The NAS-Atheism Argument
by MikeGeneIn his column, the spiritual atheist Sam Harris sets out to debunk a "myth" that has been propagated by the NCSE: "Atheism has no connection to science."
Harris argues:
Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God "” as some scientists seem to manage it "” there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.
One can only guess how many NAS members share Harris' faith in reincarnation and xenoglossy, but we won't go there. Instead, let's just point out that not only does Harris ignore the critical thinking skill of considering multiple causes, he also makes the classic mistake of confusing a correlation with a cause. That is, he takes a sociological fact (a correlation) and attempts to explain it in a simple, one-dimensional manner "“ "there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is."
But why has Harris chosen this variable alone? After all, one-dimensional explanations can be used to account for other facts about the NAS. For example, what is the % breakdown of males and females who are members of the NAS? I couldn't find a list of the NAS members (and I admit not looking very hard), so I decided to search the member directory of the NAS with the five most common male and females names . It turned out that 353 members have the five most common male names. Yet only 33 members have the five most common female names. It is thus probably safe to guess that something like 90+% of NAS members are male.
So let's now apply Harris' logic. Would we thus suggest that "there are few modes of thinking less congenial to women than science is?"
Update: A closer look.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Snort!
Comment by MatthewCromer — January 9, 2007 @ 12:07 am
January 9th, 2007 at 12:10 am
It seems we have two options. 1) There is something about women that is not conducive to becoming a member of the NAS. 2) There is something about the NAS that is not conducive to the inclusion of women.
Comment by macht — January 9, 2007 @ 12:10 am
January 9th, 2007 at 1:36 am
I wonder if these people need lesson's in philosophy, logic, philosophy of religion (including naturalism) and the philosophy of science.
In fact I think that's half the problem. Lots of these people seem to have (in my view) no idea about the wealth of thought that has gone into looking at our fundamental beliefs. To my mind it's far from clear that science is in conflict with the view that says the order that allows you to conduct your scientific investigation in the first place was setup to be that way and did not 'merely happen' as the outworking of chance and law.
From a strict, scientific point of view — how the hell would Sam Harris answer that question?
Comment by Plump-DJ — January 9, 2007 @ 1:36 am
January 9th, 2007 at 3:11 am
macht wrote:
macht,
There are other possibilities. Here are two of them:
1. The low percentage of women scientists in the NAS might be merely a reflection of the low percentage of women scientists generally in the corresponding age groups, and not an indication that it's harder for women to be elected to the NAS.
2. Women were less likely to be elected in the past due to discrimination, but now enjoy parity with men. The lagging percentages are due to the fact that less than 100 new members are elected each year, versus a total membership of around 2000. The disparity in total numbers will remain until the older members, who were elected during years of active discrimination against women, die off.
I'm not arguing for either of these two hypotheses; just pointing out that your two options don't exhaust the possibilities.
Comment by keiths — January 9, 2007 @ 3:11 am
January 9th, 2007 at 4:02 am
A key word here is "personal" with respect to God. I agree with Einstein -
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a persnal God."
I doubt if 93% of the members of the NAS would deny a supernatural origin of the universe. I certainly wouldn't. I feel that a PAST existence of one or more intelligences far beyond our comprehension is mandatory in order to understand either ontogeny or phylogeny. Indeed, that is ALL that is required within the limits established by the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH).
There seems to be no tangible evidence for a living God and if there is none it would be an error to assume such an existence. Louis Pasteur was a very devout Catholic yet his faith in no way influenced his science at least to my knowledge. I know of not a single contribution to our scientific or technlogical knowledge that in any way involved a personal God.
That does not mean of course that such a God does not exist. There is no question that the Christian ethic is probably the greatest code of conduct imaginable. Perhaps we should be satisfied with that. I feel that I am but that does not mean that others should as well. We are each different and like Einstein I am a convinced determinist.
"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — January 9, 2007 @ 4:02 am
January 9th, 2007 at 4:12 am
keiths, that was my point. Harris is basically saying that there is something about science and something about religion that don't fit well together. Obviously there are more than 2 options, which is something Harris doesn't consider. As Mike said, he just takes these 2 percentages and somehow turns them into the idea that the two "modes of thinking" (whatever that means) are opposed to each other without giving any reasons why. How you get from "93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not" believe in God to "there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is" is beyond me. That is basically Harris' opinion wrapped up in some numbers to make it sound good.
Why do the "defenders of science" not complain about this kind of crap?
Comment by macht — January 9, 2007 @ 4:12 am
January 9th, 2007 at 8:01 am
No one would accept Harris' simple-minded argument when it comes to women and the NAS. In fact, if someone made that argument, we would conclude the argument was sexist and bigoted. Well"¦"¦
There is yet another flaw in Harris' logic. Notice how he turns a statement about belief "in a personal God" (the observation) into a statement about "religious faith" (the conclusion).
Look, the true scientific approach here is not to cite a statistic and use it to prop up an agenda. It's to cite the statistic and then begin thinking of ways to develop tests to explain why the statistic exists.
Comment by MikeGene — January 9, 2007 @ 8:01 am
January 9th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Mike wrote:
No, because that is clearly an improbable hypothesis, given our knowledge of past discrimination against women and the lack of significant differences between men and women in cognitive ability.
The conclusion Harris reaches seems much more probable. Look at the facts:
1. 90% of the general public believes in a personal God.
2. 40% of scientists believe in a personal God.
3. 7% of NAS members believe in a personal God.
