<Link>

A new collection of short essays edited by "Skeptic" magazine publisher Michael Shermer responds to that question with a more diverse set of voices than is usually offered.

"Science does not make belief in God obsolete, but it may make obsolete the reality of God, depending on how far we are able to push the science," Shermer writes in the booklet. Yet many scientists — 40 percent according to a 1997 poll cited by Shermer — believe in God.

William D. Phillips, Nobel laureate in physics and a fellow of the Joint Quantum Institute of the University of Maryland and the National Institute of Standards and Technology , a Methodist, also drew from science to make his argument in favor of God's relevance, saying physicists know there are things that are "really, really improbable, but they are not really impossible according to the laws of physics ... From what I know about physics, it's not impossible to imagine a world in which God acts but we never can prove it."

Stuart Kauffman, director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary, takes a slightly New Age tack, saying we must "heal" the schism between science and religion by "reinventing the sacred" and evolving from a supernatural God to a "new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe."

Ron

It depends on the indivual scientists......

What ? You mean that even scientists are people just like the rest of us ? Who would have guessed ?

Ron

That is a telling statistic don’t you think?

Either pressure from the powers that be influences the faith factor in their constituents to drop that percentage so low behind the national average of 90%,

Or, there must be some acquired pride factor or bravado where many set out to disprove any God with select data. That’s how I see it, select data, you may disagree with me here.

…saying physicists know there are things that are "really, really improbable, but they are not really impossible according to the laws of physics ... From what I know about physics, it's not impossible to imagine a world in which God acts but we never can prove it."

This admission I think argues strongly against their conclusions however. Especially when you consider he says they agree there are “things that really, really improbable,” when you accept that encompasses thousands if not billions of hyper improbable things all having to have come true, then it borders more on the impossible, really.

More likely just a matter that almost by definition, scientists must be skeptical.

are more skeptical that the average person. Even Einstein did not believe in the God of the Bible, but he still acknowledged the "hand of God" in the precision of the universal laws of nature.

Ron

Th Paine:

More likely just a matter that almost by definition, scientists must be skeptical.

The physicists almost admit in unison a lot of these types of necessary connections for life or whatever are really, really improbable. Therefore, their doubt or skepticism apparently argues against life by chance or inanimate reactions.

That is a telling statistic don’t you think?

Either pressure from the powers that be influences the faith factor in their constituents to drop that percentage so low behind the national average of 90%,

******************************­******************************­*********

I suspect that you'll find that these 'national averages' hide some major variation by education-level both in belief in God per se, as well as the interpretation of God. There is a body of literature out there that suggests a general negative correlation between education and belief in God per se, as well as education and belief in literalist/fundamentalist religious views.

<link>

I'd be more interested in knowing how 'scientists' in particular compare to other people with graduate degrees in terms of belief in God.

I wonder what the religious views of people with PhD's in Philology are.......

Are historical linguists and etymologists seen as scientists for the purposes of these surveys?

I suspect you are correct that very few in the physical sciences are "Fundamentalist Christians" or take the Bible very literally. Yet, it is still surprising how many (40%) still have some belief in a universal spirit.

Ron

RCH1:

I suspect you are correct that very few in the physical sciences are "Fundamentalist Christians" or take the Bible very literally. Yet, it is still surprising how many (40%) still have some belief in a universal spirit.

Ron

Especially when you consider who is doing the studies.

Einstein said that he believed in "Spinoza's God" - which is, in a sense, the "knowability" of the universe and the laws by which it operates. By Spinoza's defintion, the idea of a God which contravenes its own laws is an absurdity (e.g., no "tweaking", no "miracles"). For Spinoza, and by extension, for Einstein, there is no "personal" God, no immortal soul, no judgment, no morality by revelation,.

There is the universe and its nature - a concept of God that is obviously appealing to scientists (and others), but which repudiates the God commonly subscribed to by the Abrahamic religions (not so much Buddhism, Taoism, etc., which overlap Spinoza's philosophy to a surprising extent).

And I would guess that quite a few of those 40% who do profess some belief in G_d have a belief closer to that of Spinoza than to that of, say, Pat Robertson.

RCH1:

I suspect you are correct that very few in the physical sciences are "Fundamentalist Christians" or take the Bible very literally. Yet, it is still surprising how many (40%) still have some belief in a universal spirit.

Ron

Call it the Yahweh Uncertainty Principle...

can't cut the apron string. even if it means redefining the word god to the point where there is nothing of which one could say ' no, that's not what i mean by god'. what the fuck is the point of calling some unconscious, impersonal, undetectable, uncaring, amorphous force god? well here's the point.

my ex has this niece that had a security blanket that she bonded with as an infant. and she never unbonded. she dragged that thing around with here everywhere. over the years, of course, it got pretty raggedy until, by college it had completely disinitegrated except for a couple of scraps that she sewed into the lining of her coat. in no rational sense was this thing a blanket anymore. in fact, it wasn't even a thing anymore. it was two or three threads. and that's your god there. that's your creative force. just some pathetic, useless nothing, indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist at all except for the fact that it serves as a place to hang the word god.

"reinventing the sacred". that's another way of saying "make up some new bullshit because our old bullshit is dead".