What do scientists think about religion? (LAT)

[struggle4progress]

Members of the scientific community are often seen as doubting Thomases, but the reality is more complex. Even Charles Darwin may have made room for God.

By David Masci
November 24, 2009

According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not ... In 1914 .. psychologist James Leuba .. found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not ... In Pew surveys, 95% of American adults say they believe in some form of deity or higher power ...

Among scientists there are far fewer Protestants (21%) and Catholics (10%) than in the general public, which is 51% Protestant and 24% Catholic. And while evangelical Protestants make up more than a fourth of the general population (28%), they are only a tiny slice (4%) of the scientific community. One notable exception is Jews, who make up a larger proportion of the scientific community (8%) than the general population (2%).

But the Pew poll found that levels of religious faith among scientists vary quite a bit depending on their specialty and age. Chemists, for instance, are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in biology and medicine (32%). And younger scientists (ages 18 to 34) are more likely than older ones to believe in God or a higher power ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24,0,7022683.story

[Buzz Clik]

1. Stupid scientists. They clearly have never listened to the impeccable logic of Richard Dawkins.

Or felt his scorn.

[stray cat]

3. Did you forget the sarcasm thing? The scorn is accurate the rest is interpretation

and opinion rather than just the hard core facts

[Buzz Clik]

6. Hard cold facts at DU? When did that become a requirement?

Yeah -- my post was my opinion.

And the subject line was pure sarcasm.

[Jim__]

2. My only complaint about the article is that it engages in a bit of ambiguity.

The current survey asks about a belief in God or a higher power while the 1914 survey asked about belief in a personal God, a different question.

But yesterday, I was reading an old Times editorial by Paul Davies, Taking Science on Faith, in which he seems to agree with the general thrust of the article:

...

The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,” as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified.

The most refined expression of the rational intelligibility of the cosmos is found in the laws of physics, the fundamental rules on which nature runs. The laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, the laws that regulate the world within the atom, the laws of motion — all are expressed as tidy mathematical relationships. But where do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do?

When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as “given” — imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.

...

I don't think anyone should be afraid to ask questions about the ultimate origin of existence.

[struggle4progress]

5. Let's examine the following quote from your article, for example:

All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified

As usual, I want to distinguish philosophical questions from scientific questions. Whether nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way is a philosophical question, for which the natural philosophical answer is: Of course, there is no reason to expect nature to be so ordered. But it is impossible to imagine doing any science at all, if one is unwilling to say Let us assume that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way, and see what progress we can make. The fact, that there is no compelling philosophical reason to take the view nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way, or that much of nature could actually be ordered in ways we do not find rational and intelligible way, is not an argument against saying, Let us assume that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way, and see what progress we can make; it is simply an argument against assuming that in time we will understand absolutely everything. Scientists should not abandon saying, Let us assume that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way, and see what progress we can make (since that is the only way we know to make scientific progress); but if they should want also to be good philosophers, neither should they believe such pragmatic assumptions reflect some absolute abstract philosophical truth; of course, whatever time they spend, on philosophy, will be time they do not spend on science, and so the committed scientist usually spends rather little time on philosphy

The claim, Science is a faith-based belief system, is philosophically incorrect in the abstract, though various particular people might "believe" in Science (as a matter of faith) in exactly the same way other particular people "believe" in some religion as a matter of faith. Just as one person can investigate the geometry of the projective plane, without adopting a definite philosophical stance on the question Do points and lines really exist?, one can attempt to discover "laws of nature" without taking a firm and permanent philosophical stand on the question Is all of nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way? Just as the geometer does not need a religious faith in the existence of points of lines, the physicist has no need for religious faith in the existence of laws of nature: the geometer discusses points and lines, because they are somehow relevant to the study of geometry, and the physicist discusses laws of nature, because they are somehow relevant to the study of physics. The idea that a "law of nature" is immutable and unchanging is not a matter of religious faith, but a matter of definition: whenever one finds a "law of nature" to be mutable and changing, one seeks a better "law of nature," that IS immutable and unchanging; there will be no philosophical guarantee that one can find a better law, but as a pragmatic matter one will assume the better law exists and can be found, simply because one cannot hope to find any better law without actually looking for it

[Buzz Clik]

7. Good response. I had the same impression in reading the post above yours.

[Jim__]

10. Your first argument appears to be in complete agreement with the article.

You state:

Let us assume that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way, and see what progress we can make;

But that is precisely what the article states: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. This is clarified in the next sentence: You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed.

As to the statement about a faith-based belief system, for some reason, you omitted the actual statement that contains this assertion. The sentence that opens the paragraph you only partially quoted, namely: The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,” as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds .... That, of course, puts the statement in terms of Gould's claim of “non-overlapping magisteria.”

But, further, the larger context of the article supports the faith-based statement. For instance:

When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as “given” — imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.

I don't know that any insight is gained quibbling over whether we should interpret these requisite assumptions to be philosophical or practical. If Davies was told as a student that these laws are not to be questioned, then his case is pretty much made.

[struggle4progress]

11. Nobody thinks "the universe .. a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed"

We all learn from early childhood to expect some basic regularities: the sun rises and sets; the moon waxes and wanes; the seasons progress; if one drops an object in hand, it falls; &c &c. So "You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed" isn't a very helpful comment -- you could scarcely do anything at all "if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed"

What is at stake in science is the search for quantifiable reproducibility. As a practical matter search, such a search necessarily presupposes that some order can be found by searching: this need not be a "religious" assumption. A person can simultaneously think both "I am not convinced any order can be found here" and "I might as well assume there is an order here and search for it, since if I cannot find it if I do not search for it." The first thought is philosophical in nature; the second is pragmatic and scientific in nature; the two thoughts obviously go in rather different directions, apparently contradicting each other somewhat, so they are to be distinguished

There is no reason one must "believe" that heat always flows from hot to cold or that the speed of light remains unchanged moment by moment -- and, in fact, these statements are too imprecise to be correct: one can construct experimental arrangements where heat is transferred effectively from a cooler object to a warmer one or where the speed of light does vary. There are be more precise statements that sound like heat always flows from hot to cold and the speed of light remains unchanged moment by moment, that are regarded as "universal laws," but such "laws" ought to be accepted for pragmatic (rather than religious reasons): that is, the laws (properly understood) help us produce quantitatively correct predictions. One cannot do any meaningful scientific calculations, without presupposing (at least provisionally) some basic laws underlying the calculations; if the calculations yield incorrect results, of course, then one will re-examine the calculations themselves, or the underlying assumptions, or perhaps both -- but that does not mean one must have a "religious" faith in the science

I do not want to be misunderstood: I expect some people do hold a religious or quasi-religious view of science, but I think that is merely evidence that they are bad philosophers. Since nobody will devote enormous time and energy to matters s/he considers unimportant, perhaps scientists are more likely than the population at large to hold a religious or quasi-religious view of science -- but being a bad philosopher does not necessarily make one a bad scientist, any more than being a bad scientist would necessarily make one a bad mathematician or a bad literary critic

Finally, regarding your "If Davies was told as a student that these laws are not to be questioned, then his case is pretty much made": anyone who teaches generalist courses, to (say) college students, will regularly encounter students who want to argue philosophically about the assumptions of the course -- But it is unfair for you to expect me to be able to study geometry when I do not believe in points and lines! But it is unfair for you to expect me to be able to study physics when I do not believe in universal laws! But it is unfair for you to expect me to be able to study evolution when I do not believe in fossils! But it is unfair for you to expect me to be able to study chemistry when I do not believe in atoms! But it is unfair for you to expect me to be able to study hygiene when I do not believe in germs! The natural reaction to such perennial claims is simply to yawn

[keith the dem]

4. I think often scientists can separate the dogma

from the community churches can provide and the greater mission of most mainline churches.

Though they may have a vague belief in a higher being and like the social justice teachings of Jesus, they don't buy the supernatural stories.

As community and social groups disappear in our country (even bowling leagues), Church is one of the last places where community interaction can happen. This is especially true in our poorest neighborhoods, where there is no other safe alternatives.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THOSE TV PREACHERS ARE THE ANTITHESIS OF THE POSITIVE COMMUNITY THAT CAN BE PROVIDED AT CHURCHES. Nothing is destroying neighborhood churches worse than TV preachers. They draw away some people and scare away people who think that their hateful rhetoric is actually Christian.

[Buzz Clik]

8. WWJB?

What would Jesus bowl?

[keith the dem]

9. LOL

[trotsky]

12. Four times as many non-believing scientists than the general population!

I'd guess probably the most atheistic of all professions, easily.

And there is quite the difference between "a personal god" and "some form of deity or higher power." Einstein would have said no in 1914, but a qualified yes on the recent survey.

[ZombieHorde]

13. "a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power"

"95% of American adults say they believe in some form of deity or higher power"

51% versus 95%.

Yet another reason to increase science education around the world.

Thanks for posting.