4. Even in 1914, only 27.7% of elite scientists believed in a personal God.
5. Religion, as practiced in America, generally includes
a. sacred texts which are considered authoritative
b. fixed dogma
c. encouragement to accept certain beliefs on faith
d. authority figures who are generally not challenged
6. Science is inimical to all of the above.
Given all of that, Harris's suggestion seems quite probable to me.
What alternative interpretation of the data would you propose, that is actually more probable than Harris's?
Comment by keiths — January 9, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
January 9th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
keiths:
??? So, evidence of significant anti-female bias in NAS membership is *not* evidence of NAS anti-female bias, because there's no scientific reason to be biased against female scientists? That makes about as much sense as "Separate but Equal" apartheid.
And while 40% of scientists believe in a personal God, only 7% of NAS members do? How do you explain that, keith? It looks to me like the NAS is chief among the last exclusive Gentleman's Club holdouts in 21st century American politics, and perhaps the ONLY place in American policy-making where being an atheist is the requisite path to power (occasional tokens excepted).
What are the figures for minority membership? Please don't come back with something that looks a lot like a Country Club claiming it's 'non-discriminatory' because it allows Tiger Woods to play golf on its course once a year.
Comment by Joy — January 9, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
January 9th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
The NAS elects members to its body IIRC. That would have a very strong selection effect against any group that existing members considered some how intellecutally deficent. Harris' general purpose idiocy is not something he alone shares, it is shared by other "prominent scientists" as well.
So it shouldn't be surprising that a self-selected group only elects members to its clique that already generally agree with it.
Don't expect critical thinking from Harris or those that think like him. They ignore the simple empirical reality that large numbers of the fundamental constants in physics are named after people who were theists and in many instances devoted christians.
Comment by thesciphishow — January 9, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
January 9th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
'The spiritual atheist'?
Please excuse the attempt to try to get some of you thinking 'outside of America' but the 'trends' Harris cites do not hold across the board. There are countries where 'belief in God' actually increases with education and scientific training. Instead, in a highly rationalized religious nation like the USA, where the Englightenment uplifting of Science and Reason permeated/s the collective consciousness, Harris' rationalized dialectic ruffles feathers, allowing him to mystify people with his new age ideas.
Another significant sociological finding is that natural scientists tend to have 'belief in God' at a higher percentage than social scientists. Go figure - the heathens are actually more populous in the social sciences and humanities than in natural sciences!
Such findings throw Harris back into the philosophical sand-box that he came from at UCLA. Jumping on R.D.'s coat-tails may sell him some books (c.f. M.G. jumping on Behe's tails), but it doesn't make his arguments any more effective.
Arago
Comment by g arago — January 9, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
January 9th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
thesciphishow:
Deal is, it would appear - and that appearance is very strong - that the particular realm of "agreement" for membership in the NAS hasn't much to do with science. keiths alluded to this (though I'm not sure why) when he mentioned that there are no significant differences between men and women in cognitive ability, so evident discrimination against female scientists in NAS membership is "clearly improbable." Go figure.
According to the NAS Nomination and Election page,
A pdf document explains the nomination and election process in more detail, obliquely admitting a notable shortfall in membership representation thusly:
There is also, amid all the formalities (looks like members spend most of their time deciding who gets to join the club), a "blackball" option -
Blackballing is, they say, rare. But how rare can it really be if the group itself is so homogenous overall? Do members generally "know better" than to nominate women or minority candidates, just as they "know better" than to nominate 'younger' scientists? NAS doesn't tell us, and probably never will. But the very fact that a single objection from among ~2,000+ members automatically removes a candidate from the final list (pending "discussion and separate vote") is telling. And of course nominees can also get weeded out long before they're one of the finalists for the April meeting.
The NAS brags about it's very important political function of advising resident administrations on political policy from a scientific standpoint. And while it's clear that not all resident political administrations pay attention to what the NAS advises, I find it kind of creepy that in 2007 the United States has an entire "important" arm of government policymaking that is exclusively elitist down to its bones.
That's just me, of course. Perhaps the members of NAS know that women and 'younger' (than whom?) scientists really aren't as smart as old guys, they just don't want to appear politically incorrect so they don't say that explicitly. The membership list is, predictably, "Members Only." You can know of individual members, read PNAS, access policy reports, view awards and some interviews, biographies, etc., but you can't see a simple list of members or nominees. You can, however, see a list of new members. For 2006, the list is here. 11 of 72 inductees last year (judging by name, and we do know a guy named "Andrea" around here) were women. 15%. There are quite a few 'ethnic' names on the list as well, so it does seem as if NAS is trying.
It's an elite subgroup of the proverbial "Intellectual Elite." Maybe it has to be that way, or maybe members are just shy. I can easily get a full list of Congresspersons and Senators as well as their staffs at home and in DC. I can easily find out who's doing what in the White House or any other administrative policy group or agency of government. Why, I could go on over to the K-Street Project or a dot-gov and get a list of all the licensed lobbyists trying to bribe lawmakers into sweetheart deals (or merely writing the legislation).
But I can't know who's in the NAS, who's been nominated, how many women, minorities and under-50 scientists are members, etc., etc., etc. Positively archaic IMO.
Comment by Joy — January 9, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
January 9th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Keiths,
I suppose I could engage in some fecogenesis and come up with different hypotheses as to why only 7% of NAS members believe in a personal God. But that would miss the entire point of my blog.
I could not help but notice that you elevated Harris' speculation to the level of "very probable" without doing one single experiment. In reality, we have a snapshot that serves as a sociological datum (NAS member belief). From there, we might ask, "Why do only 7% of NAS members believe in a personal God?" From there, we should cite the advice the Dawkins offers, yet does not follow: The question "cannot be answered by prejudice or preconception or intuitive common sense. The only way to answer them is by research."
