Are Atheists More Intelligent than Theists?

[shadowcat]

In Britain, it was found that 3.3 percent of Fellow of the Royal Society believed in the existence of God, while 78.8 percent did not believe.

The society has roughly a bit over 1000 members who were emailed and asked on a scale of 1-7 if they believed in god. 7 being the highest for belief in God and 1 being the lowest for non-belief. Only 213 members replied to the survey.

btw Newton was a member of this society. Also one of the founding members of the Royal Society was a believer in God.


Here is a list of famous scientists that you got beat in the intelligence department dodge, hope you have the credentials to back up your higher intelligence over these "scientists"

1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
   Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
   Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
   Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
   Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
   Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
6. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
   Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."
7. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
   In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
8. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
   One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
   Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
10. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
    Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
11. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
    Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
12. Max Planck (1858-1947)
    Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
13. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
    Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc²). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...encefaith.html

[dodge]

Shadowcat -- The subject here is recent academic studies that indicated those who believe in God are less intelligent than those who do not. My intelligence has nothing to do with it, so your sarcastic remark that “40% of Scientists are just not as intelligent as Dodge then” has no meaning. What Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and C.G. Jung believed is not relevant to the academic research I cited and linked to. Like Franklin, you didn’t comment on the papers and research data that I presented; but instead decided to engage in ad hominem for lack of a response to the findings that I presented. Attacking me doesn’t negate the research findings, which you’re both ignoring.

What is your opinion of the paper written by Gary J. Lewis, Stuart J. Ritchie, and Timothy C. Bates of the University of Edinburgh, The Relationship Between Intelligence and Multiple Domains of Religious Belief: Evidence from a Large Adult U.S. Sample? What do you think of Richard Lynn, John Harvey, and Helmuth Nyborg’s paper, Average Intelligence Predicts Atheism Rates Across 137 Nations?” How about Why Liberals and Atheists are More Intelligent, by Satoshi Kanazawa? Did you even bother to read them before going on the offensive?

[shadowcat]

I most certainly did respond to your claims, you must not have read my posts. I responded to your post and even quoted you:

"In Britain, it was found that 3.3 percent of Fellow of the Royal Society believed in the existence of God, while 78.8 percent did not believe."

I explained how the survey was done and that only 213 members out of over 1000 responded to the survey, that was done through email btw.
Newton was a member of this society and so were many others that I'm sure believed in God. I highly doubt you or the average atheist is more intelligent than Newton or any of the other scientists I listed off for that matter.

Also I put up an article of a poll that states that 40% of American scientists believe in God. Again, I highly doubt that you or the average atheist is any more intelligent than 40% of the American scientists that do believe in God.

Your statement that aethists are more intelligent than those that believe in God is sarcastic to the core and per my sarcastic response has been refuted quite well with what I posted.

[shadowcat]

What do scientists think about religion?

Members of the scientific community are often seen as doubting Thomases, but the reality is more complex. Even Charles Darwin may have made room for God.

Today, a century and a half after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," the overwhelming majority of scientists in the United States accept Darwinian evolution as the basis for understanding how life on Earth developed. But although evolutionary theory is often portrayed as antithetical to religion, it has not destroyed the religious faith of the scientific community.


According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
Furthermore, scientists today are no less likely to believe in God than they were almost 100 years ago, when the scientific community was first polled on this issue. In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not. Scientists have unearthed many important fossils since then, but they are, if anything, more likely to believe in God today.

And


As for Darwin, his letters indicate that he was probably an agnostic who lost his faith not because his groundbreaking theory was incompatible with religion, but because of his grief after the 1851 death of his favorite child, his 10-year-old daughter, Annie. And even then, he may not have completely rejected the idea of a higher power. The concluding sentence of "Origin of Species" speaks of a "Creator" breathing life "into a few forms or into one." The passage raises at least a little doubt as to how the father of modern evolutionary theory might have responded to the question on belief in Pew's recent survey of scientists.


http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...ci24-2009nov24

[dodge]

The thing is, Shadowcat, that of the several papers I linked to and commented on, with all the data included, you chose only to mention the survey of Fellows of the Royal Society, which you negatively critiqued. Then you went to a Christian website where you found a list of scientists over the past five hundred years who believed in God.

