Stephen Hawking gives his take on the afterlife

[Topher925]

Stephen Hawking gives his take on the "afterlife"

Stephen Hawking recently gave his view on death and apparently people are shocked by the answer.

Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking recently explained his belief that there is no God and that humans should therefore seek to live the most valuable lives they can while on Earth.

There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110516/us_yblog_thelookout/stephen-hawking-says-afterlife-is-a-fairy-story

Since so many people believe that SH is one of the smartest people currently living, do think any evangelicals out there will convert to atheism?

 

[rootX]

Since so many people believe that SH is one of the smartest people currently living

But not smart enough to know what's in "afterlife".

It's his opinion and being smart is irrelevant in the formulation of that opinion.

I would also question the word "smartest". He is an amazing physicist but that does not make him "smartest people currently living".

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

But not smart enough to know what's in "afterlife".

It's his opinion and being smart is irrelevant in the formulation of that opinion.

You don't think his intellect was involved in forming that opinion? A cro-magnon's opinion carries the same weight as Stephen Hawkings?

I would also question the word "smartest". He is an amazing physicist but that does not make him "smartest people currently living".

Topher is merely saying he is perceived by the public as such because of his "genius celebrity" status.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You don't think his intellect was involved in forming that opinion? A cro-magnon's opinion carries the same weight as Stephen Hawkings?

A Cro-Magnon's opinion of the afterlife carries the same weight as Stephen Hawkings'.

 

[rootX]

You don't think his intellect was involved in forming that opinion?

No, I don't think he studies things like afterlife. This is a purely speculative subject.

A cro-magnon's opinion carries the same weight as Stephen Hawkings?

Yes. Hawking opinions pertaining to only his profession carry more weight but don't for anything else.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

No, I don't think he studies things like afterlife. This is a purely speculative subject.

But I'd throw in with Hawking over the ramblings of a street talker on the subject.

Yes. Hawking opinions pertaining to only his profession carry more weight but don't for anything else.

mmmmm I don't know. I think his general intellect is vastly superior to the general public. Therefore his opinion would be weighted by me heavier than my own, in a topic I myself am not an expert in.

 

[Rayquesto]

I don't think physics or any science can prove an afterlife. Sure physics does bring out many phenomenal explanations and ingredients for the mysteries of the world, but the afterlife is beyond our reach. It just doesn't seem possible to know from science. Everything else phenomenal that were proved using physics are in reach, but we were just not good enough to find the proof. The afterlife is out of our boundaries. We will never be sure what's outside our universe until we "experience" it.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't think physics or any science can prove an afterlife.

Perhaps for now, but I think Hawking could come up with a better number of reasons supporting his view than I could come up with contrasting his view. So I throw in with Hawking generally.

 

[Evo]

I'm with Hawkings. It just makes sense to take responsibility for your own actions, be the best person you can be, and not count on another life/chance.

 

[rootX]

But I'd throw in with Hawking over the ramblings of a street talker on the subject.
mmmmm I don't know. I think his general intellect is vastly superior to the general public. Therefore his opinion would be weighted by me heavier than my own, in a topic I myself am not an expert in.

I would only use Hawking if I am discussing about subject where he is an expert partly because I don't go into that "celebrity status" things.

I agree with his opinions not for his credentials but because I share similar beliefs.

 

[flyingpig]

They would just go back to "Because his mind is corrupted by the devil everything he says is false"

 

[ideasrule]

http://xkcd.com/799/

 

[Dembadon]

Hawking. No 's'!

 

[ideasrule]

I don't think physics or any science can prove an afterlife.

Here's my proposal for an experiment where a positive result would prove an afterlife.

1. Right before my death, I encrypt a message using 256-bit encryption and a randomly chosen key. I publish this encrypted message, but only I know the key.

2. After I die, I visit a scientist and tell him the key. He could then publish the decrypted message to prove that I visited.

Of course, a null result wouldn't prove that the afterlife doesn't exist. That applies to all of science, however: if you fail to show that F=ma, that doesn't prove Newton wrong; it just means your experiment was flawed.