In other words, the scientific answer to the question is "I don't know." What we need to do is research the scientific community and the NAS members in much more detail and explore several different hypotheses. Harris, of course, abandons the scientific approach because he simply wants to cite this statistic as part of his propaganda campaign.
Comment by MikeGene — January 9, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
January 9th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
While I don't endorse Harris's views on this topic, I think it's worth considering that it is much more likely that scientific thinking might affect one's thinking on religion, and vice versa, than that any sort of thinking would affect one's gender. To the best of my knowledge, wishing has not yet changed anyone's gender.
Harris's correlation seems more probable, to me.
Comment by edarrell — January 9, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
January 9th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
What gets me is that NAS doesn't seem to have the least bit of problem informing the public that 'only' 7% of members believe in a personal God - and what the heck does that mean? How many Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, UUs, etc. are there? The implication is that 93% of NAS members are atheists. Or, that's how Harris is playing it.
These are people so shy of public exposure as a group (and so elitist in nature), that while you will see NAS on some CVs and all over PNAS, you can't get a simple alphabetical list of members. Why would they be so publicly forthcoming about their metaphysical philosophies?
There's a 33% gap in the demographics on this [40% vs. 7%], more significant than minorities and women in the last class of inductees. So it's fair to wonder.
Comment by Joy — January 9, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
January 10th, 2007 at 12:02 am
In a consistently atheistic system, the laws of nature aren't grounded by anything or anyone. There is no reason they cannot change tomorrow. That's not good for the progress of science.
Granted, atheists can and do steal from theism and assume the laws of nature will stay the same.
Comment by geoffrobinson — January 10, 2007 @ 12:02 am
January 10th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Geoff, you might like this.
Comment by Joy — January 10, 2007 @ 12:18 am
January 10th, 2007 at 12:39 am
geoffrobinson wrote:
Geoff,
There is no reason they can't change tomorrow in a theistic system, either.
Whether atheist or theist, scientists are stuck with assuming the constancy of the laws of nature, while remaining open to evidence that they are not fixed.
Comment by keiths — January 10, 2007 @ 12:39 am
January 10th, 2007 at 1:09 am
In Christianity, we believe and assume the laws of nature are grounded in the promises and goodness of God. This allows and allowed people to investigate and discover these laws.
It is a foundational assumption that the laws of nature will stay the same. The theist can make sense of this and the atheist cannot.
I'm no historian of science, but I don't think it is an accident that science flourished in the West.
Comment by geoffrobinson — January 10, 2007 @ 1:09 am
January 10th, 2007 at 1:46 am
geoffrobinson wrote:
The operative words being believe and assume.
Not quite foundational. Cosmology is investigating the possiblity that the laws of nature do change from place to place in the universe. Closer to home, science has been able to reject the YEC hypothesis that the speed of light has changed dramatically over a few thousand years. It did so by asking what the universe would look like if, in fact, the speed of light had changed so dramatically. The prediction did not match observations.
Why would the non-existence of God necessarily imply the inconstancy of the laws of nature?
Maybe it's true that the idea of God propping up the laws of nature contributed to the flourishing of science in the West. (I don't know; I'm not a historian of science either). But even if it did, that doesn't make it true.
And to return to the topic of this thread, you obviously don't need to be a theist to succeed as a scientist. You do have to assume that nature is at least partially intelligible, but whether the source of that intelligibility is divine is simply not an issue.
Comment by keiths — January 10, 2007 @ 1:46 am
January 10th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Mike wrote:
I responded:
Joy sputtered:
Joy,
When you find yourself confused by something you've read, it pays to go back and reread it to see if you have misinterpreted it (especially if it is so confusing that you feel you have to put a "??" in your response).
If you do so in this case, you'll see that the "improbable hypothesis" I'm referring to is the idea that "there are few modes of thinking less congenial to women than science is."
I was puzzled by your earlier references (on other threads) to Harris's "gibberish" and "rotten prose", because his writing is remarkably clear. Now I think I understand: when you find yourself confused, you assume that it is the fault of the writer rather than your own lack of reading comprehension.
Comment by keiths — January 10, 2007 @ 1:47 am
January 10th, 2007 at 1:53 am
keiths:
Huh. Thanks, buh-bye.
Comment by Joy — January 10, 2007 @ 1:53 am
January 10th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Geoff,
The argument can easily swing the other way: atheists have no reason to expect the fundamental laws of nature to change (after all, if they did, they wouldn't be fundamental), while theists have the added complication of a potentially capricious god or gods who could alter any aspect of the universe on a whim ("promises and goodness of God" sounds good, but you can never know His mind, right?).
Realistically, the constancy of fundamental laws is simply a pragmatic assumption made by both atheists and theists, with neither having a particularly strong basis for making it aside from its practical utility.
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.
And just to be provocative: it's fairly widely accepted that while the average IQ of men and women is virtually identical (although they differ in relative performance on verbal and spatial/mathematical tasks, these more or less balance each other out), the IQ distribution is slightly narrower in females than in males. This has very little effect for most of the IQ range, but it has a massive effect in the tails: so at the extremes of IQ (both high and low) females are significantly under-represented. Assuming that NAS membership has a correlation with very high IQ (and seriously, this is a pretty safe assumption), this difference may at least partially explain the under-representation of women in its ranks.
Comment by Mesk — January 10, 2007 @ 2:04 am
January 10th, 2007 at 2:50 am
Mesk:
Whoa. "Superb scientists" but not NAS material? How do you judge their "output?" Would that be in words-per-minute?
