Difference between revisions of "Scientists and belief in the existence of God"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Experimental evidence that the prayers of Bible believers are effective)
(clean up & uniformity)
(47 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
[[Image:Bacon5.jpg|thumb|right|175px|In his essay ''Of [[Atheism]]'' Sir [[Francis Bacon]] wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran (Koran)]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."<ref>Bacon, Francis, [http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html Of Atheism]</ref>  ]]
 +
The [[scientific revolution]] was birthed in a Christianized Europe (see: [[Christianity and science]]). And devout Christians played a significant role in the scientific revolution.<ref>
 +
*[http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749 Christianity and the birth of science]
 +
*[http://creation.com/21-great-scientists-who-believed-the-bible 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible]</ref>
 +
 +
Strictly speaking, the existence of God is a [[Philosophy|philosophical]] question and not a [[science|scientific]] question since God is supernatural and thus outside of nature. 
 +
 +
The majority of philosophers of religion, or those who have extensively studied the issue of the [[Arguments for the existence of God|existence of God]], are [[theism|theists]] (72 percent).<ref>[http://www.strangenotions.com/atheist-scientists/ Does it matter that many scientists are atheists?]</ref>
 +
 +
== Poll: Over half of American scientists believe in some form of deity or higher power ==
 +
 
According to a 2009 Pew Research poll of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."<ref>[http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ Scientists and Belief Scientists and belief]</ref>
 
According to a 2009 Pew Research poll of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."<ref>[http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ Scientists and Belief Scientists and belief]</ref>
  
 
== Doctors believe in God more than social scientists. Medical science is often more reliable than social science ==
 
== Doctors believe in God more than social scientists. Medical science is often more reliable than social science ==
−
[[File:Donald John Trump.jpg|200px|right|thumbnail|Few, if any, political scientists predicted early on that [[Donald Trump]] would be the leading Republican candidate in the 2016 [[GOP]] primaries.  
+
[[File:Donald John Trump.jpg|200px|right|thumbnail|Few, if any, political scientists predicted early on that [[Donald Trump]] would be the leading Republican candidate in the 2016 [[GOP]] primary.  
−
<br />
+
 
−
<br />
+
27 percent of American political scientists believe in the existence of God while 76 percent of American doctors said they believe in God.<ref>
−
27 percent of American political scientists believe in the existence of God while 76 percent of American doctors said they believe in God.
+
*[http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html Scientists belief in God varies starkly by discipline], Livescience.com
−
<br />
+
*[http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8318894/ns/health-health_care/t/survey-most-doctors-believe-god-afterlife/ Most doctors believe in God], NBC News</ref>  
−
<br />
+
 
 
Compared to [[medical science]] which has many effective medicines and surgical procedures, the social science of political science is often unreliable.]]
 
Compared to [[medical science]] which has many effective medicines and surgical procedures, the social science of political science is often unreliable.]]
 
''See also:'' [[Atheism and health]]
 
''See also:'' [[Atheism and health]]
Line 13: Line 24:
 
NBC News reported: "In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine."<ref>[http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8318894/ns/health-health_care/t/survey-most-doctors-believe-god-afterlife/ Most doctors believe in God], NBC News</ref>  
 
NBC News reported: "In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine."<ref>[http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8318894/ns/health-health_care/t/survey-most-doctors-believe-god-afterlife/ Most doctors believe in God], NBC News</ref>  
  
−
On the other hand, according to Livescience.com, 31 percent of social scientists believe in God. (27 percent of [[political science|political scientists]], who are social scientists, believe in the existence of God).<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html Scientists belief in God varies starkly by discipline], Livescience.com</ref>
+
On the other hand, according to Livescience.com, 31 percent of [[social science|social scientists]] believe in God.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html Scientists belief in God varies starkly by discipline], Livescience.com</ref>  27 percent of [[political science|political scientists]], who are social scientists, believe in the existence of God.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html Scientists belief in God varies starkly by discipline], Livescience.com</ref>
  
