h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Heathen Sceptic, can I call you 'Heath'?

Not so much the fluffies, they still tend to swarm around the witches and wiccan. We get the crystal hippies and tree-hugging new agers. No disrespect to them but many have 'read a book' and then turn up to our rituals to criticise us ("you walked widdershins, you did, I saw you!").To quote my favourite Rabbi, Lionel Blue, Oi Vey!

Is that 'folkish' elements you're talking about or 'Der Volk-ish'? (sorry, couldn't help myself).

You are right though we do have our full range of human problems, but the basic premises that support both our paths do mean we regard the world and power from a quite different perspective.

For a start we focus on the world now, not the one to come. It occurs to me that the Abrahamic religions owe a lot to the Egyptian obsession with death and the afterlife, but that's another story.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Della
"but rest assured that in scientific circles (at least in Britain) atheism is the norm"
Well door 'believes' it to be true and therefore it is - to Door
Which by doors criteria makes it 'meaningless.'

Door is right - how can you call yourself a scientist if you believe in the supernatural?

Investigate supernatural 'theories' by all means. Viz:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3193902.stm

But accepting either mutually contradictory ideas or wildly romantic postulates for which there is no testable evidence is totally unscientific. What scientist is ever going to write "experimental results may have been affected by the Will of God" in his latest submission to 'Nature'? If he is a true believer, perhaps he should.

The scientific community is professionally atheist. Individual scientists may privately believe whatever they choose of course and for the same reasons that lawyers, estate agents and bank clerks do. As a private individual a scientist is no longer 'in scientific circles' however - he is in social circles instead. On that basis I am inclined to support the - unsubstantiated - premise: "but rest assured that in scientific circles (at least in Britain) atheism is the norm."

F

Well Fathom it is a fact many scientists do believe in stuff that can't be placed under a microscope.
I think we'd need a poll of all scientists to establish substantiation.
The point about religious belief is that it cannot be spearated into professional and personal life. One cannot dispose of ones belief systems at the lab door.

That's an intersting thought Moth because if:
a. "it is a fact many scientists do believe in stuff that can't be placed under a microscope"
and:
b. "The point about religious belief is that it cannot be spearated into professional and personal life"
are both true it follows that many scientists are practising their religions at work. [personal aside ]

If a religious scientist sets up an experiment to test his own ground breaking theory, being human he is likely to call on his god to give him a positive result. In the subsequent write-up he should state that such a prayer was included in the experimental procedure so that it can be replicated accurately. Although this may cause some amusement among his scientific peers this is the only honest approach.

Scientists are known to get skewed results in favour of their own hypotheses which are identified later under the peer review process within Science. Even where the hypothesis is accepted as correct, reviewers are frequently unable to replicate the results as perfectly as the person who proposed the hypothesis. Perhaps the 'silent prayer' effect is the cause of this instead of the generally accepted view that you tend to see what you expect to see. Maybe there should be some experiments to test this idea...

F

> Upping the ante would be nice, if it could be accomplished without
> seeming like a grumpy atheist...

You spotted the fatal flaw...

> Well, then, the soul, if you believe we have one, is what makes us
> different

Is this simply a matter of definition - i.e. we define the soul to be personally unique (because it won't be duplicated and duplication results in two identical bodies, and there is a need for something to differentiate them) ?

If so, it seems like simply brushing the perceived problem under a spiritual carpet where it is no longer amenable to analysis (i.e. when in difficulty, resort to the supernatural)... The soul, in this context, ends the discussion.

If not, for my part, if the soul is thought necessary, I would question the assumption that it cannot be duplicated and the assumption that two identical bodies can't have identical souls.

> However, since I don't believe in such a hypothetical and
> unobservable appendage, there is no other difference.

Agreed.

'Instead, most people believe whatever the bell they want to and think that it's "true for them" which is meaningless.'

That's rather a vast generalisation, isn't it?

'It takes rare courage and dignity to let go of irrational belief in fairytales and the idiotic premise "well you can't prove it's not true. (I can't prove I'm not a gherkin, hopefully none of you assert the right to believe that I am)" '

Courage and dignity? For goodness sake.

I deduce that either you consider it to take equal courage and dignity to openly believe in something other people consider a fairy tale, or that you somehow imagine that it takes no courage and no dignity to stand up in front of a mostly sceptical audience of peers and declare your (to them) irrational beliefs, to admit to belonging to a community surrounded by controversy, or to stand up for your personal, deeply held convictions in the face of opposition. Which, of course, is moronic.

You might perceive that as an insult. That's not how it's intended - I'm calling your statement moronic, not you yourself. Which is a distinction you fail to make here:

'Most people don't have the strength of intellect, but rest assured that in scientific circles (at least in Britain) atheism is the norm.'

What planet do you live on? Do you honestly think believers intellectually deficient? Have you actually spoken to anyone on this forum?

One of the most intelligent people I know is Insight, a Jehova's Witness who often contributes on this thread. Do I have to remind you that Albert Einstein was a Jew or Sir Isaac Newton a Christian? Conversely, that the Catholic St. Augustine was one of the most intelligent and learned men of his age?

It sounds like you're agreeing with Dawkins: 'Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy are part of the charm of childhood. So is God. Some of us grow out of all three.' The suggestion that believers are childish is sheer arrogance. He presumes that he can discern all the evidence believers have access to, and deduces thus that they are failing to take account of it. The mere idea that he can pry into their minds and identify their fallacy is ludicrous.

Religious belief is not brainwashing. It's far more likely that it arises out of a perfectly natural function of the human mind which seeks harmony and unity. The fact that he (and yourself) find this in science in no way migitates the intellectual capacity of those who seek it in organised, or individual, religion.

- Jordan

Hi Door and Fathom .

I think perhaps you should get out more and actually meet some scientists. The few dozen I know are a pretty good reflection of society at large when it comes to philosophical and theological beliefs.

I know several scientists that are practicing christians, one jew, two buddhists and five druids. Nearly forty per cent of the sample.

Religious beliefs do not necessarily deny scientific reality and vice versa. The scientific community is not "professionally atheist". None of its institutions require denial of belief as a requirement for membership, nor are scientists afraid to express their personal religious predelictions.

QED methinks?

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

'But accepting either mutually contradictory ideas or wildly romantic postulates for which there is no testable evidence is totally unscientific.'

I agree.

'As a private individual a scientist is no longer "in scientific circles" however - he is in social circles instead.'

I think we're misinterpreting what door said. He made it patently clear that he considered believers intellectually deficient, as opposed to scientists. Thus, his remark likely referred to the personal beliefs of scientists as opposed to what they are inclined to comment about in journals.

Besides which, if he were referring to the professional as opposed to the personal, surely the position would be agnostic - i.e. when we don't need to resort to explanations involving a 'God,' don't bother, but it's always a possibility. Just as the evidence for black holes was recently reinterpreted as an indication of something even more exotic, albeit being not widely accepted, it would be perfectly legitimate for a scientist, upon discovering some hitherto unknown factor that makes the universe in its present state unlikely to have arisen by chance, to declare that it is always possible it could have been created.

I consider this would be a last resort unless the scientist himself were, personally, a deep theist.

- Jordan

Higgs.

Your mistake here is to assume that what differentiates two items, persons in particular, is something within the physical boundaries of their bodies. A person is who he is in contexts including the social. Even a painting is a Picasso because of a certain history and provenance. A copy of identical atomic construction is NOT a Picasso.

I wondered if the claim was, indeed, unsubstantiated. So I went out and looked, and lo and behold! there is evidence:

'A recent poll of scientists elected to the American National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to fellows of the Royal Society) revealed that 93 per cent are atheists.' *

This seems to support his claim. However, it is always possible that the National Academy is reluctant to elect scientists with theistic beliefs, which is indeed indicated:

'That figure drops to 60 per cent if you include scientists not elected to the National Academy.' *

Of course, you might argue that this is because they are less suited as scientists, for intellectual or objective reasons. Although, in this particular case, Dawkins makes a particularily astute observation:

'It would be absurdly arrogant for me to claim that the 7 per cent of academicians who believe in God are not true scientists.' *

May I challenge anyone to say otherwise?

