Science Does Not Lead to Atheism
by MikeGeneAtheists such as Richard Dawkins like to argue that science leads to a rejection of religious belief. But as with many of his arguments against religion, his only support is a crude analysis supported by anecdotes. A new study suggests that Dawkins' argument is bogus:
"Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform," Ecklund says.
and
Ecklund says, "It appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists."
and
Results from the study also show that the more children in a scientist's household, the more likely he or she is to adhere to a religion.
Readers of Telic Thoughts might have anticipated such a finding, as it is reminiscent of the way I responded to Sam Harris's simplistic argument.
Finally, maybe there is a reason why Dawkins and PZ Myers are always so angry:
RAAS data reveal that younger scientists are more likely to believe in God than older scientists, and more likely to report attending religious services over the past year. "If this holds throughout the career life-course for this cohort of academic scientists," Ecklund says, "it could indicate an overall shift in attitudes toward religion among those in the academy."
July 20th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Somebody, one of us, ought to compile a list of his "arguments" of this nature and publish them. They are indeed many.
Comment by TomG — July 20, 2007 @ 12:09 am
July 20th, 2007 at 12:44 am
This result is hardly surprising. I know I interviewed someone for The Sci Phi Show who noted that the arguments about "advanced scientists all being atheists" was a dubious claim because of self-selection among such groups and that the requirements for becoming an "eminent scientist often means giving up things like family and friends. This might account for some of the anger as well
Maybe it is jealously and loneliness. Do Dawkins and PZ just need a hug ?
Comment by thesciphishow — July 20, 2007 @ 12:44 am
July 20th, 2007 at 6:28 am
LOL
Thx thesciphishow for the great morning mood
Comment by dimasok — July 20, 2007 @ 6:28 am
July 20th, 2007 at 9:09 am
MikeGene, "Science Does Not Lead to Atheism", and
"Atheists such as Richard Dawkins like to argue that science leads to a rejection of religious belief."
Hmm. I don't like how this is framed. Theism and religion are not the same thing. Therefore "atheism" and "religious belief" are not on equal footing.
One can posit a creator, designer, or "god", without assenting to any of the varieties of religions that exist. And why a given individual accepts a particular religion will generally be a different set of reasons than why that individual accepts the notion of a creator in the first place.
Dawkins is somewhat correct, when it comes to specific religions. Educated Christians tend to shy away from six 24-hour creation days. Educated Moslems tend to shy away from the idea that the sun rises out of mud every day. Educated Hindus tend to shy away from the idea that the Earth sits atop an infinite stack of turtles, etc. But science rarely strips a man of his view that God exists in the first place. Even when science tells us that we have a "God spot" in our heads. (Who put the God spot there? And wouldn't it be necessary if God existed and wanted us to think in that direction, etc.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 20, 2007 @ 9:09 am
July 20th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
sciphishow —
You almost got a damage bill for $1,000. I was drinking a hot chocolate when I read your post and had to use every ounce of control to not spit it out on my computer while reading your post. Hilarious! And probably true!
* great big bear hugs for PZ and Dawkins *
Comment by johnnyb — July 20, 2007 @ 5:57 pm