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
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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.
Carazaa · F
@CharlieZ Well this particular article is about the percentage of scientists in major universities who believe in God. And it is surprising to me.
Please acknowledge her bias?@Carazaa
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Carazaa It don´t surprises me at all.
Why should I be surprised?
Scientists come in all genders, sizes, colours, origins and believes.
What there is not is scientists that do different science based in their gender, size, colour, origin or believe.
If they say they do it, what they do and say is no more science.
Carazaa · F
@CharlieZ So you don't call them scientists in this research? They are doctors doing scientific research in major Universities.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Texasgurl My friend, her surprise is interesting.
Comes from the assumption that, by example, if a scientist researches in Evolution is an atheist.
And if a scientist is Christian, then, he must believe in the fraud of ID.
I was trying to explain to @Carazaathat there is no place for the phrase “ I believe or I think” research work.


It no longer is science...

Scientists can have spiritual views, but those views should not color their work.

She is ignoring me, without blocking me..@CharlieZ
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Carazaa I do not understand your point.
If they do Science, they are scientists.
They may or not believe in God.
What I say, is that they let their believes (both if in God or if Not) interfer with their work as scientists, what they do is not Science.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Texasgurl I understand, my friend.
She haves the right to ignore me or you or block us (or not).
That do not change what Science is.
Carazaa · F
@CharlieZ How do you know that their belief in God interferes in science any more than scientists who are atheists trying to verify evolution or a old earth?
Agreed...the findings in the study are curious. However, We don’t get the specifics of the findings. How many PhDs who were asked were working in denomination affiliated schools? Etc@CharlieZ
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Carazaa Most of scientists that actually believe in God support Evolution as the best (although provisory) explanation.
Same as atheists scientists.

Scientists, who believe and the ones who do not, do science, not difussion of their religous and neither the opposite in the name of Science.

What is not a debate between them is that (by example) intelligent design do not accomplish the requirements for being remotely scientific.

So, what are we talking about?

Scientists that believe in God but do not believe in ID? There are.

The ones that pretend they are doing Science and believe in ID?
They are not doing Science, regardless they believe or not in God.
Where their work is published is a huge tell. Any work by Stephen Meyer can’t be taken seriously. Because of his bias .

If the work can’t stand up to scrutiny...then it placed in journals with less credibility.@Carazaa
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Texasgurl Why do you find it curious?
The worldwide scientific community do not ask you if you are religious or not for being part of it.
Religión and science are unrelated.
EXCEPT someone says that the causes of the Universe are supernatural[b] AND call it Science[/b].
That is not Scientific and would be a fraud to call it Science.
Correct, there is really no reason to explore the subject. So it begs the question as to why the “survey” was conducted.

The answer lies in the woman behind it. She is the point person at Rice University for religion and policy (sociology)
She has published in bio logos and done op ed pieces. She has done scholarly work as well. The title of her works are another tell as well. However, my background says, she has an agenda.
The fact that she is a sociologist doing qualitative work in this area is also a concern

But that’s just me..@CharlieZ
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Carazaa "trying to verify evolution or a old earth?"
Because there are serious systematically data that support both.
And, till now, no factual meassurable data that support ID or a "Young Earth".
And the ones who research in Evolution and an Earth of about 4500 million years in an Universe (at least as we know it) of about 15000 million years are not necessarilly atheists but also chistians that are Scientists.
While the ones that do the opposite despite no offering any material evidence, may or not be chistians, but don´t so Science at all.
Carazaa · F
@CharlieZ So they say!
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Carazaa No matter what anyone may say.
Science had given fruits and abundant ones.
The ones who do philosophy and theology calling it Science, had never offered a verifiable ressult.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Texasgurl My friend.
She may have or not an agenda.
The fact that there are scientists that are religious (of varios religions) and other ones are atheists, do not say nothing, bu nothing about science.
Except that, for doeng science, it is irrelevant.
What you offered was qualitative research...a survey, published by someone with an agenda...
@Carazaa
I took the time to read her CV😉@CharlieZ
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@Texasgurl @CharlieZ I'm surprised at the assumption that social scientists would be less likely to believe in God than physical scientists. I would have thought it would have been the other way around. But, belief in God doesn't necessarily make a person a bad scientist, providing they can recognize any possible biases.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Texasgurl I understand, my friend.
That’s my concern.. further who was surveyed in the study.@Bushranger
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Bushranger "But, belief in God doesn't necessarily make a person a bad scientist, providing they can recognize any possible biases."
True.

"I'm surprised... that social scientists would be less likely to believe in God than physical scientists"

There is a good reason for this.
Do you want to know why?
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@CharlieZ Of course.