NAS-Atheism Connection: A Closer Look
by MikeGeneSam Harris notes that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in a personal God and then claims that "this suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is." I have already shown that Harris is circumventing rules of critical thinking and raises an argument that is essentially the same as saying "there are few modes of thinking less congenial to women than science."
There are, of course, other problems with Harris' claim. It's not quite clear what he means by "mode of thinking" and "congenial." Also, he conflates "belief in a personal God" with religious faith, as there are several forms of religious faith that do not involve such a belief. However, we get a better feel for Harris' point when the previous context is considered, where he asserts "there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith."
What intrigues me most about this claim is that Harris abandons "scientific thinking" in order to cite it as a means to promote his social agenda. For example, a scholarly approach to the NAS statistic would entail curiosity and a desire to study this piece of sociological data. Instead, Harris has simply adopted the statistic and turned it into a talking point for his cause (it is also worth mentioning that both Dennett and Dawkins do the same).
So we are left with a question. Why is that that only 7% of NAS members have a belief in a personal God? It is my contention that sociological phenomena are usually explained by multiple causes. For example, why does MikeGene blog so much at Telic Thoughts? In reality, there is no one reason; there are many reasons all converging to explain his behavior. I suggest that the same principle holds true for the NAS statistic.
So what causes might be in play?
It is not surprising that Harris arrived at his conclusion. He has an agenda and a single-variable focus that just happens to fit the agenda. But if we truly wanted to answer this question in a fashion that moves beyond the realm of speculation and armchair philosophy, we would need to acquire much more data to provide a richer context. So here are some of the data I would like to see.
A1. Do the NAS members hold any other beliefs/positions that are out of sync with the scientific community and general public? For example, what are their political affiliations? What type of political philosophy do they hold? What are their positions on controversial ethical problems? What are their views about global issues and parenting issues?
A2. While the first point gives us more context for viewing the NAS members, we also need more context about our larger sociological setting. For example, it would help if we took the same God belief question and surveyed a) physicians; b) nurses; c) teachers; d) theater/music professors; e) Hollywood actors/actresses; f) dictators (etc., just citing things off the top of my head).
A3. In addition to gathering more context, a closer look at the NAS members would be helpful:
a. What is the psychological profile of a typical NAS member compared to non-NAS scientists and the general public?
b. What is the socio-economic background of the typical NAS member compared to non-NAS scientists and the general public? Also, how many NAS members are married? How many times have they been married? How many children do they have?
c. How much time and energy does a typical NAS scientist devote to his/her research compared to typical non-NAS scientists?
d. Perhaps most importantly, when did the NAS members arrive at their godless state? Were they atheists before becoming a scientist? Before becoming a NAS member? After becoming a NAS member? Can the NAS members explain WHY they don't have God belief and if so, what is their reasoning? How many view religion as Richard Dawkins' views religion?
A4. Finally, a closer analysis of the way NAS members are chosen, along with the type of social interactions they enjoy, is needed.
HYPOTHESES
If we could generate these data, we would be in a much better position to evaluate different hypotheses and assign the proper weighting to each. Here are some possible hypotheses.
B1. We can start with Harris' hypothesis "“ scientific thinking erodes and eliminates belief in a personal God. There could be some truth in this, as a mindset that demands reproducible, empirical data to justify a belief (and has been vastly rewarded in doing so) is likely to become impatient with God belief and disrespectful to faith. This is where data from A1 and A3d would come in handy. If a demand for empirical evidence is crucial, is this demand applied evenly across the board? Ironically, if Harris is correct on this point, then elite scientists embrace the god-of-the-gaps approach, where God belief is rejected because scientists have failed to establish a genuine gap in our ability to understand and explain. This in turn would indicate that their theological understanding and logic lags far behind their scientific expertise.
A major sticking point in Harris' hypothesis is the great disconcordance between scientists and NAS members on this single metric. Apart from the NAS membership, is there any independent evidence to think NAS members better understand scientific thinking than non-NAS members? Does it really take an elite scientific mind to understand the basics of the scientific method? What element of scientific thinking does the NAS member have that leads specifically to godlessness? It can't simply be the demand for evidence or testable hypotheses, as these are commonly known and understood by all scientists.
B2. A second possible cause can be gleaned by consider the ways in which Mesk accounts for the fact that women are significantly underrepresented in the NAS. Mesk recognizes that multiple causes may be in play and raises one possibility:
As for the under-representation of women in the NAS: as someone who works with a large number of female scientists (my lab contains 18 females to two males), I can testify to the difficulties for women in moving up into the higher echelons of the scientific community. However, there's more to it than simple discrimination. Scientists operating at the level required for admission into the NAS don't just work hard: they have to live, eat, sleep and breathe science. That's an exceptionally hard road for a female scientist who is often also shouldering the bulk of the burden of caring for a family. Women can make superb scientists, but for social and biological reasons it's very hard for a mother of three to match the scientific output of a father of three.
