Neil deGrasse Tyson: Science and Religion Are Not ‘Reconcilable,’ So Stop Trying

[cbayer]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/neil-degrasse-tyson-science-and-religion-are-not-reconcilable-so-stop-trying/

by Matt Wilstein | 4:21 pm, January 18th, 2014



America’s favorite astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson sat down with PBS’ Bill Moyers Friday for an extended conversation about science, religion and the universe. Addressing science teachers who want to teach creationism in the classroom, Tyson said they can worship whatever God they want as long as they “keep it out” of the classroom.

Tyson said he does not believe that faith and reason are “reconcilable” so he refuses to give credit to those who are trying to do so. “The track record is so poor,” he said, “the going forward I have essentially zero confidence that there would be fruitful things to emerge from the effort to reconcile them.” He went on to explain that as more scientific discoveries are made, the more “figurative” religious texts like the Bible become.

“Educated religious people are perfectly fine with that,” he said. “It’s the fundamentalists who want to say that the Bible is the literal truth of God and want to see the Bible as a science textbook who are knocking on the science doors of schools… Enlightened religious people are not acting that way.”

Tyson said that a “free country” means that people can believe whatever they want: “Think that there’s one God, two Gods, ten Gods, or no Gods.” But once those people start to enter the science classroom, that’s when he has a problem. “I’m not telling you what to think,” he said. “I’m just telling you in the science class, ‘You’re not doing science. This is not science. Keep it out.’”

video of Moyers interview at link

[hrmjustin]

1. I believe in both and think they can live together in peace.

I agree creationism should not be taught in zchools and it is not science.

[cbayer]

2. I think his point is that they can live side by side, just as you state.

His argument is against the injection of religious ideas into science. It has no place there.

[hrmjustin]

3. I can agree th at religion does not belong in science.

[villager]

5. Sunday school teacher here, and I agree. Of course it's "figurative."

It's a myth cycle, lore.

What can that lore teach us?

Stories have their place in the discovery of our inner, emotional world, just as science helps us understand the outer.

Though I think the frontiers of each may not be as irreconcilable as Mr. Tyson thinks....

[cbayer]

6. NDT has never been an enemy of religion

and has not really taken a stance on his personal theism.

He recognizes it's good points and I don't think he is devaluing religion here.

Just making the case for keeping it out of science classrooms.

[villager]

9. Hell yes it should be kept out of science classrooms!

Though I'm not entirely opposed to intellectually vigorous "spirituality" classes being available for those who want them...

[cbayer]

10. I would like to see more religion taught in academic settings.

It would lead to greater understanding and tolerance.

But it has no place in science.

[villager]

11. Actually, I think science has its place in *religion* classes...

I certainly use it at Sunday school.

But agree the reverse is too problematic.

[cbayer]

12. How do you use science in your Sunday school classes?

I learned about how the religious beliefs of some scientists impacted their work, and particularly the reception to their week.

But I don't recall science being introduced otherwise.

[Brettongarcia]

18. I agree that religion should not influence science. But religious people should learn more science

And? Finally there is the scientific study of religion. Which views it from a rational, often sociological perspective.

[cbayer]

19. And in some cases, I think that scientists might benefit from learning more about religion.

Those that totally reject it outright and see it has wholly anti-science really don't understand where and why they are different.

But I think that's only a small portion of scientists and most have no problem.

But a lot of religious people really, really need better science education. Then again, the ability to critically analyze data in this country is abysmal and, religious or not, there is a lot of room for improvement.

[villager]

21. The opening stanzas of Genesis, for example, are a kind of poetic version of The Big Bang

...darkness everywhere, then suddenly light, etc...

A few stanzas later, what we know about evolution seems to be replicated in verse: water all over the Earth, fish, then land, then creatures on the land, humans coming last, etc...

So we compare what we know about the universe's origin to what the stories tell us....

As one example.

We talk about where anthropology outside the Bible talks about aspects of it (i.e., various "flood" stories in different cultures), or doesn't (was there any outside evidence that any of these characters actually existed?), etc...

[cbayer]

23. That's really interesting.

You are reconciling them then, to a degree.

Or at least showing that there is no real conflict between believing in things that are scientifically known and religion.

that's a good thing, imo.

[villager]

24. Why... thanks!

[cbayer]

26. It's a great thing you are doing.

Is there a developed curriculum along these lines? If not, have you considered developing one?

[villager]

29. Hmm... that's a thought

No developed curriculum... mostly have stayed where I am (it's a synagogue) cause they let me approach the material this way...

[AtheistCrusader]

53. What for?

If norse mythology could have been reconciled to a 1800's-era understanding of how the universe works, would that have been a good thing?

Why?

[cbayer]

56. I don't understand what you are saying here.

What I was saying is that if someone is a christian, then I thin it's positive that they can see how their ancient, but sacred, texts can be interpreted in light of the science we know now.

That has nothing to do with norse mythology or an 1800's era understanding of the universe.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. I'm asking why you think it's a good thing.

There are people who believed in Norse Mythology as fact, at one point.

If that belief could be melded into or interpreted in a positive manner, by modern-ish science when Norse Mythos was more 'real' to more people, would that have been a good thing?


I ask, because I think it's better to move past these ideas, rather than pretend they have merit and have them linger on.

[cbayer]

61. As I explained, anything that encourages religious people,

and particularly children, to understand that parts of the Bible are metaphor and can be understood, while still embracing scientific findings, is good.

The big problem with the creationists is their inability to do this.

The stories do have merit, but have to be understood in a new light when the science shows them not to be literal.

What's the problem with that?

[AtheistCrusader]

62. There are elements of Norse Mythology rooted in metaphor.

There are stories in it that have 'merit', depending on how you define merit.

Where is the benefit in that? Does norse mythology warrant a seat at the table and a full share of the 'stories that have merit'-y metaphorical things people share today?


There's a problem, because too many people form regressive, misogynistic, hateful worldviews upon even metaphorical information in the Abrahamic tradition. There is cruelty writ large in that source material.

Here's a handy dandy infographic, that shows the problem of even the soft, metaphorical stories of the new and old testaments, versus secularism.


Clearly, given the current understanding of the facts, anything that encourages religious people to move into the secularist category, is good.

[cbayer]

64. I like Norse mythology.

I also like Greek mythology and Roman mythology.

And I think there are things that can be learned from them.

While I can easily acknowledge that there are problems, there are also benefits in the stories and the world views they promote.

As it says in the article I just posted about MLK, he considered himself a preacher first and foremost. The causes he believed in, and which were driven by his religious beliefs and his reading of the Bible, were social justice and civil rights.

Again, walking away from that as an individual is a personal choice. But trying to make the case that everyone should walk away from it comes with the risk of missing some of the doors it opens for some individuals.

As for your graphic, there is recent evidence that flies in the face of his conclusion and he clearly recognizes that he is drawing conclusions for which there may be many other variables involved.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. I also enjoyed all three mythologies.

In fact, I read them extensively, by happenstance of what sort of books I picked up and read out of the Young Readers series, I think from Readers Digest or some similar publisher.

In retrospect, I consider it an inoculation against what I later read in the bible. While I enjoyed the stories, somewhat, I took very little away from them, aside a general incredulousness toward other metaphysical/supernatural source claims. Possible I would have been unimpressed by the bible otherwise, but I recall my first awareness of the bible being direct conflict with the question 'why is this claimed to be real, when these others are not'.


But I don't think much of my day to day life or persona reflects anything from those stories. They were just stories. No more informative, than Shakespeare or anything else I've read.

The only door any of it opened for me was marked 'exit'.


I realize there are deeper correlation issues in that data, very core, cultural correlation issues that are difficult to measure. Still, I found the TYPE of god people believed in being at least loosely correlated to the data, very interesting. (Specifically, the bit about people who believed in a forgiving/salvation path god being more violent than the people of the unforgiving old-testament-gangsta style being less violent, without even broaching the question of secularism.)

[cbayer]

70. I was fortunate to have formal education in the mythologies at a very young age.

I remember it more distinctly that I do just about anything else I was taught in school.

At the same time, I was raised in the church, which I think you know. I experienced the bible as similar, but different in many significant ways. And even though I don't believe, I know that I was profoundly effected.

We all have very different experiences and emerge with very different perspectives.

The section I despise the most in any bookstore is the "self help" section. It's full of books written by individuals who figured out something that worked for them. They very wrongly assume that if it worked for them, it must work for everyone.

I feel the same about believers and non-believers who have discovered their path and think everything would be so much better if everyone else just got on that path with them.

[longship]

28. Really!?

I cannot agree with that at all.

First of all, there are two creation accounts in Genesis, one from the P (priestly) source (the first account), one from the J (Yahwist) source (the second creation account).

In the P creation an invisible God creates by fiat -- he speaks and it happens. This is the six days account which begins at Genesis 1:1.

The J creation features a common element of J, an anthropomorphic God, who acts physically to form his creation. This begins at Genesis 2:4 and includes the garden of Eden story.

The thing is that there is no way to reconcile the two accounts. The order of creation is different, as well as the mode of creation. In spite of that undeniable fact, apologists like William Lane Craig still make the claim that Genesis matches the Big Bang. It doesn't.

This kind of thing is common in the Hebrew Bible. They are called doublets, where things are related from multiple sources, often with irreconcilable differences.

Documentary hypothesis explains about sources in the Pentateuch (the first five books).

The Noachic flood story is frankly ridiculous, in both of its interleaved doublets. There is no historic or archeological evidence for the Exodus, or the existence of Moses. I often wonder why the Republicans don't want to post in courthouses the doublet of the Ten Commandments that includes "thou shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk."

[villager]

30. If you are hung up on the stories being "true," in an absolute sense, I can see your problem

on the other hand, if you look at a lot of these stories as metaphor (in addition to what they may teach us about contemporaneous history), the question becomes:

*Why were these stories important to our ancestors?

*What, if anything, can we learn from them now?

[longship]

34. I will grant you that but not that it matches the Big Bang in any way. Updated

That is an apologist claim that has zero credibility, like most of everything they claim.

The people who wrote the Hebrew Bible had absolutely no knowledge about modern cosmology, or even the solar system. There's no reason whatsoever that one can credibly make the claim that Genesis matches the Big Bang. And even if it kinda sorta maybe matches, what does that say? That an Iron Age tribal culture somehow knew about the Big Bang?

Sorry. That's just an apologist's made up claim. (That kook Dinesh D'Souza loves it!)

That's why I am kind of adamant about defending science isn't Biblical here.

Also, in case people haven't figured it out yet, the folks causing all the trouble really do believe it's all true. So I have to make my stand on that basis, not on what the liberal theists believe. I would hope that the liberal believers would see me as an ally.

