Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Constant Claim: Scientist/academic=Atheist
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 1 of 24 (143385)
09-20-2004 4:47 PM


One of the constant claims that appears time and time again is that Scientist/academics cannot be trusted in regards to judging "religious" matter as they will suppress any evidence that does not fit a materialist world view.
The reason given for this (claimed) behaviour is that it is due to a lack of belief or being an atheist. A recent example of this can be found in the is man inherently good or inherently evil? thread.
quote:
They deliberately suppress any connection of spiritual truths and attempt to construct theories devoid of any such reference. This is not any less biased, however, for many of these people merely want to get noticed in their own little circle of (mostly atheist) scholars.
  —phatboy
I want this thread to have a very narrow focus - I want people who support this view to provide evidence that:
a) Those involved in physical sciences are mostly atheist (therefore AT LEAST 51%)
and/or
b) Those involved in the social sciences/humanities are mostly atheist (therefore AT LEAST 51%)
That is the start and end of the debate - we are NOT here to discuss other matters.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 09-20-2004 03:49 PM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 09-20-2004 03:50 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by CK, posted 09-21-2004 4:49 PM CK has replied
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-25-2004 2:38 PM CK has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 24 (143671)
09-21-2004 3:26 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 3 of 24 (143711)
09-21-2004 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
09-20-2004 4:47 PM


First one to the plate is...
plenty of the creationists make this claim - I'm sure they be only too happy to provide the evidence now they have a chance!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 09-20-2004 4:47 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by CK, posted 09-22-2004 1:18 PM CK has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 4 of 24 (143899)
09-22-2004 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by CK
09-21-2004 4:49 PM


oh dear seems
that not one of creationists wants to step up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by CK, posted 09-21-2004 4:49 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 09-22-2004 5:47 PM CK has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 5 of 24 (143934)
09-22-2004 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by CK
09-22-2004 1:18 PM


Re: oh dear seems
Your choice is TOO narrow.
IF you had stuck with permitting a response to,
quote:
The reason given for this (claimed) behaviour is that it is due to a lack of belief or being an atheist.
THEN
I could have devolved to the "fairy circle"(as to empirical context) (in ECSCOTT's Evs.C (I started to review) in
EvC Forum: Evolution Vs. Creationism
)
where by 1st ammendment(US) (wrongly modified on my opinion as in a response say^I^to^you @ your first paragraph(regardless of possible independent reasons of content)
One of the constant claims that appears time and time again is that Scientist/academics cannot be trusted in regards to judging "religious" matter as they will suppress any evidence that does not fit a materialist world view.
IN SUBSTANTIA the fact came out for Scott where I would be able by reference to what has already happened be able to show that the relation of Catholic immigrants and Protestant endemics what is NOT PROHIBITED BY THE STATES is missocalized/anthropologized (by Scott) (I GUESS FOR THE REASON YOU MENTIONED--THAT BY NOT BEING A RELIOIUS ENOUGH PERSON (nair belief or being atheist)THE DESIGN OF THE EVIDENTIAL CIRCLE OF PEOPLE, FUNGI, AND KANTIAN SCHOLARHIP was not written by this author IN THE POWER OF THESE PEOPLE but instead as "bad science" but rather you remand that a different people in your choice be discussed.
We would only need to be this tricky in internet conversation if one WAS trying to use the new electronic formats to CHANGE (not modify) the fact %INTO% evidence (like playing the part of "activist judges" etc.) I dont do this and seeing that you posted twice in a row that is prima facie evidence to me that you dont either.
I would not know if there was out and out suppresion (in the case of Scott's foreward by Eldgredge say that attempts a false verticalization (on their lingo)) unless I responded to you as to if the foreword DOES apply your choice but then we would be talking in the other direction that we cant even get physiologically to let alone psychologically nor linguistically because you too soon attempted to cut the human out of the humas, but I do think the reason I would is because of the issue you started out from in this thread head. Instead I am fairly confident I find Scott using the words "false evidence" in the LEGAL THEORY (not science sense of the word "theory") where this WAS "false fact" BEFORE Scott wrote the work as a regression line of ID through any brand of c/e.
Thus even excluding myself and only doing the writing in terms of my parents generation I find I can not answer you in the form you requested be replied to. So it is not in my case that I do not *want* to step up. I can't. And I can't do it, on purpose!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by CK, posted 09-22-2004 1:18 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by CK, posted 09-22-2004 7:11 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 6 of 24 (143946)
09-22-2004 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brad McFall
09-22-2004 5:47 PM


Re: oh dear seems
english translation anyone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 09-22-2004 5:47 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Ooook!, posted 09-22-2004 7:24 PM CK has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5814 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 7 of 24 (143949)
09-22-2004 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by CK
09-22-2004 7:11 PM


Noooooooo!
Don't ever ask for a translation of one of Brad's posts, it just encourages him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by CK, posted 09-22-2004 7:11 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Brad McFall, posted 09-23-2004 10:22 AM Ooook! has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 8 of 24 (144054)
09-23-2004 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ooook!
09-22-2004 7:24 PM


