Majority Scientists disbelieve GOD

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saint
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
A recent survey of top natural scientists reveals an unprecedented level of disbelief in God, with only 7% of "greater" scientists affirming belief. Historical comparisons show that disbelief has increased significantly since the early 20th century, with nearly 80% of physical scientists expressing disbelief in God and immortality. The survey, which mirrored earlier studies by psychologist James H. Leuba, suggests that higher knowledge and experience correlate with skepticism toward religious beliefs. Despite this, the National Academy of Sciences maintains a neutral stance on the existence of God, emphasizing that science does not address such questions. Overall, the findings indicate a growing trend of disbelief among elite scientists, challenging the notion of widespread religious belief within the scientific community.
  • #61
Update your book. Energy has all attributes of matter (and vice versa): inertia, gravity (in the concrete amount equal to E/c2 kilos), momentum, angular momentum, etc. Energy can diffract, interfere and propagate via vacuum - same as matter. There is no any significant difference between them.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Originally posted by Alexander
Update your book. Energy has all attributes of matter (and vice versa): inertia, gravity (in the concrete amount equal to E/c2 kilos), momentum, angular momentum, etc. Energy can diffract, interfere and propagate via vacuum - same as matter. There is no any significant difference between them.

Mass?

The 2000 edition of "Modern Physics" states plainly that a field is "immaterial."

And you didn't mention consciousness.
 
  • #63
Alex said: " It is impossible to learn anything or have a meaningful discussion with anyone when your mind is closed to all and any other possibility other than what you KNOW. Goodbye. "

That's exactly why I have him on block.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Alex said: " It is impossible to learn anything or have a meaningful discussion with anyone when your mind is closed to all and any other possibility other than what you KNOW. Goodbye. "

That's exactly why I have him on block.

The reason you have me on "block" and still take potshots is because you are afraid to debate anyone who is going to call you on your arrogance, rudeness and failure to reason properly.

You've already demostrated you don't know much about physics with your comments on QM and GR. Do you think you understand fields? Consciousness? If so, then make your case LA, and stop prancing around saying things are so without feeling the slightest responsiblity to explain why. Or is it you think you are God, and we should all just accept your word?

Again I ask, what sort of science training have you had where you don't have to support your assertions with evidence? Speaking in absolutes as you do is no different than debating someone spouting religious dogma.
 
  • #65
...and I suggest you do the same. It makes this place much more purposefull!
 
  • #66
Originally posted by Alexander
Update your book. Energy has all attributes of matter (and vice versa): inertia, gravity (in the concrete amount equal to E/c2 kilos), momentum, angular momentum, etc. Energy can diffract, interfere and propagate via vacuum - same as matter. There is no any significant difference between them.

Plus, since you appear to be talking about EM, I might point out that light isn't energy, but rather carries energy. You can measure light's energy, for example, by its frequency. As Integral made rigidly clear to me at the last PF, energy has no defining characteristics other than the capacity to do work. So all the traits you assigned to energy above belong to EM, and not to energy (which is immaterial!).
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Ok... I think we are being really pedantic here.
I think in most materialists, the idea is that of being focused on what is directly observable, and objectively existent. Ie. as opposed to spiritualism. Dictionary defines material as:

1. Of or having an effect on real or solid matter or substance.

I think if we go to the extent where we say that materialism = standard baryonic matter only, pretty much nobody would actually be a materialist. They won't be spiritualists or idealists either. The philosophical ideal of materialism is quite distinct from the scientific concept of matter as a sub-type of energy.
 
  • #68
Originally posted by FZ+
Ok... I think we are being really pedantic here.
I think in most materialists, the idea is that of being focused on what is directly observable, and objectively existent. Ie. as opposed to spiritualism. Dictionary defines material as:

1. Of or having an effect on real or solid matter or substance.

I think if we go to the extent where we say that materialism = standard baryonic matter only, pretty much nobody would actually be a materialist. They won't be spiritualists or idealists either. The philosophical ideal of materialism is quite distinct from the scientific concept of matter as a sub-type of energy.

