so it will be at least read.

[_EAllusion]

The idea that a person can keep religion in one domain of their intellectual world and science in another suggests science and religion coexisting. You and your friends likely think the religious person was just compartmentalizing their bad reasoning (and how), but regardless of that, it certainly allows for a theoretical lack of conflict.

The notion that science somehow is supportive of someone's religion qua religion is an idea you'll find almost all atheists in opposition of for obvious reasons, but also invariably involves someone having dubious ideas about the state of science. Science - that is sound empirical methodology - does not support much of what entails a religion. A scientist believing in dubious scientific arguments for a religious view, again for obvious reasons, is not a trait you want in a scientist. But it is strictly true that there are religious beliefs that are theoretically compatible with whatever science can tell us about the world. Lots of atheists think that. I do. Of course, there are also religious beliefs that are investigateable by science and a subset of them have been shown to be unlikely.

[_EAllusion]

Oh, I don't doubt that most scientists are at the least agnostic/deist and at most atheist.

Not to retread this semantic debate for the hundreth time, but you should know that the people you are replying to in this thread all are defining atheism in terms of lack of belief in a god. What you are calling "agnostic" almost certainly would be categorized as atheist in those terms. (Agnosticism is a statement on the knowability of God. Atheism is not believing in gods).

[_beastie]

The idea that a person can keep religion in one domain of their intellectual world and science in another suggests science and religion coexisting. You and your friends likely think the religious person was just compartmentalizing their bad reasoning (and how), but regardless of that, it certainly allows for a theoretical lack of conflict.

The notion that science somehow is supportive of someone's religion qua religion is an idea you'll find almost all atheists in opposition of for obvious reasons, but also invariably involves someone having dubious ideas about the state of science. Science - that is sound empirical methodology - does not support much of what entails a religion. A scientist believing in dubious scientific arguments for a religious view, again for obvious reasons, is not a trait you want in a scientist. But it is strictly true that there are religious beliefs that are theoretically compatible with whatever science can tell us about the world. Lots of atheists think that. I do. Of course, there are also religious beliefs that are investigateable by science and a subset of them have been shown to be unlikely.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I asked for clarification.

[_beastie]

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

This was a survey, not a group chatting around the water cooler. It really makes no sense to suggest that the believing scientists wouldn't be honest on a survey.

[_beastie]

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.

For me, the point isn't that "really smart" scientists are inclined to be atheists. The point is that NAS scientists have more expertise and knowledge in their subject matter. I think it is the increased knowledge that inclines them toward atheism, not being "smarter" than other scientists or people in general.

Just an example: someone with little background understanding of evolution might say "well, look at the eye. The eye is proof of an intelligent designer", whereas someone with more expertise and background knowledge in evolution would understand the problems with that argument, due to his/her understanding of the evolution of the eye. It's not that one person is "smarter" than the other, but rather one person has more knowledge on a subject than the other.

[_Kevin Graham]

The notion that science somehow is supportive of someone's religion qua religion is an idea you'll find almost all atheists in opposition of for obvious reasons, but also invariably involves someone having dubious ideas about the state of science. Science - that is sound empirical methodology - does not support much of what entails a religion. A scientist believing in dubious scientific arguments for a religious view, again for obvious reasons, is not a trait you want in a scientist.

Well naturally atheists will disagree with the notion that science can support religious views. But there is a difference between proof and evidence, and I can't think of any religion claiming science proves it is true.

But it is strictly true that there are religious beliefs that are theoretically compatible with whatever science can tell us about the world. Lots of atheists think that. I do. Of course, there are also religious beliefs that are investigateable by science and a subset of them have been shown to be unlikely.

Which constitutes evidence. There isn't scientific proof for God, but there is a plethora of evidences that support many religious positions. Doesn't make them true. That would be too extreme a position. But your position is just as extreme at the other end of the spectrum by insisting there is no evidence for any religious views.

Not to retread this semantic debate for the hundreth time, but you should know that the people you are replying to in this thread all are defining atheism in terms of lack of belief in a god. What you are calling "agnostic" almost certainly would be categorized as atheist in those terms. (Agnosticism is a statement on the knowability of God. Atheism is not believing in gods).

This isn't semantics. The survey is typically used to show how many scientists are atheists when the survey itself doesn't address the question of atheism. You don't find that problematic? The survey appears to address religiosity more than anything, and one wouldn't expect scientists doing the kind of dedicated work that would be required of them before being nominated to the NAS, as those with enough time on their hands to engage in religious activity. NAS scientists are better described as those who are more career oriented who have successfully tapped into the proper political channels in their field; not those who are necessarily smarter or more knwoledgable. I suspect that if I randomly picked out a member from the NAS and compared him/her to a random non-NAS scientist, that you'd probably be hard pressed to explain why the former was in the NAS and not the latter, based on knowledge or intelligence alone. The true distinguishing factor would be where one falls on the political landscape, along with probably how much one has published. It is not what you know, but who you know. I see this everywhere. You can't expect to be an introvert and be a successful acadmic. Taking advantage of the buddy-system is necessary before moving up the career ladder. You can't get anywhere without friends willing to vouch for you. John Gee for example. He has the credentials, but he probably couldn't get a job anywhere in academia except BYU because his own professor rejected his dissertation. Why? Because of his political/social connections.

