Science and Religious Belief

[LeSellers]

If we go back to the 1860's (around the time of the Civil War), there were only about 10 Ph.D.'s granted in the sciences in the entire US annually. You don't even have to do the math.

How many schools offered them back then?

Does a doctorate even mean anything significant in today's world of hyperinflated degrees? There is talk, nowadays. of a "superdoctorate" precisely because too many people have doctorates, and that far too many of them are hollow.

Lehi

[CA Steve]

Dan,

"Studies have shown that among Latter-day Saints (Mormons), higher levels of education are strongly correlated with higher church attendance, and higher levels of devotion."

I am sure you will recognize that from your website. Do you believe it applies to other religions or is it peculiar to the LDS?

[44Foxtrot]

There is talk, nowadays. of a "superdoctorate" precisely because too many people have doctorates, and that far too many of them are hollow.

Lehi

There are already degrees past the Ph.D. in several countries in the world and have been for sometime. For example, in Russia and several FSU States, the Ph.D. is followed by a "higher doctorate" such as D.Sc, or Sc.D., in recognition of substantial continuing contribution to scientific knowledge.

.

Further recognition of scientific accomplishment by the State might include appointment to the Academy of Sciences and the title of "Academician". Thus one would be properly addressed as "Academician Popov", rather than "Dr. Popov". This system grew (to some extent) as a way to differentiate among scientists in a crowded and crunched sector of a top down planned economy.

With so many specialties, subspecialties and variations in formal educational careers, I don't think it makes a lot of difference whether the US adopts this system fully or not. At some point, one moves to the leading edge (or bleeding edge) of their (increasingly specialized) field and from then on relative rank is pretty well determined by the size of the paycheck.

[cdowis]

Thanks for the sermon. I have noticed that the final position of believers is a testimony or a sermon. So at least you are on script.

Perhaps you were not paying attention when scientists on this board have shown, again and again, that the overwhelming weight of physical evidence supports evolution, and that evolution has tremendous predictive power in science, whereas ID and creationism have none whatsoever.

It appears that you are yourself making a scripted sermon while ignoring my point that there are serious unanswered questions. You reject religion because of unanswered questions, but have a blink eye to the same issue in macro evolution.

The evidence I have seen for evolution is ad hoc, in hindsight, or unrelated to macro evolution.

One interesting discovery is that neanderthal man and homo sapiens show no common ancestor, except in the imagination of the evolutionists -- "It's just a matter of time before we find that common ancestor." I would think evolutionists would predict that relationship, but when it failed to appear, they just shrug their shoulders. "We just need to go back a few million years more."

They continue to find the so-called ancestors of humans, but have no proof except for structual similarity. And that particular criteron failed miserably when attempting to show this common ancestry between neanderthal and homo sapiens. Macro evolution is founded on that unproven assumption. "Look at those teeth, look at that skull, they were able to walk upright..........THIS IS OUR ANCESTOR!!!!!"

Such fervor, such devotion. It brings tears to the eyes as they proclaim their finding to the newspapers.

I appreciate the sincere testimony that you give of macro evolution, and your fervent scripted anti-deity sermon.

Have a nice shopping day.

[44Foxtrot]

It appears that you are yourself making a scripted sermon while ignoring my point that there are serious unanswered questions. You reject religion because of unanswered questions, but have a blink eye to the same issue in macro evolution.

The evidence I have seen for evolution is ad hoc, in hindsight, or unrelated to macro evolution. The evidence does not exclude ID as a theory because we can already agree that evolution is involved in adaption.

One unexpected discovery regarding macro evolution is that neanderthal man and homo sapiens show no common ancestor, except in the imagination of the evolutionists -- "It's just a matter of time before we find that common ancestor. We just need to go back a few million years more."

