Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Do most scientists believe in God? [Spirituality & Religion]

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.


"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.

Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

"Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said today. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."

Ecklund and colleagues are now conducting longer interviews with some of the participants to try and figure it all out.
•Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God
•Science Leader Says President Bush Confuses Science and Belief
•Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)
•Top 10 Missing Links
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
Carazaa, let´s put some clarity in this.

A lot of scientist believe in God in various ways, a lot of other ones do not.

The point is that no one can say wich scientist believes and which don´t if you look at the Science they do.
They all do the same Science, believing or not don´t make it be worst and no better.
Moreover, believing or not don´t make it be the Science they do different in what as Science say.

If someone says something BECAUSE she / he believes in God or because do not believe in God, she / he is NOT doing Science.

There is a different subject.
What scientist do, BOTH the ones who believe and the ones who do not believe in God, is to take as a fraud to call Science whatever is said about the natural Universe that is "explained" by non natural factors.

So science can not prove God (and neither is it´s job).
And science can´t refute God (and neither is it´s job).
But science refutes quite well the narratives about it´s own domain (the natural world) that are based in assumptions that are not scientific.
Those narratives (if and only if) call themselves scientific, are a fraud.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@CharlieZ Of course.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@Texasgurl It would be interesting to see the original article.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Bushranger God do not need to be a working assupmtion for physical scientists. So, it´s not really in their minds AS scientists. Not even a reason for NOT believing

But social scientist´s object of knowledge necessarily include human believes from various perspectives (psychology, anthropology, archeology, sociology, economy and so)

The point is that they studdy religions (as part of a wider scenario) as a human social phenomena.
As a scientific object of knowledge, religión can´t be an a priori point of view.
As they find, worldview and historically, a lot of different believes, no specific one of them can be privilegied as better or worst than the other ones.
As they can relate each believe with specific periods of history and the other factors involved, they are less propense to believe in their proposed supernatural origins.
As they see how economic interests and political / power agendas use religión as an ideologic weapon, they become less inocent about.

Besides that, if there are more believers amongst physical scientists (not sure if true, but IF true) that do not mean at all that they also believe in the religious narratives about the natural Universe.
Because they DO NOT.
After all, they may be religious BUT they are also scientists, after all.
BlueVeins · 22-25
I dunno, this Pew Research article from 2009 says it's 33%, but that [i]was[/i] a whole 10 years ago so that probably doesn't really hold up well anymore. It's just strange to expect the proportion to rise instead of falling as the opposite trend holds true for the general public.
Carazaa · F
@BlueVeins Well I believe this research was more recent and 76% of doctors at major universities doing research believe in God, and more biologists than social scientists which is surprising!
BlueVeins · 22-25
@Carazaa Nah, the ones you were talkin' about in your post were from 2005 or earlier, not that that fully explains the discrepancy.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Carazaa · F
@Texasgurl Because of the Protestant Christian Europe they worked hard and prospered and the industrial revolution happened, and God blessed Europe with their scientists. They discovered penecilin, and invented the radio, tv, trains, etc. and most of our world is shaped after it.
Carazaa · F
@Kingfish28 Maybe not 🌷
🤦🏻‍♂️@Carazaa
the first scientist was God
Maximusmax · M
@butterflymind1 true because it is God who knows how it all works. He knows all the formulas
Carazaa · F
@Maximusmax thats right 🙂
Carazaa · F
@butterflymind1 Yes, God was the first scientist!
DrWatson · 70-79, M
The data I have looked at suggests that the scientific field matters. Physicists and astronomers tend to believe in God in greater numbers than biologists and psychologists.

My guess as to an explanation is this: as physics and astronomy progress, the universe becomes more and more mysterious (quantum weirdness, curved spacetime, relativity, black holes, string theory), and so a sense of transcendence increases. But as biology and psychology progress, the human being becomes less and less mysterious, and so the concept of God seems less necessary, if the primary purpose of God is to be an explanation of what we do not understand.

But I do not see that as the primary purpose of God. To me, faith is about making our lives in this universe more meaningful, not about explaining the universe.
4meAndyou · F
@DrWatson As a mathematician, you are familiar with the Mandelbrot equation. I was once shown the fractals from that...universes without end, one within the other, and all that lies outside is chaos. The fractals were truly beautiful, and dizzying.

But they appeared to be almost biological in form.

I believe that one day, all of it will be melded together as our understanding increases...and we will find God inside each microscopic universe, the author of it all.

I think, also, that life without God is life without comfort, and without hope.
Carazaa · F
@4meAndyou So true thank you!
SW-User
I'm a scientist. None of my scientist friends believe in any gods as far as I know.
Carazaa · F
@SW-User NO, The more we know the Bible the more we know its true and God inspired it. The more we know about science the more we understand what we don't understand.
SW-User
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@SW-User Love your work.
GwydionFrost · 56-60, M
[quote]Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected.[/quote]

REALLY?

By who? Anyone who uses logic and reason would have expected the results that happened.

Natural Science: Whatever's physically on the slab is real, no matter how I feel about it.

Social Science: Whatever's physically on the slab doesn't matter, what I feel about it is.
Carazaa · F
@GwydionFrost I think scientists are interested in what they see but does that mean it leads away from faith?
GwydionFrost · 56-60, M
@Carazaa Only when evidence counters the claim.
Carazaa · F
@GwydionFrost I think you misunderstood the trsearch proved the opposite 🤗
Doesn’t matter. As long as the science is sound, applied properly, and isn’t based upon someone’s religious faith, people can “believe” what they want to 🤷🏾‍♂️
I am trained as a scientist. Many of my colleagues are religious or spiritual. Which is why I reject the argument that adopting modern science DQ’s one from a religious life or experience.

That said, my colleagues approach faith and science differently than non-scientists. They have no expectation of or interest in reconciling faith with science. And they have no presumption of knowing everything about the world. Secular or otherwise. Some like myself would assert that’s a fundamental impossibility.
That doesn’t mean it impacts their work.
When writing findings ...the phrases “I think”
Or “I believe” are never used on a professional level.
If you work in the sciences, you would understand that..
I’ve asked you to block me...and yet, you weren’t kind in not respecting my request.

🤣...🤣....🤣....
Please block me????

@Carazaa
still waiting....

Yawn?! @Carazaa
It’s a simple request!
Do it and you will never see my posts again..@Carazaa
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
Very Interesting
Carazaa · F
@HoraceGreenley Thanks, Yes it is an interesting article!🌷
Success · 26-30, F
This has no impact on whether or not God exists. The scientific method uncovers no evidence for God. And reason discovers no valid argument for God. God can never be more than an idea founded in desire.
danawilliams2004 · 18-21, F
God created EVERYTHING, including all of the knowledge that we gain from science. I don't see why you can't have both?
Carazaa · F
@danawilliams2004 Excactly🙂
cycleman · 61-69, M
.... and a Brain washing we go.
http://www.elainehowardecklund.com/

Her bias...
We need the list of names of the PhDs who responded...


@Carazaa
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Texasgurl Those who responded were self-selecting.

She cannot know the beliefs (or lack thereof) of those who did not respond.

Right there her research becomes nonsensical.
Carazaa · F
@newjaninev2 Why wouldn't atheists want to share their views?
Bushranger · 70-79, M
Could we have a link to this article, please?
Carazaa · F
@Bushranger https://www.livescience.com/ I found it on this site.
Carazaa · F
@Bushranger https://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@Carazaa Thank you. I'll look at it later.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Carazaa · F
@Glambarber It is a valid survey. "Validity" translates to "all"
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
It shouldn't matte if a scientist is religious or irreligious. What should matter is following the scientific method and peer reviewed studies with the goal of helping.

 
Post Comment