Does religion slow down scientific progress?

[Monster]

20 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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

That is the prosperity gospel in action. I am wealthy thus God has blessed me.

[cacheman]

On 2/17/2016 at 4:35 PM, USU78 said:

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. .

The study that I believe you're referencing very clearly does not support what you state in your post.  I am open to correction if you're thinking of another 'famous 2009 study'.  The study results are disturbing enough without exaggerating or inflating the conclusions.  I wonder what percentage of lazy, barely competent message board posters misrepresent research in order to argue their pre-determined position?

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

[TheSkepticChristian]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Define scientist in this survey. It has been my experience that in the purer sciences (physics, astronomy, and the like) you get a strong dose of theists.

Religious scientists tend to be vocal. 

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 When you wander into more nebulous fields like sociology and psychiatry and the like you get more atheists (almost purely atheist). Can I take this anecdotal evidence to suggest that atheists are drawn more to pseudoscience?

What? psychiatry is a science too, medical science! 

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Define scientist in this survey. It has been my experience that in the purer sciences (physics, astronomy, and the like) you get a strong dose of theists.

Actually, it is worst. " Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers"

[USU78]

3 hours ago, cacheman said:

The study that I believe you're referencing very clearly does not support what you state in your post.  I am open to correction if you're thinking of another 'famous 2009 study'.  The study results are disturbing enough without exaggerating or inflating the conclusions.  I wonder what percentage of lazy, barely competent message board posters misrepresent research in order to argue their pre-determined position?

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

You got me.  I cited from memory without re-looking up what I read years ago and conflated it with my own anecdotal experience.  Amazing what tricks memory plays.  But I'm a cynic when it comes to "experts," a term defined by attorneys as someone from out of town who carries a briefcase.

Another attorney joke:  What is the significance of an MAI appraisal?  It's "Made As Instructed."  [MAI being a designation used in the real estate appraisal industry for "big shot."]

[Kemara]

2 hours ago, cacheman said:

The study that I believe you're referencing very clearly does not support what you state in your post.  I am open to correction if you're thinking of another 'famous 2009 study'.  The study results are disturbing enough without exaggerating or inflating the conclusions.  I wonder what percentage of lazy, barely competent message board posters misrepresent research in order to argue their pre-determined position?

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

I know of at least one, the author of this thread - TheSkepticChristian. Did you miss it or did you just ignore it? So how would we characterise you if it was a matter of missing it....lazy seems a good descriptor, the thread is only just over 3 pages long, as does barely competent. So how would we characterise you if it was a matter of ignoring it but for some reason taking to task another poster...lots of words could be used to describe that. I wonder what percentage of lazy, barely competent message board posters act in an inconsistent and disingenuous manner in order to get in a couple of weak rhetorical shots.   

Quoting the article you linked too:

"It found that, on average, about 2% of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once...and up to one third admitted a variety of other questionable research practices including “dropping data points based on a gut feeling”, and “changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressures from a funding source”.

Please explain how this finding does not support USU78? Please explain how one third of the researched scientists admitting to questionable practices "in response to pressure from a funding source" is not done to achieve a pre-determined result?

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You got me.  I cited from memory without re-looking up what I read years ago and conflated it with my own anecdotal experience.  Amazing what tricks memory plays.  But I'm a cynic when it comes to "experts," a term defined by attorneys as someone from out of town who carries a briefcase.

Another attorney joke:  What is the significance of an MAI appraisal?  It's "Made As Instructed."  [MAI being a designation used in the real estate appraisal industry for "big shot."]

One more. Only a fool has himself as an attorney.

[TheSkepticChristian]

23 hours ago, Kemara said:

So, it does because you say it does, brilliant! The statistical data you use does not support your position. You have refused to answer my questions on three occasions even after being specifically asked too. You have refused to answer every request for data and reasoning to back up your claims. You have refused to engage my reasoning on the topic unless of course you believe that "it is because I say it is" constitutes meaningful engagement. To continue making the claims you do based on the data you have provided is a simple case of intellectual dishonesty.

amazing that you got 4 reputation points for that. I used to be a strong believer in Science and Religion worship, and I used to believed that religion accelerated Science. I am not biased!  I did answer your questions, but you don't seem to understand my answers. So how about the NAS 1914,1933, and 1998 surveys on the National Academies of Sciences? Doesn't that show Atheists and Agnostics have a greater passion for Science? if not please explain why. If Science is making Atheists, I don't see how that is helpful, so your challenge makes things worst. 

