Does religion slow down scientific progress?

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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? 

I've heard it was 40%, but regardless, why isn't it 0%? Could it be just that science doesn't care what your religion is, or if you have one? Some of the greatest scientists that have ever lived have been religious. I don't claim to be a great scientist, but I am a pretty good one. I don't have a problem with God, but I can't posit him/her/it onto science and still have it be science.

[TheSkepticChristian]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Could it be just that science doesn't care what your religion is, or if you have one? Some of the greatest scientists that have ever lived have been religious

I agree, I just wonder why most religious people are not interested in studying a scientific field, but the opposite seems to be true about Atheists. That data proves Atheists appreciate Science more. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I agree, I just wonder why most religious people are not interested in studying a scientific field, the opposite seems to be true about Atheists. 

With over 7 billion people on the earth right now. I think it would be kinda hard to make such statements. People are naturally curious. While I too doubt many will go into a science. Religion in and of itself isn't the cause. Probably it is just a symptom. In science there are no hard and fast absolutes, all we really have is a methodology for separating evidence from non-evidence. The values we give to those evidences/non-evidences is outside the realm of science. Religion relies on hard and fast absolutes. Mixing the two generally doesn't work well.

[Kemara]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

it is worst if it is the other way around. It doesn't help if Science is making atheists. T no reasoninghat is why many apologists argue that they were atheists before becoming scientists.  

Again, your answer does not support your position and your position is not supported by the data you have used. Your claim that the data shows that atheism leads to an interest in science more than religion does is false. Your response amounts to little more than "it is because I say it is".

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Unless science contradicts religion, there is no other reason.

Really? You are absolutely sure there are no other possibilities? This is a remarkable statement made even more remarkable by the fact that you have shown no basis, no support at all, for this claim. The data you have provided does not support your position that religious people should be represented in greater numbers in the sciences. Your reply amounts to little more than "it is because I say it is".

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

perhaps because atheists tend to have more curiosity? 

You have yet to even establish that they are atheists at the point of developing an interest in science! Your data doesn't support this position and even your reply is tantamount to an admission that you have no idea.

9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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

11 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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

12 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

That means agnostics/atheists  have a greater passion for Science than Christians, data shows 

The data you have provided does not support these statements.

9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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

Again, your position is that atheists are more interested in BECOMING scientists than theists or in your words "religion makes less scientists'.  Your data does not support this position and neither does your reasoning. So that is my reason for why we shouldn't agree with your conclusion that religion makes less scientists.

Are you able to provide any data or reasoning for why anyone should believe that religion makes less scientists and atheism makes more?

Finally, you must have forgotten, for the second time, to answer these questions...here's hoping for third time lucky.

5 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. 

5 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.

And could you please address this post.

5 hours ago, Kemara said:

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. . 

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Kemara

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I agree, I just wonder why most religious people are not interested in studying a scientific field

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? So far you have provided nothing to support INTEREST in studying the sciences. I was interested in studying finance but guess what, I studied Science instead. My choice to study science does not prove a disinterest in finance.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

  That data proves Atheists appreciate Science more. 

What data? Please share it because the data you have provided so far doesn't prove this assertion.

[Monster]

I certainly think religion has the potential to slow down scientific discovery but does not necessarily do so. From my experience religion supports science to a degree. Religious people like science when it lights their houses or keeps them warm in the winter. They like science when it created the automobile to get them to church, or guns and missiles to blow up their enemies. But when science gets cross with their beliefs they tend to say science is wrong or scientists lack understanding. Just look at the debate over evolution. The evidence is not even up for debate anymore yet many religionists want to discount it all because it does not agree with their world view, yet they are happy to use science to make their lives more comfortable. So when religionists fight in the political arena to shape a world view sometimes they  are impeding science by not accepting the reality of some science as much as they do other science.

 

[Gray]

13 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? 

 

I think because America is the land of the fundamentalists. Fundamentalism sets up a false dichotomy between theism and science. When you talk to atheists, you find that a great many of them were formerly religious fundamentalists, or brought up in fundamentalist homes.  Their atheism is really a rejection of fundamentalism. Churches haven't done a great job of communicating that there are more than those two options.

For example, the 18% who say they believe in a higher power, but not God. They say they don't believe in God because there is this idea is that God can only be this one specific thing. Either God is a conscious human-like planner, or God doesn't exist. False dichotomy. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Gray

[TheSkepticChristian]

5 hours ago, Kemara said:

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? So far you have provided nothing to support INTEREST in studying the sciences. I was interested in studying finance but guess what, I studied Science instead. My choice to study science does not prove a disinterest in finance.

