Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline

By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 11 August 2005
02:24 pm ET

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.

"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.

Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

"Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said today. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."

For furthure information go to http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050811_scientists_god.html

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God

Does this mean that one third of scientists are looking for ET? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God

Does this mean that one third of scientists are looking for ET? ;)

Sounds like a plan to me :o)

Onward and up ward!!

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

I hope for the day when scientists discover that their own consciousness is what has been known as 'spirituality' all throughout history and that there is nothing supernatural about it.

It can be an example of the greatest source of of beauty, love, creativity, achievement. It is the root of all things we have ever done that makes us heroic or admirable. It has gone behind the back of this notion of 'god' or 'spirits' and exposes man's soul for what it is. It shows us...the attentive ones among us, what is potentially the best in all of us. It corrects the notion amongst us that humanity is somehow morally hindered. In its quietness that's where it's found.


Men are gods, or gods are men. take your pick.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

It can be an example of the greatest source of of beauty, love, creativity, achievement.

Actually, it would mean that life has absolutely no meaning outside of living and dying... So for some, nothing would change... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

It can be an example of the greatest source of of beauty, love, creativity, achievement.

Actually, it would mean that life has absolutely no meaning outside of living and dying... So for some, nothing would change... ;)

Speak for yourself, jeffrey. You now claim your life would have no meaning in disregard to the facts or a rational perspective. Speak for yourself. Please do not speak for those others that choose to belive in no god...or a different god ...from your Islamic one.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

"Science is an effort to understand the creation.
Biblical religion involves our relation to the Creator.
Since we can learn about the Creator from his creation, religion can learn from science."
(Paul H. Carr)

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

Speak for yourself, jeffrey.

Please tell me o wise one, how would disproving God bring about all the wonderful things you speak of...

... Other than personal gratification from destroying the hopes of countless millions... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

"Science makes major contributions to minor needs.
Religion, however small its successes, is at least at work on the things that matter most."
(Justice Oliver W. Holmes)

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Arthur C. Clarke, Clarke's first law
English physicist & science fiction author (1917

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

Einstien was religious, so I am not suprised he made a stupid and short-sighted statement. Clearly, not everything that comes out of the mouth of a genius is a brilliant statement.

Ninjadwarf, here you can gain some insight to Chuck's view of Einstein. Note, my posting this does not imply disagreement with the second statement.

Most important here: Chuck's claim appears to be that when one adheres to some religious faith system or something similar and is a scientist, that person begins to lose some credibility. In fact, that is the essence of a statement by Dawkins in a recent Time-moderated debate between Dawkins and a famous geneticist whose name eludes me right now. (*) In fact, Chuck seems to go further. Not only is some credibility lost, Chuck seems to suggest that makes the person not a scientist at all. (???)

* Wanna see something new added here? How about the bit about the Time article? A debate between scientists!!!. How about the fact that within approximately the last two years, one could find a similar article in Discover magazine? A science magazine for the general public. So, we have some scientists weighing in on religion, using science to back up a lot of their claims and when the one who is religious cannot back up a claim and resorts to talking about God or gods (whether this is right or not - no judgement by me in this post) ... the other says that lowers the scientist's credibility. So ... it is a scientific discussion! Otherwise, neither Dawkins nor the other would have engaged in Time magazine moderated debate!.

Hmmm ... .

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Scientists or those well-versed in its literature, who are more likely to enter the science forum than the Cafe, are better qualified to clarify things for Chuck that the typical Cafe reader/poster.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

It's easy enough to find, or dig up, a thread such as this one, whether in the Cafe or the Science forum. If you were thinking of hiding the entire thread, why didn't you do so around 6 months ago?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

From Chuck: "Thanx Sarge, you hit the nail on the head completely and squarely" (http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=35148&nowrap=true#477372).
At least Chuck doesn't need a translator.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

As I am an educator, among other things, I stand by my statement that Chuck has a right to ask his questions related to science or relate what he knows about it. He may not get quite the answers he hopes for. So be it.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

I think a moderator was offended by Chuck's rants against religion.
How odd, then, that this thread was not completely removed way back then.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

You're fluttering around like a bird with a broken wing. Quit crying.

Yes, you are, and it is not very becoming.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

You are what is known as a mental midget.

Really? Why, thank you! At least I can tell where this thread belongs, unless it is to be completely deleted.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

*Looking upwards*

Hey Sarge! Welcome back!

Say after me...

"My name is Sarge, I am a SetiHolic!"

I guess you have a bad case of abstinance which is causing this:-)

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

Well, since I'm a centist - I mean a scientist - I'll take the 100th post.