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

amazing that you got 4 reputation points for that. I used to be a strong believer in Science and Religion worship, and I used to believed that religion accelerated Science. I am not biased!  I did answer your questions, but you don't seem to understand my answers. So how about the NAS 1914,1933, and 1998 surveys on the National Academies of Sciences? Doesn't show that Atheists and Agnostics have a greater passion for Science? if not please explain why. How about this poll? 

Science is Agnostic on the question of God. Individual scientists can believe anything they want.

SEE

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

Science is Agnostic on the question of God. Individual scientists can believe anything they want.

I agree, but how does that challenge what I am saying? 

[TheSkepticChristian]

I am not saying that all religion slows Scientific progress. For example, a high percentage of American Jews become scientists and Nobel prize winners. I can't say the same for our Christianity religion. 

Edited February 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Meadowchik]

1. Being a professional scientist may not necessarily correlate to passion for science. 

2. The question seems too generic, imo. Religion covers such broad types of thinking, and scientific pursuits can be driven and influenced by inpure motivations.

Scientific progress can certainly be enhanced by curiosity and love for learning which can both be intrinsic to some religious.

[thesometimesaint]

13 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I agree, but how does that challenge what I am saying? 

If Jews are over-represented in the sciences, and they are Theist. It is oxymoronic to claim that Theism negatively effects the sciences.

 

4 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not saying that all religion slows Scientific progress. For example, a high percentage of American Jews become scientists and Nobel prize winners. I can't say the same for our Christianity religion. 

The reasons are partly historical  We are a very young religion compared to the Jews. It wasn't until relatively recently that Mormons were accepted as legitimate part of the American experience. As long as we were largely confined to the inter-mountain west. No one paid us much attention. So there hasn't been enough time to develop a large body to choose from.

We are still developing a large contingent of scientists. That being said we do significant numbers of LDS who happen to be scientists, some well recognized. We need more of them.

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

If Jews are over-represented in the sciences, and they are Theist. It is oxymoronic to claim that Theism negatively effects the sciences.

Read again. "I am not saying that all religion"

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

The reasons are partly historical  We are a very young religion compared to the Jews. 

What? I am talking about Christianity as a whole. I think there is a higher percentage of LDS that become scientists than Evangelicals that become scientists. So good for our church. 

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

amazing that you got 4 reputation points for that. I used to be a strong believer in Science and Religion worship, and I used to believed that religion accelerated Science. I am not biased!  I did answer your questions, but you don't seem to understand my answers. So how about the NAS 1914,1933, and 1998 surveys on the National Academies of Sciences? Doesn't that show Atheists and Agnostics have a greater passion for Science? if not please explain why. If Science is making Atheists, I don't see how that is helpful, so your challenge makes things worst. 

One last time: Your position is that atheism MAKES more scientists. Your position is that theism MAKES less scientists. Your exact words are that "religion makes less scientists" - these are your words not mine. Do you even understand what you are claiming? Your data does not support the claim that atheism or theism is responsible for MAKING either become a scientist. You have failed completely to show that anyone becomes a scientist because of atheism, or lacks interest in science because of religion - which is your overarching position. Your data shows only the CURRENT beliefs of the NAS scientists. Your data does not show the beliefs that led to the MAKING of the NAS scientists.  

You demonstrably have not even attempted to answer questions that I specifically asked you to answer on 3 separate occasions. This is not a matter of me not agreeing with your answer, it is a matter of you not addressing or even acknowledging several of my questions that I have specifically asked you to answer. There are also other questions that I have directed at you, though not specifically asked you to address on several occasions, that you have not answered as well - demonstrably so!