 

[Chi Meson]

I'm with Evo. Hundreds of variations of "the afterlife" makes it clear to me which is the speculation here. An apt saying "for those who are afraid of the dark." When I realized how painless things were (to me) before I was born, I stopped worrying about what happens after I die.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

When I realized how painless things were (to me) before I was born, I stopped worrying about what happens after I die.

Except being nothing before you were born you can think that at least you WILL be born and have life. When you die, that is it, forever. I don't care what I was before I was born when I know I would be born. There is no second birth. That is reason to worry.

 

[DanP]

Since so many people believe that SH is one of the smartest people currently living, do think any evangelicals out there will convert to atheism?

Not in any statistically significant number. Religion in a problem of faith. HS, Dawkins, Susskind and other greats have not really ascendent in problems of faith. From the point of view of a faithful, their opinion weights less than the PoV of a Cromagnon IMO. Caertainly less than the opinion of a CroMagnon who is a beleiver is some kind of gods, demons, spirits or whatever else they believed in.

Last weekend I was in mountains, and there where some pretty educated persons with us, holding MS degrees. I dared to say to that creationism is not a scientific theory and can not be compared with evolutionism.That it means nothing but his belief which is irrelevant to me, lacking proof. One (engineering MS at a top school, successful business and so on) went rabid on me. Called me an animal. He went pretty berserk on scientists to rejects creationism too, not contesting their intelligence but their statute as human. I guess he would call someone like Hawking a little more evolved animal then myself. Well, it didnt really bothered me, after all I am just an ape. While he , of course , was the superior human being proud of his special space in creation. When I returned the favor and called him an ape he lost al blood from his cheeks. I guess I can add another one to the list of apes for which I ruined the rainbow :P Or at least smeared it.

So yeah, even engineers ? Even ppl holding MSs ? So desperate to think they are more special than animals, that their creation is special, has meaning.

I don't expect them to change. Cromaganon, myself , or Hawking no matter who speaks to them they just have some sort of short-circuit in their brains.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I don't think physics or any science can prove an afterlife.

Your remark reminded me of an article in Science Magazine. Here is a quote
from the article:

. . . Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which has campaigned successfully for the teaching of evolution in schools, objected to the "hijacking" of science for arguments about religion: for or against. "Nobody speaks for capital 'S' science, neither people of faith nor atheists," she said. "Science is religiously neutral. Whether you're religious or not, you use the same method and rationale in the way you do science, and if you don't, then you're stepping outside of science."
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/02/can-science-and-religion-get-along.html?ref=hp

I've had the honor of listening to a lecture by Stephen Hawking many years ago. He was charming. He has an incrediable smile. It is a very humbling experience to be in the presence of him. I am so extremely fortunate to be physically and mentally healthy.

Stephen thinks we are fluctuations in the universe. I'm not too sure if I would wish to be only a fluctuation though I do respect his take on it. I mean that I'm not willing to give up my work-outs at the gym nor my many interests outside of science though I am involved in science. Life is to be enjoyed to the fullest. I do my best to live up to what I consider the best for me.

 

[rootX]

Your remark reminded me of an article in Science Magazine. Here is a quote
from the article:




I've had the honor of listening to a lecture by Stephen Hawking many years ago. He was charming. He has an incrediable smile. It is a very humbling experience to be in the presence of him. I am so extremely fortunate to be physically and mentally healthy.

Stephen thinks we are fluctuations in the universe. I'm not too sure if I would wish to be only a fluctuation though I do respect his take on it. I mean that I'm not willing to give up my work-outs at the gym nor my many interests outside of science though I am involved in science. Life is to be enjoyed.

I loved quoted statements: "Science is religiously neutral"!

Last thing I would expect from Hawking is he becomes a "spiritual leader" and starts preaching people how everyone should start converting into atheism.

Media is full of nonsense and the article OP linked to is one of the best examples.

 

[jobyts]

So yeah, even engineers ? Even ppl holding MSs ?

