Predestination and Free Will

[Mr. Tweedy]

For the most part it helps, but your lack of interest in the other Books seems backwards.  You want to learn about your God, and yet these accounts are somewhat ignored.  Who is it that decided their historical validity is far less certain?

I could go into a spiel about the cannon canon and how it got made and process of textual criticism, but that really isn't what convinces me.  This is stepping further out from plain logic than most of my previous statements and fits more closely into the "I choose to believe this" category:

If god wanted us to know about Him, he'd have to tell us somehow.  And if he wanted to tell us, the only logical way would be to leave a book, something that is external to any single human mind against which we can measure our ideas about Him and do research, should we be so inclined.  If God really wants to talk to us, then something like a Bible is necessary, and so God would make sure that a book was preserved.  (Why not give everybody a personal revelation?  Well, then we'd just be arguing about whose revelation was better than whose and people could lie about they'd had revealed, and it really wouldn't be any better than if there were no revelations at all.)

Which book?  Why not the Koran?  (I'm not finished reading the Koran yet, but I'll get there eventually.)  I'm trying to concise, so I'll just say that in reading the Bible, you see a number of unique qualities not present in any other book that I'm aware of.

High among these is the fact that all of its characters (with the exception of Jesus) are flawed, usually very flawed.  Bible "heroes" are seldom heroic: They actually spend a lot of their time sort of bumbling around, screwing things up, and not one gets everything right.  No one was writing this for their own glory or benefit.  In contrast to the Koran, in which I've read passages that are very pro-Muhammad, the Bible is very seldom nice to the people about whom it is written.  One of the key points of the Bible, Old and New Testaments both, is that it cuts down the people (like me) who claim to follow it: It calls us all sinners and tells us not to be proud of ourselves.  That's not what you'd expect from self-serving human propoganda.

Most of you haven't read the Bible much, I gather, but, from my perspective, the message of the Bible is radical.  It turns the world on its head: The greatest is the least.  The strong serve the weak.  The whore is more righteous than the cleric.  The Bible says things that are totally out-there in comparrison to anything else I know about, but all that crazy out-there stuff makes total sense, once you really start to understand what it's saying.  Lots of things seem plausible until you get into them.  The Bible is the opposite: It seems crazy until you read into it, and then it makes sense.

Again, I'm trying to be concise, so sorry if it sounds like a cop-out, but I don't see, really, what else the Bible could be but a message from God.  It is, at least, something very unique, and if you put on your sci-fi hats and think about what a message from God would be like, it would have to be something like this.  Although there is historical evidence that the Bible is at least as accurate as any other ancient writings, the qualities of the book itself do more to convince me of its authenticity than does that evidence.

[SFEley]

Again, I'm trying to be concise, so sorry if it sounds like a cop-out, but I don't see, really, what else the Bible could be but a message from God.  It is, at least, something very unique, and if you put on your sci-fi hats and think about what a message from God would be like, it would have to be something like this.  Although there is historical evidence that the Bible is at least as accurate as any other ancient writings, the qualities of the book itself do more to convince me of its authenticity than does that evidence.

I respect this a lot.  Good on ya.

My challenge to you is this: if you never have, have a sincere conversation with a Buddhist.  Find out why they believe in the Buddha's teachings.  Think as objectively as possible about whether their reasons for conviction are any different from your reasons for conviction. 

Wisdom comes in a lot of forms.  Religions vary widely in their specifics, speculations, and spirits, but the most successful ones all have core messages that are similar and positive: Be good to others.  Respect your elders; treasure your family; value your community.  Reduce suffering.  Care for others because they are all fundamentally like you.  If you have much, share it with those who have little: not because you must, but because you can.  Give of yourself to make the seen world better, and the sacrifices you make will be rewarded in the unseen world.

If anyone can name an extant religion that doesn't have these messages in one wording or another, I'd like to hear about it. 