[villager]

41. Enjoy your adamancy!

Being 100% correct in all things, at all times, must be cool!

[longship]

42. The only claim I am making is that the Bible is not a science textbook.

I would be willing to hear arguments to the contrary, but I would expect the person making the argument to understand that the hill they have to climb is mighty steep, and everybody who has attempted such (these days, mostly creationists) have failed.

It is long past the point that I can take such claims seriously, which is why I and nearly all science people get adamant about it.

BTW, nice straw man. I never claimed that I was 100% correct.

[villager]

43. Speaking of straw men, I never made that claim!

Hard to take you seriously as well, given your need to put words in peoples' mouths...

[longship]

44. "Being 100% correct in all things, at all times, must be cool!"

Well, somebody else apparently has access to your DU account and is posting in your name. Better check on that.

I don't know where this discussion went astray, but I apologize if you are somehow offended. My sole point is that Genesis does not model the Big Bang and that the Bible is not a science textbook. Of course, people are welcome to disagree. Mostly, the Republicans do that very thing.

Best regards, my friend.

[villager]

46. And again, I never said it was a science textbook. Are you that incapable of truly "hearing" people?

But again, encountering the book's poetry, it occasions a discussion of what we know about Creation, since those opening stanzas -- and not the subsequent creation stories (which occasion other discussions -- such as: Why is there more than one creation story?) -- do, for whatever reason, replicate a kind of sequence borne out by science.

[longship]

47. There is both good and bad in the Bible.

But I will stand by my position that it does not in any way replicate what modern science tells us about the universe, or of nature.

There are indeed some very beautiful poetic verses in many parts of it. But there is also some horrific elements. One can only hope that the beautiful parts are the true parts and the other side of the coin are the myth. I am trying to learn more about it. I went to church when I was young, but have been a non-believer since my teens.

A couple of years ago I again became interested in the Bible, not for belief, but to understand what it says and it's history, how it came to be. I feel that is important.

Thanks for your response.

BTW, I am a huge fan of Dr. Strangelove.

[villager]

48. Thanks for a more thoughtful reply this time. There is indeed both good and bad in it

I hope you don't think I don't somehow know about the atrocities and other things in it -- along with caring for the poor and bereaved, etc., and the "easy to like" parts...

If you want some interesting translations of Biblical texts (belief not required!) check out Stephen Mitchell's work on "Genesis" and "Job."

As for my avatar, aside from being a fan of the film myself, I switched it as a way of remembering DUer Purity of Essence, an old college pal who first turned me on to this site, many moons ago, and who we lost, all too soon and suddenly, this past summer...

[longship]

49. I want to ditch my King James.

It's unreadable as far as I'm concerned. The antiquated language was out of date when it was written. The Bible Geek recommends some more modern translations which don't mangle the thing. I am thinking of picking one up. I prefer accuracy, I think. Also, I want to see Yahwey and not LORD, when the J source is writing. That may a be difficult recipe.

My education is in physics, not literature, though.

[villager]

50. Robert Alter is another good recent translator....

...of said texts.

His footnotes are interesting, as well, if you're looking to explore the text as text, and look for historical "context" as well...

Cheers!

[gcomeau]

58. Rather curious...

Do you only point out the parts you think line up correctly with what we know about the history of the universe, or do you also point out the parts that are wrong?

(And there are a lot of them)

[villager]

59. curious which parts you mean specifically!

n/t

[gcomeau]

66. Well, for example...

Stars and the sun created after the earth? Off by many billion years.

Ocean of liquid water before dry land? Not even close. Land first, then water.

Birds (day 5) before reptiles and insects and all the other things mentioned in day 6 (besides humans)? Uh-uh. Exactly backwards.

Etc..

[cbayer]

68. Land first, then water?

I guess, if you count the period when the earth was a super-heated and completely uninhabitable rock. There was some kind of crust, but I'm not sure I would call that "land". It wasn't until it was covered with water that it became the test tube for life.

And I was taught this: fish, amphibians, birds, reptiles, mammals - in that order.

Not to quibble, and certainly not to argue that genesis should be taken literally, but your post confused me.

[Act_of_Reparation]

71. Are you talking about the evolutionary timeline?

If so, I have a few corrections, just so you know:

Insects predate amphibians by 40 million years.

Reptiles predate birds by 150 million years.

Mammals predate birds by 50 million years.

[cbayer]

72. My misremembering, I am sure.

It was long ago and far away, lol.

[gcomeau]

73. There is no point in the history of the earth...

...in which it was completely covered in water. There are points at which it is believed it was *almost* completely covered in water, but none at which it was completely covered.

So any definition of "Land" you want to use, it came first... since it's been there in an unbroken span of time since the planet first formed. Water hasn't.

"And I was taught this: fish, amphibians, birds, reptiles, mammals - in that order. "

Earliest reptiles were a little over 300 million years ago in the Carboniferous. Earliest birds about 150 or 160 million years ago in the Jurassic. Reptiles have been around twice as long as birds.

[cbayer]

74. Well, I think the land/water issue is a matter of definition.

And I've been corrected about my erroneous recollection on the steps of animal evolution.

It was so long ago and so far away for me, lol.

[villager]

69. in terms of life evolving, water was first, before land...

but in terms of congealing mass, strictly speaking, there was "land" before "water."