Re: Noooooooo!
Dont worry mate, I am too busy working on something for Tony that I probably wont have the time to prime till next week so as to have finished reading Scott's book OUT LOUD to myself (so I can spit back to yous all etc) and then I pick up a new class at school, have to turn in an application to college, buy my own birthday presents, go to New Jersey to watch some lizards, and probably start programming with a laptop, so working out the OTHER direction the foreword indicated illegally, I think, probably wont happen till after Halloween.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Ooook!, posted 09-22-2004 7:24 PM Ooook! has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 9 of 24 (144650)
09-25-2004 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
09-20-2004 4:47 PM


One of the constant claims that appears time and time again is that Scientist/academics cannot be trusted in regards to judging "religious" matter as they will suppress any evidence that does not fit a materialist world view.
Hi Charles:
Are you bloody serious ?
Please tell me Charles HOW an atheist can objectively judge a religion that begins with the claim of a miracle ? (christianity/Resurrection)(the question is rhetorical)
What atheist is going to conclude a miracle occurred which simultaneously disproves his own worldview ?
What you are really saying between the lines is that atheists are objective regardless of their personal beliefs, which is what they desparately go out of their way to try and establish.
EVERYONE HAS AN AXE TO GRIND: ATHEIST OR THEIST OR AGNOSTIC; it doesn't matter.
Dr. Scott says the most trusted sources declare their bias/position up front so his audience can recognize the bias when it creeps in.
The worst are those who hide behind the deceitful mask of (pseudo) objectivity - an animal that has never existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 09-20-2004 4:47 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2004 3:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 12 by Coragyps, posted 09-25-2004 4:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 24 (144671)
09-25-2004 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object
09-25-2004 2:38 PM


What atheist is going to conclude a miracle occurred which simultaneously disproves his own worldview ?
An honest, objective one.
EVERYONE HAS AN AXE TO GRIND: ATHEIST OR THEIST OR AGNOSTIC; it doesn't matter.
Not everybody's like you, WT. Some of the rest of us will actually allow the evidence to dictate the conclusion, even if it's something we don't like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-25-2004 2:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 09-25-2004 3:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 24 (144680)
09-25-2004 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
09-25-2004 3:38 PM


quote:
Some of the rest of us will actually allow the evidence to dictate the conclusion, even if it's something we don't like.
And some of us would even like there to be a deity who loves us and will reward us with eternal life in heaven if we worship him. We just need better evidence of this than some self-contradictory collection of ancient mythologies and people yelling, "You're God-sense has been removed!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2004 3:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 12 of 24 (144682)
09-25-2004 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object
09-25-2004 2:38 PM


Are you bloody serious ?
Please tell me Charles HOW an atheist can objectively judge a religion that begins with the claim of a miracle?
If you'll bother to read what Charles wrote, WT, you will see that he asked about scientists and academics, not about atheists. You're wandering off again, pal.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-25-2004 2:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by CK, posted 09-25-2004 4:24 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 13 of 24 (144686)
09-25-2004 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coragyps
09-25-2004 4:10 PM


Willowtree has as you say got this entirely back to front and clearly had not read the first post properly.
The ONLY focus of this thread is some stats that prove that academics and scientists are mostly atheist (51% or more).
The actual issue of bias is NOT the matter under discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coragyps, posted 09-25-2004 4:10 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
creationistal
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 24 (145672)
09-29-2004 1:47 PM


Atheism in science
In 1997, a study by Edward Larson of the University of Georgia decided to evaluate the religiosity found in the scientific community. In a poll of 400 members of the National Academy of Science, he found that only seven percent expressed a belief in a God. Seventy-two percent expressed "personal disbelief" (atheism), and 20.8 percent expressed "doubt or agnosticism."
Page Not Found - The Triangle
Not up to date, but I'd not argue it's changed much, I have heard of nothing earth-shaking in the last few years that would sway numbers like those.
-Justin

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Zhimbo, posted 09-29-2004 2:15 PM creationistal has not replied
 Message 16 by MangyTiger, posted 09-29-2004 2:29 PM creationistal has not replied
 Message 17 by Zhimbo, posted 09-29-2004 2:41 PM creationistal has not replied
 Message 18 by Rei, posted 09-29-2004 3:05 PM creationistal has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 15 of 24 (145689)
09-29-2004 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by creationistal
09-29-2004 1:47 PM


Re: Atheism in science
Well, that's a very small, skewed, specific sample of scientists, (the NAS), not a widespread view of what scientists in general believe.
For example, according to a poll reported here:
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation
40% of scientists believe in Theistic Evolution. Mind you, that puts a *minimum* number on how many scientists believe in God, since belief in Naturalistic evolution does NOT preclude belief in God.
Added by edit: Also, 5% of scientists agreed to a creationist viewpoint, so at *most* 55% of scientists could be atheists according to these data.
This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 09-29-2004 01:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by creationistal, posted 09-29-2004 1:47 PM creationistal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024