Pedantic!

I agree with your view of what's material, and actually I think fields and energy are material-related even if they lack mass. But you must admit comrade Alexander starts the pedantic trend with his strict limiting of any discussion of reality to what math or physics can explain.
 
  • #69
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Mass?


Yes, m=E/c2 kilos.


And you didn't mention consciousness.

You mean active state of neurons? Currents propagate back and forth over axons, neurons flip back and forth between lower and upper state, K+ ions exchange with Na+ ions - what is special about this?
 
  • #70
Originally posted by Alexander
Yes, m=E/c2 kilos.



You mean active state of neurons? Currents propagate back and forth over axons, neurons flip back and forth between lower and upper state, K+ ions exchange with Na+ ions - what is special about this?

Lol. Is there anything you DON'T know Alexander? Is there anything that you wonder about? Are there any truths left to uncover from your perspective? Or is everything already explained perfectly in your science book? If it is the latter,(and it does seem to be), then we can fire all scientists. We don't need them anymore. They have found all the answers! There's nothing left to do. It's all very simple! Just ask Alexander!

Why, the only thing left to wonder about is why no one else sees how simple it is but Alexander!
 
Last edited:
  • #71
Originally posted by Alexander
- what is special about this?
YOU !
 
  • #72
JUST ASK ALEXANDER: Abstractons ... the state of principles?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pelastration
Do you consider mathematics as matter?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Alexander
Is mathematics a "thing" (object)?

Is this supposed to be an answer?
The old trick: answer with a question
So again: Do you consider mathematics as matter?

As long as you don't answer seriously I will consider that your point of view is that mathematics don't exist because it's not 'matter'.

And Alexander please answer also the thread in "Everything came from Nothing':

Originally posted by Alexander
It does. Look at the universe - it is quite math obedient. Very and very much. Why? Very simple. Because math is NOT a language. Math is just a logic of existence/ inexistence. That is why anything existing obeys math.


1. Does logic exists?
2. Is math reality?
3. Is math valid without the existence of humans?
4. Were mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality?


Originally posted by Alexander
Obviousely math is valid without humans and with or without aliens from planet X. Math of all civilizations is the same (despite variety of notations used). Pithagorean theorem (sin2+cos2=1) is same with or without humans/aliens/robots, etc. Shredinger or Maxwell equations are same anywhere in universe, and their solution (say, a hydrogen atom, or mutual inductance of two coils) is same in any notations used.

Since 4. was anticipating on this answer I ask again:
"Are mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality ?"

In "JUST ASK ALEXANDER!" I continue:

5. What the difference between fermions and boson?
Please correct me if fermions (Quarks, leptons) are matter related and bosons (photons, gluons) force related. ( http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~gpayne/ho/1D2particles.htm , http://heppc16.ucsd.edu/ph130b/130_notes/node198.html , ).

6. Since you state " math is valid without humans " this means that it has NOTHING to do with humans brains and their 'active state of neurons'! Great!. Thank you for the insight!
So should we introduce abstract and/or intellectual waves - (I suggest the name "Spiritons' or 'Abstractons' ) to explain abstract mathematical fundamentals which exists independently from the shift between matter and energy and their states?

I have more questions ... but I will be very pleased if you can answer already now the Questions 1 to 6 - point by point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #73
Originally posted by Fliption
Lol. Is there anything you DON'T know Alexander? Is there anything that you wonder about?


Yes, there is some. For example, if a free-falling electron radiate (e/m radiation)? (Most physicists say yes (as it moves with acceleration), but I thing not because free falling system is indistinguishable from not moving with any acceleration system).


Why, the only thing left to wonder about is why no one else sees how simple it is but Alexander!

I don't know.

May be, because I read textbooks?
 
