so it will be at least read.

[_EAllusion]

Beastie -

I think mad means that the NAS is chocked full of atheists because the selection process biases towards atheists directly or indirectly rather than merely being merit based.

[_Kevin Graham]

You mean people who are already atheists self-select to become scientists?

I don't think that's likely, particularly given how the tendency towards atheism increases with expertise (demonstrated in the extremely high rate of atheism among the NAS group).

The way that survey's questions were worded, makes for misleading results. It asked if they believed in a "personal God." But how many scientists accept the idea of God but not a personal one? Surely more than 7%, but the survey didn't ask that. If we were included in the survey, you guys would have to consider me an atheist too.

Bruce Alberts, the President of the NAS, said, "Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral. There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." How many people in NAS actually believe a God exists? Who knows? The survey wasn't designed to tell us this.

[_Chap]

You mean people who are already atheists self-select to become scientists?

I don't think that's likely, particularly given how the tendency towards atheism increases with expertise (demonstrated in the extremely high rate of atheism among the NAS group).

The way that survey's questions were worded, makes for misleading results. It asked if they believed in a "personal God." But how many scientists accept the idea of God but not a personal one? Surely more than 7%, but the survey didn't ask that. If we were included in the survey, you guys would have to consider me an atheist too.

Bruce Alberts, the President of the NAS, said, "Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral. There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." How many people in NAS actually believe a God exists? Who knows? The survey wasn't designed to tell us this.

There is no opinion survey known to man or woman whose results cannot be criticized after the fact on the ground that we cannot be sure exactly what each individual approached understood by the question.

But how many people will feel there is serious doubt about whether the scientists who were asked if they believed in a 'personal god' understood that saying 'no' to that meant that they were rejecting belief in the deity believed in by the vast majority of those who identify with the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)? Not many, I think.

While the survey did not answer every possible question about the religious beliefs of eminent scientists, I don't think there is a lot of doubt about the fact that the deity believed in by the majority of US synagogue/church/mosque goers is much less believed in by the group surveyed here.

Bruce Alberts, the President of the NAS, said, "Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral".

Yup. Like many who know a lot of science, Alberts affirms that science gives us no reason to believe in a deity of any variety. Unsurprisingly, a result of this appears to be that those who know a lot of science are less likely to believe in one. Those that do believe presumably either disagree with Alberts or have some other, non-scientific, reason for their belief.

[_beastie]

Beastie -

I think mad means that the NAS is chocked full of atheists because the selection process biases towards atheists directly or indirectly rather than merely being merit based.

I see. Well, of course the selection process has nothing to do with religious belief, or lack thereof:

Consideration of a candidate begins with his or her nomination. Although many names are suggested informally, a formal nomination can be submitted only by an Academy member. Each
nomination includes a brief curriculum vitae plus a 250-word statement of the nominee’s scientific accomplishments—the basis for election—and a list of not more than 12 publications. The latter
limit helps to focus on the quality of a nominee’s work, rather than the number of publications. Once a nomination has been prepared, it is sent to the chair of one of the Academy’s 31 disciplinebased
Sections, e.g., chemistry, cellular and developmental biology, or mathematics (for a complete list, see www.nas.edu
sections).

http://www.nasonline.org/site/DocServer ... docID=1061

I suppose religious belief would work against a scientist if he/she used bad science to support that belief, which does happen, but most scientists aren't addressing religion at all in their work.

[_EAllusion]

The survey allows room for deists and pantheists or those who think of themselves as believing in a god, but define god in a way that isn't deified in any way. The latter group are atheists who have a quirky definition of god. The two former are rare in general, but importantly not-theists. You could reform what Beastie said into "not-theists" and be fine, since that's what Tarksi was talking about at the outside of the thread. That said, it also almost certainly is the case that the vast majority of those scientists who aren't theists are atheists rather than deists or pantheists.

"Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral. There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists."

I'm not sure what this quote was meant to establish. It would be true even if it were the case that the NAS was 95% atheist.

[_EAllusion]

Beastie -

I see. Well, of course the selection process has nothing to do with religious belief, or lack thereof:

The argument would be that the NAS is biased towards nominating and voting on those who they feel kinship with. Since they are atheist, the openly religious are handicapped by this process. I don't buy this argument to any meaningful degree, but I've seen it out there.

[_madeleine]

There is a recent sociological survey out, from an Evangelical university, that indicates scientists in the academic world keep their religious beliefs closeted. The results being correlated to the idea that a scientist who has religious views will handicap their career.

On the one hand, I can see how this would happen, just by the statements by atheists alone in regards to science and religion and how they cannot coexist. Along with the general secular idea that a person should keep their religious views in the closet. On the other hand, this survey is like all surveys, and has its flaws.

At any rate, both sides have equal reason to produce surveys that support their POV, namely, validation of themselves.

[_beastie]

There is a recent sociological survey out, from an Evangelical university, that indicates scientists in the academic world keep their religious beliefs closeted. The results being correlated to the idea that a scientist who has religious views will handicap their career.

On the one hand, I can see how this would happen, just by the statements by atheists alone in regards to science and religion and how they cannot coexist. Along with the general secular idea that a person should keep their religious views in the closet. On the other hand, this survey is like all surveys, and has its flaws.

At any rate, both sides have equal reason to produce surveys that support their POV, namely, validation of themselves.

If the believing scientists are keeping their faith in the closet, then they are not being discriminated against in the NAS nomination process.

by the way, what do you mean by "statements by atheists alone in regards to science and religion and how they cannot coexist?"

[_madeleine]

If the believing scientists are keeping their faith in the closet, then they are not being discriminated against in the NAS nomination process.

Well then, perhaps there are scientists at NAS who are religious but keep it in the closet.

by the way, what do you mean by "statements by atheists alone in regards to science and religion and how they cannot coexist?"

Anecdotal, from my own time as an atheist, my husband who is an atheist, and my friends who are atheists. A general idea that a person who is both a scientist and religious has a dualistic thought process. An idea that cannot comprehend that such a person can synthesize science and religion.

[_Kevin Graham]

Oh, I don't doubt that most scientists are at the least agnostic/deist and at most atheist. I just have problems with the way this survey has been used since it was released. Mainly because it furthers the already flimsy distinction by suggesting the "really smart" scientists are those inclined to be atheists. My point is that disbelief in a personal God doesn't an atheist make, so the survey really tells us nothing about how many atheists there are within that organization.