DiscussMormonism.com

Two very interesting studies on scientists' religious beliefs: [1] [2]

It seems that, especially in the United States, the rate of belief among those loosely classed as "scientists" is rather higher than I'd have expected. Among the most elite scientists, however, belief is a great deal lower. Is this because losing one's belief in God helps one gain access to "elite" circles? Or is this because super-smart people tend to see right through religion in away that the less-endowed do not? I'll leave that for you to decide for yourself.

Wasn't there a quote somewhere that the intelligent man is an enemy to God. Well, duh!!

I would really like to know how a scientist is defined for the first study. In the second it's clear. For example, I wonder if my TBM brother who teaches high school science would be included, or my college bishop who was an engineering professor.

I would expect disbelief rates to be higher for biologists, archaeologists and anthropologists, because they deal directly with data that clearly contradict so much of what mainstream religion teaches.

krose wrote:I would really like to know how a scientist is defined for the first study. In the second it's clear.

Yep, the first study was sloppy and amateurish.

But even the second study shows that "elite" scientists are less likely to believe in supernatural beings than the average scientists. Why? I think it's because scientific excellence is a natural companion to careful examination and intellectual rigor, but those traits are often incompatible with exercises of faith. I don't believe the possible alternative explanation, that atheist members of elite organizations prefer to elect those who share an agenda.

Is this because losing one's belief in God helps one gain access to "elite" circles?

I'd say that this exists though to what extent I don't know. However, I do believe it's much more prevalent than many people think.

For example, I recall in the late 80's to early 90's, the Scientific American magazine hired a biology editor but promptly fired him when it was found out he was a Christian and, If I recall correctly, did not accept evolution.

I personally can't stand creationism myself, but I promptly canceled my subscription and wrote a letter to the editor. Based on the conversations at the time, I did not get the impression that this editor would have held back any articles on evolution and wasbeing canned strictly because of his personal beliefs.

BSSpace - would Scientific American have fired their biology editor if he had been a Christian but believed fully in evolution?

I can see a science magazine firing a biology editor for disbelieving in evolution, given how modern biology is founded on evolution - how could the guy really do his job? But did they really fire him for being Christian? I rather doubt it.

Sethbag wrote:BSSpace - would Scientific American have fired their biology editor if he had been a Christian but believed fully in evolution?

I can see a science magazine firing a biology editor for disbelieving in evolution, given how modern biology is founded on evolution - how could the guy really do his job? But did they really fire him for being Christian? I rather doubt it.

I bet you're right, Seth. Seriously, what scientist (especially a biologist) has any credibility that doesn't "believe in" evolution? For the sake of the magazine's credibility, they had no choice but to fire him.

To say you don't believe evolution is to say you don't believe anything founded on facts and evidence. Hardly the kind of credentials any scientist who wants to be taken seriously should have.

The following “quiz” might be interesting for some to process as they contemplate the relationship of science/reason and religion.

One’s own perspective

BSSpace - would Scientific American have fired their biology editor if he had been a Christian but believed fully in evolution?

I can see a science magazine firing a biology editor for disbelieving in evolution, given how modern biology is founded on evolution - how could the guy really do his job? But did they really fire him for being Christian? I rather doubt it.

Yes, such a person could do his job and leave the evolution articles to someone else while he simply edits them.

bcspace wrote:

BSSpace - would Scientific American have fired their biology editor if he had been a Christian but believed fully in evolution?

I can see a science magazine firing a biology editor for disbelieving in evolution, given how modern biology is founded on evolution - how could the guy really do his job? But did they really fire him for being Christian? I rather doubt it.

Yes, such a person could do his job and leave the evolution articles to someone else while he simply edits them.

So then you're saying that having a biology editor that doesn't even believe in a very well established area of his own field of study is still some-how credible? That's as absurd as saying you wouldn't have a problem with them having a physics editor that doesn't believe in Newton's Three Laws of Motion.


Back to the topic...

I honestly couldn't care less what the scientist's personal beliefs are as long as their science is good. Scientific American was perfectly with in their rights to can that biology editor because he allowed his religious beliefs to get in the way of good science, which in turn would damage the credibility of their magazine. Just as I wouldn't expect a church to hire a minister who's an atheist, I wouldn't expect a science magazine to hire an editor that isn't a scientist.

California Kid did bring up something I like to nitpick in the OP about the difference between actual scientists and "those "loosely" classed as scientists". To me, unless you have a BS in a specific discipline, you are not a scientist. If you don't have the formal training to go along with the title then you have no right to claim it.