Reddit reviews Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think

Why is this guy getting upvotes? Almost every point he makes is wrong.

>Do you not understand practically every university is a Christian institution.

None of the major American universities (the Ivy leagues, Johns Hopkins, the public ivies, Stanford, etc) are Christian. The vast majority of our universities are secular. Some of them were founded on religious principles, like Harvard (unitarian), but became secular over the years. Others, like Thomas Jefferson's University of Virginia, were specifically founded as secular.

>Do you not understand the whole western (which is now basically the world) intellectual tradition is Christian?

It used to be, but now secular philosophies like humanism influence our society and beliefs far more than Christianity once did. Read up on 20th century philosophy and the culture wars.

>The guy who posted that 75% of America is Christian and 70% of scientist are not is mixing up stats. If you use the same definition of 'Christian' that the 75% population stat uses, I guarantee that the scientist stat would be alot closer to that number.

A very comprehensive study of the religious beliefs of scientists is in this book. Only 47% of American scientists claim a religion, and roughly 36% of them believe in God. Compare this to the 76% of Americans that identify as Christian and the 92% that believe in God.

> Ah yes, I can understand that. But I am slightly hesitant because 90% of scientists are unbelievers (and many of those actually despise religion and the idea of Creation; even Creation through TE).

While it is true that there are proportionally less Christians in scientific circles, I don't think it's 90% that is nonreligious; in the USA at least, 25% of scientists identify as Christian, and only 50-55% or so as non-religious (according to one recent survey). Moreover, the majority of those who are not religious are indifferent toward religion. Some even develop their own spirituality (Check out the book "Science vs. religion: what scientists really think" by Elaine Ecklund for more info), so the hostility of scientists toward religion should not be exaggerated.

> Connect this with what C. S. Lewis said (in "Miracles") about how our personal world views will strongly affect how we view scientific evidence; and maybe you'll better understand my hesitancy?

It's true that our worldview affects how we view the world, but the assumptions of science don't amount to much - I wouldn't call it a worldview. Science makes assumptions that amount to the idea that we can reliably study the natural world, there isn't much more to it than that.

> I saw your name up for the Universalism AMA. Is that a scheduled thing? Or do we just PM you to discuss it?

It'll be scheduled like all the other AMAs. The way this usually works is that the guy doing the AMA makes a post on the subreddit, then everyone can reply with their questions and responses etc.

This is based on a sample of 300 from only the NSF (an elite body). My number is based on the research of sociologist Elaine Ecklund who surveyed some 1,700 US scientists from various universities around the country. This sample is much larger, moreover much better spread around various universities, not just the NSF. You can find the research in her book "Science vs. Religion, what scientists really think".

Hang on. There is something wrong here.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-atheist-scientists-children-embrace-religious.html

>Some atheist scientists with children embrace religious traditions for social and personal reasons

Is "Christmas" a religious tradition? Yes. So does celebrating "Christmas" count?

The physorg version of the story makes this sound very different. The OP seems to suggest atheists are taking their kids to church, the physorg article suggests atheists are educating their kids about religion.

That's not the same thing.

>The researchers found that 17 percent of atheists with children attended a religious service more than once in the past year.

Such as? What constitutes a religious service?

>The research was conducted through interviews with a scientifically selected sample of 275 participants pulled from a survey of 2,198 tenured and tenure-track faculty in the natural and social sciences at 21 elite U.S. research universities.

So 47 scientists took their kids to some form of religious service and that is some sort of meaningful finding?

>Ecklund said the study's findings will help the public better understand the role that religious institutions play in society.

Oh I see, she was trying to prove a point.

>"I think that understanding how nonreligious scientists utilize religion in family life demonstrates the important function they have in the U.S.," she said.

So, even if you don't believe in it, because 47 scientists exposed their children to it at one point in the last year, then religion must play an important role in society.

By the way, she published a book about it over a year ago:

http://www.amazon.com/Science-vs-Religion-Scientists-Really/dp/0195392981

Here

This above image is a representation of the pew studies

It's changed in the past 6 years, it used to be 55%, now it's closer to 49% with Atheists/Agnostics holding 28% combined, and 20% just not caring.

Also, here is a book of a study conducted published by Oxford University Press: http://www.amazon.com/Science-vs-Religion-Scientists-Really/dp/0195392981

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24 (this ones a bit old, 5 years ago)

Also, a quick Google search would yield the information you seek.

It is true that compared to the general population, more scientists are atheistic, but many scientists are still religious in some way or another.