God, How Does He Feel To You?

[_Jersey Girl]

Fairly recent survey:

http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2006/winter/sallyport/scientists.html

[_beastie]

There have been polls taken.

From what I hear on this forum from the leading atheists, you'd expect only 10% of the scientific community to be theistic.

The term "scientists" is too generic in this particular discussion, given the wide variety of topics scientists can study. More pertinent is the study of life itself - biology. A 1998 study showed that, out of the top biologists, those who are members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 95% are atheists.

And even among those who profess belief, often when their beliefs are analyzed, they don't believe in the type of God most religions embrace.

[_beastie]

I missed this:

Einstein was one among many prominent scientists who accept the existence of God.

This is a statement that must be carefully qualified.

Although he was raised Jewish, he was not a believer in the religious aspect of Judaism, though he still considered himself a Jew. He simply admired the beauty of nature and the universe. From a letter written in English, dated March 24, 1954, Einstein wrote, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

He also said (in an essay reprinted in Living Philosophies, vol. 13 (1931)): "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and this [sense] alone, I am a deeply religious man."

The following is a response made to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York which read, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." After being pressed on his religious views by Martin Buber, Einstein exclaimed, "What we [physicists] strive for is just to draw His lines after Him." He also quoted once "When I read the Bhagavad Gita, I ask myself how God created the universe. Everything else seems superfluous." Summarizing his religious beliefs, he once said: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Einstein was an Honorary Associate of the Rationalist Press Association beginning in 1934.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Alb ... id/1354867

The Rationalist Press Association:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalis ... ssociation


Spinoza's God:

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

Spinoza's system imparted order and unity to the tradition of radical thought, offering powerful weapons for prevailing against "received authority." As a youth he first subscribed to Descartes's dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, but later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being a single identity. He contended that everything that exists in Nature/Universe is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that is the basis of the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect is only understood in part. That humans presume themselves to have free will, he argues, is a result of their awareness of appetites while being unable to understand the reasons why they want and act as they do.

Spinoza contended that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") was a being of infinitely many attributes, of which extension and thought were two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as one and the same. The universal substance consists of both body and mind, there being no difference between these aspects. This formulation is a historically significant solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and He has no personality.

Einstein was definitely not a theist. Was he a deist? Maybe, although it's difficult to tell, since he doesn't seem to differentiate between God and nature itself.

This is a good demonstration of having to use care when talking about "God". I have read books by scientists who profess a belief in God, and it's nothing like what the vast majority of religionists imagine.

[_dartagnan]

The term "scientists" is too generic in this particular discussion, given the wide variety of topics scientists can study. More pertinent is the study of life itself - biology.

What an absurd statement. Why should only biologists be considered the "more pertinent" to the discussion? Because they are the high priests of evolution? Because that better suits the atheist agenda of Dawkins? What about natural scientists, physicists, mathematicians and astronomers who see evidence for God in the universe? You're trying to rig the game, which only goes to reinforce what I have always said about atheism being a religion in itself. You're not an innocent bystander who is indifferent to other's beliefs. You're a part of the religious problem.You guys have a dogma of your own, and Dawkins is among the religious leaders who wishes to claim science leads people to atheism. His religious claim is not being helped by the facts.

The simple fact is most natural scientists do not reject the existence of a God as Dawkins would have us believe. Most see enough evidence in the universe to postulate existence for deity. The NAS to which you refer is something of a church in and of itself, a tightly knit group of only 2000 or so people who frequently gather together and meet for their own purposes. It is easier to inculcate these professionals with a sense of duty to adhere to certain beliefs or non-beliefs when this kind of religionesque activity occurs. Here is a broader survey from the link provided by Jersey Girl:

When Ecklund compared faculty in the natural science disciplines of physics, chemistry, and biology with those in the social science disciplines of sociology, psychology, political science, and economics, she found “distinct frameworks” for the ways in which individuals view religion and spirituality as well as how they make ethical decisions related to their research. Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists surveyed said they did not believe in God, but only 31 percent of the social scientists gave that response. Among each of the two general groups, one discipline stood out: Forty-one percent of the biologists and 27 percent of the political scientists said they don’t believe in God.