Whether you get them through one religion, another, or no religion, these are good messages.  That's why I like religion.  I've had my share of mystical experiences in the past from several different sources, and while I'm skeptical now about the external reality of any of them, I don't think it matters.  The internal reality of them, the experience, is very powerful.  And while religion does cause a lot of harm and waste and suffering in the world, it can also do a lot of good.

If Christianity works uniquely well for you, to make you a better person, that's terrific.  It doesn't make it unique to me.  But I wouldn't want to argue with you about something that clearly works.


(...And by the way -- no, I'm not going to moderate this thread, barring unexpected viciousness.  Anyone still in this topic has got to still be here because they want to be here.  There's no code in the forum scripts forcing anyone to read this.)

[Bdoomed]

Again, I'm trying to be concise, so sorry if it sounds like a cop-out, but I don't see, really, what else the Bible could be but a message from God.  It is, at least, something very unique, and if you put on your sci-fi hats and think about what a message from God would be like, it would have to be something like this.  Although there is historical evidence that the Bible is at least as accurate as any other ancient writings, the qualities of the book itself do more to convince me of its authenticity than does that evidence.

makes me think of EP 107: Eight Episodes.  The 'aliens' were trying to give a message to the humans, ignoring all theatrics and actual entertainment value.

Take it this way: If I view a thing as a sin, then I am doing a diservice to others by sanctioning it.  If I believe that a person is making a dangerous mistake, then the loving thing to do it to inform them of their error and help them correct it.  To see someone in error and lie to them and tell them they were okay would be hateful, not loving.  If someone saw me making a mistake, I'd want them to tell me.  I am doing nothing good for a sinner by telling them that they aren't one.

I see what your thinking, but I hope you also think of what the people you would be saying this to would be thinking.  A stranger walking up to them and telling them that what they feel at heart is sinfull.  Now try to imagine that same person accepting what you said without any argument, just accepting that what they think is sinfull and they should stop.  No matter what good intentions you may have/think you have, its not going to look good to anyone but those who fully share your ideas.  Lets say suddenly everyone becomes part of Religion x, and religion x teaches that Christianity is sinfull, and EVERYONE believes it.  How would you feel being told that what you believe is sinfull and you should stop?  How would you feel being barred from going to church because of it?  Now i know its a far fetched example, and not exactly the same, but just try to  put yourself in their shoes, and you'll see why some people are hostile towards your ideas.

[FNH]

Now this is where you continue to prove to me that we could easily get along.  While I agree that many people are closed minded about many things, I will point out that I find that most people are the most closed-minded about their religion.  And that my understanding/def'n of Faith plays a large part in that.

I think that the "closed-minded" opinion of religious defence is unfounded.  You'll find that many Christians appear this way on a first glance.  However as conversations like this prove they are open to debate.  The main difference in my opinion is that the Christian enters the conversation from a heart felt and reason/Bible based logic.  Non religious often approach the same issues from a fuzzy "lets all be good to each other" stance with their own definitions of what that means.

Then you have to figure human nature into the equation.  Man ( especially men ) likes black and white answers, clear line of demarcation.  So having studied the Bible and reached conclusions and or clear ideas the human mind says "Ah ha! A black and White answer, yes!!!!!!"  Then they stick to that point like glue and appear as close-minded.  yet I think if you dig around that point using the same terminology and understanding of the base arguements you'll find that they are able to have the conversation and "open" their mind.

It's this close-minded approach that many organised religions have, especially in relation to teaching.  You'll find laws and points taught constantly but without understanding.  This kind of approach is teaching close-mindedness.  It the basis of the whole ID debate in fact.  ( I'm not trying to start an ID debate here just making a point ).  In this context Evolution is taught and no other option allowed to be considered.  That leads to close-mindedness. 

I've just argued myself in a circle.  Doh!

