Comments on: Ecklund vs Larson & Witham on Religion Among Elite Scientists

By: Jon Jermey

Jon Jermey — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:47:30 +0000

Since nobody can force you to take a survey against your will, I assume that the respondents were self-selected. So ask yourself; who’s more likely to respond to a survey about beliefs: a boring old atheist who believes the same as everyone else, or a crackpot with some whacko shiny new conspiracy theory of everything which he (rarely she) thinks is going to save the planet?

I’d need to see details of how the survey was conducted before I put any credence in the results.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:53:27 +0000

If you look at the previous study it asked the scientists if they believed in a “personal” god – this is a theological term meaning a god with a personality, a god who is a distinct being with wishes and interests, who intervenes in the world – like the Bible one. Some scientists have a vague belief in a higher power of some kind but do not believe in a personal god, or their use of the term may be even lack anything strictly supernatural at all. In Einstein’s case he used the term God, but said he just meant by it his sense of wonder at the majesty of the universe and the laws of physics. I would guess the new study just said “do you believe in God”.

By: Jack Lewis

Jack Lewis — Thu, 13 May 2010 15:44:58 +0000

>> While it might be interesting to have some numbers about scientists and religion, why is it any more important than plumbers and religion or nurse practitioners and religion?<> Scientists don’t study religion as part of their work,
You would have to define what “studying religion” means. I’m sure that some scientists have read the bible and laughed at the notion that this book was inspired by an all knowing all powerful creator that doesn’t even know the world is not flat.

>> what they have to say about it is no more important than what other non-specialists do.
You do have a point; hardly nothing important can be said about a work of fiction written by goat herders thousands of years ago. Still it is quite fascinating to see people looking for wisdom in *that* direction.

By: Petra

Petra — Wed, 05 May 2010 21:08:55 +0000

How most believers read the Bible:

- interpret selections literally which fit your preconceived views of the world; interpret selections metaphorically when they don’t

How fundies read the Bible:

suddenly become woefully ignorant of metaphor, allegory, and other literary devices, and declare that a literal reading is the only “true” meaning. Focus only on the happy parts, and pay the rest little lip service.

How an atheist reads the Bible:

- suddenly become woefully ignorant of metaphor, allegory, and other literary devices, and declare that a literal reading is the only “true” meaning. Focus only on the nasty parts, and pay the rest little lip service.

A commonality between all three? They believe their way is the only “right way,” and everyone else just doesn’t get it.

By: Philip Jr.

Philip Jr. — Wed, 05 May 2010 21:03:47 +0000

@ GM #17:

And where exactly does it say that both should be read literally? The Bible is the only work of fiction I know of that people (both religious and not) will readily admit is fiction yet read in a 2nd grade manner, as if literary devices don’t exist.

By: Anthony McCarthy

Anthony McCarthy — Tue, 04 May 2010 22:16:41 +0000

There are LOTS of other definitions of “God” besides the two you cited. The concept of “God” varies immensely across time and culture.

Anyone who believes in an all knowing, all powerful, eternal God would know that any concept we would have about it is hardly even a beginning. The attempt to define a God like that would be idolatrous because anything you come up with would be inadequate and a false image. It would be like trying to draw the universe on a note pad.

By: Anthony McCarthy

Anthony McCarthy — Tue, 04 May 2010 22:12:42 +0000

While it might be interesting to have some numbers about scientists and religion, why is it any more important than plumbers and religion or nurse practitioners and religion?

Scientists don’t study religion as part of their work, what they have to say about it is no more important than what other non-specialists do.

The NSA isn’t a representative sample of scientists since they self-select.

By: GM

GM — Tue, 04 May 2010 17:18:31 +0000

GM – Old or New Testament? There is actually a realy difference there . . .

And where exactly does it say that the Old Testament should be read “metaphorically” while the New Testament should be taken more seriously?

By: Jinchi

Jinchi — Tue, 04 May 2010 12:42:48 +0000

I don’t interpret it, I read what it says

You write like a fundamentalist Christian.

By: Philip H

Philip H — Tue, 04 May 2010 12:01:20 +0000

GM – Old or New Testament? There is actually a realy difference there . . .