It does. The fact that most scientists are not religious proves that the nonreligious have a greater passion for Science. Of course there are many Theists that also have a high passion for Science, but stats prove that it is mostly secular people. 

To study a scientific field means you need to have a high passion for Science. Science courses at the university are hard. 

 

[USU78]

15 hours ago, strappinglad said:

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.

I agree  ...  this evangelizing anti-Religious faction amongst those who study and teach the sciences replace religious worship and worldview with an incomplete, quite limited replacement god who requires nothing of them but acceptance of the fact that things fall when you drop them.

Very convenient for the lazy thinker.

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think because America is the land of the fundamentalists.

It is not

[volgadon]

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I agree, I just wonder why most religious people are not interested in studying a scientific field, but the opposite seems to be true about Atheists. That data proves Atheists appreciate Science more. 

Or that they have replaced religion with science in their totemic thinking.

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It does. The fact that most scientists are not religious proves that the nonreligious have a greater passion for Science. Of course there are many Theists that also have a high passion for Science, but stats prove that it is mostly secular people. 

To study a scientific field means you need to have a high passion for Science. Science courses at the university are hard. 

 

Post Hoc ergo proptor Hoc.

[USU78]

The purpose of this thread just occurred to me:

We often, in LDS circles, speak to the explosion in scientific discoveries that ensued following Joseph's First Vision.  The world changed a lot from 1820 to 1844, and has changed at an astounding rate as knowledge expands [note my sly reference to The Spirit of G-d].  Mormons have pointed to this phenomenon as evidence of the heavens opening and G-d pouring down His blessing, His knowledge upon mankind.

The radical materialist wishes to pooh-pooh that notion in his arrogance by laying claim to sole responsibility and credit for all of that.

Even so arrogant a rascal as Edison was willing to credit 1% of his discoveries/inventions to G-d.

Edited February 18, 2016 by USU78
misspelled note

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Post Hoc ergo proptor Hoc.

Okay, give me another explanation for the data. The truth is that most Theists don't want to study a scientific field. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

24 minutes ago, volgadon said:

Or that they have replaced religion with science in their totemic thinking.

but for some reason most business managers and greedy CEOs remain Theist!

Edited February 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[volgadon]

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2013/02/authentic-religion/

[volgadon]

4 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but for some reason most business managers and greedy CEOs remain religious. 

I'd love to see your sources on that, but more importantly, I would like to know what relevance tho has to the discussion.

[volgadon]

http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2014/03/08/missionaries-and-modernization/

Food for thought.

[longview]

17 minutes ago, USU78 said:

We often, in LDS circles, speak to the explosion in scientific discoveries that ensued following Joseph's First Vision.  The world changed a lot from 1820 to 1844

That might be true but I believe that God also prepared for the founding of the American Constitutional Republic long before 1820.  Such as the Renaissance, the steady development of ocean travel (the prompting of Columbus and innovations in circumnavigation), and all kinds of science.  It was needful for all that to occur in order for JS to receive the vision and to organize the "restoration" in a more hospitable environment.

[longview]

24 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but for some reason most business managers and greedy CEOs remain religious. 

ridiculous statement . . . emotionally laden and irrational . . . not very scientific . . . and politically motivated.

[thesometimesaint]

23 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Okay, give me another explanation for the data. The truth is that most Theists don't want to study a scientific field. 

That is still a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy. Why isn't it 0%? At the risk of using a personal example. When I stated college I was a chemistry major. I took two years of it, and was good at it. Then I took a psychology course, and fell in love. So while still a scientist(Sociology) I'm not a chemist.
 

[TheSkepticChristian]

7 minutes ago, longview said:

ridiculous statement . . . emotionally laden and irrational . . . not very scientific . . . and politically motivated.

and you think his statement was brilliant? 

38 minutes ago, volgadon said:

Or that they have replaced religion with science in their totemic thinking.

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is still a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy. Why isn't it 0%? 
 

because we don't live in a white and black world. I told you to give me another theory that explains the data, where is it? 

There is an astrophysicist that believes the universe is 6k years old, you think his religion is not slowing down scientific progress? Creationists will tell you the same thing, why isn't it 0? 

[volgadon]

6 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

and you think his statement was brilliant? 

 

Not brilliant, merely indebted to Conrad.

[Sleeper Cell]

18 hours ago, USU78 said:

 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. .

And (dare I say it)  just plain unscientific.