[slic]

I realize this is a bit of a hot button issue in the US so I want to clarify that the comments below are not meant to immflamatory, I just think this is a good example.
Spending any time learning Intelligent Design in Biology class is akin to spending time learning how to microwave frozen dinners in Home Economics class.  It's just lazy science, and by it's very nature it restricts scientific enquiry. "What do you mean you want to study cells that are sensitive to visible light to see how they relate to the human eye?  We all Know that God made the eye, there is no point in your study."

As FNH pointed out, if people think they already have an answer, especially one provided by an infalliable Almighty, it's pretty hard to provide any proof strong enough to counter that.

[Mr. Tweedy]

My challenge to you is this: if you never have, have a sincere conversation with a Buddhist.  Find out why they believe in the Buddha's teachings.  Think as objectively as possible about whether their reasons for conviction are any different from your reasons for conviction. 

If only I were so fortunate as to know any sincere Buddhists; they would surely be full of interesting things to say.  Sadly, All the Buddhists I have know were of the "I only say I'm a Buddhist to aviod offending my parents, but I really don't give a rip" variety.  Lots of Christians are the same way.  Until I started posting here, all the atheists I have known were of the "I call myself an atheist to piss my parents off but I really haven't given it much thought" type.

Not going anywhere with that; just a bit sad that people take their own beliefs so flippantly.

[eytanz]

Not going anywhere with that; just a bit sad that people take their own beliefs so flippantly.

They don't. They take other people's beliefs flippantly, and feel that they can adopt the label without really adopting the associated beliefs. Which is sad, but I don't take it as a negative comment on the people, but rather as a negative comment on society which is not usually content to accept "I never really developed any beliefs" as an acceptable answer from people.

[Mr. Tweedy]

I realize this is a bit of a hot button issue in the US so I want to clarify that the comments below are not meant to immflamatory, I just think this is a good example.
Spending any time learning Intelligent Design in Biology class is akin to spending time learning how to microwave frozen dinners in Home Economics class.  It's just lazy science, and by it's very nature it restricts scientific enquiry. "What do you mean you want to study cells that are sensitive to visible light to see how they relate to the human eye?  We all Know that God made the eye, there is no point in your study."

As FNH pointed out, if people think they already have an answer, especially one provided by an infalliable Almighty, it's pretty hard to provide any proof strong enough to counter that.

I see what you mean, but I disagree.  Starting from the viewpoint that a things was designed does nothing to discourage you from studying it.  Saying that God made the eye does not keep me from being curious about how He did it and how it works, just the opposite, really.  Saying that God invented everything does not imply that each thing will be utterly distinct from each other: Rather, you might expect an inventor to use similar methods and tools in many different works.  Learning how an inventor solved a problem in one instance provides insight into how he/she might solve it another.  From a purely pragmatic standpoint, saying "These organisms are all related by their common design" is just as useful as saying "They are related by a common ancestor."  I don't think there is any inherent antagonism between ID and biological study (sorry, Richard Dawkins).

Wisdom comes in a lot of forms.  Religions vary widely in their specifics, speculations, and spirits, but the most successful ones all have core messages that are similar and positive: Be good to others.  Respect your elders; treasure your family; value your community.  Reduce suffering.  Care for others because they are all fundamentally like you.  If you have much, share it with those who have little: not because you must, but because you can.  Give of yourself to make the seen world better, and the sacrifices you make will be rewarded in the unseen world.

If anyone can name an extant religion that doesn't have these messages in one wording or another, I'd like to hear about it.

Extant religions?  As I understand it, Hinduism has a whole "untouchable" class who are doomed to poverty from birth.  Helping these people is something like a sin because it violates their carma: I.e. their oppressed state is a judgement for bad deeds in a previous life, and hence no one should help them.  Extremeist Muslims think everybody who is not an Extreme Muslim should be killed.  I don't about others extant, but there are lots of historical religions in which a general reduction of human suffering was of no interest at all.  (Human sacrifice, anyone?)  While all religions have some kind of moral code, that moral code rarely behooves the pious to universal charity, or even to be generally nice.  What you usually see is rules saying that you should be nice to the people who are members of certain groups, but people outside those groups are afforded less (or no) respect.  Religions calling for universal respect or for a general decrease in human suffering are rare, I think.

What all religions do have is a sort of survival-assurance mechanism.  This is Darwinian: If a religious system requires ritual suicide of all converts, then the religion isn't going to be around very long.  If the religion helps its adherents survive and do well, it'll stick around in some form.  If a religion is stupid and inhibits its adherents' ability to survive and progress, it won't be very popular and will probably vanish quickly.

That's why I figure there is some truth in all religions: If these ideas are sticking around, then obviously they must have useful qualities.  There must be some wisdom to be found in any idea that persists for 1000 years.  If there weren't people would forget about it.  The amount of wisdom and the amount of foolishness attached to it varies with each individual case.

[FNH]

As FNH pointed out, if people think they already have an answer, especially one provided by an infalliable Almighty, it's pretty hard to provide any proof strong enough to counter that.

I dont think Science has to be anti-religious.  It's a question of perspective.  Investigating how the world works is not against Christianity as I understand it.  Atoms, DNA etc are simply bits of the whole.

You can be amazed and astounded by the majesty in microcosm but still appreciate the bigger picture.

[wherethewild]

I dont think Science has to be anti-religious.  It's a question of perspective.  Investigating how the world works is not against Christianity as I understand it.  Atoms, DNA etc are simply bits of the whole.

I do get slightly annoyed with the idea that religon and science can mix.  Science and faith only mix from religon´s point of view, where it can take whatever science it wants and express it as "evidence" of a god. Science does not take parts of the Bible and use that as evidence of the scientific method.

As such, I get annoyed by scientists who are religious. Being a scientist means approaching the world with a logical and critical gaze; it means creating hypotheses based on observations, testing them and discarding them if need be. If a scientist believes in an "almighty being" then he is not approaching the world in that way. I do not understand how people can split their ideologies so cleanly down the middle: Here I will be logical and scientific, demanding evidence and experimental support for any hypothesis; but here I´ll just believe it ´cause I was brought up to.

[eytanz]

I do get slightly annoyed with the idea that religon and science can mix.  Science and faith only mix from religon´s point of view, where it can take whatever science it wants and express it as "evidence" of a god. Science does not take parts of the Bible and use that as evidence of the scientific method.

As such, I get annoyed by scientists who are religious. Being a scientist means approaching the world with a logical and critical gaze; it means creating hypotheses based on observations, testing them and discarding them if need be. If a scientist believes in an "almighty being" then he is not approaching the world in that way. I do not understand how people can split their ideologies so cleanly down the middle: Here I will be logical and scientific, demanding evidence and experimental support for any hypothesis; but here I´ll just believe it ´cause I was brought up to.

Your post betrays your bias - you are essentially saying "there's no evidence here, so scientists must believe the same thing I do". However,  there is no scientific evidence here, positive or negative. You can't prove that God exists by scientific methods, because there is nothing about the world that cannot be explained without invoking God. You can't prove that God doesn't exist by scientific methods, because adding God to the system influences nothing directly, because God by definition can emulate anything created by any natural law.

Occam's Razor, then, tells us that we must leave God out of our scientific theories, since there is no need for it.

But Occam's Razor is not a principle of what's *true*. It's a principle of what belongs in a scientific theory. A scientist is under no obligation to assume that just because something cannot be proven, it is false. On the contrary. A "perfect" scientist for you, one that lives all her life under the scientific theory, would be agnostic - refusing to accept God's existence without proof, but also refusing to accept God's lack of existence. Atheist scientists are just as "bad" as religious ones, since they take the leap from "there's no way to prove whether this exists" to "this must certainly not exist". But I don't accept your definition of a scientist. I agree that a scientist must approach the world critically. But I think that before the scientist need to start creating hypotheses, she must first ask herself if it is even a question that can be tested scientifically.

Two scientists may debate for hours whether "Star Wars" is better than "Star Trek" or vice versa. Should they be approaching this scientifically? The question "does God exist" is much like "Which of the two fandoms should I belong to". There is no scientific answer to this, and therefore any answer is valid - as long as the scientist keeps it out of the actual science.

[wherethewild]

Your post betrays your bias - you are essentially saying "there's no evidence here, so scientists must believe the same thing I do".

That´s trying to reduce what I said into a question of belief, which, as palimpsest has pointed out previously, is incorrect. Science (and atheism) is not about belief.

A "perfect" scientist for you, one that lives all her life under the scientific theory, would be agnostic - refusing to accept God's existence without proof, but also refusing to accept God's lack of existence. Atheist scientists are just as "bad" as religious ones, since they take the leap from "there's no way to prove whether this exists" to "this must certainly not exist".

You are writing as if both are equally valid probablities. Scientists researching cancer could include in their theory that little green men are responsible for swollen prostates. But that would be ridiculous and go against our knowledge of biology. Simply stating "I believe God exists" is not enough to consider it an equal hypothesis. To use Bertrand Russell´s example:  if I said "I believe there´s a teapot orbiting the sun which is too small for us to detect" you would say I was wrong- but based on what? Your faith or your understanding of the natural world? Can you disprove it? If not, would you hold it in equal weight to the theory that there isn´t a teapot orbiting the sun? 
 

But I don't accept your definition of a scientist. I agree that a scientist must approach the world critically. But I think that before the scientist need to start creating hypotheses, she must first ask herself if it is even a question that can be tested scientifically.

Why should God be exempt from the same kind of analysis that everything else has? 

Two scientists may debate for hours whether "Star Wars" is better than "Star Trek" or vice versa. Should they be approaching this scientifically? The question "does God exist" is much like "Which of the two fandoms should I belong to". There is no scientific answer to this, and therefore any answer is valid - as long as the scientist keeps it out of the actual science.

No, this is like "To which strain of faith, Catholic or Protestant, do I belong". You are making an argument based on inaccurate analogys. Both Star Trek and Star Wars have evidence of their existence. A more appropriate argument would be "Which is better: Star Wars or this other show which neither of us have seen but is definately out there?"

[eytanz]

Your post betrays your bias - you are essentially saying "there's no evidence here, so scientists must believe the same thing I do".

That´s trying to reduce what I said into a question of belief, which, as palimpsest has pointed out previously, is incorrect. Science (and atheism) is not about belief.

Science isn't. Atheism is. If you think otherwise, you're as deluded as a creationist is.

Science and faith are orthogonal to each other. Neither validates the other, nor invalidates it. Both rely on belief to some extent, but very different kinds of belief.

I agree with you completely that it is total fallacy to introduce God as a factor in science. I also agree with you totally that science not only doesn't, probably probably cannot, provide evidence for the existence of God. But the conclusion from this is that science cannot support *any* conclusions about God, positive or negative.

[wherethewild]

Science isn't. Atheism is. If you think otherwise, you're as deluded as a creationist is.

No, as has been stated elswhere in these forums, atheism is the absence of belief. Absence of belief does not equal belief (definition:conviction that something is true regardless of evidence) of the opposite idea.

However my comments were about the mixing of science and religon, so I´ll get back to that.

Science and faith are orthogonal to each other. Neither validates the other, nor invalidates it. Both rely on belief to some extent, but very different kinds of belief.

Firstly, that´s in direct contradiction to your above comment, where you agreed that science isn´t about belief. Secondly, faith relies on belief to all extent. Faith is not in a position to validate or invalidate anything as it supplies no evidence and does not rigorously address the known world taking all data into account.

I agree with you completely that it is total fallacy to introduce God as a factor in science. I also agree with you totally that science not only doesn't, probably probably cannot, provide evidence for the existence of God. But the conclusion from this is that science cannot support *any* conclusions about God, positive or negative.

Actually, I stated that God should be held to the same analysis as everything else. Again you have thrown up the idea that both hypothesis have equal validity which, as I already pointed out, is not the case.

[Mr. Tweedy]

No, as has been stated elswhere in these forums, atheism is the absence of belief. Absence of belief does not equal belief (definition:conviction that something is true regardless of evidence) of the opposite idea.

I would say the absence of belief is simple vacuity.  Even to state that "knowledge is impossible" is a statement of belief concerning the nature of knowledge: You can't even be agnostic without claiming to know something.  The only way to have no beliefs at all is simply to have not thought about anything, which is not a claim I think anyone is going to make about themselves.

Atheism is a statement of belief, even if the belief cannot be technically classified as religious.  "I do not believe in a supernatural realm.  I believe in a naturalistic explanation for all phenomenon."  If a person does not hold these beliefs, they are not an atheist.

[eytanz]

Science isn't. Atheism is. If you think otherwise, you're as deluded as a creationist is.

No, as has been stated elswhere in these forums, atheism is the absence of belief. Absence of belief does not equal belief (definition:conviction that something is true regardless of evidence) of the opposite idea.

No, it isn't. Belief that there is no god is not the same as lack of belief that there is one.

In 1995, it was discovered that the star 51 Pegasi has a planet revolving around it (the first non-Solar planet ever discovered). As far as I know, astronomers have no current way of knowing if this planet has any moons.

Based on current scientific knowledge, neither the belief that there is at least one moon, nor the belief that there are 0 moons, is justified. Only the lack of belief - saying that there may or may not be moons - is currently justified.

I am saying that the same applies to God. Believing that the number of gods is 1 is no more or less scientifically justified than believing it to be 0. Both assign values to the number of gods. The only scientifically valid position is that the number of gods may be 0, 1, or more.

Science and faith are orthogonal to each other. Neither validates the other, nor invalidates it. Both rely on belief to some extent, but very different kinds of belief.

Firstly, that´s in direct contradiction to your above comment, where you agreed that science isn´t about belief.

I never said that science isn't about belief. It just has different criteria for what can be believed.

Secondly, faith relies on belief to all extent. Faith is not in a position to validate or invalidate anything as it supplies no evidence and does not rigorously address the known world taking all data into account.

I agree.

Actually, I stated that God should be held to the same analysis as everything else. Again you have thrown up the idea that both hypothesis have equal validity which, as I already pointed out, is not the case.

I agree with this too, but where I disagree is with the interpretation of what the valid hypothesis is. You seem to think that scientific knowledge is subject to the law of excluded middle - that not being able to prove "A" means that you proved "not A". But that's not how it works.

Now, obviously, many things can't be fully proven, because we lack full knowledge. Part of my work is in cognitive neuroscience, and there we have very little direct evidence for any claim we make. That is why we use statistical tools to show that the explanation we propose is considerably more likely than competing hypotheses. This is also what rules out the teapot example - it's not possible to prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun. It is possible to show that that is highly unlikely.

The problem with the existence of God is that there is no idnependent way of assigning a likelihood to the existence of God. There are two competing hypothese, "There is a god" and "there isn't a god". Which one is more likely cannot be determined by scientific tools. Which is why I say science cannot answer questions about God - there is no valid way to evaluate the hypotheses. In your posts, you bring in a pre-determined bias - you think the "no god" position is more likely, because you already believe in it. That's not science.

[Heradel]

The only science-driven/derived God is a God of the Gaps. Nowhere in science is the proof of a God, or a place where he/she/it/they would fall into the equations. Thus God must exist in those gaps that science has not yet explained.

But as human knowledge expands, and science uncovers more, then those gaps get smaller, and thus God does as well.

You can't use science to define a God, because science will end up stripping that God of all it's potency.

[FNH]

as long as the scientist keeps it out of the actual science.

I think I agree... kinda.  If you take science in the context of only studying what you can see and making deductions about what you see.