The statistical data that your provide does not support your assertion, plain and simple. 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Kemara

[TheSkepticChristian]

26 minutes ago, Kemara said:

One last time: Your position is that atheism MAKES more scientists. Your position is that theism MAKES less scientists. Your exact words are that "religion makes less scientists" - these are your words not mine. Do you even understand what you are claiming? Your data does not support the claim that atheism or theism is responsible for MAKING either become a scientist.

One last time. Why not? I understand your are not happy about those stats, so lets talk about other stats. FairMormon says, "The LDS emphasis on education has led to higher education levels among LDS than in the US population in general." Notice he says "has led". So it is the same thing.

26 minutes ago, Kemara said:

 Your data shows only the CURRENT beliefs of the NAS scientists. 

Please challenge my claim by offering an alternative explanation. It is easy to be skeptical, it is harder to give a better explanation. 

William Lane Craig said, "Elaine Ecklund is a sociologist at Rice University in Texas. She has done sociological studies on the religious beliefs of scientists and found that those beliefs were formed largely in their adolescent years before they became scientists. So it is not true that their unbelief is a result of their having studied science. She says their unbelief is for the reasons that typically attend adolescent unbelief – negative emotional experiences in the church, negative experiences at home, things of that sort. Her research shows that this idea that science and the study of science produces unbelief is, in fact, a sociological myth"

26 minutes ago, Kemara said:

Your data does not show the beliefs that led to the MAKING of the NAS scientists.  

Nobody can prove that Atheism makes more scientists, all studies and polls will have limits, but it is true that the percentage of Atheists that become scientists is higher than the percentage of Christians that become scientists. 

Edited February 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

46 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Read again. "I am not saying that all religion"

What? I am talking about Christianity as a whole. I think there is a higher percentage of LDS that become scientists than Evangelicals that become scientists. So good for our church. 

Your threat starts out with the question "Does religion slow down scientific progress?" Now we're discussing which religions, if any, slow down scientific progress. That is a simplistic question. There are relatively few active scientists compared to the world population as a whole. It is axiomatic that science as a discipline can not posit any God or Godlike force onto science, and still be science. You're really comparing apples to grapes, and asking why aren't there more grapes. 

Edited February 19, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[TheSkepticChristian]

18 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 There are relatively few active scientists compared to the world population as a whole. 

LOL that is my point! Thank You for Saying that! The world is mostly religious, perhaps 99% of the world is religious. However, the few active scientists are mostly Atheists, Agnostic, and Deist. 

And let me repeat, William Lane Craig said, "Elaine Ecklund is a sociologist at Rice University in Texas. She has done sociological studies on the religious beliefs of scientists and found that those beliefs were formed largely in their adolescent years before they became scientists. So it is not true that their unbelief is a result of their having studied science. She says their unbelief is for the reasons that typically attend adolescent unbelief – negative emotional experiences in the church, negative experiences at home, things of that sort. Her research shows that this idea that science and the study of science produces unbelief is, in fact, a sociological myth"

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

One last time. Why not? I understand your are not happy about those stats, so lets talk about other stats. FairMormon says, "The LDS emphasis on education has led to higher education levels among LDS than in the US population in general." Notice he says "has led". So it is the same thing.

Please challenge my claim by offering an alternative explanation. It is easy to be skeptical, it is harder to give a better explanation. 

William Lane Craig said, "Elaine Ecklund is a sociologist at Rice University in Texas. She has done sociological studies on the religious beliefs of scientists and found that those beliefs were formed largely in their adolescent years before they became scientists. So it is not true that their unbelief is a result of their having studied science. She says their unbelief is for the reasons that typically attend adolescent unbelief – negative emotional experiences in the church, negative experiences at home, things of that sort. Her research shows that this idea that science and the study of science produces unbelief is, in fact, a sociological myth"

Nobody can prove that Atheism makes more scientists, all studies and polls will have limits, but it is true that the percentage of Atheists that become scientists is higher than the percentage of Christians that become scientists. 

Good grief man. The statistical data that you are using does not support your claim. I am not challenging the data, I am challenging your wholly inaccurate interpretation and use of the data, it simply does not show what you are claiming.  It does not show cause, it does not show passion, it does not show interest and to say it does is intellectually dishonest. You arrive at your position via extrapolation.

