Does religion slow down scientific progress?

[TheSkepticChristian]

4 minutes ago, volgadon said:

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.

True! but I never seen anyone here change his or her mind at least once.

Edited February 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[The Nehor]

6 hours 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. 

Do you mean just LDS or are you including all the other faiths that are, to a greater or lesser degree, wrong? How do LDS compare to your average?

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

How do LDS compare to your average?

much better than Evangelicals and Catholics. 

[thesometimesaint]

Galileo Galilei was Catholic; Dr. Kenneth Miller is Catholic; Dr. Francis Collins is Catholic; Dr. Robert T. Bakker is Pentecostal.

[Kemara]

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am telling you to challenge my interpretation! It is easy to say "It does not show" or "it doesn't' show the cause".

I typically don't respond well to people telling me what to do, especially when I have done exactly what they are telling me to do on a number of occasions.

You are right, in this instance, that it is easy for me to say "it does not show" or "it doesn't show the cause". It is easy because the data simply doesn't support your position. That you arrive at your interpretation via extrapolation is beyond dispute, so please stop disputing it. The data shows CURRENT belief, the data does not show what MAKES those beliefs. Therefore, your claim that the data shows that "religion MAKES less scientists" is false.

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

How about you give me a better interpretation...Like I said, no survey is perfect, the data will always have limits, so you need to challenge my interpretation!

I have provided a better interpretation of the data on a number of occasions now. I have done this by simply letting the data speak for itself and not extrapolating beyond the scope of the data like you have done. My interpretation of the data is that it shows the CURRENT beliefs of NAS scientist. I have never challenged this data, I have only challenged your extrapolation of the data because the data simply does not say what you claim it says. 

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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.

You made no such comparison, your claim is false.

In you very first post, the post where you laid out your position, you referred only to atheists and agnostics - that was your position - atheists and agnostics only, you made no reference to any other groups of people. That you specifically referenced the scientists that believe in a personal God is totally irrelevant because you compared that statistic too - atheists and agnostics - no body else. 

The first 3 pages of this thread all of your posts referred to agnostics and atheists only. Let me give you an absolutely clear cut example of your position from page 3. 

Quote

"Imagine that all Atheists and Agnostics go away, that would decrease the number of scientists a lot, in face most scientists would go away. Without Atheists and Agnostics we would probably be like 30 years behind...In fact, imagine our progress if religious people had the same passion for Science like the atheists."

It is not until toward the end of page 4, when you responded to a good point raised by thesometimessaint, that you changed your position and referred Deists. It is plainly obvious that your initial position was in relation to atheists and agnostics, so please, cut the nonsense.

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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

Good grief,  you are getting worse and worse. The title of your thread referred to religion. However, your very first post, where you laid out your position you referred to Christians. Then Christians again, then theists, then Christians, then religion, the religion again, then belief in a personal God, then religion...and all of this chopping and changing occurred on only the first page!  By page 4 you haven't gotten any clearer. These are you exact words:

Quote

"I am not saying that all religion slows Scientific progress."

But that is exactly what you said on page 1:

Quote

"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"

And on page 2:

Quote

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

And on page 3:

Quote

You still need to explain how religion is not slowing down scientific progress...

Again on page 3:

Quote

So you agree with the theory that religion is slowing down scientific progress?

And now you are saying

Quote

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 cant say the same for our Christianity religion.

And just in case we didn't understand this point you stated it again.

Quote

Read again. I am not saying that all religion...I am talking about Christianity as whole. I think there is a higher percentage of LDS that become scientists than Evangelicals that become scientists.

You quite clearly shifted the goal posts - back forward up down and sideways.

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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

I have challenged your interpretation and I have beaten the living heck out of it. I never said that "it doesn't prove anything" but if I did say that it would be in reference to the fact that your interpretation of the data is false and it doesn't support your position.

You failed entirely to address this part of the post:

"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?"

 You also failed entirely to address an entire post that I directed at you, so in case you missed it here it is again.

"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 20, 2016 by Kemara

[Kemara]

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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

Before editing your response to Calm regarding this issue of bias you said that you were less biased than the other people on this thread. Can you please confirm or deny that this is your position and can you please explain why you edited this response. 