What about the 2011 study by representatives of the University of Edinburgh’s Department of Psychology that had data from 2307 individuals that I linked to? The authors used a large sample of adults in the United States, measuring religiosity along with a multi-scale instrument to assess general intelligence. Their results indicated that “lower intelligence is most strongly associated with higher levels of fundamentalism.”

The authors were Gary J. Lewis (Ph.D. Psychology Edinburgh), Stuart J. Ritchie (Ph.D. Psychology Edinburgh), and Timothy C. Bates (Ph.D. Psychology Edinburgh)

Do you have a problem with these results, that indicate those who embrace religious fundamentalism and a literal interpretation of scripture are not as intelligent as those who reject the Bible and God? If so, what are your objections?

By the way, your statistics on the number of respondents to the survey of Fellows of the Royal Society were off a little. Of the 1,074 members polled through email correspondence, about twenty-three percent responded; which is a good figure for this kind of study. There were 213 unbelievers and 12 believers. This represents the situation amongst Academicians in the U.S., which is overwhelmingly atheistic.

I’m sure you consider yourself intelligent, Shadowcat. Are you a fundamentalist Christian who interprets scripture literally?

[shadowcat]

The thing is, Shadowcat, that of the several papers I linked to and commented on, with all the data included, you chose only to mention the survey of Fellows of the Royal Society, which you negatively critiqued. Then you went to a Christian website where you found a list of scientists over the past five hundred years who believed in God.

What about the 2011 study by representatives of the University of Edinburgh’s Department of Psychology that had data from 2307 individuals that I linked to? The authors used a large sample of adults in the United States, measuring religiosity along with a multi-scale instrument to assess general intelligence. Their results indicated that “lower intelligence is most strongly associated with higher levels of fundamentalism.”

The authors were Gary J. Lewis (Ph.D. Psychology Edinburgh), Stuart J. Ritchie (Ph.D. Psychology Edinburgh), and Timothy C. Bates (Ph.D. Psychology Edinburgh)

Do you have a problem with these results, that indicate those who embrace religious fundamentalism and a literal interpretation of scripture are not as intelligent as those who reject the Bible and God? If so, what are your objections?

By the way, your statistics on the number of respondents to the survey of Fellows of the Royal Society were off a little. Of the 1,074 members polled through email correspondence, about twenty-three percent responded; which is a good figure for this kind of study. There were 213 unbelievers and 12 believers. This represents the situation amongst Academicians in the U.S., which is overwhelmingly atheistic.

I’m sure you consider yourself intelligent, Shadowcat. Are you a fundamentalist Christian who interprets scripture literally?

Dodge, The Fellows of the Royal society survey, which is in the UK, does not represent Academicians in the U.S. it represents the Fellows of the Royal Society in the UK. Not sure why you feel it would represent the U.S. but anyway......the other article I will investigate when I have time and I will get back to you about it. I got busy with dinner and other things here at home and just walked away from the computer. I think the entire notion is ridiculous though. The majority of these studies usually are designed to come out exactly how those that are doing the studies want them to, it has been shown many times that this is the case in many instances.

I clearly showed evidence to the contrary that you didn't respond to so not sure why you think what I posted has nothing to do with what you said. Also I was in a hurray so ok I was 12 off on the numbers for the Royal Society email survey, no biggy really. Especially being that so few even bothered to answer it.

[easeltine]

"I should think that you Jedi would have more respect for the difference between knowledge and wisdom."
―Dexter Jettster

[dodge]

Hi Shadowcat. Perhaps it was my fault because I didn’t express myself clearly; but I didn’t say that the Royal Society represented the United States. What I meant was the result of that survey indicating a high percentage of scientists had no belief in God was representative of the situation in the United States also, where the higher the educational level of scientists the less is the belief in supernatural beings.