Engineers are usually god believers than physicists. There was an explanation by Richard Dawkins about 2 kinds of people. People who want to learn things just because of the curiosity, regardless of its application. Physicists come in this category. The other side is people who want to invent something based on the practical use (eg, say, the invention of Teflon). Engineers come in this category.

For people who care mostly the practicality, god concept is very convenient and useful, regardless of the lack of evidence or logic behind it.

My wife is religious and I'm an atheist.We both are engineers, both work in cryptology stuff. When someone discovered a more efficient algorithm for finding the primality of a number, I was way too excited. To me, it was an expansion of human logic, which is a big thing. But for my wife, - is it not that useful, no practical use, what's the big deal?.

 

[DanP]

I loved quoted statements: "Science is religiously neutral"!

While science is religiously neutral, I think is the duty of the scientific community to take a political stance on the outrageous claims that ID or creationism can constitute theories which must be presented as alternatives to evolution in education.

 

[lisab]

I can be certain the the clock is ticking on my life. Tick tick tick. Couple that with my rejection of supernatural, and it's a fantastic motivator to *live now*, or at least right after I wash my dishes .

I think Hawking is quite bold to make such a statement, as a public figure. I sense in some persons of faith a distrust of science, and by extension, scientists. I wonder if SH's statement will add to that distrust.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I loved quoted statements: "Science is religiously neutral"!

Last thing I would expect from Hawking is he becomes a "spiritual leader" and starts preaching people how everyone should start converting into atheism.

Media is full of nonsense and the article OP linked to is one of the best examples.

Your ignorance is astounding. The link I earlier provided is from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It appears to me that you are disagreeing with Eugenie Scott's comment, "Nobody speaks for capital 'S' science, neither people of faith nor atheists," she said. "Science is religiously neutral. Whether you're religious or not, you use the same method and rationale in the way you do science, and if you don't, then you're stepping outside of science." If that is the case, all you are doing is creating controversy where non exists. And the only people that I am familiar with that wish to create controversy are Intelligent Design advocates. Not only are they sweeping across the U.S.A. at this time but have now marked there turf in the UK. Those people want to claim Intelligent Design is science when in truth it is creationism. And, I don't waste my time on people who knock down Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_Scott )

 

[DanP]

. It appears to me that you are disagreeing with Eugenie Scott's comment, "Nobody speaks for capital 'S' science, neither people of faith nor atheists," she said. "Science is religiously neutral. Whether you're religious or not, you use the same method and rationale in the way you do science, and if you don't, then you're stepping outside of science."

Beautiful, but a tautological media stunt IMO. Let me explain. It is obviously true, and nobody gives a damn about it. But looks good in a speech.

 

[Evo]

It really angers me when I see media trash like this (article in OP) done only to stir people up.

He was asked what he thought by a reporter. It's not like he's on a mission trying to convert people.

 

[DanP]

And, I don't waste my time on people who knock down Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_Scott )

? Who knocked her down ? I guess you jumped the gun a bit. No matter how great she is and what cool mission she has, that thing you quoted is a a media stunt.

She is directly involved in politics by trying to determine public policy regarding teaching evolutionism and keeping ID and creationism out. She can't really claim that "science is religiously neutral" in this case, else she would not go on a political quest to keep them out of schools. She argues against teaching religion using science. Bye bye neutrality.

And the second part, well, just a tautology.

 

[Evo]

? Who knocked her down ? I guess you jumped the gun a bit. No matter how great she is and what cool mission she has, that thing you quoted is a a media stunt.

She is directly involved in politics by trying to determine public policy regarding teaching evolutionism and keeping ID and creationism out. She can't really claim that "science is religiously neutral" in this case, else she would not go on a political quest to keep them out of schools. She argues against teaching religion using science. Bye bye neutrality.

Religion has nothing to do with science, to think it should be included in teaching science is utterly ridiculous. There are nuts that are afraid of science so they try to get their religion taught as a school subject, so unfortunately people have to take action to keep science...science.