As for the stars, on the one hand, light itself "separates" from darkness, early on, before the existence of planets, and we have "night and day," which of course infers stars, orbits, etc.

Later, as you note, there is reference to observed stars lighting up the Earth, or at least being observable from Earth...

What's great is these are all terrific discussion points: What aligns with what we know about how the Universe was created? What's different? etc...

[Humanist_Activist]

107. No, they aren't a poetic version of the Big Bang, they are an inaccurate accounting...

of creation by a deity or group of deities, a myth.

I don't understand this need for people to attempt to validate the Bible through allegory. Its a collection of myths, oral history, cultural and ritual practices, and that's about it. There's no hidden messages, no overall theme, no reconciling it with science, for pretty much all claims the Bible makes about anything related to the nature of the world is dead wrong.

[on point]

78. Religion should only be in religious classes. Myth literature can be taught as such

In literature classes

Religious texts are no more valid than Lord of the Rings

Nice fiction, some with good poetry and metaphor, but still fiction

[cbayer]

79. I think there is general agreement on this site that religion should be

taught in religious, philosophical, literature, history classes and not in science classes.

[on point]

81. Fine distinction. Religion in philosophy and religious class, but myth elsewhere

And as myth, no different than any other fiction

[cbayer]

83. You are free to call it whatever you want, but most of

the world will continue to call it religion and not myth or fiction.

[on point]

86. Ahh, but they do call it myth or fiction. Just ask the Greeks or Egyptians, or Vikings

You just don't realize the current myths are no different yet

[cbayer]

87. If current beliefs do become myths, and I can't argue that they won't

at some point in the future, other religious beliefs will develop to replace them.

Religion is not an illness. It's a part of human existence and it's not going anywhere.

[on point]

88. So your argument is that people cannot live in a non delusional state?

I don't buy that. The religious delusion is brainwashing backed by oppression. Once people figure out it is Stone Age nonsense it will be considered historically quaint, but if you are currently afflicted you will need help to come to terms with reality

It is on the way out

[Heddi]

89. Uh oh...you used the word "delusional"

now you'll be accused of slurring the mentally ill because of your bigotry and hatred of the mentally ill. Don't believe me? Look upthread and in other threads. If you don't back down and issue an appropriate apology and perform sufficient ass-kissing, you will be lumped with republicans, conservatives, and fred phelps.

just warnin' ya.

[on point]

93. Delusion by DEFINITION is belief in something that doesn't exist.

The rest is just matters of degree from magic thinking to seeing gods in oils stains, imagining angles or hearing god speak to you.

Some forms of delusional mental illness have other kinds of delusion manifest themselves.

[cbayer]

96. Yes, but when you use it in the way you have, you must provide evidence that it doesn't exist.

Which you can't.


"Some forms of delusional mental illness have other kinds of delusion manifest themselves." ??

What in the world does that mean. Word salad perhaps (as long as we are throwing around psychiatric terms without really paying attention to their definition).

[Brettongarcia]

97. When people today believe they can walk on water, science shows their belief is false; delusional

[cbayer]

99. That is correct.

For the term to be used to describe a psychiatric condition, the definition includes the need for counter-evidence.

However, when it comes to walking on water, that may not be true.

I saw a great documentary about a contest where the students were assigned just that task (college and/or graduate level engineering students, IIRC).

So, never say never!

[trotsky]

98. What an absurd, arbitrary demand.

If someone claimed there was an invisible dragon living in their garage, would they have to be proved wrong before their belief could be called a delusion?

I realize you won't want to answer that, so your silence will be taken as an admission of the laughable nature of your demand.

[cbayer]

90. Most people do live in a non-delusional state.

They may have beliefs that you don't have, but they are not ill.

As I noted before, the person that holds on to an irrational belief despite clear evidence to the contrary (like the belief that all religious people suffer from a psychiatric illness) that is most likely delusional.

But then again, what shall we do if they won't come around to your way of thinking? Based on your prior post and your use of the word "eliminate", I shudder to think what your solution might be.

I will say this. I would not want to live in a world full of people that are expressing the kind of derision and prejudice that is being expressed by you in this thread.

Not for a moment.

But I have no wish to cure you or eliminate you and people like you.

[on point]

91. If your foundation point is that people need to understand the world around them

Then I agree. This a necessity for any being because they must function in the world. However, where I disagree is they don't need magic to be part of that understanding or explanation. The need for magic was a primitive construct, a way to provide order on something humanity did not understand. But now it is clear that magic religious thinking is not about reality, but about fantasy

[cbayer]

92. That may be clear to you, but it's not demonstrable.

Some people embrace religion and use it in good ways. Some people embrace it and use it in bad ways.

The same can be said for those that embrace non-belief.

For me the bottom line is to support those that use their beliefs or lack of beliefs for good things, and challenge those that use them for ill.

Your position is extreme and, imo, not at all consistent with what I value about liberal/progressive people.

[on point]

94. Some people do need religious fantasy to cope with things and that helps them sometimes

as long as they don't harm themselves or others living according to their delusion, but that can't be better than being a fully functional person in the real world

[cbayer]

95. Dogma, dogma and more dogma.

If only every one could be a fully functional person in the real world like yourself.

We might reach nirvana.

[skepticscott]

4. Faith is the antithesis of reason..it's really just that simple.

The fact that some individual scientists can compartmentalize, and turn off parts of their brain, in order to engage in both, doesn't change that.

[mike_c]

7. frankly, it makes their rationality suspect....

