What Are the Effects of Scientific Knowledge on Religious Beliefs?

[Poop-Loops]

I don't know what you mean by that. I wasn't directing it at anybody, just saying that knowing one thing doesn't mean you are smart in general.

 

[Poop-Loops]

I would suppose this simply depends on your religion and your view of science.

Name a religion that doesn't make objective claims about the universe or reality. The first bit we have a good deal of experience with and can easily claim that the Earth is not 6,000 years old, or that pi isn't exactly 3, etc.

Most other religions are really similar, especially the ones that are more specific.

It isn't. ID doesn't claim that the world is only 6,000 years old. Nor does it refute evolution, contrary to popular belief, just natural selection.

Sorry, that's not true, on both counts.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dqNH-Hnsfgg

 

[Pythagorean]

I'd say that if you feel you can't pick, don't vote. Otherwise go with the predefined definitions the OP stated.

You could also try going with what philosophy you use to justify your actions on a daily basis instead of digging into your ideals.

I voted Atheism because that's how I live my life... and I think most religions are harmful and distracting to a productive society.

but in the end I'm agnostic because I see no evidence against a deist-sort of god (which is a very abstract concept, that has no personality or desires like a living creatures, but is an underlying system that governs all of physical reality.)

 

[~christina~]

... and I think most religions are harmful and distracting to a productive society.

Not necessarily. If you are referring to those religions which become cults or etc. then yes, but for example, I believe in a "higher power" but I think it is not necessary to go to church every sunday. I feel that this was something MANMADE. (who's with me there?) I just pray at home and I feel that it shouldn't matter where you pray.

I don't take religion too seriously since my dad and my mother have different religions entirely and there is no conflict at all.
It's ( I do know that other people feel VERY strongly about their religion, and I personally think that they should not be so serious about it = less wars about religion-right? )

 

[Poop-Loops]

Not necessarily. If you are referring to those religions which become cults or etc. then yes, but for example, I believe in a "higher power" but I think it is not necessary to go to church every sunday. I feel that this was something MANMADE. (who's with me there?) I just pray at home and I feel that it shouldn't matter where you pray.

Organized religion is definitely a bad thing I'd say

The funny thing is that it even says in the Bible to do exactly what you do, pray at home, don't care about where others pray, just do it to yourself and be happy.

 

[~christina~]

The funny thing is that it even says in the Bible to do exactly what you do, pray at home, don't care about where others pray, just do it to yourself and be happy.

exactly

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Name a religion that doesn't make objective claims about the universe or reality.

Anyone can have their own interpretation of religion and cut away parts that they feel are outdated or incorrect. Most religeous people I know take it as more of a philosophy.

Sorry, that's not true, on both counts.

Sorry, ID has been around since long before 1987. Just because some religeous nuts want to use it for propaganda doesn't mean they now own it and define it. By that rationale New Agers have posthumously changed Schrodinger's mind about quantum physics and his cat in the box idea was really predicting the observer created universe.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Sorry, ID has been around since long before 1987. Just because some religeous nuts want to use it for propaganda doesn't mean they now own it and define it. By that rationale New Agers have posthumously changed Schrodinger's mind about quantum physics and his cat in the box idea was really predicting the observer created universe.

One up me, will ya?

*cracks knuckles*

The Swastika was a sign of good fortune before Hitler took it for his own purpose (For the good fortune of the Nazi party, obviously), but now you can't portray it anywhere without "Holocaust" ringing through your head.

Does that mean the Swastika still stands for good fortune?

 

[Poop-Loops]

Anyone can have their own interpretation of religion and cut away parts that they feel are outdated or incorrect. Most religeous people I know take it as more of a philosophy.

At that point it stops being relevant to reality.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Does that mean the Swastika still stands for good fortune?

To some whose world view does not revolve around others stigmas yes.
There are scientists who consider the possibility of intelligence enherent in the system, nueral network like intelligence possibly partly responsable for evolution, who often aren't taken seriously because of the ID smear. It's sad.

At that point it stops being relevant to reality.

But does it contradict science? Someone's belief in an extra "non-science" dimension to reality doesn't necessarily contradict our observations of the scientificly explainable universe does it? And like MathIsHard there are people who believe that perhaps god is expressed in that which is scientificly explainable.

 

[Poop-Loops]

But does it contradict science? Someone's belief in an extra "non-science" dimension to reality doesn't necessarily contradict our observations of the scientificly explainable universe does it? And like MathIsHard there are people who believe that perhaps god is expressed in that which is scientificly explainable.

It's not an objective statement, so it doesn't matter. The fact that anybody can come and interpret it their own way says so. So I leave that up to the philosophers.