It looks like you’re claiming that the study I mentioned that came out of the University of Edinburgh is invalid because the authors had preconceptions…even before reading it. Isn’t that a preconception in itself?

http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1197.pdf

[jeff_franklin]

Godwin’s Law most certainly applies to your ad hominem argument, Franklin. I presented scholarly academic research by reputable scientists that indicated atheists were more intelligent than theists. Instead of reading the material and commenting on it, you attacked it by comparing it with Adolf Hitler and “other murderous dictators.” You amplified this by using terms like “holocaust,” “humanity’s nightmare,” and add “Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Sung, and Pol Pot,” and saying that what I “advocate is identical to Hitler’s remarks about Slavic peoples that have no worth as human beings.”

Your posts are shotgun blasts of ad Hitlerum/reductio ad absurdum arguments, attaching Hitler and some of the worst dictators and mass murderers in history to current academic studies about intelligence as it relates to belief and non-belief in God. You are engaging in misleading association fallacies and using emotionally-loaded words in an attempt to distract from the actual issue (in this case academic research that indicates atheists are more intelligent than theists). Comparing scholarly research papers to Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich, and Nazis is a textbook example of Reductio ad Hitlerum. It is a logical fallacy and a desperate attempt to render the results of the studies I mentioned invalid out of a lack of a good counter argument.

I repeat my invocation of Godwin’s Law and proclaim you to have lost any credibility you might have had by playing the Hitler/Nazi card; and adding Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Sung, and Pol Pot to your reductio ad absurdum argument.

LMAO! You started with the insults. Insulting the intelligence of people who believe in God is inexcusable and just makes you lose whatever credibility you had on this forum totally.

[dodge]

Franklin, presenting objective scientific research is not insulting anyone. The results of some of these studies indicate that those who embrace a fundamentalist/literalist biblical perspective appear to be less intelligent than those who don’t, and that the higher the educational level the less one believes in God. This is because those who are free of religious convictions are more likely to want to study the world objectively, and therefore become good scientists.

This is why the scientific community is much less religious than the general public (education and objectivity). The same is true about evolution. While eighty-seven percent of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only thirty-two percent of the public believes this is true. (Pew research poll 2008)

Immersion in scripture seems to have an adverse effect on one’s ability to make it into graduate school and earn an advanced degree in science. One would have to set aside religious belief in order to engage in academic scientific research and publication in peer reviewed journals, because methodological naturalism is the required assumption when working with the scientific method. Supernaturalism has no place in science.

[jeff_franklin]

"One would have to set aside religious belief in order to engage in academic scientific research and publication in peer reviewed journals, because methodological naturalism is the required assumption when working with the scientific method. Supernaturalism has no place in science."

Sounds like a Cult to me. And in fact the so called scientific community has been blasted good in the media for it's studies that somehow turn into "facts" when it comes to a lot of issues including Global Warming (remember Climategate?), Evolution, taking assumptive quantum leaps with their "facts" in a rush to "prove" what they haven't: that humans and simians had a common ancestor, now this... All with a predetermined prejudice before the "scientific study" begins. As the saying goes:

"Garbage in, Garbage out."

One does not have to set aside scripture to be a scientist despite the cultic behavior in applying tremendous dictatorial oppression at many scientific campus communities trying to censor free speech, free thought.

You see when all truths are corrupted, twisted into lies, cultic behavior is behind it all. That is a constant in life. Truth does not need suppression of free thinking, free speech to survive. Only lies do.

Your "scientific study" you are presenting here is just pretend science, science corrupted. Just more atheist propaganda which is derived from the same old method all lies are conceived.

"Garbage in, Garbage out."

[dodge]

Hi Franklin. Your uninformed opinions concerning science are typical of right-wing Christians in general. This is why I think immersion in scripture compromises one’s intellectual capacity, and is the reason why such a large percentage of the world’s really great scientists reject religious mythology. Christian fundamentalists would rather believe in angels, demons, and talking snakes and a universe that is less than ten thousand years old than accept the science behind cosmology, biological evolution, and climate change.

An example of this is your mention of “climategate,” suggesting that the science behind climate change (“global warming”) is somehow weakened by information contained in more than a thousand emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit of the University of Anglia spanning thirteen years.

This happened when a hacker broke into their files and made these emails public. What these private correspondences between some scientists show is them talking frankly amongst themselves. Some of them were rude, dismissive, and behaving like jerks. What does that prove, that some scientists are not very nice people? What you would have to do, Franklin, is read these emails yourself and show me where there is any evidence of some sort of conspiracy within the scientific community…in context of course.