I've only known ONE colleague in my academic career who tried to be a scientist-- an evolutionary biologist, no less-- while simutaneously maintaining deep religious faith (LDS). Or at least only one that I know of. That alone should suggest how rare this is. He studied plant phylogenetics while denying evolution, a prescription for cognitive dissonance if I've ever heard one. His compartmentalization was absolute. His research was based on a premise that his faith utterly rejected. When you tried to talk to him about it, you could get him to discuss science, or religion, but never both at the same time. It was like he was neenering his own brain.

As you might imagine, one or the other had to go. Today he teaches biology at a small church affiliated college, and has no research career whatsoever. He has occasionally been a poster child for the reconciliation of science and faith, but those of us who knew him saw that he was deeply conflicted and unhappy about the dichotomy he was attempting to live.

Here's where I editorialize a little. This pisses me off because he is extremely intelligent and did excellent work. He and I worked together for a while in grad school and we earned our doctorates more-or-less together. I admire his tenacity and his clear thinking in the lab. But he threw all that away because his faith ultimately forced him to choose between rationality and fear, and he chose fear of the consequences of abandoning his faith, so he abandoned his work instead. The world lost a good scientist, and gained a sad poster child for something that is doomed to fail.

[cbayer]

8. While scientists as a whole report less religiosity than the general public,

over half report that they believe in a deity or higher power. So that would make your anecdotal report of 1 in you whole academic career a bit of a statistical anomaly.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

But hey that's data! Who needs it when one is working from a belief system that differs from reality.

Unfortunate for your friend, but most religious scientists have no problem being both.

But then you do have a moving anecdote to draw on.

[mike_c]

13. even the PEW Research Center acknowledges the shortcomings of that poll....

However, the survey of AAAS members may not be representative of all scientists in the U.S.

Since the PEW poll surveyed only AAAS members, it is not necessarily representative of scientists generally. Only a small subset of American scientists are AAAS members. For example, I let my AAAS membership lapse years ago. The U.S. population from which those members are drawn is itself more religious than most other industrial democracies. The PEW poll also found that only 33% of the AAAS members polled professed belief in a deity, not 51% as your selective reporting implies. The remainder cited general acceptance of some sort of "universal spirit," a concept that is more deeply rooted in spiritualism and religiousity than in any religious dogma. It's akin to that proportion of the population who will generally profess belief in elves and sprites. Still, it's disappointing that so many American scientists still can't face the contradictions of religion and reason face on.

Here are the actual results from the PEW survey:



More than TEN times as many scientists reject religion than among the general population from which they were drawn, and this is just AAAS members.

Finally, I suspect that the respondents were likely to self select based upon the intensity of their personal beliefs, making it more likely that the proportion of scientists who want to specifically make the point that they have religious faith would respond, thereby inflating their weight among the responding population.

[cbayer]

16. There are always shortcomings when one is trying to measure religiosity, but

do you have any data that would show that it is "rare" as you have claimed? I've never seen any.

I readily acknowledge that the statistics for scientists are markedly different than that for the general public, but it's not "rare" and most do it with ease.

In my academic career, I would say that the number of people who claimed some kind of religious belief to be pretty much in line with the PEW findings.

Where are you getting that TEN times number? From the number of people that say they don't believe in a god or higher power? That hardly equates with "rejection". The report says this:

Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research Center poll (48%) say they have no religious affiliation (meaning they describe themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular), compared with only 17% of the public.

If you can show me any more valid data than this, I would be glad to look it.

Or we could just rely on your single anecdote and draw a lot of conclusions from that.

And they are all psychiatrically ill anyway, so they probably don't even know what they are saying.

[mike_c]

22. a survey of the National Academy of Sciences found only 7% who professed belief....

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

Leading scientists still reject God

Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

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). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.

Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists (in percent --MC)

Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3

The reference to "greater" scientists refers to a term used in the original 1914 Leuba survey cited in the table. BTW, ANYONE can join AAAS. Not so much NAS.

[cbayer]

25. Lol!! So you are making the case that NAS scientists are "greater" than other scientists?

This is based on a survey of a grand total of 258 scientists (only 50% of those sent the survey even returned it) and presents absolutely no statistical analysis of their "data".

And the "researchers" are highly biased, as can be seen in this statement:

I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge.

I think that always makes for very bad science. But, then again, they are in the Department of History, so what do you expect.

If you want to make the case that it is "rare" that a scientist is also religious, this data doesn't even back you up.

I will shelve it with your belief that religious people suffer from psychiatric illness and stick with PEW.

[mike_c]

27. cbayer, this is unseemly....

Let me say again that I have no animosity toward you, and would prefer not to make this discussion about personalities.

Lol!! So you are making the case that NAS scientists are "greater" than other scientists?

I said no such thing. I even attempted to explain the genesis of the term in the table heading. I'll refer you to the Nature article if you'd like to beat that horse further. Personally, I think it's a regrettable choice of language, but recall that it derives from 1914.

And the "researchers" are highly biased, as can be seen in this statement:

I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge.

Again, the "researchers" made no such comment. The Nature article quoted that statement from one of the survey respondents, who is presumably a data point in the NO column. But I agree-- if the researchers took that stand a priori, that would be very biased research indeed. Thankfully, they did not.