 

[morphism]

From the OP:

Please do not debate the religious types or opinions of others. This is purely for collection of data for my paper, and is not intended to be a contestation of any sort.

So let's not get this thread locked...

As for the poll, I picked Agnostic. I don't know if there is a god out there, but I believe even if there were one, that it wouldn't really care if we acknowledged its existence, i.e. I find the notion of a deity that requires worship to be absurd. Maybe this makes me an atheist?

 

[Astronuc]

The first choice should have been theistic rather than religious because one can be religious without being theistic. Given the three definitions, I would have preferred a 4th choice - none of the above, or uncommitted.

 

[Kurdt]

I'm atheistic. Whenever I encountered religion in my youth I really had no time for it. The words never inspired me and the ideas seemed ridiculous. Then again I'm not really inspired by art and music and I've never had any feeling I'd describe as 'spiritual'. I just don't get it when people talk about that stuff.

But I want to be a scientist but I still believe in "god"

You still can be

 

[BobG]

In general, the results of other surveys tend to have 20-30% Atheistic (but as low as around 5%), 60% theistic (very roughly speaking), and about 10-20% Agnostic. I ran a survey in my high school - but it turned out rather unusable, considering many participants didn't even know what Agnostic meant (a good lesson which taught me to define my terms).

Just conducting your survey via the internet might skew your results. Overall, I would expect about 8% Atheist, at most, and about 8.2% agnostic (although people belonging to a religion might also describe themselves as agnostic - if they know what it means): Religion in America.

You should still get some really interesting results.

 

[DaveC426913]

Organized religion is definitely a bad thing I'd say

Not to single out Poop-Loops but this thread is morphing from a discussion of beliefs across the population to personal opinions on religion and is heading towards religion-bashing.

The OP did ask that "Please do not debate the religious types or opinions of others."


Methinks this thread is headed for the Lock-ness Monster.

 

[BobG]

Not to single out Poop-Loops but this thread is morphing from a discussion of beliefs across the population to personal opinions on religion and is heading towards religion-bashing.

The OP did ask that "Please do not debate the religious types or opinions of others."


Methinks this thread is headed for the Lock-ness Monster.

Which would be very disappointing. It would be better to start a different thread to be locked... I mean debate your personal opinions about religion.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Not to single out Poop-Loops but this thread is morphing from a discussion of beliefs across the population to personal opinions on religion and is heading towards religion-bashing.

The OP did ask that "Please do not debate the religious types or opinions of others."


Methinks this thread is headed for the Lock-ness Monster.

It's as much my fault. Sorry. :-/

 

[vanesch]

In fact I might argue that people prone to pure logic are also prone to extreme bias in regards to problems that cannot be solved with logic. It seems to me that some people have a need to either explain, or to reject a claim, with very little neutral ground.

"if it doesn't have a solution, then it isn't a problem" (les shadoks http://www.lesshadoks.com/index2.php?page=3)

 

[Moonbear]

From the OP:

So let's not get this thread locked...

As for the poll, I picked Agnostic. I don't know if there is a god out there, but I believe even if there were one, that it wouldn't really care if we acknowledged its existence, i.e. I find the notion of a deity that requires worship to be absurd. Maybe this makes me an atheist?

I haven't voted yet, because the definitions provided for agnostic and atheist don't fit (and I'm definitely not religious). I'm what's best described as an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in a deity, but recognize I could be wrong (so don't really NOT believe either). Most of the time, except when reading threads like this, I don't give it any thought at all...it's just not an issue for me, which is what leaves me tipping more toward atheism than agnosticism.

The first choice should have been theistic rather than religious because one can be religious without being theistic. Given the three definitions, I would have preferred a 4th choice - none of the above, or uncommitted.

The opposite is often even more frequent...one can be a theist without being religious. Though, I don't think the OP has defined religious in the usual sense, but the poll being worded that way is confusing, since most would define being religious as belonging to an organization that promotes a particular belief system and regularly participating in it (once a year is still "regular.") I know quite a few scientists who are theists, but are not at all religious (their beliefs go no further than "there is or probably is a God," and it doesn't really influence their decisions in any way since they are not religious enough to think their God is paying all that much attention to individuals), I know a few who are semi-religious, at least in as much as they go to church or temple once in a while, and one or two who are very religious (church every Sunday, and their church's teachings do influence their decisions on day-to-day issues, including not doing certain types of research because it contradicts their beliefs).

And, I also agree with BobG that you're likely to get a different cross-section of the population responding to an online survey than you'd get if you walked down the halls of a science department asking this question in person.