It becomes clear why Dawkins doesn't mention these. It makes it harder to indoctrinate when the facts don't corroborate the claims.

A 1998 study showed that, out of the top biologists, those who are members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 95% are atheists.

"Top" is a relative term, and you have to realize Dawkins and his followers are a part of that relatively tiny group. And this survey only received responses from 260 scientists. That's it! Why didn't the rest respond? The reasons are obvious since people like Dawkins often attacks scientists on a professional level for believing something he does not. That is professional bigotry, which is why Dawkins' worst critics are atheists themselves. The fact that Dawkins (and you) would rely on this tiny survey and ignore the broader ones, just goes to prove he has an agenda in mind. You guys are not just innocent bystanders who hold to a "default position" of "nonbelief." You guys believe plenty, which makes you just as religious as any whacko fundamentalist Christian. And like many religious claims, you cannot back this one up with proof either.

And even among those who profess belief, often when their beliefs are analyzed, they don't believe in the type of God most religions embrace.

So what? I fall into that category too.

[_dartagnan]

This is a statement that must be carefully qualified.

Dawkins tried to claim Einstein was actually an atheist. Again proving he has an agenda to make science a doctrine of atheism. Dawkins didn't know what the hell he was talking about unfortunately.

Einstein was definitely not a theist.

Yes he was. You need to read a book on this, written by one of his close associates, Max Jammer, and not rely on Dawkins or the web.

I will provide more citations later, but suffice it to say Einstein did in fact see plenty of evidence in the universe that God exists and he adamantly denied ever being an atheist. Dawkins knew this but ignored his statement to that effect. Again, something we'd expect from a Mormon apologist.

Einstein once said:

"My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infintely superior spirit who reveals himself in teh slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God...Everyone who is seriously engaged in teh pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

[_Some Schmo]

People tend to overcomplicate fairly simple things, for a variety of reasons, but mostly to support the ideas they cherish or in which they've invested.

There is nothing simple about supernatural perceptions that cannot be explained naturally. You can chalk it up as a natural event for dismissive purposes, but then again, you don't really "know" what you're talking about (That anyone claims knowledge of anything is an utter joke)

If you think for a second I'm going to try to disabuse your rationalizations for being a theist, you're insane. As I've tried to make you understand on numerous occasions (unsuccessfully, it seems), I have no interest in what you think about anything. Your credibility is sorely lacking, so what you think makes no difference to me (except from a sort of "case study in misinterpretation and denial" perspective - not to mention that at times, it can be downright hilarious).

Yes, yes, we all know you think there are reasonable justifications to believe in the supernatural. Big deal. You're like the politician who keeps saying the same untruth over and over in the hopes that people will eventually think it holds water. If you fool others, too bad for them. You don't fool me.

You remind me a bit of JAK tonight. :) I'm not suggesting numinous experiences in any way, shape, or form point to a deity. I hope you aren't reading my comments in that way. If you're not then I'm reading more into your comments than I should! :)

No Mon, I think I know where you're coming from. Sometimes, those experiences really are powerful. They'd have to be to fool certain people. I'm not trying to diminish their power; quite the opposite. The human mind is an incredible thing.

I'm just trying to highlight the misappropriation of credit.

[_Chap]

This is a statement that must be carefully qualified.

Dawkins tried to claim Einstein was actually an atheist. Again proving he has an agenda to make science a doctrine of atheism. Dawkins didn't know what the hell he was talking about unfortunately.

Einstein was definitely not a theist.

Yes he was. You need to read a book on this, written by one of his close associates, Max Jammer, and not rely on Dawkins or the web.

I will provide more citations later, but suffice it to say Einstein did in fact see plenty of evidence in the universe that God exists and he adamantly denied ever being an atheist. Dawkins knew this but ignored his statement to that effect. Again, something we'd expect from a Mormon apologist.