Besides, this incident only represents a few scientists from one institution. You would have to include data presented by NASA and NOAA, whose results are synthesized from a huge number of sources when they submit reports that indicate that the Earth is warming, that sea levels are rising, and that human activity “very likely” has been responsible for the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century; as you can see in the following paper submitted in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The organizations represented are the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme, and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4_syr_spm.pdf

It is the current scientific consensus that most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. This is acknowledged by the Royal Society, the American Geophysical Union, the Joint Science Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as well as the IPCC mentioned above.

“Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007)

“Climate change is occurring, and is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems. The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt the deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC 2010)

“Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities.” (American Chemical Society 2010)

http://portal.acs.org/portal/PublicW...ge/WPCP_011538

“More than a century’s worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.” (The Weather Channel)

http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/index.html

Every major scientific organization have published similar position statements concerning climate change.

Before expressing uninformed opinions based on material that you haven’t even read, you should educate yourself about such things so that it will at least appear that you know what your talking about. The same can be said about your opinions concerning biological evolution and the scientific method itself, which are nothing but right-wing Christian propaganda with no substance.

[jeff_franklin]

Why is it that everyone who disagrees with you is always uninformed?

Yet no one here is agreeing with you.

So are you the sole keeper of the truth and everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant?

I think anyone who totally immerses themselves in faith in science alone compromises one's intellectual capacity.

Where is your proof that:

"such a large percentage of the world’s really great scientists reject religious mythology".

Is that something you just made up or do you have a credible source for that bold claim?

The labels "Christian" and "fundamentalists" are synonymous because the fundamentals of Christianity are the words of Christ.

When all is said and done, discovered and proved, the history of creation found in all three texts of the Abrahamic faiths and told similarly in all other Theist type religions will fit hand in glove with true science.

I am not here to debate Global Warming with you but just used that as an example of fuzzy wuzzy science that the premise of is still being debated by the global scientific community. Also pointing out that disallowing any debate on it's (or Creationism's) validity is cultic mind control.

I really don't mind you calling me "right wing" because what is "left wing"?

Answer: Communism, Socialism, Fascism: totalitarianism.

I've read all of those links you provided and many others that counter their claims. Problems arise when political agendas override and drown out free thinking in the science community.

As well as when militant, intolerant Atheist agendas override a search for truth and tolerance of others' beliefs as revealed by the bogus studies that you started this topic about.

I know what I am talking about. I've done my homework and endeavor to think out of the box like a free thinker should.

I strongly detect Orwellian Newspeak in your posts convoluted to squash all opposing thought and consideration.

I believe my Christian perspective with a open minded, discerning respect for legitimate, uncorrupted, non agenda scientific research is vastly superior to your cherry picking dubious studies that culminate in calling anyone stupid!

Sincere truth seeking with factual evidence has flown the coop when Atheists abuse the term "scientific studies" to concoct that people who believe in God are stupid! Just shows how desperate, intolerant and disrespectful militant Atheism has become! No surprise here.

You may pat yourself on your own back with your self adorned intellectual pseudo superiority but you are only fooling yourself.

[jeff_franklin]

CHRIST HAS RISEN!

[dodge]

Hi Franklin. In response to your request for a “credible source” for my assertion that “a large percentage of the world’s really great scientists reject religious mythology,” I’ll point to Elaine Howard Ecklund’s Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think (Oxford University Press, copyright 2010) in order to get her perspective concerning the percentages of scientists who believe, not believe, or are agnostic about God.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/genera...=9780195392982

First, who is Elaine Howard Ecklund? She is a professor of sociology at Rice University, current director of Religion & Public Life for the Institute for Urban Research, and a Rice Scholar at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. She earned a Ph.D. in sociology from Cornell University.

http://sociology.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=117

The results of her research indicated that only twenty-seven percent of scientists had “some belief in God.” Of them, nine percent had doubts but affirmed their belief, five percent had occasional belief, eight percent believed in a higher power that isn’t a personal God, and nine percent said they have “no doubt of God’s existence.” This is in contrast to the rest of the U.S. population with a 90% belief in God.