[/shiver]
Comment by Joy — January 10, 2007 @ 2:50 am
January 10th, 2007 at 2:54 am
Mike wrote:
Mike,
My understanding is that you're a working scientist. That makes it a bit surprising to hear you refer to the generation of hypotheses, which is a crucial part of the scientific process, as "fecogenesis."
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.
Let me challenge you again. Harris says that the data suggest that "there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is." What competing hypotheses can you offer that explain the facts better than Harris's?
I'm genuinely interested. I've gone through the exercise myself and can't think of anything nearly as plausible as what Harris asserts.
The closest contender I could come up with was the same one that Joy and thesciphishow argued for: that the NAS systematically excludes religious scientists. But that rings false for a number of reasons:
1. The NAS doesn't collect information about the religious beliefs of nominees.
2. Most of the members voting on a nominee will have never met him or her, and will have no idea of his/her religious leanings.
3. Members are required to cast a minimum number of votes for candidates in all of the classes, not just the class that includes their specialty. This makes it even less likely that more than a few members will have any knowledge of the nominee's religious beliefs.
4. Complaints have been lodged that the NAS is not sufficiently open to women and minorities. If the NAS discriminates against religious people, why haven't we heard similar complaints from religious scientists outside the organization?
5. Again, assuming anti-religious discrimination, why haven't the fair-minded atheists and agnostics inside the NAS blown the whistle? Why haven't the religious people inside the NAS done so? Once a member, always a member. They do not put their membership at risk by speaking out.
Here are the facts again:
1. 90% of the general public believes in a personal God.
2. 40% of scientists believe in a personal God.
3. 7% of NAS members believe in a personal God.
4. Even in 1914, only 27.7% of elite scientists believed in a personal God.
5. Religion, as practiced in America, generally includes
a. sacred texts which are considered authoritative
b. fixed dogma
c. encouragement to accept certain beliefs on faith
d. authority figures who are generally not challenged
6. Science is inimical to all of the above.
(I should also mention that the NAS numbers are very similar to the numbers for the Royal Society. Dawkins mentions an as-yet-unpublished study that canvassed members of the latter.)
I welcome the chance to hear alternative explanations of the facts from Mike or anyone else on this thread.
Comment by keiths — January 10, 2007 @ 2:54 am
January 10th, 2007 at 4:42 am
Joy,
Scientific output is usually assessed by the number of high-quality publications (publication quality is measured using something called an Impact Factor, which determines how influential a particular journal is), the number and value of successful grant applications, the number of prizes awarded, number of invited presentations at international conferences, academic positions, and so on. These factors are combined into a rather nebulous concept called "track record". Track record is one of the factors considered when awarding grants, prizes and academic positions, so there's an element of positive feedback about the whole thing.
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.
It's pretty hard to balance that sort of career with a family life, and essentially impossible if you're the primary care-giver. Since women are statistically more likely to be the ones packing lunches and reading bed-time stories, they're also statistically less likely to be the ones pursuing a high-flying science career. (The same holds true in other high-stress, time-consuming positions such as the top end of the corporate world.) Sad, perhaps unfair, but inevitable.
Comment by Mesk — January 10, 2007 @ 4:42 am
January 10th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Keiths,
Not at all. In fact, if you are going to thump your chest like this, I guess I'm going to have to come up with alternative hypotheses.
But first things first. What I am pointing out is that Harris has abandoned the scientific approach and has instead come up with a simplistic one-dimensional explanation for a sociological observation. It is his logic that would have us suggest that "there are few modes of thinking less congenial to women than science is." And like you, I'm sure sexists could (and did) come up with supporting reasons for such an explanation. But supporting reasons are no substitute for a testable hypothesis and experimental results.
Doesn't it cause you to at least pause when you realize your view of reality is not based on science and instead is akin to the mode of thinking of a sexist? Or do you still think you are adopting a "reality-based" approach to things?
Comment by MikeGene — January 10, 2007 @ 8:49 am
January 10th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Depends on your brand of theism.
What I am saying is this: theism is something you must assume before you can start doing science, believe in your own rationality, use logic, or believe in meaning and purpose. It is a foundational belief. If you remove it, you are left in extremely bad shape.
As this applies to the laws of phyics: if your foundational belief is in a non-capricious God who sustains the laws of physics, you can assume induction and carry on with scientific progress. If you are an atheist, you have to steal from theism.
Comment by geoffrobinson — January 10, 2007 @ 9:18 am
January 10th, 2007 at 11:44 am
The atheist's 'god' is normally nature, which pretty is assumed non-capicious because nature isn't intelligent. They don't really need to borrow from theists imo. They have their own 'god'.
It can probably be shown that theists' have a lower IQ on average than atheists. That doesn't in any way prove that atheism is a smarter choice, since a co-relation isn't equal to a cause. Your hypothesis is that theism causes people to be stupid because religion encourages acceptance of beliefs on faith. Reasonable to a certain extent, but I offer an alternative hypothesis:
1. People are most inclined to find a ultimate meaning and purpose in life (a God) when they are suffering.
2. People who have high IQ tend to be reasonably well off. Or have high IQ due to their coming from well-to-do families who can afford higher education.