- Jordan

* Quoted from the Independent, 'Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions...' 23rd Feb 2003. The article can be read online at http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=379807

I wondered if the claim was, indeed, unsubstantiated. So I went out and looked, and lo and behold! there is evidence:

'A recent poll of scientists elected to the American National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to fellows of the Royal Society) revealed that 93 per cent are atheists.' *

This seems to support his claim. However, it is always possible that the National Academy is reluctant to elect scientists with theistic beliefs, which is indeed indicated:

'That figure drops to 60 per cent if you include scientists not elected to the National Academy.' *

Of course, you might argue that this is because they are less suited as scientists, for intellectual or objective reasons. Although, in this particular case, Dawkins makes a particularily astute observation:

'It would be absurdly arrogant for me to claim that the 7 per cent of academicians who believe in God are not true scientists.' *

May I challenge anyone to say otherwise?

- Jordan

* Quoted from the Independent, 'Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions...' 23rd Feb 2003. The article can be read online at http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=379807

'Religious beliefs do not necessarily deny scientific reality and vice versa. The scientific community is not "professionally atheist". None of its institutions require denial of belief as a requirement for membership, nor are scientists afraid to express their personal religious predelictions.'

Thank you, Math. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Fathom

"practising their religions at work" I prefer to think they are practising their philosophy at work

"If a religious scientist sets up an experiment to test his own ground breaking theory, being human he is likely to call on his god to give him a positive result."

I think this unlikely. 'positive result' is ambiguous. I don't see a result being affected by belief in the religious or the athesist on a different level. Atheists still have beliefs you know

'...or that you somehow imagine that it takes ^little or^ no courage ^or^ dignity...'

Some responses:
'Positive result' clearly means a result that supports the hypothesis.
The purpose of science is to discover things hitherto unknown. Being human, every scientist wants to discover things no-one else knows and part of the process for that is to propose hypotheses to explain observable phenomena. If a scientist proposes a new hypothesis he presumably hopes it is correct. When performing his experiments therefore he presumably hopes for a 'positive result'. Being human and religious is it not unreasonable for him to ask his god to help in his work? Does this explain what I was getting at?

'Professionally atheist' means within their profession they do not use God as a hypothesis. What they do socially is up to them. In the same way judges and referees are 'professionally unbiased'. That an individual judge is homophobic or a referee supports Manchester United is up to them so long as it doesn't impinge on their work. This has been discussed before.

I don't believe I suggested that religious people are unintelligent - although I accept that Door did. I supported only one premise put forward by Door: that atheism is the norm in scientific circles. This was largely supported by Jordan's research so I consider myself vindicated. Just because I supported one piece of Door's reasoning don't extrapolate that into the assumption that I endorse every word he posted. I don't.

The point I was trying to make was that religious scientists keep their religion (philosophy if you like, Moth, although religion was the subject under discussion) very much out of their work. This is because, essentially, Science is atheistic. Consequently, whatever they may be at home or at heart, scientists are atheists at work. Perhaps a few smileys might have helped since the 'God affected the experiment' discourse was meant to be light hearted, if not actually humourous.

As for telling me to 'get out more', Math, that was, frankly, unworthy of you.

F

'I don't believe I suggested that religious people are unintelligent - although I accept that Door did.'

I never implied such a thing; I remember stating explicitly that your position was different from door's because door seemed to be implying something else. Or did someone else say it?

I supported only one premise put forward by Door: that atheism is the norm in scientific circles. This was largely supported by Jordan's research so I consider myself vindicated.

