’ve come to the conclusions that people who claim religiousness are doing so because:
*they are hypocrites and will follow anyone who is seemingly in control
*they have no self-worth or self-control - looking to blame on someone else, or something else being the cause of their problems or reactions
*they have been brainwashed with these stories since birth
*they have been coerced or threatened
*using someone else’s system of control (religion) over others for their own personal agendas
*using someone else’s system of abuse and coercion (religion) for their personal benefit
*using “religion” as a weapon to hold yourself in a “righteous” position over others
As far as science and religion, for me…there has yet to be any actual proof that any religion anywhere is based on anything factual. Science has had more to offer in proof than religion ever has.
As for scientists themselves, I would expect that their beliefs may be related to the field of science they are actually in, if that makes any sense to you.
I’m a scientist. Says so on my business card and everything. I would have described myself as an atheist when I first got into this whole thing. But, if anything, I think science has brought me closer to believing in the possibility of some creator. Not the Bible creator or anything, but some version of simulation theory with some form of creator above it does not remotely seem implausible to me, and depending on my mood might even seem like a likelihood.
My MIL is active in her Catholic Church. She attends mass, volunteers selflessly, spends a day every week on her 83 year old hands and 2 year old knees cleaning the church floors, etc.
Years ago she confided in me that she is an atheist. For her, the church is a social organization she has been involved with her entire life, but she thinks the entire “god” part is ridiculous. This is the only secret I have withheld (at my MIL’s request) from my gf.
If the odds against something existing on it’s own exceed the amount of opportunities by a significant number I would consider that strong evidence, and vice versa.
I’d rat her out. Just kiddin’. Your story made me smile, good for her too, lets her get out of the house, and she gets to see the weekly fashion show, and mingle with the locals.
And it isn’t just people attending church that don’t believe. There are many in the pulpit that don’t believe it either. This is evident from the clergy project. Some have quite the story to tell. Speaking of, I need to check in on their site, see what their latest numbers are.
I remember reading from “The Mind of a Bible Believer” by Coen many years ago, where they did a poll in CA, of certain churches (I believe they described it as mainline Protestants done in the seventies), where they got a chance to ask the clergy what they really believed. I don’t remember exact percentages, because I don’t have my source before me right now, but I remember there was serious doubts about Jesus divinity, I think 80%. There were other serious doubts about other things as well, including hell, and about God.
And the people who are in the middle think that being in the middle makes them right. But then that’s true everywhere, not just on these boards.
And if your mother had been in a relationship with a different man every few months, you might have concluded something similar about boyfriends/husbands.
Based on my own experience and observation, I’d say that churches are much like families: they run the gamut from basically healthy and nurturing (though not perfect) to highly dysfunctional and abusive.
I agree with that. It’s perfectly plausible (maybe even likely) that our universe is a simulation generated by an alien entity far beyond our comprehension. But I’d still classify myself as an atheist by any usual definition, since I wouldn’t include such an alien entity within the usual definition of god.
A common specious argument is that all scientists should be agnostics, because we can’t prove that god doesn’t exist. This derives from the similarly specious aphorism “you can’t prove a negative”. But the difficulty with proving negatives only applies to poorly-specified or unrestricted negatives. It’s easy to prove that there’s no elephant in my living room; less so if the word “elephant” is so poorly specified that it might be taken to mean invisible or imaginary elephants; and less so if it’s a less restricted negative, such as a claim that there’s no elephant anywhere in my home state.
In general, the way you prove that something doesn’t exist is to consider the hypothesis that it does exist, predict what evidence we would expect to see if the hypothesis is true, and look for that evidence. If our model predicts a high probability that we should see such evidence, and we do not, then the hypothesis is likely false. Randall Munroe gave a classic example of this in xkcd: given that a large percentage of the population has been carrying a camera with them 24 hours a day for many years, we now know that ghosts don’t exist.
Scientists should only be agnostic toward the existence of “god” if the word is so poorly specified that it’s virtually meaningless. Only if somebody gives a reasonably precise definition of what they mean by the word is it possible to make predictions about what evidence we should expect to see if god exists, and consider if we do see such evidence. Otherwise the notion of “belief” in god is meaningless, and should be dismissed as such.
I guess xkcd is on a roll with relevant commentary here.
On the flip side, a friend (not a scientist but a highly respected academic) confided in me that she despises the notion that the church (Orthodox) should be a place to socialize or hang out; when she goes to church she goes to worship god.
So not all church-goers are merely going through the motions.
Assuming that there is a higher percentage of athiests in science, it could be because religious people are less likely to choose science as a profession. If a person believes that God created the heavens and the earth, then why waste their time studying an incorrect view on the origin of the universe?
Approach it scientifically. First, define “deity”. Then devise a method to mechanically count qualifying entities. We need objective observations here, folks. Now let’s inspect our observations. Got any false positives or negatives? How can we tell? An actual deity might take pains to avoid detection. How do we flush-em out?
Another approach: a literature search. Scan all terrestrial documents for mentions of powerful supernatural entities i.e. gods, goddesses, godlings, etc. Tally those, correct for population density, and see which deities predominate. Summarize your findings in a journal article, with a pop version for The Atlantic. Gain fame. Be invited on talk shows. Speak reassuringly.
As a former Mormon, I know several highly intelligent scientists who are Mormon. One is my uncle, a professor emeritus from a prestigious university. Yet, his belief in Mormonism is unshakable. Likewise, my best friend from high school is a scientist as well, with a PhD from Stanford. A couple of years ago, we went camping in Yosemite and he has an unshakable belief. He now is a bishop, which in Mormonism is the lay leader of a congregation.
Discussing the reasons I left Mormonism with him, it’s apparent that he has simply turned off any kind of critical thinking when it comes to religion. It’s called compartmentalization and scientists aren’t immune to it.