According to the Pew Research Center survey (2009) 51% of scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science believe in some form of deity or higher power/universal spirit. 41% of scientists don't believe in a deity or higher power/universal spirit. This data doesn't refute your claim that "religion" makes less scientists, because a belief in deity or a higher power/universal spirit does not necessarily equate to religion, or that Christianity makes less scientists. However if we were to use the exact same extrapolation that you seem very comfortable using, then it unequivocally brings into question your position that atheism makes more scientists. Wouldn't you agree? 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Kemara

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe that would be a statistically significant number to make such broad generalizations from. At the risk of using a personal example. I was Agnostic for the first 20 years of my life. I was in college studying chemistry when a friend of mine invited me to a Institute of Religion class, just off campus. That was my first real exposure to LDS Christianity. I haven't looked back once since.

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

LOL that is my point! Thank You for Saying that! The world is mostly religious, perhaps 99% of the world is religious. However, the few active scientists are mostly Atheists, Agnostic, and Deist. 

It can be difficult keeping up with you. You keep shifting the goal posts. First its religion, then its Christians. First its atheists and agnostics now it includes deists. Make up your mind and stop shifting the goal posts.

Your original position, before you started running into trouble and shifting the goal posts, addressed agnostics and atheists. .

If we were to use the same extrapolation that you use, and apply it to your original position, the data shows that agnostics/atheists make up the minority of scientists. Using the same extrapolation that you use then the data clearly shows that agnostics/atheists have less passion and less interest in science. Using your extrapolation the data shows that agnostics/atheists slow down scientific progress. Wouldn't you agree?

Edited February 19, 2016 by Kemara

[volgadon]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

LOL that is my point! Thank You for Saying that! The world is mostly religious, perhaps 99% of the world is religious. However, the few active scientists are mostly Atheists, Agnostic, and Deist. 

And let me repeat, William Lane Craig said, "Elaine Ecklund is a sociologist at Rice University in Texas. She has done sociological studies on the religious beliefs of scientists and found that those beliefs were formed largely in their adolescent years before they became scientists. So it is not true that their unbelief is a result of their having studied science. She says their unbelief is for the reasons that typically attend adolescent unbelief – negative emotional experiences in the church, negative experiences at home, things of that sort. Her research shows that this idea that science and the study of science produces unbelief is, in fact, a sociological myth"

 

Are you suggesting that if the 99% became atheists, they would then all become scientists?

[Calm]

Quote

I am not biased!

One thing about being biased.  A person is inherently unable to determined the extent of his own bias due to his bias.

All your declarations of being unbiased demonstrates is that your bias is so strong you are unable to see it.

[TheSkepticChristian]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

One thing about being biased.  A person is inherently unable to determined the extent of his own bias due to his bias.

All your declarations of being unbiased demonstrates is that your bias is so strong you are unable to see it.

I agree, I didn't say I am 100% unbiased, but I try my best! 

Edited February 20, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Kemara said:

Good grief man. The statistical data that you are using does not support your claim. I am not challenging the data, I am challenging your wholly inaccurate interpretation and use of the data, it simply does not show what you are claiming. 

I am telling you to challenge my interpretation! It is easy to say "It does not show" or "it doesn't' show the cause".How about you give me a better interpretation then?

Like I said, no survey is perfect, the data will always have limits, so you need to challenge my interpretation!
 

2 hours ago, Kemara said:

According to the Pew Research Center survey (2009) 51% of scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science believe in some form of deity or higher power/universal spirit.

I originally said, " only 33% of scientists believe in a personal God." So I am talking about scientists that are not religious, like Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Spinoza.

2 hours ago, Kemara said:

It can be difficult keeping up with you. You keep shifting the goal posts. First its religion, then its Christians.

No I am not! It is the same thing! Christians, Muslims = religious people!

Now how about challenging my interpretation instead of saying that "it doesn't prove anything"
With that attitude we will never prove anything!

Edited February 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[volgadon]

15 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I agree, I didn't say I am 100% unbiased, but i am more unbiased than them, especially because I used to hold their view.

It does not follow that because you abandoned a belief you are less-biased than those still holding it. Convert's zeal is one example.