So it appears. This might be a result of a (perceived) general hostility in the scientific community to those with religious beliefs - for example, some of the things Dawkins, door or Gould say could be interpreted thus. Alternatively, it could be that religious organisations feel threatened by certain scientific positions, discouraging members to associate with such material.

'Just because I supported one piece of Door's reasoning don't extrapolate that into the assumption that I endorse every word he posted. I don't.'

I don't believe so either. It looks like you're quite open-minded on this issue. I was simply saying that I believed that door meant something other than what you were saying. I'm sorry if I phrased this unclearly.

'The point I was trying to make was that religious scientists keep their religion (philosophy if you like, Moth, although religion was the subject under discussion) very much out of their work.'

Despite this, I don't feel they remain 'professionally atheist' at all. Consider: -

When does one get an opportunity to talk about mystic forces when one is considering quarks or chemical reactions? Why would one speak of a Creator whilst detailing observations on a particular area on chromosome 13?

Do you really think most scientific journals are going to publish an article that attributes a divine aspect to some phenomena?

Doesn't it seem logical that, if there are so few theists in a major organisation such as the National Academy, then there will be relatively fewer articles which do speak from a theistic perspective?

Regardless of this, are there not articles that do allow for a theistic interpretation of their results? I recall reading a few in New Scientist, and apparently the same points that were quoted therein are also cited in the original papers.

I don't think you can say that all believers keep their religious beliefs out of their work, or are professionally atheist, given the lack of opportunity to express their beliefs and the small but significant number of articles which allow for a religious interpretation.

- Jordan

Sorry Jordan, I got a bit defensive because it appeared I was being associated with a number of things Door had said that I don't agree with, just because I picked up on something I thought was interesting. I wasn't responding to you though.

Actually I think the points you made support my position:

"When does one get an opportunity to talk about mystic forces when one is considering quarks or chemical reactions? Why would one speak of a Creator whilst detailing observations on a particular area on chromosome 13?"
Precisely - you wouldn't because to do so would be irrelevant and probably thought a bit bizarre.

" Do you really think most scientific journals are going to publish an article that attributes a divine aspect to some phenomena?"
Exactly - and why not? Because scientific journals would exclude any paper on ESP, homeopathy, UFOs or perpetual motion machines for the same reason; except where the discussion was around proper clinical trials, say, or psychological testing perhaps.

"Doesn't it seem logical that, if there are so few theists in a major organisation such as the National Academy, then there will be relatively fewer articles which do speak from a theistic perspective?"
It does, just as there a presumably fewer articles written in Welsh than there are in English. Agreed. If 7 percent of scientists are religious (Dawkins quoted above) are 7 percent of articles written from a religious perspective?

"Regardless of this, are there not articles that do allow for a theistic interpretation of their results? I recall reading a few in New Scientist, and apparently the same points that were quoted therein are also cited in the original papers."
Yes, there have been studies that show an area of the brain responsible for 'religious feelings' and the 'prayer healing' test I linked to above as two examples I can recall. There have also been articles on the Loch Ness Monster and UFOs too. I don't remember any article that cited God as the latest hypothesis though but I might do a search when I have wider web access.

So apart from a few articles that discuss the psychological or social effects of belief (point 4) any that cite 'God' as a hypothesis are:
unlikely to fit with mainstream science (point 1)
unlikely to get published (point 2)
unlikely to find an author (point 3)

I think we agree somewhere.

F

Az:

> Perhaps a not entirely 'of this world' experience as most people
> see them

What does that actually mean? If not of this world, of what world?

I do recall reading somewhere that physicists tend to be theists, and that biologists tend to be atheists, perhaps reflecting an involvement with immutable laws on the one hand, and the workings of chance on the other. Or perhaps not.

This might also suggest, speculatively, that while intellect per se is not relevant to whether one believes or not, cognitive style may well be at least one factor.

It's also the case that fundamentalists are, on average, less well educated than their more liberal counterparts.

And as a talking point - if everything we know/believe is in some way a model of our experience, what part of our experience is religious belief a model of?

Noggin