Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2017 12:38 PM
339 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,804 Year: 25,410/21,208 Month: 1,037/2,338 Week: 158/450 Day: 30/52 Hour: 3/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Atheists control science
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1 of 124 (671047)
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


From the I am not an atheist! thread;

Tangle writes:

marc9000 writes:

....and atheists control science. (there is evidence for it)

I'm calling you on this one. Would you like to start a new thread to defend your assertion?

Hence, this thread.

Tangle writes:

But I recommend you do some research on what your terms mean before you start...

My terms are that "science" is the scientific community, and that "control" means decisions that are made regarding publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science. This thread is mainly about the U.S. scientific community.

Wikipedia has a webpage that gives some detail of just what the "scientific community" is. A relevant paragraph from that page;

quote:
Unlike in previous centuries when the community of scholars were all members of learned societies and similar institutions, there are no singular bodies or individuals which can be said today to speak for all of science. This is partly due to the specialized training most scientists receive in very few fields. As a result, many would lack expertise in all the other fields of the sciences. However, there are still multiple societies and academies in many countries which help consolidate some opinions and research to help guide public discussions on matters of policy and research. In the United States, for example, the National Academy of Science sometimes acts as a surrogate when the opinions of the scientific community need to be ascertained by policy makers or the national government, but the statements of the National Academy are not binding on scientists nor do they necessarily reflect the opinions of every scientist in the community.

The National Academy of Sciences, publications like the Scientific American, and university administrators and others who are involved in hiring practices in academia, are all very influential when it comes to control. The leaders don't necessarily have to be "binding" or "reflect the opinions" of every scientist to politically control science as a whole.

I'll start with evidence for discrimination in hiring practices.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/..._intelligent_desi050161.html

quote:
This month, the state-run California Science Center (CSC) paid $110,000 to avoid a public trial and settle a lawsuit by American Freedom Alliance (AFA). The suit was filed because CSC violated AFA's First Amendment right to discuss intelligent design (ID).

and

quote:
This case reflects the ongoing trend of discrimination against intelligent design. In January, the University of Kentucky paid $125,000 to settle a lawsuit by astronomer Martin Gaskell who was wrongfully denied employment because he was perceived to be skeptical towards Darwinian evolution.

Just two examples - the link shows a few more. They get caught every once in a while, but considering the shouting down of the examples of discrimination the movie "Expelled" exposed, it's probably safe to say that penalties for discrimination by the scientific community are about as rare as a speed limit violating driver receiving a ticket for every time he speeds.

Next, we'll note evidence in the form of "The Scientific American" articles. This one is a training course for using science, not just anti-religion, to promote atheism.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rational...

quote:
2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: “It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.”

"Gradual illumination of men's minds", or children's minds? Darwin's philosophy is promoted and extended today as much as ever. That Scientific American article is largely indistinguishable from one of militant atheist Sam Harris' many essays;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...t-destroy-reli_b_13153.html

quote:
I am hopeful that the necessary transformation in our thinking will come about as our scientific understanding of ourselves matures. When we find reliable ways to make human beings more loving, less fearful, and genuinely enraptured by the fact of our appearance in the cosmos, we will have no need for divisive religious myths.

The Scientific American has a "skeptic" section, with many articles by Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, which currently has over 55,000 members. Shermer has little, if any scientific credentials, yet he writes for the Scientific American.

Finally, the National Academy of Science. It's a non-profit U.S. government organization, begun in 1863.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences

quote:
Members serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine". As a national academy, new members of the organization are elected annually by current members, based on their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research.

In other words, it does what it wants, with no input from the taxpayers who support it.

Human Events has some (documented) things to say about the National Academy of Sciences;

http://www.humanevents.com/...d-national-academy-of-sciences

quote:
In 2008, NAS published Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a book sent to every public school board member and science teacher in America. The book's message: Darwinian evolution is the only acceptable explanation for human origins. The book treats the intelligent-design hypothesis as invalid without presenting a shred of empirical evidence to contradict it.

There is also not a shred of evidence that ANYONE but atheists, with the complete approval of their "religious" allies (theistic evolutionists, Deists, etc.) make all decisions concerning publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science. Why is that a problem? Here's why, because a pew research center poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans, while 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest don't know, or won't commit. We probably see far less than 6 percent of evolution proponents on these forums who would ever vote for a Republican. Yet other survey data shows that the scientific community enjoys the trust of 90 percent of the U.S. population, more than the Supreme Court or the military! I'm part of the other 10 percent, and I wonder how long it will be before at least some of the 90 percent wakes up and realizes that the scientific community is probably the biggest ally the Democrats have in obtaining political power and money, and that the Democrats are probably the biggest ally the scientific community has in obtaining political power and money.

Can anyone really claim, and justify, that science is free from political partisanship?

