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".

I addressed this in the last thread, but you're still making the claim, so let me try again"¦"¦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.

Yes, I know. I addressed this in the last thread:

Sure. We obtained all this information after decades of research. Harris' logic leaves us at the equivalent of the pre-research state of the sexist hypothesis.

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:

The evidence argues against the sexist hypothesis. There is no real evidence, one way or the other, regarding Harris' hypothesis. All you have a few observations and a vague, ill-stated hypothesis.

Back to your reply:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

Your very own Nine Comparisons. Etched in electric stone. Priceless.

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."

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?

For those who haven't done so already, I recommend reading the original post and comment thread on this topic.

You mean this?

I suspect the real reason for your reluctance to put alternative hypotheses forward is not that it would amount to "fecogenesis", but rather that you are afraid that their relative weakness would make Harris's position appear that much stronger.