Does religion slow down scientific progress?

[TheSkepticChristian]

I am glad our church says that Scientific evidence shows dinosaurs lived on this earth before man. 

Quote

Did dinosaurs live and die on this earth long before man came along? There have been no revelations on this question, and the scientific evidence says yes. (You can learn more about it by studying paleontology if you like, even at Church-owned schools.)

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/02/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-dinosaurs?lang=eng

I am glad our church published that because only 33% of scientists believe in a personal God. That means agnostics/atheists  have a greater passion for Science than Christians, data shows 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[USU78]

Huh?  How does the alleged relative lack of religious imagination amongst those styled "scientists" in the graph connect in any way to "interest in science"?

[bcuzbcuz]

23 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am glad our church says that Scientific evidence shows dinosaurs lived on this earth before man. 

I am glad our church published that because only 33% of scientists believe in a personal God. That means infidels are more interested in Science than Christians. Infidels have a greater passion for Science than Christians, data shows 
 

 

 

I´m assuming your stats are from the USA. Please correct me if I´m wrong. Are there stats that reflect the same questions from the world in general?

[Danzo]

29 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am glad our church says that Scientific evidence shows dinosaurs lived on this earth before man. 

I am glad our church published that because only 33% of scientists believe in a personal God. That means agnostics/atheists are more interested in Science than Christians. Agnostics/atheists have a greater passion for Science than Christians, data shows 

 

 

Can you reference the statistics?

Interesting to find out where the numbers come from.

[Gray]

Some conservative orthodoxies (for lack of a better term) tend to be selectively hostile to scientific discovery. But that doesn't represent religion as a whole. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

30 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Huh?  How does the alleged relative lack of religious imagination amongst those styled "scientists" in the graph connect in any way to "interest in science"?

Atheists have a greater passion for Science, that is why there are more atheists scientists than Christian scientists. 

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

27 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Can you reference the statistics?

Interesting to find out where the numbers come from.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Atheists have a greater passion for Science, that is why there are more atheists scientists than Christian scientists. 

I have a great passion for science [lower case intentional], deal with scientists all the time in my professional life, yet chose another path.  In my experience, what you call scientists, I call lazy, barely competent researchers, fully 1/3 of which falsify data in order to achieve a pre-determined result [according to the famous 2009 study], who are slaves to whims of the neosocialists, both inside and outside government, who pass judgment on grant requests.  There is no special virtue in having made a particular career choice.  Worshiping scientists or granting them demigod status such that we must agree with their lack of religious imagination without analysis is just plain silly. .

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Some conservative orthodoxies (for lack of a better term) tend to be selectively hostile to scientific discovery. But that doesn't represent religion as a whole. 

Why only 30% to 40% of scientists believe in a personal God? Where are the Theists joining the scientific community? Don't we need more Theists in the scientific community? 

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

.  Worshiping scientists or granting them demigod status such that we must agree with their lack of religious imagination without analysis is just plain silly. .

What? LOL has nothing to do with what I am saying, I simply wonder why we don't have enough Christian scientists. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[strappinglad]

I blame Darwinism . With that out of the way, one should note that a brief review of the history of scientific endeavors in the last 300 plus years will show that rather than slow science , religious belief has inspired men to search for God through their study of the world. Many if not most of the pioneers of all scientific disciplines were at least theists if not full blown Christians and felt that their beliefs were fully in sync with their discoveries.

[mapman]

The number of scientists that believe in God doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether religion slows down scientific progress. In my opinion, religion in itself doesn't obstruct scientific progress, but that dogmatism of all kinds (including religious) does. I'm sure there are many reasons why scientists don't believe in God, but a primary one has to be the hostility and dogmatism of some religions against evolution and stuff like that.

Edited February 18, 2016 by mapman

[TheSkepticChristian]

4 minutes ago, mapman said:

The number of scientists that believe in God doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether religion slows down scientific progress

but the stats show that most religious people are not interested in studying a scientific field. Please give me a reason why we shouldn't conclude that religion makes less scientists. 