They continue to find the so-called ancestors of humans, but have no proof except for structual similarity. And that particular criteron failed miserably when attempting to show this common ancestry between neanderthal and homo sapiens. Macro evolution is founded on that unproven assumption. "Look at those teeth, look at that skull, they were able to walk upright..........THIS IS OUR ANCESTOR!!!!!"

Such fervor, such devotion. It brings tears to the eyes as they proclaim their finding to the newspapers.

I appreciate the sincere testimony that you give of macro evolution, and your fervent scripted anti-deity sermon.

Have a nice shopping day.

Thank you. But it turns out that I still observe the Sabbath.

And believe me, I have not ignored your claims for ID and against evolution. I look at the same data you do, it is just that I am trained to parse it, make sense of it, and use it in a predictive manner to advance knowledge. As a scientist, claims that are not testable, and hypotheses that are not falsifiable (such as those of ID), along with a quick application of Occam' Razor, make it hard to seriously consider the questionable "evidence" you and your fellow deniers often present, or to agree with your interpretation of valid and peer reviewed findings.

Not to put to blunt a point on it, there is nothing that ID'ers have come up with as "supporting data" that cannot be better explained by evolution.

What you don't seem to understand is that the scientific community does not really care what you believe with regard to evolution, just do not call ID "science" when it plainly is not (see above).

Your assertions are analogous to bringing a football to a baseball game and insisting that those on the field play with the football.

[Greg Smith]

As for the bulk of your response; nice dancing.

It has been my experience that such flippant dismissals usually come when people are unwilling to actually engage the points raised. I point out again the Eugenie Scott (not someone particularly enamoured of religion) joins me in questioning whether the data is robust enough to draw the rather sweeping conclusions which are you drawing.

You disagree with the data I cite, but produce none to refute it. (Your data still supports my position.)

I disagree with your interpretation of the data. There's a big difference. I don't question that ambulances contain heart attack victims; why would I question it? I question the interpretation that blames the ambulance for the heart attack.

As for the justification of the "from Galileo onward" comment, I have already provided it. Again, if one considers the number of scientists from Galileo's time until today, one would find that the vast majority of them worked in the 20th and 21st centuries. I have provided data to support this claim as well as data on the religiosity of scientists in the 20th century. My point can even be made using the data that you seem to like.

What you are consistently ignoring, however, is that the "vast majority" of these also happened to live in a time and place in which the culture was secularized (and science itself secularized, in an effort to increase the professional prestige of the sciences as a unique set of disciplines). This happened in the last half/quarter of the 19th century. "Science" was around and blossomed since Galileo, but the move to disbelief was a much later phenomenon. People were perfectly capable of doing science as believers: Newton, Boyle, Faraday.

It strikes me as incredibly naive to presume that all these people of the 20th/21st century made a considered assessment of the matter, and simply opted for secularism as the best option. Isn't it at least as possible that people who start out as secularists are more inclined toward a career in science? Isn't it possible that there is some social/cultural pressures at work, and people opt for agnosticism/atheism simply because of when and where they are born, just as the vast majority of people born in 12th century France were likely Catholics? Its not as if the scientists are a breed apart--they are subject to the same influences and currents as the rest of society. [For a marvelous book on this theme, see Neal Stevenson's novel Anathem which isn't as good as Cryptonomicron and The Baroque Cycle, but is still pretty darn good!]

Secularism became a viable world-view because of a host of processes and pressures--it was not, contrary to the version you're telling, simply something that "fell out" of scientific progress or advancement.

Because the data I provided does not support your worldview, you tend to discount it. That is your right, I suppose.

Ah yes, the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. Always a classic.

Actually, I'm questioning your interpretation of the data, which I don't think is supported by history. It is (to borrow Tofler's phrase) "supersimplified." I tend to discount--as you do--interpretations which I think in error.

Yet, you seem unwilling to actually engage the substantive points of interpretation and historical contingency that I'm raising. Maybe they don't support your worldview. It is hard to have the comforting myths we've adopted (e.g., the "war" between science and religion, the withdrawal of belief as science marches onward). This is your right, I suppose. :-) [see how useless such approaches are?]