But, then again, they are in the Department of History, so what do you expect. (sic)

Really? The author of the PEW Research Survey report you're so fond of quoting is David Masci, whose PEW bio describes his academic qualifications as:

Masci has a bachelor’s in medieval history from Syracuse University, and a J.D. from The George Washington University Law School.

He doesn't even have a Ph.D. in ANYTHING, let alone in science. And I disagree with your implication that academic historians are not capable of conducting a valid study.

If you want to make the case that it is "rare" that a scientist is also religious, this data doesn't even back you up.

It says only 7% of National Academy of Sciences respondents professed religious faith. I'll let the data speak for themselves. I cited it in response to your request for data that suggests a different outcome than the PEW survey of AAAS members.

I will shelve it with your belief that religious people suffer from psychiatric illness and stick with PEW.

This is just snark. Come on.

[cbayer]

31. Unseemly? Snark?

I think your sig line and position on religious people are unseemly (and snark would be too mild a word).

You want to walk around with a big sign that mocks and ridicules religious believers and paints them all as psychiatrically ill, I think you should be prepared for some push back.

But I understand that I am not being very nice to you and should dial it back. It might be best if I just stayed away, because your position really pushes my buttons. You seem like a nice person and I don't know how you got to the extreme position you hold, but I find it antithetical to what I see as progressive/liberal democratic ideals.

I also find it divisive and harmful to causes that we probably both support. There are some really good, activist religious people who post on this site. You probably have much more in common with them than you do differences.

But one last thing, and I ask that you consider this seriously, even if only for a few moments.

If I had a sig line that said,

"When one person suffers from grandiosity and narcissism, it is called a personality disorder. When many people suffer from it it is called atheism"

and then repeatedly and forcefully took the position that all atheists have a significant personality disorder and don't deal with the world in a way that can be trusted in the least.

Now, mind you, I don't think that at all, but I could make a strong rhetorical argument for it being true if I wanted to.

Would that be ok?

[mike_c]

33. I think you're trying to change the subject....

I'm happy to discuss either of those topics with you-- my sig line or your rhetorical arguments about atheism as a personality disorder-- if I feel like I have something compelling to add to that discussion. I'll wait and see in that regard, because that wasn't the discussion I joined today. You didn't respond to any of the points I offered in my last post, so I'll presume this present discussion is over.

But to specifically answer your last question:

Would that be ok?

Of course. I look forward to many fascinating exchanges in the future.

All the best,
--Mike C.

[cbayer]

35. Not really, I just can't get past your extreme position and deal directly, or

apparently civilly, with you.

This doesn't happen to me that often, so I have taken the opportunity to look a little more closely at it.

And this is what I have come up with.

I am a very strong advocate for patients with psychiatric illness and I am also a strong advocate for the religious and religious rights.

Your position antagonizes me on both levels, and I think it is making me behave badly and unable to hear you.

So, I think I will just stay away. I doubt you are going to change your position anyway.

Have a nice night.

[trotsky]

75. Well done, mike_c.

You attempted to keep the conversation on topic, and you didn't get personal. You succeeded on both counts; you just didn't have a willing, honest discussion partner.

[Brettongarcia]

54. Mike C: Thanks for your input!

I agree the National Academy is more prestigious. While PEW summaries of a broader spectrum of science-oriented professional, still do show that far more of them are unbelievers; ten times as many.

By the way? I think if anything, PEW habitually underestimates the growth of atheism/agnosticism. Some considerations it seems to miss: PEW relies heavily on what people SAY they believe. But there are two problems with that at least. One is that 1) many may want to say they are believers, to cover their bases, and avoid conflicts with zealots. Self-reporting informants are not too reliable.

Confirming that Christian's hearts and actual behavior, are not quite where their mouths are, 2) I informally compared PEW and other estimates, regarding how many people "go to church regularly." Some estimates runn as high as 20-40-60%. Then I (admittedly, informally), compared the number of churches in my small community, and the number of cars in their parking lots on Sunday etc., to the total population of the town. Etc.. The very rough estimate I came up with, was about 4% maximum, regular church attendees.

My conclusion was that many Christians are hypocrites; they are not going to church as often as they claimed, on paper ... and in polls like the PEW poll.

[Brettongarcia]

20. But finally the Bible suggests problems with faith and belief. And tells us to "test everything"

Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Kings 18.20-40; 1 Thess. 5.21; Mal. 3.10; Deut. 18.20-22; "test the spirits" (1 John 4?); etc..

Amazingly, in my research, even the Bible itself finally tells us to turn from "faith," and follow Science instead. (See Woodbridge Goodman on the Science of God.).

This does not mean uncritically accepting whatever religion said, and claiming it is scientifically true. It means prioritizing science, over faith and religion.

[flying rabbit]

14. K&R

[krispos42]

15. One of the bedrock foundations of science...

...is that natural laws apply equally and everywhere. The speed of light on Mars is the same as here. The gravitational constant is the same here as on the opposite end of the galaxy. And so on.

Since we can see billions of years in the past, it also follows that natural laws are not only consistent throughout the universe, but also consistent throughout history. Not just human history, but all of history, from the Big Bang onwards. The speed of light when the Sun ignited is the same as now, and will be the same when the Sun goes nova.

Therefore, the laws the universe follows today are the same as those in Biblical times. So despite II Chronicles 4:2, pi ? 3 and never has been, nor will it ever be.

[cbayer]

17. Hey Buddy!! How the heck have you been?

Don't you have enough on your plate with the Gungeon? I can't believe you would stick your toe in here!