−
Compared to [[medical science]] which has many effective medicines and surgical procedures, social science is often unreliable. For example, few economists (economics is a social science) in academia predicted the [[Great Depression]] or the 1987 financial crisis. [[Ludwig von Mises]] was snubbed by economists worldwide when he warned of a credit crisis in the 1920s.<ref>[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574443600711779692 The man who predicted the depression], Wall Street Journal</ref>  Few, if any, political scientists predicted early on that [[Donald Trump]] would be the leading Republican candidate in the [[GOP]] primaries in 2016.   
+
Compared to [[medical science]] which has many effective medicines and surgical procedures, social science is often unreliable. For example, few economists (economics is a social science) in academia predicted the [[Great Depression]] or the 1987 financial crisis. [[Ludwig von Mises]] was snubbed by economists worldwide when he warned of a credit crisis in the 1920s.<ref>[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574443600711779692 The man who predicted the depression], Wall Street Journal</ref>  Few, if any, political scientists predicted early on that [[Donald Trump]] would be the leading Republican candidate in the 2016 [[GOP]] primary. 
 +
 
 +
The political scientist Emily Thorson wrote at the Politico website:
 +
{{cquote|Late last semester, a student showed up during my office hours. She sat down across from me, looking worried. I assumed she wanted to discuss her upcoming paper, but she had something else in mind. “Professor,” she said. “How did Donald Trump happen?”
 +
 
 +
This is the question everyone seems to be asking these days. Trump’s rise has defied the predictions of pundits and pollsters, repeatedly embarrassing those who swore that he would flame out. I’m a political scientist, and I count myself among that number. In September, I offered my students a $500 bet that he wouldn’t become the Republican nominee — a wager I’m increasingly glad that none of them took me up on.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-2016-political-science-213755 5 Political Myths Trump Is Exploding] by Emily Thorson, Politico</ref>}}
 +
 
 +
In an article entitled ''How reliable are the social sciences?'', Cary Cutting wrote in the ''New York Times'':
 +
{{cquote|While the physical sciences produce many detailed and precise predictions, the social sciences do not.  The reason is that such predictions almost always require randomized controlled experiments, which are seldom possible when people are involved.  For one thing, we are too complex: our behavior depends on an enormous number of tightly interconnected variables that are extraordinarily difficult to  distinguish and study separately.  Also, moral considerations forbid manipulating humans the way we do inanimate objects.  As a result, most social science research falls far short of the natural sciences’ standard of controlled experiments.<ref>[http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/how-reliable-are-the-social-sciences/?_r=0 ''How reliable are the social sciences?''] by Cary Cutting, ''New York Times''</ref>}}
  
 
=== Social science of psychology very frequently contains pseudoscience ===
 
=== Social science of psychology very frequently contains pseudoscience ===
  
 
''See also:'' [[Psychology]]
 
''See also:'' [[Psychology]]
 +
 +
Psychology is a social science.
 +
 +
Among American college professors, psychology professors have the highest percentage of atheists (50% of American college professors are atheists).<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amarnath-amarasingam/how-religious-are-america_b_749630.html Are American College Professors Religious?], Huffington Post</ref>
  
 
In 2014, the science journal ''Nature'' reported that over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test.<ref>[http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test], Bature</ref>
 
In 2014, the science journal ''Nature'' reported that over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test.<ref>[http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test], Bature</ref>
Line 37: Line 60:
 
=== The atheist psychologist Sigmund Freud promoted pseudoscience ===
 
=== The atheist psychologist Sigmund Freud promoted pseudoscience ===
  
−
[[Image:freud-thumb.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Sigmund Freud]] in his laboratory]]
+
See: [[Atheists and the National Academy of Sciences#The atheist psychologist Sigmund Freud promoted pseudoscience|The atheist psychologist Sigmund Freud promoted pseudoscience]]
−
 
+
−
''See also:'' [[Sigmund Freud's view of religion]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]
+
  
−
[[Sigmund Freud]] and the atheistic and pseudoscientific [[Sigmund Freud|Freudian]] [[psychoanalysis]] has had a cultish following.<ref>[http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/paper-CrewsFreud.html The Freudian psychoanalysis cult] by Kevin MacDonald, Ph.D.</ref><ref>[http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/5th-october-1985/32/the-pretensions-of-the-freudian-cult The pretensions of the Freudian cult by Thomas Szasz, ''The Spectator'', 4 OCTOBER 1985, Page 32]</ref> See also: [[Atheist cults]]
+
== Atheism and science ==
  