[Kemara]

Here is an interesting piece of trivia for everyone. Professor Kip Thorne is one of the founders of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). LIGO was the organisation that recently detected gravitational waves. Professor Thorne is an atheist, a former Mormon and was the youngest full professor in the history of CalTech. I wonder if it was his Mormon upbringing by his scientist father that led to his passion and interest in Science, or if he became an atheist at a young age and this led to his passion and interest in science? I don't know, wouldn't have a clue, but it is interesting in light of TheSkepticChristians position that "religion makes less scientists".

Interestingly Professor Thorne said, "There are large numbers of my finest colleagues who are quite devout and believe in God...There is no fundamental incompatibility between science and religion. I happen to not believe in God." 

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

19 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.

The survey says that 33% believe in God, and 18% don't believe in God, but do believe in a higher power! . To make things worst, 29% of physicists believe in God. To make things worst, 9% of the best and leading scientists (NAS)  believe in God. 

19 hours ago, Kemara said:

In you very first post, the post where you laid out your position, you referred only to atheists and agnostics - that was your position - atheists and agnostics only, you made no reference to any other groups of people.

 I didn't mention deists and spinoza because they are non-religious too! It is the same thing. Deists, Spinoza, Atheists don't believe in a God that matters!  Again, the survey actually says 33% of scientists believe in God, and 18% don't believe in God, but believe in a spirit. 

You can't call someone truly religious when he doesn't believe in a personal God! 

19 hours ago, Kemara said:

I have provided a better interpretation of the data on a number of occasions now.s. Wouldn't you agree? "

LOL No you didn't! Why are most scientists non-theist when most of the world is very religious?
 I presented a reasonable interpretation, you didn't. The burden of proof falls on you. 

Edited February 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Kemara]

27 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

The survey says that 33% believe in God, and 18% don't believe in God, but do believe in a higher power! . To make things worst, 29% of physicists believe in God. To make things worst, 9% of the best and leading scientists (NAS)  believe in God.  

Your original position was that the data showed that religion makes less scientists and that atheism/agnosticism makes more scientists. The data does not support this position. You can jump up and down and stop your feet all you want, but no amount of insistence, and claims to "it is because I say it is", is going to change that fact. 

33 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I didn't mention deists and spinoza because they are non-religious too! It is the same thing. Deists, Spinoza, Atheists don't believe in a God that matters!   

I very clearly and very succinctly demonstrated that your position was in relation to atheists and agnostics. You can ignore your own words all you want, but no amount of insistence, and claims to "it is because I say it is", is going to change that fact.

If it is true that you didn't mention deists because they are non-religious too and everyone should have naturally understood that deist was an inherent component of your argument then why did you feel the need to specifically mention agnostics? Why did you refer to agnostics since they too are non-religious? Your explanation makes no sense and is simply unbelievable in light of the evidence I have presented.

33 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

LOL No you didn't! Why are most scientists non-theist when most of the world is very religious?

These are two separate issues.

1. I did provide a significantly better interpretation of the data because I did not pretend that the data supported a position that it clearly does not. The data shows CURRENT belief. Your claim is that atheism MAKES more scientists, the data does not show this, you arrive at your position by extrapolation. My interpretation of the data is superior because I do not extrapolate I simply restate what  the data shows - CURRENT belief. Your interpretation really isn't an interpretation at all, it is speculative extrapolation.  

2. There could be any number of reasons why non-theists make up the largest number of scientists. Some posters on this thread have given possible reasons, interestingly, you did not respond when a possible reason was offered. However, what is very clear is that the data you have used does not provide a single reason and does not support your position.   

33 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 I presented a reasonable interpretation, you didn't. The burden of proof falls on you. 

This is simply untrue on all three accounts.

1. You did not provide a reasonable interpretation because the data does not show what you are claiming. 2. I did provide a reasonable interpretation because I simply restated what the data shows. 3. If it is true that the burden of proof falls on me then I have answered that burden repeatedly - CURRENT belief.

Despite a specific request to address two posts that you failed entirely to respond too, you have refused. This is not the first time that you have refused to answer specific posts. I think it would be fair to assume that most people would call this conduct intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. I too think it is these things, I think that your conduct on the entire thread has been of this nature, however, I also think that your refusal to engage posts is also tantamount to an admission of defeat or at the very least an act of conceding the point. There is no shame in being wrong, there is however significant shame in continuing to act in an intellectually dishonest and disingenuous manner. 