Here
He also adds:
Getting a world-class track record is intensely time-consuming: grants take months of sleepless nights to put together (and still have only a ~10% chance of actual funding success!), papers take weeks, and academic positions involve a fearsome level of paperwork. In the meantime, you have a lab to manage, collaborations to negotiate, and endless ethics applications to fill out. The true stars of science (and I know a few personally) seem to survive on coffee and cortisol: sleep, sex and social contact are minimal.
Here
The same type of dynamic may also be in play when it comes to the God-believing scientists. It is reasonable to assume that many God-believers commit a very significant portion of their time and life to their religious community. Since the religious community highly values family and children, there is also the distinct possibility that the God-believers are more likely to have families and more likely to spend more time and energy with their children. In other words, it's not the "mode of thinking" as much as it is the priorities one has in life. A scientist who makes more time for family, children, and other members of his/her church will not typically have the time and energy to become a "true star of science." Data from A2, A3a-c would help resolve these issues.
B3. This hypothesis is related to B2, as it suggests that God-believers not only have a different time/energy priority, but may also have a different sense of priorities related to their relationships with colleagues and students. For the God-believer, there is something more important than fame and prestige in the eyes of fellow scientists and thus there may be reluctance to engage in the "dog-eat-dog" world that can come from intense scientific competition. As such, God-believers may be more likely to be satisfied to play "support" rather than "lead" roles in cutting-edge scientific pursuit. They may also be less likely to "one up" a perceived competitor. I would expect B3 to be coupled to B2.
B4. There is also the psychological angle. Consider one possible example. If, as Mesk suggests, that the true stars of science have little room in their lives for sex and social contact, this implies something about the personalities of such people. If one lives such an isolated life, and yet is treated as a superstar by colleagues, it is not unreasonable to suppose that a certain degree of arrogance and self-centeredness may arise or be enhanced. Such personality traits are not considered a good thing in a faith-based community and thus godlessness can function as a proxy for such issues. Data from A2 and A3a become essential here.
B5. Finally, there is the discrimination angle. I would not expect this to be a major factor, but it could have some effect. There is some anecdotal evidence that the scientific community, as a social group, is not very friendly to religious people. And the NAS is, in the end, just another group that decides who gets to the join their group. Remember, that an NAS nominee is likely to have interacted with NAS members during the informal activities associated with science meetings over the previous years, meaning that some NAS members may possess personal knowledge about some candidates. It is possible, for example, that several members of the NAS are Dawkins-like in their hostility to religion and, as Joy points out, only one member needs to object in order for a name to be withdrawn and considered separately behind the closed doors. Such private discussions could raise the specter of a religious member using his/her NAS membership as a platform for apologetics. Or, a Dawkins-type could sidestep the whole issue of religion and instead successfully find some nitpicks and use them to turn molehills into mountains. Data from A4 would be useful here.
Conclusion: We need much more data in order to better understand why NAS members are three times less likely to believe in a personal God than other scientists. Thus far, all we have are guesses supported by very limited data. I have offered five possible hypotheses and I am sure I could come up with more (or better) hypotheses if I studied and looked more deeply into this. What I can say with much greater certainty is that without more data and research, Sam Harris' single-cause hypothesis is much too simplistic and not justified. After all, Harris/Dawkins/Dennett cite this purely in a propagandistic fashion.
There is one final piece of data that would be helpful. Randomly select 100 NAS members and solicit a 1000-word essay explaining why they do not believe in a personal God. I suspect we would get a very small number of returns, but it would be useful to see these elite scientists put their thinking down on paper.
January 13th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
For those who haven't done so already, I recommend reading the original post and comment thread on this topic.
Comment by keiths — January 13, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
January 13th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
You mean this?
Comment by MikeGene — January 13, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
January 14th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Nice post Mike. Excellent points, although I don't expect it will make a dent in the claims made from the data by supposed "critial thinkers" and "rationalists".
Comment by thesciphishow — January 14, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
January 15th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Mike wrote:
Mike,
I addressed this in the last thread, but you're still making the claim, so let me try again.
You seem to believe that Harris's argument reduces to this:
1. Only 7% of NAS members believe in a personal God.
2. Therefore there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.
You then point out that the same logic would get you from:
1. Only about 10% of NAS members are women.
To:
2. Therefore there are few modes of thinking less congenial to women than science is.
You would be correct if Harris were basing his assertion entirely on that single statistic regarding the beliefs of NAS members. But Harris didn't just parachute in from Mars — he's spent some 39 years on Earth and knows a thing or two about science, religion, men, and women. All of that information is available to him, not just the number 93.
For example, he is doubtless aware of the many studies showing that any cognitive differences between men and women are too small to account for a 90/10 split in NAS membership. He would have to ignore those studies, as well as all of the evidence for gender discrimination, present and past, in order to reach the conclusion that scientific thinking is "uncongenial" to women.