 

[rootX]

Your ignorance is astounding. The link I earlier provided is from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It appears to me that you are disagreeing with Eugenie Scott's comment

No, I referred to the OP article ("Media is full of nonsense and the article OP linked to is one of the best examples."). I don't think people like Hawking should be publicized for their personal opinions or for "evangelicals [conversion] to atheism" (read OP). Media can do better job than talking about what Hawking thinks about afterlife or what kind of shoes Katy Perry wears.

Does that have anything to do with Eugenie Scott? I don't think so.

 

[Andre]

... A cro-magnon's opinion carries the same weight as Stephen Hawkings?...

It seems that Cro-magnons are after life

Anyway, http://human-nature.com/darwin/books/tattersall.html suggesting that they did believe in afterlife.

...but among the Cro-Magnons we see for the first time evidence of regular and elaborate burial, with hints of ritual and belief in an afterlife. The most striking example of Cro-Magnon burial comes from the 28-kyr-old site of Sungir, in Russia, where two young individuals and a sixty-year-old male (no previous kind of human had ever survived to such an age) were interred with an astonishing material richness. Each of the deceased was dressed in clothing onto which more than three thousand ivory beads had been sewn; and experiments have shown that each bead had taken an hour to make. They also wore carved pendants, bracelets, and shell necklaces...

 

[DanP]

Religion has nothing to do with science, to think it should be included in teaching science is utterly ridiculous. There are nuts that are afraid of science so they try to get their religion taught as a school subject, so unfortunately people have to take action to keep science...science.

Ok, I agree, but you simply can't claim neutrality in the moment you have a politic agenda, fight for changes in public policy in education and so on. Scott is not neutral, she fights against religion and religious belief. Her position makes science a political tool.

I agree with her position, but not with her public declarations. Media stunts.

 

[Frankly]

I don't put much stock in the utterances of popes, religious or scientific.

 

[Topher925]

I can't believe this thread is still open. Isn't talking about religion against forums rules?

 

[DanP]

I can't believe this thread is still open. Isn't talking about religion against forums rules?

So, let me get this right. **You** opened a thread which outlines a highly contentious position on *religion* (let's remember that an enormous percentage of the world's population is involved in some religious ritual of some sort), and now you complain that talking about religion is against forum rules and "you can't believe the thread is open" ? It's like entering a cathouse and then complain you wasn't offered a sermon on the virtues of abstinence.

Why did you opened it in the first place ?

 

[Darken-Sol]

how can anyone form an opinion either way? i think the energy and matter in my body will always exist, whether or not my consciousness goes on i don't know? if consiousness is like a medium for my awareness, then i wouldn't mind being born again. if i have to exist forever with my consciousness as it now sits i think i would prefer oblivion. there was a huge amount of time before the universe generated conditions for life. who is to say it can't make a place for our consciousness to exist "after life" or before for that matter?

 

[Jack21222]

i think the energy and matter in my body will always exist,

What energy in your body? Surely not kinetic energy. The chemical energy in your body will be mostly released in the months and years after you die. You'll be at or below ground level, so there's no gravitational potential energy.

I guess the rest mass energy will persist, as long as protons don't decay.

I guess I have no idea what you mean by this statement? Are you saying the obviously true statement that energy is conserved? Or are you trying to make some kind of point?

 

[turbo]

Let's give Hawking his due. He has an amazing intellect AND he has a lot of time to sit and think.

I decided when I was a kid that I would not longer attend mass. It took a while to make it stick, but it did stick. I'd attend Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, just to enjoy the special efforts of the choir, the pageantry, and to meet up with people I hadn't seen for a while, but that was it. Religion is not for everybody, and the afterlife is the biggest motivator that some religions have with which to control the flock. "Be a good sheep and do what I tell you, and you'll go to a lush pasture in the sky instead of being slaughtered for mutton."

 

[DanP]

Religion is not for everybody, and the afterlife is the biggest motivator that some religions have with which to control the flock. "Be a good sheep and do what I tell you, and you'll go to a lush pasture in the sky instead of being slaughtered for mutton."

Politics, religion, war , peace, just about everything is about control of humans over other humans. Leadership (irrespective its civil, military, religious or whatever else) is ultimately an art of changing the behavior of others through various means to serve the goals of a group. Religion is one of the most efficient way to control humans.