Best,

GLS

[44Foxtrot]

What you are consistently ignoring, however, is that the "vast majority" of these also happened to live in a time and place in which the culture was secularized (and science itself secularized, in an effort to increase the professional prestige of the sciences as a unique set of disciplines). This happened in the last half of the 20th century. "Science" was around and blossomed since Galileo, but the move to disbelief was a much later phenomenon. People were perfectly capable of doing science as believers: Newton, Boyle, Faraday.

Secularism became a viable world-view because of a host of processes and pressures--it was not, contrary to the version you're telling, simply something that "fell out" of scientific progress or advancement.

Greg,

You make several interesting assertions.

First of all, I don't disagree that believers are capable of good science. My assertion is that believers are less likely to produce good science, statistically, than are non-believers. This is not a matter of interpretation. The data bear me out on this.

I showed that, according to accepted scientific (epidemiological) methods for identifying risk factors, belief constitutes a risk to the production of good science. You provided one plausible mechanism for this risk, and others have posited that same mechanism in the literature. There are certainly other possible mechanisms. My favorite candidate is cog dis, but to each his own.

You claim that "Secularism became a viable world-view because of a host of processes and pressures--it was not, contrary to the version you're telling, simply something that "fell out" of scientific progress or advancement." I am unaware of any non-science related processes and pressures that would be anywhere near as significant as those related to progress in science (especialy in light of the fact that religionists have chosen evolution as the main arena in which to do battle against science.

Can you provide some examples from this host of (non-science related) processes and pressures?

Thanks

[thesometimesaint]

First of all, I don't disagree that believers are capable of good science. My assertion is that believers are less likely to produce good science, statistically, than are non-believers. This is not a matter of interpretation. The data bear me out on this.

CFR

Cognitive Dissonance is a ad hominem catchal, and fails to address the real issue that at some level everyone holds seemingly disparate ideas at the same time with no uncomfort at all.

I and many LDS scientists have no problem at all with the Scientific Method, or evolution.

[44Foxtrot]

First of all, I don't disagree that believers are capable of good science. My assertion is that believers are less likely to produce good science, statistically, than are non-believers. This is not a matter of interpretation. The data bear me out on this.

CFR

Cognitive Dissonance is a ad hominem catchal, and fails to address the real issue that at some level everyone holds seemingly disparate ideas at the same time with no uncomfort at all.

I and many LDS scientists have no problem at all with the Scientific Method, or evolution.

Thesometimesaint,

RE: CFR - The data that support my claim about the relative contributions of believers and non-believers to science can be found in earlier posts on this thread.

Glad to hear that you can rationalize the teachings of the Church with the scientific enterprise. (I truly am.) And you are right about cognitive dissonance in that individuals have a widely varying capacity to simultaneously hold sets of mutually exclusive beliefs.

I followed threads here for some time before registering, and have seen quite a number of your posts over the last several months. I think I have some sense of how you approach things, and in general have a great deal of respect for that approach. However, I have a hard time understanding how you function as a scientist without an inordinate amount of compartmentalization and/or selective belief.

If you would care to explain how you do this with some specific examples, I would be happy to have the information. If not, thanks for your observations and comments.

[thesometimesaint]

44Foxtrot:

I think you will find that the preponderance of scientists are believers of one flavor or another. As a social scientist I just find it hard to put God into my little human test tube experiments. IOW I look for ways to explain human behaviors that don't involve the miraculous or the supernatural.

It is not a matter of rationalization. I'm just very particular about what I choose to believe, and what I can demonstrate from the little science that I do know. I've been a member of the Church for a long time now, and have a pretty good handle on what the Church actually teaches, and what I can safely call a someone's personal opinion of it(they're not always one and the same).