But I am glad to see you and welcome you.

[krispos42]

45. Hello cbayer!

I've been busy since DU3 came out...it coincided with me getting a FT job, and then a girlfriend, then losing both last April, then getting another girlfriend, going back to school, and getting another job. School starts Tuesday. '

How's that for a synapsis?

Gungeon is quiet... things quieted down during last year when the Admins let gun discussions in GD.

[rdharma]

51. "Gungeon is quiet"....

And you know why? Because I have been barred from the gungeon.

[krispos42]

109. Hey, you can always appeal.

It's been done.

[rdharma]

110. No thanks. I've seen your so-called "appeal" process.

It's basically only successful if you agree with all the inmates in the asylum about their views on "gun-huggery" and they accept you as "one of them".

Nope. I'd rather not be included in that crowd.

[krispos42]

111. You mean where the regulars debated reinstatement and I followed their consensus? n/t

[rdharma]

112. You do realize that 5 of your "regulars" that voiced their opinions....

....... on the "reinstatement thread.... later had their posting privileges revoked .........

Is that typical for the "regulars" on the RKBA group?

[cbayer]

55. So, if I am following this right, you have a girlfriend, a job and are staring school this week.

Kudos all the way around!

Hope your son is well. He must be really big now.

My synopsis is that we are still on the boat, but now in Mexico and loving it.

Hope to see you around!

[krispos42]

108. Yeah.converting all my engineering school credits into some form of degree

And my kid is getting pretty bug. close to 90 pounds, about 4'3", and in 3rd grade.



I still want to come off and visit you on your boat... git your butt up here! I live by the ocean now, after all.

No excuses!

(transit via the Cape of Good Hope notwithstanding)

[Lobo27]

32. I think they can, but thats just my opinion.

I tend to believe on something greater then us, but I'm also a lover of science. I don't see nothing wrong with me thinking there is an all powerful god, but also believing that he does exist he is made of atoms just like us etc.

I don't believe there is hell or heaven, but I'd like to believe there is another plane our spirit if you will goes to after death. If thats not the case thats okay too, I'm certain my body will be good food for the worms, continue the cycle of life.

The greatest thing for me is that one day the human race will become interstellar travelers. Visit new worlds, colonize etc... I also know that religious people will be at the forefront to prevent that, a shame and it may never change. But I think there will be enough people that can see the light and come together.

[cbayer]

37. I think there are many who share your position.

I'm not sure that they can be "reconciled" per se and i think he is talking specifically about when some people hold on to religious beliefs despite clear scientific evidence against their beliefs.

But I think they easily co-exist. Religion doesn't need to impede science, and science doesn't need to impede religion. I think they can travel down their separate but equal paths and provide value in their own unique ways.

Have you ever read "The Sparrow"? It's a great book that explores the area of interstellar travel to the first known inhabited planet. It has strong religious overtones as well and the first crew includes a continent of Jesuit priests.

It's a pretty fascinating take on the interaction between science and religion.

[Lobo27]

39. Thanks for sharing about the book

I just got it of Amazon, based on the comments its seems to be very provocative. Thanks again!!

[cbayer]

40. Let me know what you think of it.

The second, Children of God, is also good, but not quite as good.

[demwing]

36. "Reconcilable"?

[TheDebbieDee]

38. I believe that science is what God uses to make his/her miracles happen!

It's only the fanaticism of the religious that would have us believe that miracles happen instantly.

[immoderate]

52. Like oil and water!

Reconcile? Science will undermine faith every chance it gets. That's its nature.

Science also cannot tolerate "mysterious beings" or those whose effects cannot be detected. And when things are actually explained, it is always science, and never religion, that does the explaining.

--imm

[edhopper]

57. H. L. Mencken

"The only way to reconcile science and religion is to create something which isn't science or something which isn't religion."

"Christian theology is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is opposed to every other form of rational thinking."

[Prophet 451]

63. I disagree with that

I can hold faith in a higher power while also not rejecting science. I can accept humans evolved from earlier lifeforms without undermining my belief that god created the singularity that (according to current theories) preceded the Big Bang and I don't think anyone's beliefs (including my own) should be taught in school, except possibly in a World Religions class.

[cbayer]

65. I don't think he is saying that you can't do both.

I think his only point is that religion has no place in a science curriculum, particularly when a particular religious belief is held despite clear scientific evidence to the contrary.

In short, I think you agree with each other.

[Gothmog]

76. As a Jew, I believe that religion and science are not exclusive

There are some good works on how religion and Judaism are consistent by some amazing rabbis and Jewish scientists. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-geoffrey-a-mitelman/why-can-judaism-embrace-s_b_880003.html

I recently had a conversation with a neuroscientist, who also happened to be a self-described atheist. He knew I was a rabbi and so, in the middle of the conversation, he very tentatively asked me, "So ... do you believe in evolution?" I think what he was really asking was, "Can you be a religious person who believes in science?" And my answer to that question is, "Of course."

While some people think of science and religion as being inherently in conflict, I think it's because they tend to define "religion" as "blind acceptance and complete certainty about silly, superstitious fantasies." Quite honestly, if that's what religion really was, I wouldn't be religious!....

Instead, when Jews read the Bible today through a rabbinic worldview, we are trying to answer two separate questions: First, what did the text mean in its time, and second, how can we create interpretations that will give us lessons for our time?

Indeed, the Bible shouldn't be taken simply literally today because circumstances, societies, norms and knowledge have all changed.

A great example of that comes from how the rabbis interpret the verse "an eye for an eye." While that is what the Bible says, to the rabbis, that's not what the verse means. Instead, the rabbis argue, "an eye for an eye" actually means financial compensation, and they go on for multiple pages in the Talmud trying to explain their reasoning. They don't read that verse on its simple, literal level, but through the lenses of fairness, of common sense, of other verses in the Torah and of the best legal knowledge they had at that time.

So now we can also see why in Judaism the beginning of Genesis is not in conflict with the big bang theory or natural selection. On the one hand, for its time, the Bible provided an origin story that was a story that worked then, but now, science provides a much better explanation for how we got here.

But the Bible isn't meant to be taken only literally -- it's designed to be a source of study and exploration for the questions of our time. The point of the Creation story is really to challenge us with questions like, "How should we treat people if everyone is created in the image of God? What are our responsibilities to this world if God has called it 'good'?"

In Judaism, there's no concept of "God says it, I believe it, that settles it." Instead, Judaism pushes us to embrace the text for what it was back then, and to create new ways of reading the text for what it can be now.

Judaism has made room for both science and faith. The two are not exclusive

[cbayer]

77. Good reading.

I agree that Judaism has done a better job of addressing possible sources of conflict than most any other religion.

Thanks for this.

[Gothmog]

80. You may find this interesting

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/the-jewish-view-of-creati_b_800257.html

To the secularist, the notion that we should flippantly toss aside hundreds of years of scientific investigation unequivocally demonstrating an extremely old universe simply because some ancient tome says it was created less than 6,000 years ago is nothing short of idiocy. What I hope to demonstrate is that Judaism's understanding of this matter (and many others) is significantly more nuanced, complex and surprising than what is currently believed to be the standard religious gloss on the subject. The truth of the matter is that Judaism is frequently (and unfairly) lumped together with other religious systems that actually have vastly different ways of looking at things.

One thousand years ago, the great Jewish philosopher and physician, Moses Maimonides, wrote that there is no contradiction between Torah and science and that if one is perceived, then there was a misapprehension of the science or the Torah. Two centuries later, Rabbi Isaac of Akko, a disciple of the great Moses Ben Nachman (Nachmanides) and one of the foremost Kabbalists of his generation, wrote some surprising commentary regarding the age of the universe. In his work "the Trove of Life," he explains that the Earth was actually 42,000 years old when Adam was created and that these years are "divine" years and should not be thought of as 365 regular days. Rather, a divine year is 1,000 times longer or 365,250 years. He based this on a verse in Psalm 90 that says "1,000 years in your eyes is like a day gone by." Do the math. According to Rabbi Isaac, the universe is 42,000 x 365,250, or 15,340,500,000 years old. This figure is squarely within the ballpark of where modern cosmology places the age of the universe. How did he know this? And how did he posses the temerity to conclude it in the midst of the Dark Ages? Perhaps our fundamentalism is not quite as primitive as is supposed.

There are a large number of very well written pieces from Rabbis and Jewish scholars on this subject. I admit that I am a nerd and enjoy reading these type of works.

BTW, I am not claiming that all Jews have no issues with science and religion. There are many Orthodox Rabbis who believe that the world is 6,000 years old but it is my belief that these rabbis are in the minority. However, I have no trouble being a person of faith and believing in the big bang theory and evolution. To believe otherwise is to limit G-d which is the only true sin.

[cbayer]

82. Interestingly, the only person I know well and personally who clings to the

6,000 year old tale is Jewish. He also thinks that the big crater in Arizona was put there by the government. What can you do?

At an opportune moment, I am going to pass this along to him. I have had some interesting discussions, but his POV on this is pretty rigid.

While I think Judaism has most eloquently and consistently addressed this, it is true that many others of other faiths also have no trouble with being both religious and embracing science. And that is certainly the case for the vast majority of religious people who post here.

[Gothmog]

84. Have fun

BTW, I really enjoy this thread. Thank you for starting it.

[cbayer]

85. I am a big fan of NDT.

He was the first person who explained the Higgs Boson (God particle) in a way I could understand.

He also has some very interesting and nuanced views on religion, which I have enjoyed.

It's been great talking with you. I hope we have the opportunity again.

[edhopper]

100. "There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom.

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense. I defy any genuine scientist to say that he believes in the Resurrection, or indeed in any other cardinal dogma of the Christian system."

H L Menken

[catbyte]

101. I love this guy!

He's the first scientist since Carl Sagan died that makes astrophysics exciting & sexy again, LOL.

[cbayer]

102. And he will have a new series this year.

Very good news indeed.

[DetlefK]

103. As Richard Feynman put it: "Shut up and calculate."

As in: "Stop talking and prove that your claims make sense."

Feynman also railed against people who regard science with dogma-like belief instead of something that could be proven false but hasn't been. (There's also a famous quote about that, but I totally forgot it.)

[cbayer]

104. Your post got me to look up some of his quotes.

What an interesting character.

I particularly like this one:

The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

[edhopper]

105. Make no mistake

he was an avowed atheist, not an agnostic. He saw no place for any God or something mystical in the Universe. His doubt was more about his approach to science than any questions about God.

[cbayer]

106. I see that, but he also said (in the interview to which I think you refer)

I don't know that there is a God; I just don't think there is one.

At any rate, I don't think it matters. His position on "certainty" is very interesting.