Einstein once said:

"My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infintely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God...Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

Just so we know whether it is worth joining in here, could you kindly:

(a) Tell us, as succinctly as you can, what someone has to believe in for you to say "he not only believed in a deity, but was actually a theist" (assuming that"believes in a deity" and "is a theist" are not the same thing so far as you are concerned.)

(b) Tell us, as succinctly as you can, whether you would class Spinoza as a theist.

[edited once for typo]

[Tator]

What an absurd statement. Why should only biologists be considered the "more pertinent" to the discussion? Because they are the high priests of evolution? Because that better suits the atheist agenda of Dawkins? What about natural scientists, physicists, mathematicians and astronomers who see evidence for God in the universe? You're trying to rig the game, which only goes to reinforce what I have always said about atheism being a religion in itself. You're not an innocent bystander who is indifferent to other's beliefs. You're a part of the religious problem.You guys have a dogma of your own, and Dawkins is among the religious leaders who wishes to claim science leads people to atheism. His religious claim is not being helped by the facts.

Kevin,

First, thanks again for showing that you really DO know who “won” the “debate” between religion and science. Every time you want to disparage atheists, you insist that it’s just another religion. That speaks volumes.

Second, what’s absurd is to pretend that ANY topic related to science is equally pertinent in this discussion. Science is a very broad umbrella, and includes engineering, social science, computer science, forestry, dentistry, psychology, etc etc….come on!!! Of course some fields are more pertinent than others. You can make a good argument for astronomy and physics as well as biology, but please don’t pretend that such a wide umbrella gives us useful information at all. It’s silly.

The simple fact is most natural scientists do not reject the existence of a God as Dawkins would have us believe. Most see enough evidence in the universe to postulate existence for deity. The NAS to which you refer is something of a church in and of itself, a tightly knit group of only 2000 or so people who frequently gather together and meet for their own purposes. It is easier to inculcate these professionals with a sense of duty to adhere to certain beliefs or non-beliefs when this kind of religionesque activity occurs. Here is a broader survey from the link provided by Jersey Girl:

Oh, for heaven’s sake.

The NAS:

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServe ... _main_page

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is an honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.
The NAS was signed into being by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863, at the height of the Civil War. As mandated in its Act of Incorporation, the NAS has, since 1863, served to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art" whenever called upon to do so by any department of the government. Scientific issues would become even more contentious and complex in the years following the war. To keep pace with the growing roles that science and technology would play in public life, the institution that was founded in 1863 eventually expanded to include the National Research Council in 1916, the National Academy of Engineering in 1964, and the Institute of Medicine in 1970. Collectively, the four organizations are known as the National Academies.
Since 1863, the nation's leaders have often turned to the National Academies for advice on the scientific and technological issues that frequently pervade policy decisions. Most of the institution's science policy and technical work is conducted by its operating arm, the National Research Council, created expressly for this purpose. These non-profit organizations provide a public service by working outside the framework of government to ensure independent advice on matters of science, technology, and medicine. They enlist committees of the nation's top scientists, engineers, and other experts, all of whom volunteer their time to study specific concerns. The results of their deliberations have inspired some of America's most significant and lasting efforts to improve the health, education, and welfare of the population. The Academy's service to government has become so essential that Congress and the White House have issued legislation and executive orders over the years that reaffirm its unique role.
The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.The Academy is governed by a Council consisting of twelve members (councilors) and five officers, elected from among the Academy membership. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is the president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Kevin quotes from Jersey Girl’s site:

When Ecklund compared faculty in the natural science disciplines of physics, chemistry, and biology with those in the social science disciplines of sociology, psychology, political science, and economics, she found “distinct frameworks” for the ways in which individuals view religion and spirituality as well as how they make ethical decisions related to their research. Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists surveyed said they did not believe in God, but only 31 percent of the social scientists gave that response. Among each of the two general groups, one discipline stood out: Forty-one percent of the biologists and 27 percent of the political scientists said they don’t believe in God.

And says:

It becomes clear why Dawkins doesn't mention these. It makes it harder to indoctrinate when the facts don't corroborate the claims.

Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I believe that people who have intensely studied the development of life itself have background information that a social scientists does not have. The reason why we are interested in what scientists believe or disbelieve has to do with the background information they possess on certain subjects in the first place. So I’m supposed to think that someone who has studied forestry, dentistry, economics, or some social science has background information that is particularly pertinent to evaluating whether or not the existence of a godbeing is required to explain the universe? Nonsense.

You do realize that by even engaging in this debate, in trying to claim scientists for “your side”, you’ve again conceded who won the debate???

"Top" is a relative term, and you have to realize Dawkins and his followers are a part of that relatively tiny group. And this survey only received responses from 260 scientists. That's it! Why didn't the rest respond? The reasons are obvious since people like Dawkins often attacks scientists on a professional level for believing something he does not. That is professional bigotry, which is why Dawkins' worst critics are atheists themselves. The fact that Dawkins (and you) would rely on this tiny survey and ignore the broader ones, just goes to prove he has an agenda in mind. You guys are not just innocent bystanders who hold to a "default position" of "nonbelief." You guys believe plenty, which makes you just as religious as any whacko fundamentalist Christian. And like many religious claims, you cannot back this one up with proof either.

LOL! See above. Once again, you disparage by making atheism a…. “religion”. I’m sorry, that’s just funny. Nobel prize winning is "relative" all right.

I said:

And even among those who profess belief, often when their beliefs are analyzed, they don't believe in the type of God most religions embrace.

Kevin replied:

So what? I fall into that category too.

So what??? Being specific about what, exactly, is meant by “god” is pertinent to ANY discussion about belief. If “God” can be defined as nature itself, then I’m a believer, too.

I said:

Einstein was definitely not a theist.

Kevin replied:

Yes he was. You need to read a book on this, written by one of his close associates, Max Jammer, and not rely on Dawkins or the web.

I will provide more citations later, but suffice it to say Einstein did in fact see plenty of evidence in the universe that God exists and he adamantly denied ever being an atheist. Dawkins knew this but ignored his statement to that effect. Again, something we'd expect from a Mormon apologist.

Einstein once said:

"My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infintely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God...Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

I await your future citations. I do hope that these citations can be reconciled with Einstein’s own denial of being a theist.

Although he was raised Jewish, he was not a believer in the religious aspect of Judaism, though he still considered himself a Jew. He simply admired the beauty of nature and the universe. From a letter written in English, dated March 24, 1954, Einstein wrote, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

[_Moniker]

You remind me a bit of JAK tonight. :) I'm not suggesting numinous experiences in any way, shape, or form point to a deity. I hope you aren't reading my comments in that way. If you're not then I'm reading more into your comments than I should! :)

No Mon, I think I know where you're coming from. Sometimes, those experiences really are powerful. They'd have to be to fool certain people. I'm not trying to diminish their power; quite the opposite. The human mind is an incredible thing.

I'm just trying to highlight the misappropriation of credit.

Gotcha!

I actually had difficulty with appropriation of credit! :)

These experiences left me in considerable confusion for most of my life until I learned about neurotheology. I dismissed God of the Bible, religion, anything in the realm of supernatural and could not for the life of me understand why I had these experiences. I also thought that it was a human phenomenon to have these experiences (after reading on this subject I come to a different conclusion as to why this is so) and that I was an anomaly for not believing. I actually wondered why God belief seemed ingrained in humans and this (before reading up on it) seemed to suggest that perhaps there was something more. I suppose if I had been invested in a God belief I could have swayed the opposite way with learning more about neurotheology -- yet, I wasn't. Thanks for your answers, Schmo. :)

[_beastie]

This article goes into more detail regarding what percentage of scientists believe or disbelieve in God:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

by the way, in regards to mathematicians and physicists who believe in God: Years ago, while exploring this question in more detail, I read Frank Tipler's book the Physics of Immortality. It's a good example of why it's important to define exactly what is meant by belief in God. Tipler was actually arguing that immortality would be achieved through advanced technology (advanced future beings able to create a computer that could hold the consciousness of past humans, more or less), and tried to create an argument that this could support more typical religious belief. Now, there is no doubt Tipler is a believer, but the devil's in the details.