We all do a certain amount of compartmentalization in our thinking. It allows us to function in our everyday lives. To give an example. Science has established that the atoms that make up everything physical thing are nearly all empty space. Yet we have seldom get out of bed worrying that we may fall though all that empty space.

[thesometimesaint]

delete double entry.

[44Foxtrot]

44Foxtrot:

I think you will find that the preponderance of scientists are believers of one flavor or another. As a social scientist I just find it hard to put God into my little human test tube experiments. IOW I look for ways to explain human behaviors that don't involve the miraculous or the supernatural.

It is not a matter of rationalization. I'm just very particular about what I choose to believe, and what I can demonstrate from the little science that I do know. I've been a member of the Church for a long time now, and have a pretty good handle on what the Church actually teaches, and what I can safely call a someone's personal opinion of it(they're not always one and the same).

We all do a certain amount of compartmentalization in our thinking. It allows us to function in our everyday lives. To give an example. Science has established that the atoms that make up everything physical thing are nearly all empty space. Yet we have seldom get out of bed worrying that we may fall though all that empty space.

Thesometimesaint,

Good response.

New information is always helpful. For example, in reading your posts I missed the fact that you are in the social sciences. (So I will not be debating with you any further regarding cog dis or compartmentalization). You seem knowledgeable in a number of areas not related to the social sciences.

Turns out (as referenced earlier in this thread) that most scientists working in the physical and biological sciences do not believe in a personal God. And it appears that the higher the ranking in the science hierarchy, the lower the proportion of believers becomes.

Aside from that small detail, I can agree with and appreciate your response.

[thesometimesaint]

44Foxtrot:

Always good to talk with people who disagree with me. Keeps me on my mental toes.

I've never found those artificial hierarchies particularly useful or even accurate. To me a fact is a fact whether it comes from physics or sociology. Back in the times when wizards used strong elixirs to change common metals to gold I took some chemistry classes. Did really well too. Then I took my first psychology class and fell in love.

[Greg Smith]

I am unaware of any non-science related processes and pressures that would be anywhere near as significant as those related to progress in science (especialy in light of the fact that religionists have chosen evolution as the main arena in which to do battle against science.

Should read: [A small subset of] religionists have chosen evolution as the main arena in which to do battle against science.

Again, you are generalizing inappropriately from a small subset that may not share characteristics with the larger group.

In fact, the opposition to evobio on these grounds is a relatively recent development, and had little to do with initial reactions to the theory:

surprising as it may seem in today

[44Foxtrot]

Should read: [A small subset of] religionists have chosen evolution as the main arena in which to do battle against science.

Again, you are generalizing inappropriately from a small subset that may not share characteristics with the larger group.

In fact, the opposition to evobio on these grounds is a relatively recent development, and had little to do with initial reactions to the theory:

As I said above, I certainly don't fault biologists for their frustration on this front. But, like anti-Mormon fundamentalists, anti-science fundamentalists are a small group: overly vocal and active in proportion to their numbers, doubtless, but still numerically small.

An excellent review of the multifarious religious reactions to Darwin and Wallace can be found in:

Peter J. Bowler, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007)

Yes, I heartily recommend Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007). ISBN 0674026764 for an extensive discussion of these issues. For an exploration in an American context see: James Turner, Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985).

It is difficult to summarize their arguments and do them justice; both are wonderful books written beautifully. Taylor in particular does a good job of articulating what is attractive, even morally compelling about unbelief as a worldview.

GLS

Thanks.

Will have a look at Taylor (2007) for sure.

[Greg Smith]

Thanks.

Will have a look at Taylor (2007) for sure.

There's also Taylor's previous book Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Harvard Univ Press, 1994) is also quite good (though I'm only half-way through it. In some ways, the 2007 work seems to take up sort of where this one leaves off, or attack the problem and issues from a different vantage point.

You can tell, though, that his writing and thought have matured since the 1994 volume. 1994 is good; 2007 is great.

GLS