Edited by marc9000, : Cleaned up punctuation

Edited by marc9000, : Clarified as asked in message 2.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 08-20-2012 8:18 AM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 08-20-2012 8:31 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 6 by Panda, posted 08-21-2012 10:59 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2012 12:18 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 9 by dwise1, posted 08-22-2012 12:50 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 08-22-2012 12:54 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 11 by Pressie, posted 08-22-2012 4:42 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2012 5:54 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 08-22-2012 8:10 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 08-22-2012 10:39 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 08-22-2012 3:06 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 21 by Aware Wolf, posted 08-22-2012 3:27 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 08-23-2012 2:14 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 124 (671048)
08-20-2012 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


Needs Cleanup
It is nice to quote small relevant portions of the articles you linked to that you feel supports your position. Not whole articles or huge chunks. Just so readers know where to look.

Also on the quote below, you need to clean it up. Your quotation marks aren't consistent. It is hard to tell if you are quoting a source or not.

Finally, the National Academy of Science. It's a non-profit U.S. government organization, begun in 1863. "Members serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine". As a national academy, new members of the organization are elected annually by current members, based on their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research."

Please make it clearer.

Thanks
AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-19-2012 7:27 PM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 3 of 124 (671049)
08-20-2012 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


Hi Marc,

If your main theme is that atheists control science, your concluding couple paragraphs shouldn't be about political partisanship. This topic will be promoted to one of the science forums, and we'd like to keep political discussions confined to the Coffee House forum.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-19-2012 7:27 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by marc9000, posted 08-21-2012 7:48 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 4 of 124 (671050)
08-21-2012 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Admin
08-20-2012 8:31 AM


The control I'm referring to IS political. To restrict it to exclude politics would keep me from making relevant points, and nothing would be accomplished. It's not important to me what forum it's in, so I guess the coffee house would be where I'd hope you'll promote it. 6% v 55% - isn't that worth some exploration? If it can't be freely/completely discussed as I've proposed it, then we'll just have to forget it, and Tangle, Coyote, Razd, Dr Adaquate, and others can all heave collective sighs of relief.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 08-20-2012 8:31 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 5 of 124 (671052)
08-21-2012 8:58 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Atheists control science thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1269 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 6 of 124 (671057)
08-21-2012 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


Atheists? control science
marc9000 writes:

My terms are that "science" is the scientific community, and that "control" means decisions that are made regarding publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science. This thread is mainly about the U.S. scientific community.


It seems strange that there are only 3 words in the title and yet you only define 2 of them.
What definition of 'atheist' are you using?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-19-2012 7:27 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 08-22-2012 12:06 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 26 by marc9000, posted 08-22-2012 8:03 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9993
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 7 of 124 (671060)
08-22-2012 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Panda
08-21-2012 10:59 PM


Re: Atheists? control science
What definition of 'atheist' are you using?

Given, this statement, I think his definition of atheist is a bit moot.

There is also not a shred of evidence that ANYONE but atheists, with the complete approval of their "religious" allies (theistic evolutionists, Deists, etc.) make all decisions concerning publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science.

Atheists, for the purpose of this rant, means everybody who accepts evolution as the explanation for biodiversity on this planet.

I expect that I'll remain in lurk mode for this thread.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Panda, posted 08-21-2012 10:59 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 8 of 124 (671061)
08-22-2012 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


Let's hope he doesn't find out how we rig the elections.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-19-2012 7:27 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2970
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 9 of 124 (671062)
08-22-2012 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


In my summation (Message 380) for Percy's topic, I Am Not An Atheist!, I discuss your bizarre redefinition of "atheist" to include everybody who does not reject evolution and science and reality as you would wish them to:

DWise1 writes:

"Atheist" has a very specific meaning, but marc9000, like so many of his brethren, has chosen to ignore that specific meaning and to apply it indiscriminately and broadly to tar everybody who doesn't agree with his beliefs. In doing so, he renders his accusations of science and scientists being atheistic completely meaningless ... not that those accusations had any meaning to begin with. And now that he is trying to get a new topic started based on those same accusations, the first thing he must do is to define his terms!

No, a deist is not an atheist. Obviously! Nor is any theist. Obviously! Yet again, marc9000 just has no idea what he's talking about.

Until you provide a definition for "atheist" that actually means something, your entire position here is completely meaningless. Since you used Wikipedia to provide a definition for "scientific community", shouldn't you also use it for a definition for "atheist"?

quote:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word "atheist" lived in the 18th century.



In contrast, your misuse of "atheist" includes vast numbers of theists, including the majority of Christians.

Now, the qualities of scientists that causes you to brand them as "atheists" is that they are sane and they work and live in and with reality instead of your community's approach of denying, ignoring, and trying to redefine reality away. In that case, then I would most certain hope that scientists root themselves in reality. If that makes them "atheists" in your scale-covered eyes, then that is your problem, not theirs.