 

 

[mapman]

29 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but the stats show that most religious people are not interested in studying a scientific field. Please give me a reason why we shouldn't conclude that religion makes less scientists. 

 

 

Some strands of religious thought probably discourage scientific thinking, and these traditions happen to be prominent in the United States. You're not likely to find many scientists coming from denominations that denounce evolution, for example. Some groups, like the Catholics, however, have much more positive positions about science, and so are probably going to produce more scientists. During some times in history, pretty much all of the scientists were believers in God, and they didn't seem to have any problems making scientific discoveries. In my opinion it's a matter of certain religions to be anti-intellectual and the perception by some that all religions are against science. It seems very obvious to me, however, that religious people can embrace science without compromising their belief in God.

The problem is more that people tend to be dogmatic, they aren't willing to consider ideas that contradict what they already assume to be true, which is by it's very nature runs contrary to the way science works. When religious leaders are dogmatic they tend to reject science, but dogmatism itself isn't a religious principle, nor exclusive to religious people, if that makes sense.

[TheSkepticChristian]

8 minutes ago, mapman said:

Some strands of religious thought probably discourage scientific thinking, and these traditions happen to be prominent in the United States. You're not likely to find many scientists coming from denominations that denounce evolution, for example.

Interesting thoughts, but can you please answer my question

52 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but the stats show that most religious people are not interested in studying a scientific field. Please give me a reason why we shouldn't conclude that religion makes less scientists, you have a good reason? 

 

 

 

 

 

[mapman]

Here's an example to explain what I'm saying. Galileo was famously rebuked by the Catholic Church for his discoveries that challenged (what was then) Catholic dogma about the nature of the cosmos. Some have used this to argue that religion is anti-science. The only problem with this is that Galileo was a firm believer in God. The problem wasn't religion per se, but some religious leaders who were unwilling to consider new ideas. Galileo's belief in God didn't affect his ability to make major scientific advancements. In fact, one could argue that it helped him since he saw nature as being as sacred and full of truth as the Bible. Science was a religious endeavor for him. The same could be said about Isaac Newton and many other important scientists. It is an interesting question why so many scientists don't believe in God these days (at least in the U.S.), but it seems beyond clear to me that it doesn't have to be that way. It's probably linked to the rise of logical positivism and a backlash against the dogmas of certain Christian denominations.

Edited February 18, 2016 by mapman

[Kemara]

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Why only 30% to 40% of scientists believe in a personal God? Where are the Theists joining the scientific community? Don't we need more Theists in the scientific community? 

 

Why on earth would we need more theists in the scientific community? Please explain this need if you believe there is one. Personally I think we need more human beings in the scientific community, their being theists, atheists, antitheists, agnostics or deists has no relevance.

[Kemara]

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but the stats show that most religious people are not interested in studying a scientific field.

 

 

The stats show nothing of the sort. At the very most all you can conclude from stats is that religious people have a greater interest in studying other fields, but they absolutely do not show that most religious people are NOT interested. . 

[Kemara]

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

What? LOL has nothing to do with what I am saying, I simply wonder why we don't have enough Christian scientists. 

How many is enough? And why do you consider that number to be enough? Please explain why your number is not too many or too few. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Kemara

[Kemara]

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Please give me a reason why we shouldn't conclude that religion makes less scientists. 

In order for your position to be correct and even for your question to make sense you would have to show if it is atheists that become scientists or if its scientists that become atheists.

[TheSkepticChristian]

16 minutes ago, Kemara said:

In order for your position to be correct and even for your question to make sense you would have to show if it is atheists that become scientists or if its scientists that become atheists.

Many Christian apologists say atheists become scientists. About 90% of the NAS scientists are Atheists. 

 

46 minutes ago, Kemara said:

How many is enough? And why do you consider that number to be enough? Please explain why your number is not too many or too few. 

Most Americans are religious, so that means most scientists should also be religious too, but that is not the reality!

[thesometimesaint]

5 hours ago, mapman said:

Here's an example to explain what I'm saying. Galileo was famously rebuked by the Catholic Church for his discoveries that challenged (what was then) Catholic dogma about the nature of the cosmos. Some have used this to argue that religion is anti-science. The only problem with this is that Galileo was a firm believer in God. The problem wasn't religion per se, but some religious leaders who were unwilling to consider new ideas. Galileo's belief in God didn't affect his ability to make major scientific advancements. In fact, one could argue that it helped him since he saw nature as being as sacred and full of truth as the Bible. Science was a religious endeavor for him. The same could be said about Isaac Newton and many other important scientists. It is an interesting question why so many scientists don't believe in God these days (at least in the U.S.), but it seems beyond clear to me that it doesn't have to be that way. It's probably linked to the rise of logical positivism and a backlash against the dogmas of certain Christian denominations.

I wouldn't limit it to just Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, some Buddhist sects are equally not kindly disposed to science. However you will find good scientists in all religions.

[TheSkepticChristian]

12 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I wouldn't limit it to just Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, some Buddhist sects are equally not kindly disposed to science. However you will find good scientists in all religions.

83% of Americans believe in a personal God, but only 33% of scientists believe in God, why? and only 10% of NAS scientists believe in God, why?

Does that mean that without Atheists there would have been far fewer scientists? How is that not slowing down scientific progress? 

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Many Christian apologists say atheists become scientists.

Your position is that atheists have more passion and interest in science than theists and therefore more atheists BECOME scientists. However, you base this position on statistical data that demonstrates the CURRENT belief of scientists not on their belief when they decided to BECOME scientists. The statistical data you quote in no way supports your position and neither does your anecdotal response to my question. 

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

About 90% of the NAS scientists are Atheists. 

The fact that about 90% of NAS scientists are atheists doesn't support your position either. This statistic shows CURRENT belief not the belief they held when BECOMING a scientist. Your position requires you to read into the statistical data conclusions that the data does not present. As I have already said, in order to establish the validity of your position you have to show if atheists become scientists or if scientists become atheists. Further still, you position is that atheists have more passion and interest in science than theists, you will therefore need to show why this passion and interest started. As has been pointed out on this thread by Strappinglad religion can lead one to science, which also presents the question of, can science lead one out of religion?   

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Most Americans are religious, so that means most scientists should also be religious too, but that is not the reality!

It doesn't necessarily mean that at all. Please explain why most American scientists should be religious because most Americans are religious. You have yet to establish a valid reason or correlation for this position. And again in order to support your position of BECOMING scientists you will have to show if atheists become scientists or scientists become atheists. 

Can you please answer my other questions.

2 hours ago, Kemara said:

How many is enough? And why do you consider that number to be enough? Please explain why your number is not too many or too few. 

3 hours ago, Kemara said:

Why on earth would we need more theists in the scientific community? Please explain this need if you believe there is one. Personally I think we need more human beings in the scientific community, their being theists, atheists, antitheists, agnostics or deists has no relevance.

Please excuse me for the multiple posts I only just figured out how to use the new quote feature.

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 minutes ago, Kemara said:

Your position is that atheists have more passion and interest in science than theists and therefore more atheists BECOME scientists. However, you base this position on statistical data that demonstrates the CURRENT belief of scientists

 

8 minutes ago, Kemara said:

As I have already said, in order to establish the validity of your position you have to show if atheists become scientists or if scientists become atheists. Further still, you position is that atheists have more passion and interest in science than theists, you will therefore need to show why this passion and interest started.

it is worst if it is the other way around. It doesn't help if Science is making atheists. That is why many apologists argue that they were atheists before becoming scientists. 

10 minutes ago, Kemara said:

 Please explain why most American scientists should be religious because most Americans are religious. 

. Unless science contradicts religion, there is no other reason. 

13 minutes ago, Kemara said:

you will therefore need to show why this passion and interest started.

perhaps because atheists tend to have more curiosity?