  • #74
I've made this same point on several threads over teh years, so stop me if you've heard this one:

The fact that most scientists are not deeply religious says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the validity of religion. It doesn't speak to the greater natural intelligence of scientists, or a lower level of intelligence of theists. All it really shows is that scientists, especially top ones, are focused on their method to answer questions. I would hazard a guess that they became scientists because 'magical' thinking didn't suit them, not that being a scientist made them abandon religious thinking.
 
  • #75


Originally posted by pelastration


So again: Do you consider mathematics as matter?

Mathematics is a set of logical rules. It is NOT a "thing". Recall that we discuss objects (everyTHING, anyTHING), not concepts.

And Alexander please answer also the thread in "Everything came from Nothing':




1. Does logic exists?
2. Is math reality?
3. Is math valid without the existence of humans?
4. Were mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality?

1. Yes. 2. Because math governs physical reality, it is a (conceptual) part of it. 3. Yes, of course. 4. Nope. By definition axioms can't be false. Axioms are just initial conditions from which theorems (=conclusions) derived. You can start with any initial condition(s) you want.

In "JUST ASK ALEXANDER!" I continue:

5. What the difference between fermions and boson?
Please correct me if fermions (Quarks, leptons) are matter related and bosons (photons, gluons) force related. ( http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~gpayne/ho/1D2particles.htm , http://heppc16.ucsd.edu/ph130b/130_notes/node198.html , ).

The difference is that math allows indistinguishable particles to bahave only 2 specific ways (only 2, because square root has only 2 values - positive and negative). The existence of two solutions for a square root makes two DIFFERENT statistics. One is called bosonian, another - fermionian. Nature just simply obeys that. Quoting second citation from above: "...the interchange symmetry DIFFERENCE makes fermions behave like matter and bosons behave like energy. The fact that no two fermions can be in the same state means they take up space, unlike bosons. It is also related to the fact that fermions can only be created in conjunction with anti-fermions. They must be made in pairs. Bosons can be made singly and are their own anti-particle as can be seen from any light."

6. Since you state " math is valid without humans " this means that it has NOTHING to do with humans brains and their 'active state of neurons'! Great!. Thank you for the insight!

You are very welcome. (I probably have to charge for educating people - then I will be rich. Well, what if I am already rich? Share with the poor? That is what I do.)

So should we introduce abstract and/or intellectual waves - (I suggest the name "Spiritons' or 'Abstractons' ) to explain abstract mathematical fundamentals which exists independently from the shift between matter and energy and their states?

Where did you get this nonsense? Math is just a logic of existence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
4. Nope. By definition axioms can't be false.

Incorrect. By definition, the axioms of a logical theory are true. Nothing is preventing those axioms from being both true and false.
 
  • #77
An axiom can ONLY be true. A false axiom is NOT an axiom. How one can make this mistake I don't know.
 
  • #78
Axioms could be contradictory saying nothing about the logic.

It is perfectly possible to have false axioms within a theory, e.g. within Newtonian gravity.
 
  • #79
Originally posted by plus
Axioms could be contradictory saying nothing about the logic.

It is perfectly possible to have false axioms within a theory, e.g. within Newtonian gravity.

False axiom /=/ axiom

Thus if you have a false axiom in your theory, you have NO axiom in your theory.

An axiom can be ONLY TRUE. NOT FALSE. If you have in your theory what you call an axiom, which is then disproven, you never had an axiom in your theory.
 
  • #80
And it's logically permissible for an axiomatic system to be internally inconsistent as well; witness Cantor's set theory.

And don't forget Godel's theorems. Any reasonable logical theory T that can deduce the statement "T is consistent" can also deduce the statement "T is inconsistent".

So, I suggest you rethink making the claim that axioms can't be false. :wink:

(by "reasonable theory", I mean that it has sufficient expressive power to embody the arithmetic (+ and *) of the natural numbers)
 
  • #81
Originally posted by Hurkyl
And it's logically permissible for an axiomatic system to be internally inconsistent as well; witness Cantor's set theory.

And don't forget Godel's theorems. Any reasonable logical theory T that can deduce the statement "T is consistent" can also deduce the statement "T is inconsistent".