3. Thus these high IQ people are not inclined to find a personal God and thus are more likely to remain/become atheists.
I suscribe to this hypothesis after reading Sam Harris' 10 myths - and 10 Truths - About Atheism point 1. The atheists believe that life is meaningless. It is very possible for someone to live without asking the ultimate questions as long as they do not question why they are living. And people who do not question why they are living generally enjoy life. I saw a drama where a girl did not believe in God, and believed that even if one existed, he was evil. She also happened to believe that no one needed her. It wasn't long before she did a rather reasonable thing - she tried to commit suicide. She believed that life was meaningless. She had no hope. To an atheist with a life of suffering, suicide is a reasonable option. If nothing lies beyond the grave, why live longer? (same argument for euthanasia) Someone said that religion is a crutch for the weak. It is to a certain extent, true. Atheists with a life of suffering tend to self-destruct.
Comment by WinglesS — January 10, 2007 @ 11:44 am
January 10th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Mesk:
Oh, I have no doubt that one must be a prodigy of some sort just to get in, and according to the NAS website more than 200 members (10% of the total) have Nobel Prizes. This also helps explain the average age of members - they likely have to have worked 20-30 years to amass the CV that might get them past the blackball.
And women have until quite recently - within the last 20-30 years - been severely underrepresented due to sociological factors and institutional discrimination. My husband's grandmother was the first woman graduate of the University of Arizona. She had some great stories about what that was like… A casual look at the life and times of Rosalind Franklin will tell you just how deep the bias went (in spite of Marie Curie, not because of her).
And the workload of active NAS members is also heavy enough (and apparently not well paid) to appeal mostly to the semi-retired. Professors emeritus and such, those who get paid just to put their John Henry on stuff that junior acolytes actually do. It's our version of the Royal Society and apparently just as stuffy. I don't have a problem with such a body's existence, or even with its political tasking.
I am just very suspicious of the glaring 1/3 demographic discrepancy between surveys of metaphysical beliefs in general compared to NAS membership. As I mentioned, belief in a "personal God" suggests that the question asked was very specific to a certain subsection of the Christian tradition and not to many other religious traditions. So when Harris throws around the 7% figure to support his claim that science and religion are incompatible, he's being less than truthful - misrepresenting a variety of beliefs as "atheist" when they're likely not atheist at all.
I sincerely doubt that designations of spiritual belief are required or common for NAS members to give out either in election or in survey polls. Doing so would be inconsistent with both personal position in NAS and the tradition of reticence for NAS overall.
Who conducted the poll, how many NAS members were surveyed, what was the exact wording of the question, what was the percentage of response, etc., etc. If Harris wants to throw suspicious numbers around, he should be willing to back them up. And if the figures he cites are indeed seriously skewed for political reasons (to convince us that big-S Science frowns on religious belief), he's just more rust on the scaffolding.
It's nice to see that more and more science-defenders are speaking out against the memes Dawkins and Harris [the "New Atheists"] are spreading.
Comment by Joy — January 10, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
January 10th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Obviously, "science" isn't "congenial" to many things, women & minorities, e.g. Interesting to see what, in addition to atheism, science is congenial with: money & power, highly educated elites, big government, large corporations, the military"¦
I don't know how representative the "Politburo" of American science is of American scientists, but its difficult for me to imagine that the NAS truly can provide the "unparalleled public service" they self-advertise, when their beliefs are not congenial with the beliefs of the vast majority of the very people they supposedly serve.
I noticed that Bruce Alberts in almost all of his public addresses over the years mentioned "scientific values" and their dissemination throughout the world. But he leaves it a bit vague what those "values" might be, and why they should be called properly "scientific values." He seems to believe a dedication to the truth ("honesty," "generosity," "respect," in Albert's own words) is a scientific value. It's also a religious value.
Alberts wants to make "every child a scientist," which is, of course absurd, because no matter how much society in general embraces "scientific values" (whatever those are) it also values the contributions to society made by parking lot attendants, waitresses, garbage collectors, plumbers, and lettuce pickers.
Statements like this reflect. IMO, a common view of powerful bureaucratic elites. They use their position, power, and influence to reshape society according to their values, and like everyone else they believe that their values are the "true" ones. But "truer" than yours.
And maybe that's why Alberts is always a little vague on what "scientific values" are. Obviously these are his values and they may not be yours. I don't think he's being purposefully vague or dishonest. Like all the bureaucrats I ever dealt with he sincerely believes that the public he "serves" is best served by a unanimity of values"”all of which would be, not coincidentally, what the "master" values and not the "servant."
Regardless of what you may value, unlike you, these "public servants" have the ability to institutionalize their values.
We should remind ourselves of the context for ancient aphorims such as, ""O homines ad servitutem paratos!"
Does science truly serve us? Or do we serve it?
Comment by Rock — January 10, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
January 10th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Mike wrote:
Or you could concede the point. I promise to be magnanimous in victory.
If Harris were basing his assertion on the 93/7 split and ignoring all other information, then I agree that by using the same (bad) logic, he would reach the sexist conclusion based on the roughly 90/10 split.
But he is not reasoning in a void. The facts I listed earlier in the thread are known to Harris, and they argue for his thesis.
Meanwhile, consider the historical pervasiveness of gender discrimination and the experimental evidence showing no significant gender-related difference in cognitive ability. These are known to Harris, and both of these argue strongly against the sexist thesis.
It makes perfect sense that Harris could advance the first thesis while rejecting the second. The evidence warrants it.
Still, I'm very interested in hearing other hypotheses. It's always possible that Harris and I have overlooked some perfectly plausible explanation.
Comment by keiths — January 10, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
January 10th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
geoffrobinson wrote:
Geoff,
All you've done here is to restate your original assertion without supplying any evidence for it.
Let me ask again: Why, apart from faith, do you believe that a god is required to sustain the laws of physics?
Comment by keiths — January 10, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
January 10th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
WinglesS wrote:
Not so. My hypothesis is that the people who best understand science appreciate the power of the scientific style of thinking, and they tend to apply it throughout their lives. They understand the dangers of dogma, faith, and arguments from authority in the context of science, and so most of them conclude that these things are unacceptable in the context of religion as well. When they scrutinize their religious beliefs under the lens of reason and evidence, they end up discarding many of them.
There are plenty of smart theists. Whether you agree with his views or not, theism certainly didn't cause Aquinas to be stupid, for example. Do I think he was wrong? Yes. Stupid? Absolutely not.
That's an interesting hypothesis, but I see a couple of problems with it:
1. Beyond the subsistence level, additional wealth contributes only very weakly to well-being. Contrary to popular expectation, the rich aren't much happier than the rest of us.
2. If wealth were the explanation for the discrepancy in NAS numbers, then we would expect to see a comparable discrepancy among wealthy non-scientists. This is not the case.
Comment by keiths — January 10, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
January 10th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Joy asks:
Joy,
See http://www.stephenjaygould.org... .
Comment by keiths — January 10, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
January 10th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
In my view, those who think that atheism necessarily and logically leads to nihilism or a meaningless life, and those who think that theism is the foundation of science and that unbelieving scientists are borrowing from theism when they do science, are largely doing religious apologetics with themselves.
Comment by bj — January 10, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
January 10th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Rock wrote:
Rock,
The "Every Child A Scientist" program is not aimed at turning every child into a professional scientist, but simply at making sure that every child is scientifically literate, whether she eventually becomes a CEO, a Senator, a soldier or a social worker.
Comment by keiths — January 10, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
January 10th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Rock:
Science serves politicians (and their politics), as all bureaucracies do. Government is concerned with law and policy, public health and safety, national defense and foreign relations. In the US, it is not the government's business what individual citizens believe or disbelieve about gods, God, godesses, demigods, giant blue demons, pixies, unicorns and ET. Law, based on social interest and concepts of relative harm, limits religious practices that violate law. Human sacrifice, ritual sexual abuse of children, organized beatings, lynchings, crucifixions… you get the picture. Outside of public interest, it's nobody's business.
So I wonder if it's any of our business what the NAS members believe. I also wonder why this cream-of-the-crop of intellectual elites would want the public to know what they believe. What "scientific" interest does it serve? What political interest? What institutional interest? And why float poll results on such an unscientific question in public, and here I'll go ahead and note that in the 1998 Larson & Witham survey, their return rate for NAS members was just 50%.
It isn't unreasonable to suspect that the poll results are methodologically skewed by psychological factors in the respondents. IOW, what are the reasons an 'elite' scientist would respond to a question of religious beliefs? Wouldn't any passably intelligent NAS member wonder what purpose his answer would serve? Wouldn't any of them question whether the use of these numbers as a tool for evangelical atheism is (a) advisable politically, and (b) useful for advancing public acceptance/ understanding of science?
See, I don't understand why god questions are in the least bit pertinent to the work the NAS does for the government. Science isn't supposed to consider theological points when analyzing whether or not arsenic in the water supply is harmful to humans and other animals. Or that global warming (or, 30 years ago, a new ice age) is really happening. Or whether mercury in mandatory infant vaccines causes autism, or exposure of the public to high doses of radiation causes cancer. And if the NAS fields its ethics council on matters of political policy, We the People would feel a lot better about the results if at least a few of 'em had a sound theological grasp of how WE view such questions.
…because there's also "New Eugenicists" to go along with the "New Atheists" who insist big-S Science leaves no room for religious beliefs most citizens consider vitally important to their lives. Some of the very same scientists are associated with both 'movements'. We the People are not so dumb as to believe a "New Eugenics" wouldn't be aimed at us just like the old eugenics was, so it's not like we have any reason to think Science cares about or even considers our lives as anything but the target of their WMDs. So an evangelical atheist NAS does *not* serve our interests despite their ability to institute political policy.
Big-S Science (the gentleman's club) doesn't serve us. It never has. Fortunately, we don't serve it either, other than paying the price for their privilege with our time in life.
Comment by Joy — January 10, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
January 10th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Keiths,
Will you also admit defeat if I come up with an alternative explanation? Are you admitting that you can think of no other possible explanations other than Harris' congeniality hypothesis and the discrimination hypothesis?
You make it sound like there is a massive amount of "other information." A sexist could easily match the information you provided.
A sexist might point out the following (I'll guess on 2 and 3):
1. 50% of the general public is female.
2. 20% of scientists are female.
3. 7% of NAS members are female.
4. Even in 1914, only 3% of elite scientists were female.
5. Women generally:
[include list of sexist stereotypes]
6. Science is inimical to all of the above.
I'm sorry Keiths, but all I see from you and Harris are a couple of data points and lots of armchair philosophy.
At best, Harris has only a hypothesis and the facts weakly argue for it. He needs to put it in a testable form and then test it. Why do the pro-science people run away from doing science and research when it suits them?
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.
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.
What did I state above?
This position stands and you have yet to put a dent in it.
This position stands and you have yet to put a dent in it.
Yes, it will be interesting to see what you overlooked. But I'm still focused on the way you have arrived at this belief without science. I understand how you and Harris feel about religion. But if you take away those feelings, and replace them with critical thinking, you might see that you have a very, very weak position.
Comment by MikeGene — January 10, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
January 11th, 2007 at 12:11 am
I found it at the NAS website. You can download the list by alphabetical letter. They even provide listings of deceased members for historical study.
Don't forget the lists at the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Engineering.
Joy, looking at the websites for the National Academies, and having worked for the oversight committee in the Senate and having seen how absolutely transparent the groups are, I wonder whether you bothered to look. The lists are public. The scientist are hard-working. The academies are quite independent from the current regime in Washington, whatever that regime is (to the consternation of every regime). The Acadmies spend a lot of their efforts on making sure this nation has the best science advice, and that the best scientists for the future are produced here so that we may continue to benefit from that good advice.
And they deliver.
Their religious beliefs are probably beside the point, in science. As IDists used to pretend, science is a-religious. The Earth turns the same direction for everybody. The Sun shines the same for everybody. Rain falls on the scientist and non-scientist alike. The only question is, who will listen to the rocks when they cry out? The NAS tries to listen. We should listen to them.
Comment by edarrell — January 11, 2007 @ 12:11 am
January 11th, 2007 at 12:55 am
eddarrell:
Since I found that the response rate for the religious survey was only 50%, it's no longer important. I addressed the possibility of bias in my last post.
Evangelical atheists publicizing the self-professed non-belief of 93% of 50% of NAS's 1998 membership is "good [scientific] advice?" Looks like ideological propaganda to me, and I do not expect "the best scientists" don't understand that.
Of course their religious beliefs are beside the point as well as entirely non-scientific. But that's not the point Harris and other EAs who cite NAS disbelief as 'scientific support' for atheism are trying to make, is it?
Comment by Joy — January 11, 2007 @ 12:55 am
January 11th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Leaving for a few days, so let me just go ahead and make that point so that it's not misunderstood…
50% of NAS members responded to the religious poll, and these responders are 93% NOT fundamentalist Christian ("personal God"). No figures on theists/deists or other religions in that number, and no indication of what the other half believe. They didn't respond, thus likely didn't want everybody to know. We call this "freeping the poll," where a certain viewpoint overwhelmingly responds and skews the results.
We do NOT have good reason to believe NAS membership is so unrepresentative of scientists in general on the question of belief in God/gods. Why EAs would want us to believe they are so unrepresentative is beyond me, because it strongly suggests an anti-religious bias for membership. If I were an EA, I'd drop this fish because it's rotten.
Comment by Joy — January 11, 2007 @ 10:40 am
January 12th, 2007 at 5:47 am
I took a break from commenting yesterday, hoping that by today someone would have advanced a plausible hypothesis to compete with Harris's.
Alas, even Mike, who wrote the following, has yet to offer a hypothesis:
Well, Mike, the thread isn't getting any younger…
A lot of folks on this thread are loathe to accept Harris's thesis. But none of them has pointed out any ways in which the facts are inconsistent with Harris's claim, and none have advanced a better explanation of the facts. What's up with that?
Comment by keiths — January 12, 2007 @ 5:47 am
January 12th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Keiths,
Still taunting, eh?
I'm "loathe to accept Harris's thesis" because it is so weakly supported and contradicts the official position of these elite scientists. I'll see if I can put together a blog that has what you want tonight or tomorrow, but in the mean time, it's as if everything I said to you was ignored. Why is everyone supposed to accept a vague hypothesis that has not been tested or explored? Why think Harris' hypothesis is better than "I don't know?" Why does the NAS say that science is neutral about belief in God?
Has it occurred to you that you are violating several rules of critical thinking?
Comment by MikeGene — January 12, 2007 @ 8:16 am
January 12th, 2007 at 10:30 am
1. the key word in your first critic is "subsistence". And I do know that being rich doesn't mean you're happy. Even then the "suffering" that the rich go through is probably alot different from that which the non-rich go through. Who knows, worrying when about say, if which super car you should buy might be different from worrying if you can support your parents.
2. The difference is probably as pronounced not between wealthy and non-wealthy as you have pointed out. It's probably more pronounced between subsistence and non-subsistence. It might explain the difference between the public and the elite.
I'll offer another hypothesis though, since you want to hear more.
1. Atheists worship science and are so more inclined to become scientists, because they want to use science to explain everything.
2. Theists worship God, and are more likely to help others by becoming doctors and engineers. They think God is the ultimate answer and so are less inclined to do scientific research.
3. Therefore there are more atheistic scientists and more theistic doctors and engineers.
No stats to back anything up, just my two cents.
Comment by WinglesS — January 12, 2007 @ 10:30 am
January 12th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
"The "Every Child A Scientist" program"¦""”kieths
I really did understand that kieths and sorry for being obtuse. I really wasn't talking about people's material or professional contributions to society.
In any case, I'm not buying it, kieths. What I've learned from these discussions is that there is always a hidden agenda involving a sinister conspiracy, that represents a real threat to undermine everything I"¦ value.
Struggling here to remain topical, but"¦
"Scientific literacy" sounds like an admirable goal, which I do support. (Literally"”I have taught children with learning disabilities science and math.) And having read the NAP bulletin, "Every Child a Scientist," I might even have been convinced that there is a "value neutral" scientific literacy that can be taught to children. If I didn't know better. And I do.
I think joy is being bit facetious, but even though I don't have children, I certainly am very interested (and it is my business) what the teacher's values are. That is because I believe that it is virtually impossible for a teacher not to convey their sense of values to their students and that some students will learn virtually nothing else from the teacher other than what the teacher values.
From my own experience"”I once took a course in contract law (I work under a personal contract), and I did learn some things about contract law, but the unforgettable lesson I learned in that class was the teacher had very definite political values that translated into arbitrary rules of "dress and decorum" imposed upon me. She repeatedly expelled me from her class because I looked like a "hippie." LOL
When this became a serious academic issue, ya can't pass a class your not allowed to attend, the truth was revealed to me by the Dean of Underclassman"”the teacher was a "true patriot," and apparently despised me (which was already evident to me in her demeanor) because I was a leader in the campus anti-Vietnam War group. (The discussion with the dean was all about my love for my country. LOL It had little to do with my regular attendance to the class. Which I was allowed to attend and did pass, btw.)
These lessons I already knew, teachers convey their values to their students, whether they intend to or not, and I have no in principle objection to them intending to and doing so"”but that depends on their values"”obviously, one does not become a teacher if one does not value education.
But my personal experience is pertinent in this regard: In this case where there was an obvious and irreconcilable difference between values of the student and the teacher virtually nothing else was learned other than that fact. This teacher so despised what I valued that she could not even tolerate my presence. When she was forced to admit me to her class all the absolutely enjoyable and even intimate intellectual conviviality that student and teacher share was gone. LOL (She was a bit icy and abrupt for some reason"”but better that then open hostility and contempt.)
I know joy's being a bit sarcastic (pretty unusual for her!), but of course it is my business what you, your children, their teachers, and the bureaucratic puppet-masters believe and value. I admit it"”I'm not terribly "politically-correct" in such matters. I admit it and do not apologize for it. The reason its my business is because I have to live with you, and people do not act (including teaching) in any way shape or form inconsistently with their values"”except by acting untruthfully (as my contract law instructor did).
Of course I want to know and have every right to know what Alberts means by "scientific values," because what he means will be taught to the student.
Comment by Rock — January 12, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
January 12th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Joy wrote:
If the religious NAS members were fearful about the survey's potential use as a propaganda tool for atheists, that should have given them more motivation to respond and increase the 'believer' percentage, not less.
They aren't. You seem to think that this survey was sponsored by the NAS. It wasn't, and neither Larson nor Witham are NAS members or associated with NAS.
And it's pretty funny to hear you portray Larson and Witham as evangelistic atheists out to score propaganda points. Larson is a Methodist. Witham was raised as a Lutheran and is comfortable with the idea of a personal God.
A couple of tidbits on Larson and Witham: Larson is a former Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute (!), though the DI was not involved with ID at the time. Witham wrote a book called By Design: Science and the Search for God, which was quite sympathetic to ID — so much so that it elicited the following from Jeffrey Shallit:
So this "tool for evangelical atheism", as you call it, turns out to have been created by two Christians, one an ex-DI fellow and the other considered an "ID flack." Pretty funny.
A response rate of 50% is actually excellent for a survey these days. The Pew Center considers a response rate of 27% "standard", and 51% is "rigorous."
Harris isn't citing the NAS numbers as "scientific support for atheism." He's citing them as support for his thesis that scientific thinking is uncongenial to religious faith.
You're wrong to identify the 7% who accept a personal God as fundamentalists. 82% of Americans believe Jesus was God or the Son of God. How much more "personal" can a god get than that? Are you claiming that 82% of Americans are fundamentalists for believing in Jesus's divinity?
(By the way, an astonishing 79% of Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, according to the same poll.)
Comment by keiths — January 12, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
January 13th, 2007 at 1:57 am
To the person who mentioned evidence. It is a foundational assumption. If you replace theism with atheism you have laws of physics which aren't grounded in anything or anyone for any reason.
In other words, denying it leads to a place we don't believe in.
Comment by geoffrobinson — January 13, 2007 @ 1:57 am
January 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Hi keiths,
Hmmm. So Harris is effectively picking up a talking point from the DI. Yes, another odd convergence between Dawkins and his movement and the DI and its movement.
Comment by MikeGene — January 13, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
January 15th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
keiths:
Yes, positively hilarious. Tell me, keith… were the NAS responders aware of this when they responded? All I see is yet another possible reason for skewed results.
Can you explain the difference? Fact is, 40% of American scientists (according to some other poll) do believe in a personal God, reflective of societal demographics across the population. Of course, theism does not obviate a "personal God," so some clarification of that would be necessary for Harris' point to be valid.
I see that you have little to no grasp of what it means to have a "personal God." Not surprising. Accepting an identity for God does not mean that God passes out favors for prayer, intervenes in a person's life, or suspends the laws (of physics or gods) differentially. It doesn't even mean a person believes that ONLY people who believe just as s/he believes get the benefits their belief in a personal god envisions.
As for virgin birth, it's an article of faith for most Christians of the non-Sprong variety. Virgin birth is a known reproductive phenomenon for a variety of animals, including fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds. A simple Google search on "parthenogenesis in mammals" returns a total of 815 citations in PubMed.
Sex and Sexuality -
Rare? Extremely - enough so as to be 'virtually' impossible, but not impossible impossible. IOW, "Miraculous." Now, I don't know if Jesus' birth was really virgin, or if it was attributed to him for reasons of assimilating contemporary Pagan religious beliefs (a distinct possibility). That's non-typical of Christians, of course, but then again I do not see my mission in life to be disabusing others of their beliefs.
So why do you care what others believe about a singular instance of reputed virgin birth 2,000 years ago? Why do you believe it's your job - or science's job - to disabuse people of such a belief? Scientists do accept the occurrence of events anomalous enough as to be 'virtually' impossible (like the bombardment of the Royal Society's building with meteorites just after they pronounced that stones never fall from the sky) even if they can't explain them. Why publicly insist not so just to bolster your animosity toward other people's beliefs?
Are you really so insecure in your beliefs? And if so, why should anyone care to adopt your belief system? Insecurity isn't a strong selling point, you know.
Comment by Joy — January 15, 2007 @ 2:52 pm