And as a final moderation point rather than discussion point: as others have mentioned, STAY ON TOPIC. As per the OP request, do NOT discuss your opinions of other people's religions. If this turns into a for/against bash-fest, it WILL be locked and the offenders WILL get infractions.

 

[rewebster]

it's just one of those things, too, that 'scientists' are one (of a several) group that get out, get rounded up, or get knocked off in an 'area' of conflict----they don't follow like sheep (no offense to your herd, there, MB)--they (the scientists) have their own sterotype [sic].

_____

<an aside> why aren't they called shepflockers?

 

[Daniel Y.]

From what I've seen from reading the replies to the thread, some individuals find the three options provided to be insufficient to describe their belief. How could I better word my surveys/the options to get more accurate responses (changing religious to theistic, for example) in the future? Mind you many sample groups will be taking the same survey, and too difficult wording might be a hindrance to some of the samples. Thanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

From what I've seen from reading the replies to the thread, some individuals find the three options provided to be insufficient to describe their belief. How could I better word my surveys/the options to get more accurate responses

What about removing loaded or misintertpretable words and simply having your options as:

a] believe in a superpnatural presence
b] believe there is not a supernatural presence
c] believe the jury is still out

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"if it doesn't have a solution, then it isn't a problem" (les shadoks http://www.lesshadoks.com/index2.php?page=3)

That looks pretty funny, but I would bet it's even funnier in English!

 

[BobG]

What about removing loaded or misintertpretable words and simply having your options as:

a] believe in a superpnatural presence
b] believe there is not a supernatural presence
c] believe the jury is still out

People will think the survey is asking them if they believe in ghosts.

 

[vincentm]

Athiest here

 

[Moonbear]

What about removing loaded or misintertpretable words and simply having your options as:

a] believe in a superpnatural presence
b] believe there is not a supernatural presence
c] believe the jury is still out

People will think the survey is asking them if they believe in ghosts.

Yeah, supernatural brings in a whole 'nother group of potential responses beyond "deities."

Perhaps a better phrasing might be:
a) believe in a deity or deities.
b) believe there is/are no deity/deities
c) none of the above

(C would include the agnostics and atheists who will claim they have no beliefs in any direction, A makes no presumption of religiosity associated with the beliefs, and B should cover the atheists who have rejected belief in a deity (not all atheists are the same "flavor").

 

[Evo]

Yeah, supernatural brings in a whole 'nother group of potential responses beyond "deities."

Perhaps a better phrasing might be:
a) believe in a deity or deities.
b) believe there is/are no deity/deities
c) none of the above

(C would include the agnostics and atheists who will claim they have no beliefs in any direction, A makes no presumption of religiosity associated with the beliefs, and B should cover the atheists who have rejected belief in a deity (not all atheists are the same "flavor").

I suggest that we start a poll to see if the poll should be changed.

 

[NoTime]

I suggest that we start a poll to see if the poll should be changed.

I suggest poll on creating a committee to study the advisability of starting a new poll to see if the poll should be changed.

 

[Gokul43201]

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists 

Belief in personal God 	   1914           1933 	      1998
Personal belief 	   27.7 	   15 	       7.0
Personal disbelief 	   52.7 	   68 	      72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 	   20.9 	   17 	      20.8

Belief in human immortality 	 1914 	        1933 	         1998
Personal belief 	         35.2 	         18 	          7.9
Personal disbelief 	         25.4 	         53 	         76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 	         43.7 	         29 	         23.3

Note: Some columns don't add up to 100. I don't know what the deal is with that.

 

[edward]

I suggest poll on creating a committee to study the advisability of starting a new poll to see if the poll should be changed.

That sounds too much like politics.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Note: Some columns don't add up to 100. I don't know what the deal is with that.

There are more accurate algorithms for adding these days, is my guess. I mean, back in 1914 they had to do it by hand! I can't imagine how they got anything done. Now you can set a 32-bit floating point number and get like a billion times more accurate sums.

 

[Cyrus]

The other day I had to say the pledge of allegiance. I must admit, when it got to the part 'one nation under god' I bit my toungue. The entire concept of a national pledge just seemed too NAZI to me. All of us standing up like a bunch of mindless zombines. Hail USA, HAIL! -It kinda creeped me out.

 

[Poop-Loops]

By the end of my schooling I was just mindlessly saying the PoA, since I've repeated it so many times it's more like a sequence of sounds than actual words by now. I don't know why they expected that saying it over and over every day would somehow make kids more patriotic. They are smarter than that and they need an actual reason for it, not because someone older told them to. Please.

 

[Gokul43201]

The other day I had to say the pledge of allegiance.

Had to? Why? What was the event?