You’re doing the same thing here that you always do, Franklin. I present some conclusions about religious belief from scientists based on their research; and instead of commenting on it and explaining why you disagree, you attack me personally (“intolerant militant atheist with a self-adorned intellectual pseudo-superiority”).

I never used the word “stupid,” I mentioned that there is evidence that those who embrace a fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of scripture are “less intelligent” than those who don’t. That does not equate to “stupid.” It has been shown that scientists who have earned Ph.Ds and are involved in current academic research in evolutionary biology, cosmology, and physics are predominantly non-theists as opposed to the general population who have less education. You can argue with the statistics, the research, and the results; but calling what I write “Orwellian Newspeak” is only an ad hominem rhetoric, the logical fallacy of attacking me rather than what I say.

[easeltine]

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/genera...=9780195392982

"Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them. She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Nearly 50 percent of them are religious. Many others are what she calls "spiritual entrepreneurs," seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith outside the constraints of traditional religion."

"Only a small minority are actively hostile to religion. Ecklund reveals how scientists-believers and skeptics alike-are struggling to engage the increasing number of religious students in their classrooms and argues that many scientists are searching for "boundary pioneers" to cross the picket lines separating science and religion."

http://www.livescience.com/379-scien...iscipline.html

"In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.

"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.

Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife."

Dodge, where do you get the figure you quote? This survey is actually saying that 59% of biologists practice religion, 73% political scientists practice religion, and 76% of Doctors BELIEVE IN GOD!!!

I don't know, do you even read the sources you point to?? Maybe, math is not your specialty? Maybe, you are the small minority that the article you gave us is talking about! You have only disproven what you state as fact to me!

I don't care about intelligence. I care about wisdom. It seems that articles that you link contradict what you state as fact.

Maybe Dodge is really TATM/COL/BO? All of them contradicting historical facts?

[jeff_franklin]

Scientists and Belief

POLL November 5, 2009

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-...nd-Belief.aspx

[jeff_franklin]

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-...nd-Belief.aspx

[dodge]

Easeltine -- My source is the book itself, which I have. Let me quote directly from it:

“About sixty-four percent of scientists at elite research universities either are certain that they do not believe in God (atheist) or do not know (agnostic).”

“Only nine percent of scientists say they have no doubt that God exists, compared to well over sixty percent of the general public.”

“Ninety-four percent of religious scientists think that evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on earth.”

I have the book in my Kindle reader, which is searchable. Let’s look at that quote in the article, that “nearly 50 percent of them are religious.” What she actually wrote is that “50 percent of scientists have a religious tradition,” not “believe in God.” They “identify with a religious tradition,” a “religious identity.” The author says that of the 50 percent of scientists who identified with a religious tradition, the higher proportion are Jewish (about 16 percent), but identify only as an ethnicity and not in terms of active religious faith.”

So, although 50 percent of the “elite scientists” that she surveyed identify with a “religious tradition,” only 9 percent say they have no doubt that God exists as opposed to sixty percent of the general population.

Other statistics that the author gives is that “8% of scientists believe in a higher power, but not God.” “5% sometimes believe in God.” “14% have doubts, but believe in God.” “None of the religious scientists I talked with supported the theory of intelligent design.”

In answer to your sarcastic question, “do you even read the sources you point to?,” I own the book. Your equally sarcastic question, “maybe math is not your specialty,” doesn’t deserve a response.

[jeff_franklin]

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-...nd-Belief.aspx


So it turns out that the claim that "such a large percentage of the world’s really great scientists reject religious mythology".

is false! Of course the part of "the world’s really great scientists" is strictly subjective. Of course Dodge thinks that the Pope of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, is the greatest scientist, man who ever lived. As if... lol!

But sorry, no sale, no cigar!

Percentages of scientists that who believe in a higher power, supreme being or God, gods range in the numbers from above charts....

51% with 7% who don't know or refused to answer

so where is your "large percentage"? Can't seem to find it.


The whole premise of this topic started by dodge is ad hominem rhetoric attacking over 85% of the world's population including the other poster's of this forum.