Disrespect for authority. More humans should have a healthy disrespect for certain authorities (note to the amateurs seeing the doomsday in this: this doesn't mean chaos and disrupting social order )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UVjFPGIrbGw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&start=118"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UVjFPGIrbGw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

[Darken-Sol]

What energy in your body? Surely not kinetic energy. The chemical energy in your body will be mostly released in the months and years after you die. You'll be at or below ground level, so there's no gravitational potential energy.

I guess the rest mass energy will persist, as long as protons don't decay.

I guess I have no idea what you mean by this statement? Are you saying the obviously true statement that energy is conserved? Or are you trying to make some kind of point?

its not like i leave the universe when i die. this body will decay and the energy that runs it will go feul something else. is consciousness conserved? is it something more than energy and matter? if it is something else altogether, fill me in. i'd like to know

 

[M Grandin]

I think simple likelihood reasoning indicates we will experience consciousness attached to living beings repeatedly in the future as also in the past. I.e having a "self" comparable to
as we feel now - but attached to other lifes or lifeforms. Why should it be a unique
state having a conscious and subjective "self" only this time? That must be expected
happen again after death and repeatedly after succeeding deaths. If human logics is
applicable regarding such things.

 

[Evo]

I think simple likelihood reasoning indicates we will experience consciousness attached to living beings repeatedly in the future as also in the past. I.e having a "self" comparable to
as we feel now - but attached to other lifes or lifeforms. Why should it be a unique
state having a conscious and subjective "self" only this time? That must be expected
happen again after death and repeatedly after succeeding deaths. If human logics is
applicable regarding such things.

Simple reasoning would say that our consciousness, *us* is a function of our physical body. When the body dies, it can no longer function, and that includes our consciousness. That is what Hawking is saying, if you read the article.

 

[Jack21222]

its not like i leave the universe when i die.

It's not like when you take apart a lego house, it ceases to exist, right?

this body will decay and the energy that runs it will go feul something else. is consciousness conserved? is it something more than energy and matter? if it is something else altogether, fill me in. i'd like to know

The energy that runs your body is chemical energy. When you die, it will go to increase the temperature of your surroundings and provide energy to whatever creatures eats you.

 

[DanP]

... and provide energy to whatever creatures eats you.

Unless you eat them first, aint it ? Braaaaains !

 

[Topher925]

So, let me get this right. **You** opened a thread which outlines a highly contentious position on *religion* (let's remember that an enormous percentage of the world's population is involved in some religious ritual of some sort), and now you complain that talking about religion is against forum rules and "you can't believe the thread is open" ? It's like entering a cathouse and then complain you wasn't offered a sermon on the virtues of abstinence.

Why did you opened it in the first place ?

You are mistaken. I'm not complaining about anything, quite the opposite. I think its great discussing such topics with the people on PF.

I started the thread because I found peoples reaction to SH's opinion on death rather interesting. I would have thought that people would assume that SH is an atheist being a creature of science and all. Apparently, I thought wrong.

 

[DanP]

I started the thread because I found peoples reaction to SH's opinion on death rather interesting. I would have thought that people would assume that SH is an atheist being a creature of science and all. Apparently, I thought wrong.

You weren't necessarily wrong. It's one thing to know that X is an atheist, and another thing to hear X saying "Yo, apes, there is no afterlife and y'all going to rot". Many humans would simply dismiss an atheist, but silent, acquittance as "well, his problem he will go to hell", or try to convert him, but such a statement as above, (regardless the fact is made in a very polite words) would be considered an attack to morals by some, an attack to the flawed idea that humans are special and we occupy a special place in creation, and not least, an attack to the foundation of Christianity rituals. Not to mention that the social impact of one man says is greatly amplified when the statement is made public through media.

 

[Frankly]

Atheists spend more time talking about god than people who believe.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I don't put much stock in the utterances of popes, religious or scientific.

Oh well, moving onward...