However some Scientists can look at "a thing" and think , "this can't have appeared by chance".  So a scientist can make deductions and put forward theories and still have belief as seperate things.  We can not say that a scientist should not have faith.

[Heradel]

However some Scientists can look at "a thing" and think , "this can't have appeared by chance".  So a scientist can make deductions and put forward theories and still have belief as seperate things.  We can not say that a scientist should not have faith.

Considering the great beauty and utility found in entirely random chance events known to science (supernova, evolution, etc.) I wouldn't say that that scientist had any great familiarity with chaos theory. Or, well, modern science really. 

I'm not saying you can't believe in God and be a scientist, but there is a reason the National Academy of Science is something like 85% non-believing in a god/god-like figure.

[Mr. Tweedy]

there is a reason the National Academy of Science is something like 85% non-believing in a god/god-like figure.

Peer pressure.

(Hey sweet!  I'm using Apple's Safari 3 browser, and it spellchecks what I type in this box.  Red underline just like in a word processor, with suggestions when you right-click.  Get it, y'all.)

[Heradel]

Peer pressure.

(Hey sweet!  I'm using Apple's Safari 3 browser, and it spellchecks what I type in this box.  Red underline just like in a word processor, with suggestions when you right-click.  Get it, y'all.)

Found a link to the survey (and some general trending). I doubt peer pressure accounts for the numbers, especially in a field where you're supposed to be contrarian to a fault. Peer pressure is a cop-out answer, especially when it's easier to believe that it's what they're studying and how they're made to think that causes them to question belief in god to a greater extent than the general public.

And while I'm using Safari beta 3/OS X, I do have to note that Firefox has had inline spell checking for a while now. And that I believe Safari got it through the KHTML/Konqueror project it forked for Safari.

[eytanz]

Peer pressure.

(Hey sweet!  I'm using Apple's Safari 3 browser, and it spellchecks what I type in this box.  Red underline just like in a word processor, with suggestions when you right-click.  Get it, y'all.)

Found a link to the survey (and some general trending). I doubt peer pressure accounts for the numbers, especially in a field where you're supposed to be contrarian to a fault. Peer pressure is a cop-out answer, especially when it's easier to believe that it's what they're studying and how they're made to think that causes them to question belief in god to a greater extent than the general public.

Peer pressure goes both ways - there might be peer pressure from within the scientific community, but there certain is also a lot of peer pressure in religious communities to avoid becoming scientists.

A better answer, though, is not peer pressure but societal pressure. These days, in most of the world, science is lodged pretty firmly in the secular tradition. This was not always the case, and there are places in the world where the seperation is not nearly as clear-cut as in the US.

That said, I'm perfectly happy to grant that there's a correlation between the type of person who is likely to be a scientist and the kind of person who is likely to be atheist or agnostic. What I'm not accepting is that being a scientist and belief in God are contradictory - they're not. Rather, science is contradictory to many simple minded views of God and its relation to the world. Since it is these simple minded views that are currently by far the dominant ones -at least in terms of visibility - in both religious and anti-religious populations, it is not surprising that many people choose to reject them as they become better educated.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Found a link to the survey (and some general trending). I doubt peer pressure accounts for the numbers, especially in a field where you're supposed to be contrarian to a fault. Peer pressure is a cop-out answer, especially when it's easier to believe that it's what they're studying and how they're made to think that causes them to question belief in god to a greater extent than the general public.

It's not a cop-out; it's an expression of cynicism.  There is a strong tendency among scientists and laymen alike to regard scientists as purely rational, as bearers of truth who speak nothing unless it is proven beyond doubt to be fact.  That's not the case: Scientists are vulnerable to many pressures, and peer pressure is high among them.

There is a long-standing conceit in Western culture that atheism and naturalism are more rational and logical than their religious competitors.  Atheism has the allure of seeming intellectual, and so an image-conscious scientist would naturally feel drawn to it: It's what the smart people believe.  Knowing that your fellows think your beliefs are dumb is a strong incentive to change them.