−
Freud was a proponent of the notion that theism was detrimental to mental health.<ref name="christtoday">McGrath, Alister (February 28, 2005).  [http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/003/21.36.html "The twilight of atheism"].  ''Christianity Today'' website.  Retrieved on May 23, 2015.</ref>  [[Oxford]] Professor [[Alister McGrath]], author of the book ''The Twilight of Atheism'',  stated the following regarding Freud:
+
{{See also|Atheism and science}}
−
{{cquote|One of the most important criticisms that Sigmund Freud directed against religion was that it encourages unhealthy and dysfunctional outlooks on life. Having dismissed religion as an illusion, Freud went on to argue that it is a negative factor in personal development. At times, Freud's influence has been such that the elimination of a person's religious beliefs has been seen as a precondition for mental health.
+
  
−
Freud is now a fallen idol, the fall having been all the heavier for its postponement. There is now growing awareness of the importance of spirituality in health care, both as a positive factor in relation to well-being and as an issue to which patients have a right. The "Spirituality and Healing in Medicine" conference sponsored by [[Harvard]] Medical School in 1998 brought reports that 86 percent of Americans as a whole, 99 percent of family physicians, and 94 percent of HMO professionals believe that prayer, meditation, and other spiritual and religious practices exercise a major positive role within the healing process.<ref name="christtoday">http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/march/21.36.html</ref>}}
+
In the both the physical sciences and social sciences atheism has had a negative effect on science (see: [[Atheism and science]]).
−
[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg‎ |thumb|225px|left|Atheists have a higher suicide rate than [[theism|theists]].<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html Adherents.com - suicide rates]</ref> See: [[Atheism and suicide]] ]]
+
−
The prestigious [[Mayo Clinic]] reported on December 11, 2001:
+
−
{{cquote|In an article also published in this issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Mayo Clinic researchers reviewed published studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews and subject reviews that examined the association between religious involvement and spirituality and physical health, mental health, health-related quality of life and other health outcomes.
+
  
−
The authors report a majority of the nearly 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health that have used religious and spiritual variables have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes.<ref name="Mayo">Mueller, Dr. Paul S. et al. (December 2001). [http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2811%2962799-7/fulltext "Religious involvement, spirituality, and medicine: implications for clinical practice"]. ''Mayo Clinic Proceedings'' vol. 76:12, pp. 1225-1235.  Retrieved from Mayo Clinic Proceedings website on July 20, 2014.</ref>}}
+
== See also ==
−
== National Academy of Sciences scientists and disbelief in a personal God ==
+
  
−
See: [[Atheists and the National Academy of Sciences]]
+
*[[Christianity and science]]
 +
*[[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]
  
 
== Notes ==
 
== Notes ==
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
{{reflist|2}}
  
−
[[Category: Sociology]]
+
[[Category:Sociology]]
−
[[Category: Theism]]
+
[[Category:Theism]]
−
[[Category: Atheism]]
+
[[Category:Atheism]]

Revision as of 19:01, July 13, 2016

In his essay Of Atheism Sir Francis Bacon wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran (Koran), than that this universal frame is without a mind."[1]

The scientific revolution was birthed in a Christianized Europe (see: Christianity and science). And devout Christians played a significant role in the scientific revolution.[2]

Strictly speaking, the existence of God is a philosophical question and not a scientific question since God is supernatural and thus outside of nature.

The majority of philosophers of religion, or those who have extensively studied the issue of the existence of God, are theists (72 percent).[3]

Poll: Over half of American scientists believe in some form of deity or higher power

According to a 2009 Pew Research poll of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."[4]

Doctors believe in God more than social scientists. Medical science is often more reliable than social science

Few, if any, political scientists predicted early on that Donald Trump would be the leading Republican candidate in the 2016 GOP primary. 27 percent of American political scientists believe in the existence of God while 76 percent of American doctors said they believe in God.[5] Compared to medical science which has many effective medicines and surgical procedures, the social science of political science is often unreliable.

See also: Atheism and health

NBC News reported: "In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine."[6]

On the other hand, according to Livescience.com, 31 percent of social scientists believe in God.[7] 27 percent of political scientists, who are social scientists, believe in the existence of God.[8]

Compared to medical science which has many effective medicines and surgical procedures, social science is often unreliable. For example, few economists (economics is a social science) in academia predicted the Great Depression or the 1987 financial crisis. Ludwig von Mises was snubbed by economists worldwide when he warned of a credit crisis in the 1920s.[9] Few, if any, political scientists predicted early on that Donald Trump would be the leading Republican candidate in the 2016 GOP primary.

The political scientist Emily Thorson wrote at the Politico website:

“ Late last semester, a student showed up during my office hours. She sat down across from me, looking worried. I assumed she wanted to discuss her upcoming paper, but she had something else in mind. “Professor,” she said. “How did Donald Trump happen?”

This is the question everyone seems to be asking these days. Trump’s rise has defied the predictions of pundits and pollsters, repeatedly embarrassing those who swore that he would flame out. I’m a political scientist, and I count myself among that number. In September, I offered my students a $500 bet that he wouldn’t become the Republican nominee — a wager I’m increasingly glad that none of them took me up on.[10]

”

In an article entitled How reliable are the social sciences?, Cary Cutting wrote in the New York Times:

“ While the physical sciences produce many detailed and precise predictions, the social sciences do not. The reason is that such predictions almost always require randomized controlled experiments, which are seldom possible when people are involved. For one thing, we are too complex: our behavior depends on an enormous number of tightly interconnected variables that are extraordinarily difficult to distinguish and study separately. Also, moral considerations forbid manipulating humans the way we do inanimate objects. As a result, most social science research falls far short of the natural sciences’ standard of controlled experiments.[11] ”

Social science of psychology very frequently contains pseudoscience

See also: Psychology

Psychology is a social science.

Among American college professors, psychology professors have the highest percentage of atheists (50% of American college professors are atheists).[12]

In 2014, the science journal Nature reported that over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test.[13]

In 2011, the New York Times declared:

“ Also common is a self-serving statistical sloppiness. In an analysis published this year, Dr. Wicherts and Marjan Bakker, also at the University of Amsterdam, searched a random sample of 281 psychology papers for statistical errors. They found that about half of the papers in high-end journals contained some statistical error.[14] ”

Theodore Beale reported:

“ This is why therapy is reliably doomed to failure:..

In addition to the 46 percent of psychologists who the NHS reports as being depressed, "out of 800 psychologists sampled, 29 per cent reported suicidal ideation and 4 per cent reported attempting suicide."...

Would you go to a plumber whose toilet is overflowing? Would you hire a computer programmer who didn't know how to use a computer? Then why would you ever talk to one of these nutjobs in order to fix whatever mental issues you might be having?...

There is very little scientific evidence of the benefits of psychology. I read one recent study which showed that neurotic individuals actually stabilize on their own at a higher rate than those who seek therapy. This is no surprise, as the foundations of psychology are literally fiction.[15]

”

The atheist psychologist Sigmund Freud promoted pseudoscience

See: The atheist psychologist Sigmund Freud promoted pseudoscience

Atheism and science

See also: Atheism and science

In the both the physical sciences and social sciences atheism has had a negative effect on science (see: Atheism and science).

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Bacon, Francis, Of Atheism
  2. ↑
  3. ↑ Does it matter that many scientists are atheists?
  4. ↑ Scientists and Belief Scientists and belief
  5. ↑
  6. ↑ Most doctors believe in God, NBC News
  7. ↑ Scientists belief in God varies starkly by discipline, Livescience.com
  8. ↑ Scientists belief in God varies starkly by discipline, Livescience.com
  9. ↑ The man who predicted the depression, Wall Street Journal
  10. ↑ 5 Political Myths Trump Is Exploding by Emily Thorson, Politico
  11. ↑ How reliable are the social sciences? by Cary Cutting, New York Times
  12. ↑ Are American College Professors Religious?, Huffington Post
  13. ↑ Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test, Bature
  14. ↑ Fraud Case Seen as a Red Flag for Psychology Research
  15. ↑ Psychologist, heal thyself
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientists_and_belief_in_the_existence_of_God&oldid=1260369"