... a pew research center poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans, while 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest don't know, or won't commit. We probably see far less than 6 percent of evolution proponents on these forums who would ever vote for a Republican.

Why are so few scientists Republicans? It's very simple. Scientists are both intelligent and sane, two qualities that are incompatible with the wing-nut travesty that the GOP has now become. Let's face it, who in their right mind could even consider voting Republican?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-19-2012 7:27 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5537
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


(10)
Message 10 of 124 (671063)
08-22-2012 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


Scientists control science
Given this assertion:

There is also not a shred of evidence that ANYONE but atheists, with the complete approval of their "religious" allies (theistic evolutionists, Deists, etc.) make all decisions concerning publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science.

it becomes clear that by "atheist" you really mean "scientist". Accordingly, I have made that change in the thread subtitle.

That quoted statement of yours is factually wrong. Politicians make the primary decision on public funding of science. And republicans get to participate in that political process.

It is true that the politicians may make only the primary decisions, and delegate secondary decisions to scientists. However, that only happens because the politicians have decided that the scientist can generally be trusted as the most capable of making these decisions. I see it as a plus that scientists are involved in this way.

You seem to think that science is some sort of grand conspiracy to produce false descriptions of the world. But that is an utterly absurd idea.

  • Your automobile would not work if it were based on a false description;
  • Air travel would not work if it were based on a false description;
  • The Internet would not work if it were based on a false description;
  • Modern medicine would not work if it were based on a false description;
  • etc, etc, etc.

Science provides the best, most accurate, descriptions of the world that we have. If you were a true creationist, then you would believe that science accurately describes the world that your God created. Your denial of science is nothing less than a denial of creationism. You apparently believe in a false creationism that denies that the world that we can see was created by your God.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-19-2012 7:27 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by marc9000, posted 08-26-2012 6:45 PM nwr has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1800
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 124 (671064)
08-22-2012 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


I had a quick look at the National Academy of Sciences in the US.

quote:
Members are elected to the National Academy of Sciences in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. Membership is a widely accepted mark of excellence in science and is considered one of the highest honors that a scientist can receive.
My bold.

The link goes on in how members are selected and approved at annual meetings.

Seems like people belonging to the National Academy of Sciences are elected as distinguished scientists, by scientists, themselves.

The history indicates that the organisation officially started in 1863 after legislation passed by the House of Representatives in that year.

You can famililiarize yourself with the History of NAS .

quote:
In 1916 the Academy established the National Research Council at the request of President Wilson to recruit specialists from the larger scientific and technological communities to participate in the Academy's advisory work to the government.

President Bush affirmed the importance of the Academy and the National Research Council and further broadened it's charter.

So, I guess the NAS is not "controlled" by atheists, but by scientists. Some of them happen to be Christians. Some of them happen to be atheists. Some of them happen to be Buddhists. Some of them happen to be Jews. Some of them happen to be agnostics. They all have one thing in common, though: they achieved and keep on achieving excellence in original research.

Edited by Pressie, : Changed last sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-19-2012 7:27 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2012 6:55 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5099
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 12 of 124 (671069)
08-22-2012 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


marc9000 writes:

There is also not a shred of evidence that ANYONE but atheists, with the complete approval of their "religious" allies (theistic evolutionists, Deists, etc.) make all decisions concerning publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science.

Could you tell me exactly who is excluded from this process then - is it just the agnostics that have anything to complain about?

As far as I'm aware, atheist+deist+theist+agnostic=pretty much all of humanity.

So it seems that everybody but agnostics (and some ancestor worshippers and maybe the odd witch doctor) controls science?

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-19-2012 7:27 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by marc9000, posted 08-26-2012 6:49 PM Tangle has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19079
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 13 of 124 (671072)
08-22-2012 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Pressie
08-22-2012 4:42 AM


warm blooded dinosaurs
Hi Pressie,

Seems like people belonging to the National Academy of Sciences are elected as distinguished scientists, by scientists, themselves.

And the religious beliefs would cover the spectrum of the scientists in general, which by the nature of science would draw from all beliefs regardless of how well they do science.

And I also note:

Robert T. Bakker

quote:
Robert T. Bakker (born March 24, 1945) is an American paleontologist who helped reshape modern theories about dinosaurs, particularly by adding support to the theory that some dinosaurs were endothermic (warm-blooded).[1] Along with his mentor John Ostrom, Bakker was responsible for initiating the ongoing "dinosaur renaissance" in paleontological studies, beginning with Bakker's article "Dinosaur Renaissance" in Scientific American, April 1975. His special field is the ecological context and behavior of dinosaurs.

Bakker has been a major proponent of the theory that dinosaurs were "warm-blooded", smart, fast, and adaptable. He published his first paper on dinosaur endothermy in 1968. His seminal work, The Dinosaur Heresies, was published in 1986. He revealed the first evidence of parental care at nesting sites for Allosaurus. Bakker was among the advisors for the film Jurassic Park and for the 1992 PBS series, The Dinosaurs. He also observed evidence in support of Eldredge's and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium in dinosaur populations. Bakker currently serves as the Curator of Paleontology for the Houston Museum of Natural Science.

An Ecumenical Christian minister, Bakker has said there is no real conflict between religion and science. He has advised non-believers and creationists to read the views put forward by Saint Augustine, who argued against a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis.[7]


Dr Bakker has also graced our pages to comment briefly on his views in this regard.

He is no atheist, and he was instrumental in causing a rather major revision of scientific thought, and therefore this one instance alone completely and utterly refutes marc9000's point. If marc9000 disagrees I suggest he contact Dr Bakker himself for guidance.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : cleanup


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Pressie, posted 08-22-2012 4:42 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by marc9000, posted 08-26-2012 7:05 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5099
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 124 (671078)
08-22-2012 7:53 AM


For atheists to control science, they must be in a position to do so. This shows the breakdown of religious beliefs amongst scientists.

Studies on the views of scientists
Among contemporary scientistsphysicists and biologistsabout 40% held strong religious beliefs in 1997, which closely matched those of a similar 1916 poll.[69][93]

According to a 1996 survey of United States scientists in the fields of biology, mathematics, and physics/astronomy, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" was most popular among mathematicians (about 45%) and least popular among physicists (about 22%). In total, about 60% of United States scientists in these fields expressed disbelief or agnosticism toward a personal god who answers prayer and personal immortality.[95] This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933.

Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer.[99]

A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York found that over 60% of natural and social science professors at 21 elite US research universities are atheists or agnostics. When asked whether they believed in God, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answering "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out."[94] According to the same survey, "[m]any scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition."[100] In further analysis, published in 2007, Ecklund and Christopher Scheitle conclude that "the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable" and that "it appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists."[101]

An explanation has been offered by Farr Curlin, a University of Chicago Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, that science-minded religious people instead elect to study medicine. He helped author a study that "found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife." and "90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults." He reasoned, "The responsibility to care for those who are suffering and the rewards of helping those in need resonate throughout most religious traditions."[97]

Another study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."[102] 48% say they have a religious affiliation, equal to the number who say they are not affiliated with any religious tradition. The survey also found younger scientists to be "substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God". Among the surveyed fields, chemists were the most likely to say they believe in God.[96]

Religious beliefs of US professors, many in scientific fields, were recently examined using a nationally representative sample of more than 1400, published in Sociology of Religion. They found that 60.8 percent of biology professors "are either atheists or agnostics" (p. 115).[103]
Ecklund and Sheitle, in a 20052007 survey,[104] compared differences between natural and social scientists at the 21 elite US research universities that they surveyed. 52 percent of the scientists listed themselves as having no religious affiliation. Analyses of the more than 1600 responses indicated that "differences in religiosity between natural and social scientists are simply no longer a meaningful descriptor of the place of religion in the academy. For the most part, there is little difference between these larger fields [social versus natural science] or between the specific disciplines themselves. The differences that do exist are seen among chemists and political scientists who are more likely to be religious, according to traditional indicators, when compared to physicists"

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ship_between_religion_and_science

I'd say that degree of atheism in the NAS is quite surprising, whist the proportion in the general population of scientists is pretty much what I would have expected - science is not dominated by atheists.

So now it's marc's task to show how this distribution manages to control all of science.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by marc9000, posted 08-26-2012 7:09 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16022
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(11)
Message 15 of 124 (671080)
08-22-2012 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


Hi Marc,

Just a few things. About this:

marc9000 writes:

Shermer has little, if any scientific credentials, yet he writes for the Scientific American.

According to Wikipedia, Shermer has a master's in experimental psychology, a PhD in the history of science, and is the author of a number of lay-level science books.

About the definition of atheist, I wasn't originally concerned about the way you're defining atheist, but several people have raised the issue. If you aren't using the traditional definition then you should say so.

About the desirability of removing religious superstition from our understanding of the world in which we live, that's just good science, not atheism.

There is also not a shred of evidence that ANYONE but atheists, with the complete approval of their "religious" allies (theistic evolutionists, Deists, etc.) make all decisions concerning publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science.

You haven't provided any evidence of atheists actually doing anything. You don't know which scientists are atheists and which aren't. You don't know which scientists are making the decisions. So far all you've done is described your position. Can we assume some evidence will be forthcoming?

What bothers you about science isn't that it's controlled by atheists, because it isn't. What bothers you about science is that it isn't controlled by religious fundamentalists.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-19-2012 7:27 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by marc9000, posted 08-26-2012 7:22 PM Percy has responded

    
1
23456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017