This is not to argue that no scientist has come to be atheist through honest reasoning, as that is surely not the case.  But we should never make the dangerous mistake of assuming that scientists (or anyone else) speaks with complete freedom from influences political, social and financial.  If most scientists are atheists, that does not in itself indicate that atheism is scientific: There is far more to consider.

And, as usual, eytanz has some very good points.

Alas, but I must go.  Phooey.

[Heradel]

Peer pressure goes both ways - there might be peer pressure from within the scientific community, but there certain is also a lot of peer pressure in religious communities to avoid becoming scientists.

Or to become it for the wrong reasons. I don't want to bring up the unintentionally hilarious Creation Museum, but, well, it is religious pseudoscience. Same thing happens in politics. Science is science, and though there is disagreement, it comes (hopefully) from evidence and/or the lack thereof.

Ultimately, training in strict adherence to a code is not a good place for a scientist to come from. Many of the theist scientists are of the Clockmaker variety of Deism.

A better answer, though, is not peer pressure but societal pressure. These days, in most of the world, science is lodged pretty firmly in the secular tradition. This was not always the case, and there are places in the world where the seperation is not nearly as clear-cut as in the US.

Which is where — Atrocities is too strong a word, but I'm not sure what the right one is — things like the Creation museum come from. A religious scientist has an implied obligation to not report/find against things that contradict parts of his or her religion. And they often twist data to support their worldview (ID). Now, I'm not saying it's all religion, but it exists.

That said, I'm perfectly happy to grant that there's a correlation between the type of person who is likely to be a scientist and the kind of person who is likely to be atheist or agnostic. What I'm not accepting is that being a scientist and belief in God are contradictory - they're not. Rather, science is contradictory to many simple minded views of God and its relation to the world. Since it is these simple minded views that are currently by far the dominant ones -at least in terms of visibility - in both religious and anti-religious populations, it is not surprising that many people choose to reject them as they become better educated.

Well, yes, but once you give me that high-level religion that manages to side-step the science issue, I still have to firmly state that I find any world with a Heaven or Hell black and white devision between people rather... restricting. Bleak. Unworthy of living in. I think people have to be the masters of their fate, and that cannot coexist with an omnipotent/omniscient being. Knowing all that was and will be makes it impossible to live in a world and have a free life. It's simply not human.

Chaos is a far better creator of beauty, random chance, delight and despair, than an intelligence could ever be.  Life is far too short/precious/human/amazing to believe that this is only the run-up to something longer and better.

To Tweedy — Smart people also believe in religion. I've debat(ed/ing) with them. I'm not saying that belief in a God is an indicator of brains, just that it's not my cup of tea. At this level of conversation, the non-kneejerk atheists do have a good knowledge of various religions, and they don't find belief dumb, just wrong. There is a difference.

Also, while scientists can be seen as having pressures to become atheists from inside their tent, outside of that tent the overwhelming pressure (this is badly stated, but true) is to  conform into religiosity. And as to financial, well, look at the current administration's funding, and non-funding, of scientific projects. It can hardly be said to favor atheist scientists.

In the end, any pressure to be atheist is countered to nil by the outside pressures to be theist.

[eytanz]

Well, yes, but once you give me that high-level religion that manages to side-step the science issue, I still have to firmly state that I find any world with a Heaven or Hell black and white devision between people rather... restricting. Bleak. Unworthy of living in. I think people have to be the masters of their fate, and that cannot coexist with an omnipotent/omniscient being. Knowing all that was and will be makes it impossible to live in a world and have a free life. It's simply not human.

Chaos is a far better creator of beauty, random chance, delight and despair, than an intelligence could ever be.  Life is far too short/precious/human/amazing to believe that this is only the run-up to something longer and better.

You'll find no arguments from me here. I believe in something I call God, as I have said earlier in this thread, but I am not a religious person - and I subscribe wholeheartedly to everything you say in the quote above.