Please respond to my previous posts which I will repost below:

Quote

If we were to use the same extrapolation that you use, and apply it to your original position [atheists/agnostics], 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?

Please note that I am asking what the data says when using the same extrapolation that you used.
 

Quote

 

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...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? 

 

Please note that once again I am asking what the data says when using the same extrapolation that you used.

Also you refused to respond to my request to address the issue of bias. I will repost that here too:

Quote

Before editing your response to Calm regarding this issue of bias you said that you were less biased than the other people on this thread. Can you please confirm or deny that this is your position and can you please explain why you edited this response.

Finally, please don't think that I haven't noticed that you edited one of my quotes to make it appear as though I said something that I did not. Poor form, very poor form...but par for the course really.    

[TrespassersW]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Deists, Spinoza, Atheists don't believe in a God that matters!

Why are most scientists non-theist when most of the world is very religious?

 

If only 41% of scientists are willing to go on record as saying that they don't believe in some kind of higher power, then I don't think the claim that "most scientists are non-theist" accurately describes the data. 41% is not most.

If you're definition requires us to distinguish between a God that matters, and one that doesn't, then I don't see how it has any real meaning. It seems to me that any kind of higher power that created the universe would at least matter a little. But since different people are going to have different opinions about what matters, I don't see that there is an objective way to respond to your question.

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Kemara said:

Your original position was that the data showed that religion makes less scientists and that atheism/agnosticism makes more scientists. The data does not support this position. You can jump up and down and stop your feet all you want,

Stop accusing me of doing that, I am not! Atheists, Agnostics, Deist, Spinoza are the same thing! There is no real difference between deists and atheists and all the other non-theists!

4 hours ago, Kemara said:

1. I did provide a significantly better interpretation of the data because I did not pretend that the data supported a position that it clearly does not. The data shows CURRENT belief.

Of course it is current belief, that in no way challenges my interpretation! 

and why did you ignore the WLC quote? "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" 

 

4 hours ago, Kemara said:

2. There could be any number of reasons why non-theists make up the largest number of scientists. Some posters on this thread have given possible reasons, interestingly, you did not respond when a possible reason was offered. However, what is very clear is that the data you have used does not provide a single reason and does not support your position.   

I only see two reason. 1. Science highly attracts the non-theists. 2. Or there is no direct evidence for God in the natural world, so they become Atheists. 

4 hours ago, Kemara said:

I very clearly and very succinctly demonstrated that your position was in relation to atheists and agnostics.

No you didn't, see post #1. I am done with you, I won't bother to keep reading your stuff. Like it or not, most scientists are not Theist!. 

2 hours ago, TrespassersW said:

If only 41% of scientists are willing to go on record as saying that they don't believe in some kind of higher power

Most scientists are not theist!! and it is even worst with the best and most respected scientists from the NAS!

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

No.

But thanks for asking.

 

[Meadowchik]

41 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I only see two reason. 1. Science highly attracts the non-theists. 2. Or there is no direct evidence for God in the natural world, so they become Atheists. 

 

 

If I had to choose, I'd lean more to #1. That said don't rule out other reasons,  and also the possibility of reasons of increasing complexity.

The fact that religion is adhered to by the majority in most cases is influential in itself. There are endless reasons why a person would adhere to a religion without truly converting, simply connected to the reality that others are religious.

 

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Like it or not, most scientists are not Theist!. 

Like it or not the group comprising atheists and agnostics make up the minority of scientists among NAS scientists, according to the statistical data that you provided. The group comprising theists and deists make up a clear majority. The data is indisputable regarding this fact. No extrapolation, no leaps of logic, no shifting goal posts, no temper tantrums, no intellectual dishonesty, no disingenuousness - just fact.

Thanks for playing, good try,  but ultimately you came up short and you did so in a manner that should embarrass you.

[TheSkepticChristian]

14 minutes ago, Kemara said:

Like it or not the group comprising atheists and agnostics make up the minority of scientists among NAS scientists, according to the statistical data that you provided. The group comprising theists and deists make up a clear majority. The data is indisputable regarding this fact. No extrapolation, no leaps of logic, no shifting goal posts, no temper tantrums, no intellectual dishonesty, no disingenuousness - just fact.

Thanks for playing, good try,  but ultimately you came up short and you did so in a manner that should embarrass you.

LOL nice try to you! Guess what the Title of the study is?

"Leading scientists still reject God"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html?message=remove&iframe=true&width=100%&height=100%

I don't really care if most scientists are Atheists, I am not an Atheist myself, but it is clear that most scientists are not Theist! 

 

 

[rodheadlee]

On 2/18/2016 at 0:56 AM, 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. 

Just because someone doesn't choose science as a field of study doesn't mean they don't appreciate science. I'm a carpenter, I love the guy that invented the nail gun, the laser level, the Gradall 544B and on and on. The data proves no such thing.

[thesometimesaint]

Deists are not Atheists.

SEE http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm

[Monster]

On February 18, 2016 at 11:11 AM, volgadon said:

Theists probably don't feel a need to fill a gap in the meaning of life, mystery, and the object of progress in quite the same way that atheists do.

I think you have that completely backwards. It is the Theist who feels compelled to sort out the meaning of life. That is basically all they do.

[Monster]

On February 18, 2016 at 10:01 AM, longview said:

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.

That is common narrative in the church, but lacks any ability to substantiate it. 

[volgadon]

36 minutes ago, Monster said:

I think you have that completely backwards. It is the Theist who feels compelled to sort out the meaning of life. That is basically all they do.

All humans feel compelled to sort out the meaning of life. It is part of being human and being alive.

[Kemara]

8 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

LOL nice try to you! Guess what the Title of the study is?

I don't really care if most scientists are Atheists, I am not an Atheist myself, but it is clear that most scientists are not Theist! 

You continue to evade the issue and you continue to shift the goal posts away from your original position which was in relation to atheists and agnostics only. As such the data you shared does not support your claim. I don't care if most scientists are atheist either, my position has always been that the data you have used to establish this position does not support this claim. Your extrapolation goes beyond any reasonable scope of the data. A group comprising theists and deists make up the majority of the NAS scientists, that is a clear fact according to the data and requires no extrapolation. As such your original claim, concerning atheists and agnostics, is incorrect according to the data.  

[longview]

1 hour ago, Monster said:

That is common narrative in the church, but lacks any ability to substantiate it. 

Do not ignore the many miracles that occurred in the American Revolution.

[TheSkepticChristian]

7 minutes ago, Kemara said:

You continue to evade the issue and you continue to shift the goal posts away from your original position which was in relation to atheists and agnostics only. 

facepalm! I did clarify and I am not shifting the goal posts. Give me a break!

7 minutes ago, Kemara said:

A group comprising theists and deists make up the majority of the NAS scientists

I don't know about that! the NAS survey data says nothing about Deism! and I don't really care because deists are atheists too!

Edited February 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Kemara]

13 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

facepalm! I did clarify and I am not shifting the goal posts. Give me a break!

I don't know about that! the NAS survey data says nothing about Deism! and I don't really care because deists are atheists too!

No you did not clarify anything, you made false statements in an attempt to hide your shifting position. You know very well that I clearly and succinctly demonstrated what your original position was using your own words....so what were you saying about facepalms?

Sorry but deists are not atheists, please follow the link provided by thesometimessaint in his post above...so what were you saying about facepalms?

According to the Pew Research Center survey 51% of scientists believe in some form of deity or higher power/universal spirit and only 41% of scientists don't believe in a deity or higher power/universal spirit. If you don't want to refer to those scientists that believe in a higher power or universal spirit as deists, that's fine. However, my point still stands, atheists and agnostics make up the minority of scientists and your original position is proven false by the data...so what were you saying about facepalms?

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Kemara said:

No you did not clarify anything, you made false statements in an attempt to hide your shifting position.

No! you are the one misrepresenting me. I don't have to keep replying to that Bull$

1 hour ago, Kemara said:

According to the Pew Research Center survey

Survey of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Not the National Academies of Sciences, the NAS only accepts the best of the best scientists.

Edited February 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian