Why Are So Many Scientists Atheists?

[DannyC]

Your game of semantics is nothing but a red herring to this discussion DannyC. This is a Christian forum so we are viewing the discussion through that lens, specifically:

"ATHEISM is the view that holds that God does not exist. The term is used conventionally to indicate lack of belief in the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition."

Ferguson, S. B., & Packer, J. (2000). New dictionary of theology (53–54). Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

We are discussing why so many scientists are atheists in this context both why that is and how it has been radically changing since the collapse of the state atheistic Soviet Union across most of the globe including the West.

And every philosopher knows what Metaphysical naturalism (e.g. scientific materialism, ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, also referred to as reductive materialism) is in atheism and that's what I referenced. Go take a philosophy 101 class and have the instructor explain it to you instead of screeding it at me as a red herring.

'we are viewing the discussion through that lens, specifically'

So you can be loose and light with facts and definitions because you feel it is justified? No that is not what is going to happen. You definition is fine, it even refutes your own point. You believe atheism means the person must believe in naturalism , that is false. This is stretching a definition so far as to loose any impact when you use it. You accused me of trying to promote it. You consistantly refer to it in your other posts as I have noted. You have failed to make any progress in defending the view that atheism is metaphysical, considering you just noted that lack of belief in dieties means not that you hold to naturalism, instead shockingly you simply don't believe in dieties. Still you insist to use wrong definitions and wide statements to hedge your bets.

'And every philosopher knows what'

This called the ad populum fallacy, it means that stating that other people agree with you therefore it must be true is a fallacy, you must present an actual argument and then state who agrees with you. Remember when I stated the support for evolution and titled creationism as religion? What did I do? I put figures and organistations and then detailed why they believe this. You have not been able to do that, nor have you even attempted to defend your sweeping atheism definition, or defend creationism or even defend your weak statement about atheism being a religion. Instead you hammer a point which no one objected to.

So you believe parts of atheism now can in some form be the core of atheism? Is that why you believe you can make up definitions? Or considering you glanced over the fact that you have lied about what I have been saying on several occasions you will ignore that also.]

The second part is another jab at my intellect, I am not surprised but it has lost its impact, if it even had some to begin with.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

What I said was:

"This is a Christian forum so we are viewing the discussion through that lens, specifically:

'ATHEISM is the view that holds that God does not exist. The term is used conventionally to indicate lack of belief in the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.'

Ferguson, S. B., & Packer, J. (2000). New dictionary of theology (53–54). Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press."

That's the general context and lens for people in the discussion (sans-you). Unless some form of atheism asserts the reality of the God of the Bible, and I'm not aware of any that does, it's relevant to state that in light of the historical alliance between Christianity and the rise of modern science from Christianized Western Civilization before state atheists took and leveraged government power to denude Christians in science and education across the globe followed by the subsequent repopulation in the domains of science and education of Christians and religious people in general as a result of material state atheistic collapse.

It is from that general context that we address issues within. Hence my statement:

"And every philosopher knows what Metaphysical naturalism (e.g. scientific materialism, ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, also referred to as reductive materialism) is in atheism and that's what I referenced."

That also is relevant to this discussion because metaphysical naturalism is the metaphysical worldview being propagated by the "scientific consensus," as you called it.

This is the truth DannyC even when you deny it and stating this truth does not warrant nor justify your ongoing personal attacks and false assertions.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

LOL! I think this article fills in the many of the blanks in the briefest possible way and very roughly. Of course, I disagree with her on her assertion... lolol.

"Many Protestant Christian denominations, including the Anglican Church,[SUP][24][/SUP] Lutheran Church,[SUP][25][/SUP] and Methodist Church,[SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][27][/SUP] have also welcomed the Big Bang theory as supporting a historical interpretation of the doctrine of creation,[SUP][28][/SUP] [note -->] although other denominations, such as the Baptist Church,[SUP][29][/SUP] have contested the theory.[SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP] Christians in denominations teaching Old Earth creationism,[SUP][32][/SUP] Intelligent Design,[SUP][33][/SUP] or evolutionary creation support the reconciliation of the Big Bang with the Genesis creation narrative.[SUP][34][/SUP]

[note -->] However, Young earth creationists and Young earth creation scientists contest the Big Bang Theory, stating that it is scientifically unsound, and that that sound biblical exegesis points to a young earth and universe.[SUP][35][/SUP][SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][37][/SUP]"

It's fascinating to me that both atheists in the early 20th century and YEC advocates strongly resisted Einstein. The latter in order to maintain their commonly held view that the universe was infinite and had always been so.

[note -->] "the Soviet government altered the very definition of the science of cosmology in order to support a materialistic worldview: the official definition of cosmology was altered so as to include the word "infinite" in order to support the atheist derived steady state universe.[SUP][53][/SUP] In general, scientists and party philosophers in this nation worked to establish a view of science acceptable to atheistic communism.[SUP][54]"[/SUP]

Now that's not science! That's atheists enforcing their ideas as science!

Atheism and the suppression of science - Conservapedia

 

[josh123]

The scientific community as a whole are by and large non-believers and depend on their own thinking of how and why the universe exists. Why is this so?

it's destined to happen man made knowledge increase so it finds excuses why not to believe because of their knowledge... it's the last days so and it is destined to happen 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. [h=3]Daniel 12:4[/h]

 

[CoooCaw]

when he is a philosopher



scientists deal with observable facts

philosophers deal in speculations


do not allow yourself to be snowed

When is a scientist not a scientist?.....................

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I forgot to quote you so you would know I was replying to you and referencing zone's assertion . Fixed.

LOL! I think this article fills in the many of the blanks in the briefest possible way and very roughly. Of course, I disagree with her on her assertion... lolol.

"Many Protestant Christian denominations, including the Anglican Church,[SUP][24][/SUP] Lutheran Church,[SUP][25][/SUP] and Methodist Church,[SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][27][/SUP] have also welcomed the Big Bang theory as supporting a historical interpretation of the doctrine of creation,[SUP][28][/SUP] [note -->] although other denominations, such as the Baptist Church,[SUP][29][/SUP] have contested the theory.[SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP] Christians in denominations teaching Old Earth creationism,[SUP][32][/SUP] Intelligent Design,[SUP][33][/SUP] or evolutionary creation support the reconciliation of the Big Bang with the Genesis creation narrative.[SUP][34][/SUP]

[note -->] However, Young earth creationists and Young earth creation scientists contest the Big Bang Theory, stating that it is scientifically unsound, and that that sound biblical exegesis points to a young earth and universe.[SUP][35][/SUP][SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][37][/SUP]"

It's fascinating to me that both atheists in the early 20th century and YEC advocates strongly resisted Einstein. The latter in order to maintain their commonly held view that the universe was infinite and had always been so.

[note -->] "the Soviet government altered the very definition of the science of cosmology in order to support a materialistic worldview: the official definition of cosmology was altered so as to include the word "infinite" in order to support the atheist derived steady state universe.[SUP][53][/SUP] In general, scientists and party philosophers in this nation worked to establish a view of science acceptable to atheistic communism.[SUP][54]"[/SUP]

Now that's not science! That's atheists enforcing their ideas as science!

Atheism and the suppression of science - Conservapedia

Short post.
Did your copy and paster go on strike?
Is wikipedia down?:O
:O

 

[zone]

Short post.
Did your copy and paster go on strike?
Is wikipedia down?:O
:O

i can't win with you.
okay....asap i will post the head knowledge stuff.
no wiki.

you'll read it right?

uh...NO.

 

[BernardW]

The scientific community as a whole are by and large non-believers and depend on their own thinking of how and why the universe exists. Why is this so?

I’m a scientist, and I am a Christian. My theory about why so many scientists are atheists is because

1. As scientists, we are taught to think for ourselves and not believe anything you are told that can’t be proven. Through the peer review process, we are taught to develop a keen eye for hypocrisy and dishonesty, and we don’t tolerate it.
2. So many churches have a very narrow view of who is a Christian. The preachers at these churches come up with all sorts of rules that they claim you must believe to be Christian. The rules are just theories based on their interpretation of the Bible, lots of other churches have completely different views, and yet these preachers will claim they know they are right and the others are wrong. In science, your theory is NOT something you know is a fact, it is something you think may be right, but you still respect the theories of others until facts prove one theory right and the others wrong. Scientists are good at seeing the hypocrisy of preachers who wrongly claim their theories to be facts, and they walk away.

I am lucky to have found a church where no one is claiming their theory is a fact, and no one is preaching they have all the answers. We all recognize we are all imperfect, and no one there is looking to judge anyone else is less Christian based on some theory about scripture. We are all trying to improve and don’t see it as a race where you beat other participants, just a journey where we learn to play our small part in great whole that is Christ’s Church. I think the problem is more scientists have not been lucky enough to find this kind of church.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

There's a fairly good sized church (not a mega church) down the way from Cal Tech and it's hilarious to attend services there. In the middle of the sermon, atheist guests from Cal Tech will jump up with their hand raised... lol. They think it's a lecture. I guess, in a way, it is.

The pastor is very well educated in science and Christian apologetics and used to this behavior. He stops the lecture (err... I mean sermon) often and fields the questions and debates the guests just like their professors do at Cal Tech.

If you've never seen this, it's really fun to watch.

I’m a scientist, and I am a Christian. My theory about why so many scientists are atheists is because

1. As scientists, we are taught to think for ourselves and not believe anything you are told that can’t be proven. Through the peer review process, we are taught to develop a keen eye for hypocrisy and dishonesty, and we don’t tolerate it.
2. So many churches have a very narrow view of who is a Christian. The preachers at these churches come up with all sorts of rules that they claim you must believe to be Christian. The rules are just theories based on their interpretation of the Bible, lots of other churches have completely different views, and yet these preachers will claim they know they are right and the others are wrong. In science, your theory is NOT something you know is a fact, it is something you think may be right, but you still respect the theories of others until facts prove one theory right and the others wrong. Scientists are good at seeing the hypocrisy of preachers who wrongly claim their theories to be facts, and they walk away.

I am lucky to have found a church where no one is claiming their theory is a fact, and no one is preaching they have all the answers. We all recognize we are all imperfect, and no one there is looking to judge anyone else is less Christian based on some theory about scripture. We are all trying to improve and don’t see it as a race where you beat other participants, just a journey where we learn to play our small part in great whole that is Christ’s Church. I think the problem is more scientists have not been lucky enough to find this kind of church.

 

[BernardW]

There's a fairly good sized church (not a mega church) down the way from Cal Tech and it's hilarious to attend services there. In the middle of the sermon, atheist guests from Cal Tech will jump up with their hand raised... lol. They think it's a lecture. I guess, in a way, it is.

The pastor is very well educated in science and Christian apologetics and used to this behavior. He stops the lecture (err... I mean sermon) often and fields the questions and debates the guests just like their professors do at Cal Tech.

If you've never seen this, it's really fun to watch.

lol, I would like to see that!

I have friends who are atheist secular humanists. I ask them “Why are you a humanist and not a hedonist or a nihilist? Is there any logical argument for picking one over the other? Isn’t the choice of humanist over hedonist an act of faith, not a logical choice?” No one has ever given me a good answer as to why the choice of humanist is not an act of faith. Seems to me the secular humanist are just following Jesus’s direction to love their neighbor, without understanding why they are doing it.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You are bringing back a lot of memories from the 80's. I still have an early (maybe even a first) edition for the secular humanist manifesto somewhere in boxes of old books.

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) is the forefather of scientism one of the early forms of secular humanism. In my remembrance, Comte was the catalyst for modern secular humanism and he is also remembered as the father of both positivism and sociology which are terms he coined.

He developed a mystical (nontheistic) humanistic religious cult in which he installed himself as high priest LOL. His main works were Cours, The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, and The Catechism of positive Religion. The latter included a humanistic religious calendar of secular "saints" *rolls eyes*. His French Catholicism upbringing appears to have influenced his secular humanism.

With an epistemological starting point in Immanuel Kant's anti-metaphysical agnosticism and Hegel's historical developmentalism, Comte developed his law of growth. In effect, Comte deified the scientific method, yet he protested that others had deified nature. Scientism was not just a method for discovering some truth, but the method for discovering truth. As such, it involved self defeating beliefs in materialism, the denial of metaphysics positing ultimate meaninglessness (Qui Legit Intellegat), the rejection of absolute morality such as is taught in Scripture, etc...

lol, I would like to see that!

I have friends who are atheist secular humanists. I ask them “Why are you a humanist and not a hedonist or a nihilist? Is there any logical argument for picking one over the other? Isn’t the choice of humanist over hedonist an act of faith, not a logical choice?” No one has ever given me a good answer as to why the choice of humanist is not an act of faith. Seems to me the secular humanist are just following Jesus’s direction to love their neighbor, without understanding why they are doing it.

 

[Absolute]

The scientific community as a whole are by and large non-believers and depend on their own thinking of how and why the universe exists. Why is this so?

THIS actually is so obvious its astonishing that some people dont get it. Its alarming that the very people who dont understand something so obvious are the same people who claim they dont believe in God because they are so brilliant.

Many people in the science disciplines are awarded scholarships. Unlike many people they have a choice in their career.

Atheists overwhelmingly choose the fields of Origins--biology, cosmology, physics.There are only 18000 physicists in the US BTW.

Theists overwhelmingly choose Medicine--there are 700,000 doctors and surgeons in the US and 3 Million RN's---all are science degrees. Im sorry..but MD's go through 11 years of school vs the 4 years of these other jobs. 75% believe in God. Even more for RN's.

If your talent is logic and reasoning and are an atheist you're more likely to be a Philosopher, psychiatrist etc...but If you believe in God...a Theologian or Minister.

If atheist and want to stick it to theists-- a professor of religion...if a Theist, a pastor or priest

This is logic 101 people, yet the uneducated public forms their opinions in under 20 seconds--and it shows. It also doesn't help that the dishonest atheists claim science education caused their beliefs when in fact the studies show they were already formed or beginning to form. Why would a theist be compulsive about the origin of the universe when they already have that answer???

The same dynamics can be found in hundreds of occupations. The Media and broadcasting overwhelmingly attracts Liberals. Finance attracts conservatives. Very few people "become" these things through their work. If anything they are more likely to turn away from atheism, which only has a 17% retention rate--the lowest of any worldview Do theists become porn moguls? Do atheists become Pastors?

One thing is clear..those who have a bend toward atheism choose a desk--as they are more likely to be loners. Theists will seek out more interaction..helping people one on one, hence Doctors, Nurses, Surgeons. There are not a lot of atheist rescue workers, firemen, police. Many of us who were in science club or passed by the class, who didnt have 47 pens in our pockets, know what I'm talking about.

BTW Almost all the Laws of the Universe were discovered by Theists. This argument perpetuated by atheists that they are the beacons of wisdom is ludicrous. The highest IQ's are held by the Jews if that tells you anything.
Newton--Laws of Motion, spend his other time worshiping Jesus Christ
Einstein--Relativity...Theist that believed in spinoza's impersonal God
James Maxwell--..Electromagnetism..devout in his worship of Christ
Big Bang-- George Lemaître..Father of the Big Bang..Catholic Priest and Cosmologist
Max Planck--Father of Quantum Mechanics..Theist
Michael Faraday--Father of Magnetism
""Yet even in earthly matters I believe that "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead," and I have never seen anything incompatible between those things""
This alone covers almost all of Fundamental Physics. Do your own research, unfiltered by biased atheists and see how they twists the facts.
In Biology Francis Crick who was an atheist before he discovered DNA Code..now he's a Theist.

But I think one of the reasons why we dont see this myth refuted is Christians are not the squelchy wheel..atheists are. The loudest voices are always of decent. These people have littered the airways, they roam the internet in search of people to devour and in the end they will change nothing. I dont think they affect a single soul. God knows who are his and will not let anyone be lost through lies. But the one harm they do is they make the world a worse place to live. They turn people who would never be saved, but would have most likely remained on the fence, into their allies--so in that way things are worse so its important to squash their nonsense.