So, I suggest you rethink making the claim that axioms can't be false. :wink:

(by "reasonable theory", I mean that it has sufficient expressive power to embody the arithmetic (+ and *) of the natural numbers)


Hurkyl. The definition of an axiom states it can't be false. End of story.
 
  • #82
(a) Mathematical logic cannot even formulate the assertion "Statement P cannot be false"; the closest it comes is to deduce "not P", to prove "P is true", or to prove "not P is false".

(b) There is no restriction on what logical statements may be taken as an axiom. Any collection of logical statements generates a logical theory for which those logical statements are considered axioms.

End of story.

(If you'll allow me also to abuse the phrase)
 
  • #83
Say what you will, you bring no proof. I do.

ax·i·om ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-m)
n. A self-evident or universally recognized truth
 
  • #84
And given that definition, pray tell how you deduce an axiom cannot be false, using just mathematical logic?
 
  • #85
Hmmmm...in math, axioms are usually absolute: 1+1=2. In real life, axioms are a bit more slippery, don't you think?
 
  • #86
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Incorrect. By definition, the axioms of a logical theory are true. Nothing is preventing those axioms from being both true and false.

I would rather say that "true" and "false" can only apply to theorems (=logical derivatives from axioms) and other constructs, but can't be applied to such primitive logical object as axiom yet. Axioms are initial statements from which more complex structures are derived (and then those complex structures are compared with axioms to see if they are in agreement with them (=true) or if there was a logical mistake in derivation (false conclusion)). True and false are comparison operators, and when you have nothing to compare with, then these operators don't apply yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
But what might happen is that you can start with a system of axioms and then correctly deduce the negation of one of those axioms. ("correctly" means that the only premises you used are the given axioms and logical rules of inference)

By a typical definition of "true", the axioms of a theory are taken to be true, and all statements that logically follow from them are true (and nothing else). By a typical definition of "false", a statement is false if and only if its negation is true.

Since it may happen that the negation of an axiom can be deduced from the axioms, an axiom thus may be both true and false.


Of course, the usual procedure is to thus abandon that system of axioms and find a new system that appears to work better (such as when Cantor's set theory was replaced with Zermelo-Frankel set theory), but as Godel's theorem shows, we can never use the axioms of any reasonable theory to prove that we cannot derive the negation of one of the axioms; the spectre of potential inconsistency must alway loom over our head.


This is interesting because it means mathematical logic is incapable of the circular reasoning typically used in other domains to justify belief systems (i.e. religion, mysticism, and science).

Among other things, this means that any belief system professing to adhere completely to logic must not assert that it is a consistent belief system. This is why I find many atheistic fundamentalists' arguments comical; they love to assert that they are strictly logical while religion cannot adhere strictly to logic... but then they will turn right around and tell you that their belief system is consistent (of course, not in those exact words)
 
  • #88
Define "consistent".

Religion is full of internal inconsistensies. There are many lists of them around. Take a Bible, for example, http://www.quran.net/comp-std/cntrbibl.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #89
Consistency := ~(P and ~P)

Science is full of internal inconsistencies too. Why is it that when science has an inconsistency, the correct source of action is to find a mistake in your understanding and refine it, but when religion has an inconsistency, the correct source of action is to abandon religion?
 
  • #90
Because inconsistency is in brain.

(Also, can you please substantiate your claim about science by providing a few examples of inconsistencies in scietce? I am very curious about that).
 

Similar threads

Do Leading Scientists' Beliefs on God Influence Society's Views?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Ignorant Wisdom: The Heart of Agnosticism
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
14K
Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
What role did Gödel's belief in God play in his mathematical discoveries?
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
16K
How Consistent Are Your Beliefs?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
Strict forum rules vs learning science
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
In The United States Today Science, Is Under Attack As Never Before
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
What Do These Famous Quotes Reveal About the Minds of Great Scientists?
  • · Replies 204 ·
7
Replies
204
Views
39K
How Can the Philosophies of Great Physicists Guide Us Beyond the Standard Model?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K