By contrast, the idea that scientific and religious thinking don't mesh is well-supported even without reference to the NAS statistic. In fact, a side-by-side comparison of scientific thinking with typical religious thinking is so striking that it would be shocking if there weren't an inverse correlation between faith in a personal God and scientific skill. These seem to be the salient differences:
Characteristics of scientific thinking:
1. Knowledge gained through observation and experimentation.
2. Anti-dogmatic.
3. No sacred text(s).
4. Knowledge is provisional, and can always be questioned.
5. Every so-called authority can (and should) be questioned.
6. Faith is a vice.
7. Takes human credulity and cognitive illusions into account and attempts to minimize them.
8. Lauds successful challengers of the "orthodoxy" as heroes.
9. Avoids dealing with empirically undetectable entities.
Compared with typical religious thinking:
1. Key knowledge gained through revelation.
2. Dogmatic.
3. Sacred text(s) considered to be ultra-reliable.
4. Core dogma is fixed and questioning is sinful.
5. Authority figures are not to be questioned in most circumstances.
6. Faith is a virtue.
7. Celebrates human credulity.
8. Brands challengers as heretics.
9. Revels in empirically undetectable entities.
Now, I'm not claiming that every scientist perfectly exemplifies the first nine characteristics, nor every believer the last nine. I am saying that you'll see these nine areas of difference coming up again and again if you look at the conflicts between religion and science.
And I maintain that we would expect someone who becomes skilled in scientific thinking and aware of its great power to ask the obvious question (as I did and many of my atheist/agnostic friends did), "Why not apply this amazingly successful style of thinking to religious questions? Why apply a different style of thinking, especially when we know that that style of thinking leads to egregious errors when applied outside the religious sphere?"
With differences like these, are the NAS statistics really so surprising?
Comment by keiths — January 15, 2007 @ 2:46 am
January 15th, 2007 at 5:15 am
keith,
Your very own Nine Comparisons. Etched in electric stone. Priceless.
Comment by Douglas — January 15, 2007 @ 5:15 am
January 15th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Compared with typical religious thinking:
1. Key knowledge gained through revelation.
Foundational knowledge built on faith in abiogenesis.
2. Dogmatic.
If you do not accept mainstream evolutionary concepts en todo you are anti-science.
3. Sacred text(s) considered to be ultra-reliable.
Naturalism is akin to sacredness.
4. Core dogma is fixed and questioning is sinful.
Touting ID can be an obstacle to acquiring tenure. IOW, Don't question orthodoxy.
5. Authority figures are not to be questioned in most circumstances.
As in authority figures who determine the content of textbooks?
6. Faith is a virtue.
Particularly when applied to natural origins of life.
7. Celebrates human credulity.
As in the belief that nucleic acid sequence specificity was brought about by the blind watchmaker.
8. Brands challengers as heretics.
Brands opponents child abusers.
9. Revels in empirically undetectable entities.
Revels in an undetectable first cause for the universe.
Comment by Bradford — January 15, 2007 @ 10:16 am
January 15th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Hi Keiths,
Yes, I know. I addressed this in the last thread:
I am not arguing that Harris is obligated to state that scientific thinking is uncongenial to women. I'm pointing out that Harris' simplistic logical argument is the very type of argument that could be (and was) used by sexists. I've been pointing out again and again that Harris has no studies to support his contention. Zero, zilch, nada. A "pro-science" person should be willing to accept that criticism and thus acknowledge the weakness of his hypothesis. As I also noted:
Back to your reply:
I notice that you support Harris position with no data, no research, and no published studies. Instead, it is "well-supported" with armchair philosophy, where you draw upon idealism and stereotypes to make the differences as striking as possible.
You yourself note, "Now, I'm not claiming that every scientist perfectly exemplifies the first nine characteristics, nor every believer the last nine." Fine. Then what you need to do is study the scientific community (religious and non-religious) with regard to these 18 criteria to see how often they are exemplified. Are we to believe, for example, that someone like Ken Miller or Francis Collins is less likely to understand the characteristics of scientific thinking than someone like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins?
Your basic problem here is that you do not really explain the difference between the overall scientific community and the NAS members. I raised this point above:
Take your eight characteristics of scientific thinking. It would seem that these characteristics are not specific to the NAS, but are instead widely recognized and employed by the larger scientific community. So why are the NAS scientists 3-4 times more likely to disbelieve in a personal God? Because they have a super-duper realization that experiments are important and shouldn't be citing sacred texts in the reference sections of their papers?
But you are also overlooking the even more serious problem with Harris' hypothesis that should now be clear. I already acknowledged that it could be one of the causes that is at play (ie., scientists expect gaps or to see God with a microscope or telescope) and would thus need to be weighted. But now Harris needs to show it is the ONLY cause that is at work. I think that my five-cause explanation is superior to Harris' single-cause explanation.
Comment by MikeGene — January 15, 2007 @ 11:42 am
January 15th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
I find a few ironies in Keiths post.
1. Science grew up in Christendom and all of the early scientists were christians. Especially in physics. If you doubt this, consider, a large number of the units of measure in physics are named after christians.
2. His list of "religious thinking" characterisitics apply very well to people like Dawkins and Meyers given how they have reacted to "evolutionary heretics".
Comment by thesciphishow — January 15, 2007 @ 5:39 pm