The comment that I earlier presented from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1) is related to the following:

From Understanding Science and How it Really Works
Science around the world

Early science was dominated by men, whether in China, Greece, India, or the Middle East. From the 16th to 20th centuries it developed largely in Western nations, and continued to be dominated by men — but all that is changing. Science is a worldwide endeavor and ought to be open to anyone — regardless of ethnicity, gender, religious commitment, or any other personal characteristic. Increasingly, all sorts of people from almost every part of the world participate in science, and scientific institutions are working hard to expand the diversity of their community. This diversity is one of the keys to science's rapid rate of progress. A diverse scientific community embraces a variety of viewpoints and problem-solving approaches that help to balance out biases and lead to more complete understandings of the natural world.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_worldwide

[My suggestion is to explore the website and learn more about science.]

1. Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which has campaigned successfully for the teaching of evolution in schools, objected to the "hijacking" of science for arguments about religion: for or against. "Nobody speaks for capital 'S' science, neither people of faith nor atheists," she said. "Science is religiously neutral. Whether you're religious or not, you use the same method and rationale in the way you do science, and if you don't, then you're stepping outside of science.”
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/02/can-science-and-religion-get-along.html?ref=hp

Thanks. I'm signing out of this thread.

 

[Schrodinator]

Stephen Hawking recently gave his view on death and apparently people are shocked by the answer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110516/us_yblog_thelookout/stephen-hawking-says-afterlife-is-a-fairy-story

Since so many people believe that SH is one of the smartest people currently living, do think any evangelicals out there will convert to atheism?

He is right though, religion is a fairy tale to chase away the bogey man. We should really outgrow it just like we outgrow believing in myths like Santa.

Camus put it best:

"For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life."

Likewise his book The Myth of Sysiphus makes a compelling case for existentialist optimism. And Sysiphus scorned by the gods remains unbroken and unbowed.

Religion is just supersitious nonsense and bs for the gullible masses, I quite agree SH. I also agree with the sentiment that we are spectacularly insignificant to the Universe as a whole, and would add that we therefore should stop anthropomorphising ridiculous concepts that are impossible to prove like invisible pink unicorns, just because we can't face the reality that everyone dies.

Atheists spend more time talking about god than people who believe.

That's just stupid and completely illogical.

No they just have to talk to cavernous dimwits who believe that Jesus rode around on Dinosaurs a lot.

 

[Schrodinator]

I can't believe this thread is still open. Isn't talking about religion against forums rules?

Great got my 2 cents in before the lock.

I must admit it is a bit ironic your statement though, given you are the OP.

I suspect proselytising and my God is bigger than your god arguments are what are banned, they usually are. Hawking is just stating an opinion, not trying to big up his own religion. And I suppose as long as people don't start preaching their gospel at each other then it's not really doing any harm.

I don't believe in fairy stories either, so sue me for agreeing with SH.

FSM is better than God anyway he done everything in 4 days.

 

[Frankly]

That's just stupid and completely illogical.

It certainly is.

 

[ViewsofMars]

He is right though, religion is a fairy tale to chase away the bogey man.

I think it wise for you to reconsider what I presented in message #46 which was my previous message. Also, Stephen W. Hawking (1) is on the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Vatican along with over 40 Nobel Prize winners of which many are religious. Obviously, Hawking's doesn't mind reporting to the Pope and neither does Francis Collins (2).

Also, it's important to review what The Pew Forum has presented:

When President Barack Obama announced on July 8, 2009, that he would nominate renowned geneticist Francis Collins to be the new director of the National Institutes of Health, a number of scientists and pundits publicly questioned whether the nominee's devout religious faith should disqualify him from the position. In particular, some worried that an outspoken evangelical Christian who believes in miracles might not be the right person to fill what many consider to be the nation's most visible job in science. Collins was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Aug. 7, 2009, but the controversy over his nomination reflects a broader debate within the scientific community between those who believe religion and science each examine legitimate but different realms of knowledge and those who see science as the only true way of understanding the universe.

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, 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. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

Please read on . . .
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

1. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/hawking.html
2. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/collinsnew.html