For me, the point isn't that "really smart" scientists are inclined to be atheists. The point is that NAS scientists have more expertise and knowledge in their subject matter.

And I think the statement by the President of the group gives us a better idea than inferences from a muddled survey with ambiguous questions that involved only around 260 people.

I think it is the increased knowledge that inclines them toward atheism, not being "smarter" than other scientists or people in general.

Well, I have problems with that just the same. It is very much like the LDS apologetic tactic of claiming such and such critic shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt because he or she was published in a non-peer reviewed journal, like such and such LDS scholar was. This is why Dan Peterson started the whole Mormon Scholars Testify site. It is pretty much the same kind of reasoning that goes with the New Atheists who want to claim the "most knowledgable" to their side. And I highly doubt the president of teh NAS would assert that any member of its organization is more knwoledgable than all other scientists outside the organization. This is just an elitist assumption to be sure.

But this is all beside the point since the survey questions don't address atheism. So I don't see how it can be used to determine a percentage of atheists among the group. As far as we know, the percentage of atheists within the NAS organization is about the same as within the scientific community at large.

Just an example: someone with little background understanding of evolution might say "well, look at the eye. The eye is proof of an intelligent designer", whereas someone with more expertise and background knowledge in evolution would understand the problems with that argument, due to his/her understanding of the evolution of the eye. It's not that one person is "smarter" than the other, but rather one person has more knowledge on a subject than the other.

This is all well and good in theory, but the evolution of the eye isn't based on secret knowledge that can only be acquired within the inner sanctum of the NAS. The relevant literature on the matter will be available to anyone in the field, so anyone outside teh NAS can make the same arguments. But evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God anyway. For me the question of God, if it hangs on any branch of science at all, will be better determined by cosmologists/mathematicians/astronomists, which, from what I understand, represnt a larger percentage of theists than in other fields. All evolution does really is cause problems for biblical literalists, most of whom have since shifted their paradigm to accomodate both.

[_Tarski]

Sometimes it's easy to miss the point. I think I did initially.

I also find many of the arguments for God problematic, but I'm not a scientist nor a philosopher (I'm an engineer). Even so, I still believe in God and I don't see it as a watered-down version. I guess I agree with Tarski as far as his point about experts generally not buying the arguments about design. However, I also think there could be something I miss in those arguments since I myself am not a true expert on information, complexity, probability, or design even if I understand much of the math behind it.

I think you underestimate yourself. My impression is that you are a very clear and probing thinker. I also get the impression that you understand enough of the math to make your opinion worth considering. I am sure there are portions of the relevant math that you understand just as well as I do and perhaps better.

Folks, I have to give props. ABman is one of the few people around that can raise opposing questions with regard to my arguments and assertions without just making me think that he just didn't get the point. I think he nearly always gets the point --at least in those cases where he decides to comment.

[_EAllusion]

Kevin -

There are lots of apologetic arguments for religious views that are scientific or quasi-scientific in nature (or at least in attempt.) The whole intelligent design movement you were enamored with is an example of that. I'm saying those efforts invariably go wrong and it is undesireable for a scientist to be a part of them. That's all. I'm sure you agree at least in principle with a fair amount of them. You might think that there are good "evidences" (that's an apologetic term, by the way) of religion, but I guess the issue there is you are wrong. Lest you get confused, I don't mean to say that there is no view that a religion might hold that can be supported by science. Trivially, it is a tenet of most faiths that the earth exists. I think that's supportable by science. So I don't think it's just any view that falls under the umbrella of things a religion regards as true. Rather it is the views that we usually call "supernatural." But we can even circumscribe that to something as simple as the proposition "God exists." There's no sound scientific case for that to be made, and those few scientists who think otherwise are are mistaken in a way that deserves serious criticism. It reflects a poorly on them as scientists even if they are able to make up for it in other areas. Fortunately, it's quite rare for a scientist to think such a thing and be operating in their field of expertise. They're about as fringy as any other wacky view.

Also, you should be aware that many of the suite of surveys we are talking about don't ask people whether they are atheist or not. They ask them whether they believe in god/a personal god. You don't believe in god = atheist.

[_madeleine]

The idea that a person can keep religion in one domain of their intellectual world and science in another suggests science and religion coexisting. You and your friends likely think the religious person was just compartmentalizing their bad reasoning (and how), but regardless of that, it certainly allows for a theoretical lack of conflict.

The notion that science somehow is supportive of someone's religion qua religion is an idea you'll find almost all atheists in opposition of for obvious reasons, but also invariably involves someone having dubious ideas about the state of science. Science - that is sound empirical methodology - does not support much of what entails a religion. A scientist believing in dubious scientific arguments for a religious view, again for obvious reasons, is not a trait you want in a scientist. But it is strictly true that there are religious beliefs that are theoretically compatible with whatever science can tell us about the world. Lots of atheists think that. I do. Of course, there are also religious beliefs that are investigateable by science and a subset of them have been shown to be unlikely.

Some things in religion are faith based, entirely, but that does not mean faith has to be separate from reason.

[_harmony]

I get the impression that what I post at MAD is not read too much these days.

Then why post there at all?