Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Science > Behavior/Humans

July 2nd, 2007, 06:47 GMT · By Stefan Anitei

Why Don't Scientists Believe in God?

SHARE:

Adjust text size:



Enlarge picture
There is some ridiculous trying to show that science does cope with religion. But the result is a bogus science. Real science is not based on predetermined facts. And scientists indeed are less religious than the general population, as revealed by a new research, but the cause has little to do with science itself or academic pressures. The result defies the idea that science by itself induces the lack of faith among scientists, showing that family education is the main factor in modeling an
individual's religiousness.

"Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform. It is important to understand this, because we face religious-scientific controversies over stem-cell research and evolution," said co-author Elaine Howard Ecklund, a sociologist at the University at Buffalo.

The research was made on a pool of 1,646 researchers at 21 elite research universities and in-depth interviews were made with 271 of them. These people were specializing in physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, psychology and other domains.

"Nearly 75 % of the subjects responded, which is extremely high for a faculty survey." said Ecklund.

The information gathered showed that growing in a religious home is the most important factor in determining how religious someone will be, no matter if a scientist or member of the general population.

Data for general population was employed from the 1998 and 2004 General Social Survey (GSS), a national approach made by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

The new research revealed that 52 % of researchers that entered the survey pool stated they had no religious affiliation, compared to just 14 % of the overall population. Of the religious researchers, 15 % identified themselves as Jewish, while in the general population just 2 %.

14 % of the general population declared themselves "evangelical" or "fundamentalist", while less than 2 % of researchers regarded themselves as either of these. Paradoxically, younger researchers were more likely to be faithful than older researchers.

"If these young and religious scientists continue to stay religious, it could indicate an overall shift in attitudes toward religion among those in the academy." said Ecklund.
FILED UNDER:
science
religion
faith

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

4,345 hits · 2 comments · Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend · Subscribe to news

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


What's Really in the Mind of the Suicide Bomber?

Why Did Christianity Not Work Out With the Chinese People?

DNA Analysis Has Cleared Up The Origins of the Etruscans

Tuareg: the Blue People

The Sex Slaves of the Fertility Goddess

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: Don on 28 Feb 2011, 06:54 UTC reply to this comment

Evolution= a religion ..anything that someone believes in when it comes to their existence is a deep inherent belief system..unfortunately evolution does not stand up to any testing....it can't cause it's not true...you can prove it by going to 7-11..when you get there ask yourself..how did this get built or did it just build itself..if you say it built itself than you you need to be in a mental ward and that is what evolutionists believe..or ask me..I lived in a haunted house for 7 years..live there and see how long you belkeive in evolution..I could save a lot of peope a lot of time collecting soil samples ....and that my friends is the REAL truth...

Comment #1.1 by: Matt on 01 Aug 2011, 14:48 GMT

Might i suggest that next time before you comment on a subject to which you demonstrate, within the comment itself, your overwhelming ignorance of evolution. Evolution can be tested, i have performed experiments in several organisms with a fast generation turnover such as fruit flys and bacteria SHOWING the evolution of each population as the result of the introduction of either a predator or another environmental stressor. And that's just me, similar experiments have been performed countless times globally.
Next we have the almost perfect family tree of both the genomes of various organisms and the mitochondrial DNA they possess which, when analysed, places organisms into a perfect hierachy (such as more difference between humans and cats than humans and chimpanzees, and more difference between humans and, say, salvia hexia, than humans and pigs. And so on, obviously these are examples and the overall number of species in existance now, let alone the past is more than i believe my life gives me time to type.)
Next we have fossils. Allow me to educate you. Fossils are, surprisingly, not as the leaders of many faiths would have you believe " the turd of satan" or "A huge conspiracy". Fossils are sedimentary records of what was previously occupied by bone tissue. These fossils show changes in organisms over time to an incredibly accurate degree. If it were not enough to observe these changes "whenever they happened", then the sediment can be dated. That is correct, they can be dated to determine their time of origin using not one, not two, but MANY DIFFERENT types of radioactive methods that give INDEPENDENT, that means if one was wrong the others would account for it, results that actually tell us when these fossils were created.
The THEORY of evolution is simply called a theory because nothing in science can be proved. It is no less true than the fact that people with diabetes type 1 lack insulin, and putting insulin in their bodies makes them "better". Therefore we KNOW that lack of insulin is a symptom of diabetes type 1.
Let me assure you, science is GLOBAL community, that discovers information about the way the world works by making a theory, and then trying to prove it wrong. Once somebody discovers something it is then subject to review by peers. The system is designed so that results cannot be easily misinterpretted. The evidence for evolution is no clear and in abundance, so that anyone who saw half of the evidence, would be nothing but a fool to dispute it without reasonable grounds.

I'll close with this, nothing is ever declared 'true' in science, not even that the world is spherical. However, as far as 'truths' go, evolution is about as true as it gets.

Trust me, if scientists had the slightest reason to be 'religious' they'd be the first to look into it.

Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM