scientific thinking and faith

[brokensymmetry]

I have often pondered why it is that there are so many fewer people embracing religion, in particular strong forms of religion, who are in scientific fields than in the general population. In the US, religion is very common, so it is noticeable when a subgroup eschews it either partially or fully. Is it that the sciences attract people who are at the outset less likely to be fully believers? Or is there something about the scientific education? Or is it social pressure?

I suspect that the scientific education has a strong role to play in this. If you are used to investigating claims in a rigorous sort of way, vetting claims through a thorough process of careful reasoning, discussion with others and most importantly through nature itself, it seems natural to extend that process to the most important type of questions about the world also. Why lower your standards for the really weighty stuff? Once that happens though, it's very hard to turn it off. I know some genuinely intelligent people, well read people, who do not blink at admitting that they take it on faith that the world is less than 10k years old. They have reasons they coherently apply across the board (here, a line of reasoning which starts at God's existence, goes through the resurrection of Jesus and ends with the reliability of the Bible) which simply trump what would otherwise be a question open to empirical inquiry. I sometimes wonder how it would go if the same people were daily exposed to the power of empirical inquiry, the multiple lines of evidence that support a 4.5 billion yr old earth, 14 billion yr old universe, and saw it all laid out very explicitly (though I know some to understand it at least in a general way) with the exposure and training necessary to fully see it, how it would go.

 

[Amechania]

I have often pondered why it is that there are so many fewer people embracing religion, in particular strong forms of religion, who are in scientific fields than in the general population. In the US, religion is very common, so it is noticeable when a subgroup eschews it either partially or fully.

Do you know this to be true?

 

[brokensymmetry]

Do you know this to be true?

Yes. There is a pretty big difference.

Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes. There is a pretty big difference.

Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

I assume all academia is less religious. Doesn't mean anything.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Or is there something about the scientific education?

Yes, this. Just this. The use of the scientific method on most subjects fairly quickly separates facts from fantasy. More importantly still, the use of critical thinking, which should be universally required for all people in the 21st century.

Scientific Method Defined:
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

Critical Thinking Defined:
disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.

Although it should be required, the reality is that the concept of critical thinking has all but been ignored in schools over the past couple of decades. Which leaves in its wake a population that is incapable of examining facts and gauging their authenticity.

The result is a gullible public that is easy prey to those who wish to push their own agendas.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Or is there something about the scientific education?

Yes, this. Just this. The use of the scientific method on most subjects fairly quickly separates facts from fantasy. More importantly still, the use of critical thinking, which should be universally required for all people in the 21st century.

Scientific Method Defined:
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

Critical Thinking Defined:
disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.

Although it should be required, the reality is that the concept of critical thinking has all but been ignored in schools over the past couple of decades. Which leaves in its wake a population that is incapable of examining facts and gauging their authenticity.

The result is a gullible public that is easy prey to those who wish to push their own agendas.

I'm sure this is a factor. I wonder though if different personality types aren't more attracted and suited to this type of thinking. It might be interesting to see if others who prefer other ways of thinking are also more open to, or more attracted to religions also.

But, I agree with you ultimately. One thing I think about is that scientific education, if you are paying attention, forces you to rethink your instincts. We have a terrible instinct for large numbers, for statistics, and we we have a sort of naive physics which is all wrong. When we really learn science we are forced to stop and think things through more and question what merely 'sounds' about right.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of religion has to do with our instinct to see agency in things. This is certainly adaptive, insofar as, we have to be hypervigilant about what others are up and thinking, far more than other species. However, suppose we are inclined to extend this sort of thinking to natural processes. It could be that getting used to scientific thinking might help break this otherwise strong instinct.

 

[Bunyip]

I have often pondered why it is that there are so many fewer people embracing religion, in particular strong forms of religion, who are in scientific fields than in the general population. In the US, religion is very common, so it is noticeable when a subgroup eschews it either partially or fully. Is it that the sciences attract people who are at the outset less likely to be fully believers? Or is there something about the scientific education? Or is it social pressure?

I suspect that the scientific education has a strong role to play in this. If you are used to investigating claims in a rigorous sort of way, vetting claims through a thorough process of careful reasoning, discussion with others and most importantly through nature itself, it seems natural to extend that process to the most important type of questions about the world also. Why lower your standards for the really weighty stuff? Once that happens though, it's very hard to turn it off. I know some genuinely intelligent people, well read people, who do not blink at admitting that they take it on faith that the world is less than 10k years old. They have reasons they coherently apply across the board (here, a line of reasoning which starts at God's existence, goes through the resurrection of Jesus and ends with the reliability of the Bible) which simply trump what would otherwise be a question open to empirical inquiry. I sometimes wonder how it would go if the same people were daily exposed to the power of empirical inquiry, the multiple lines of evidence that support a 4.5 billion yr old earth, 14 billion yr old universe, and saw it all laid out very explicitly (though I know some to understand it at least in a general way) with the exposure and training necessary to fully see it, how it would go.

I think it is pretty simple really. Religious faith has a long and strong cultural tradition, but to a great many scientists the schism between mythology and reality is very clear. Faith is all about belief despite the evidence, it is about believing regardless of the evidence - whilst the entire edifice of the scientific method is designed to eliminate the bias of faith and to see the world as it really is.

 

[LuisDantas]

I assume having an education lessens the urge to believe in exceptional answers.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Let me ask this.

A century ago it was probably far more unusual for scientists to be full on atheists. What changed? Go back further, it was not at all uncommon to find great scientists be firm believers. Check out Newton, or Faraday. What changed there?

 

[Tumah]

Yes. There is a pretty big difference.

Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

One notable exception is Jews, who make up a larger proportion of the scientific community (8%) than the general population (2%).

 

[brokensymmetry]

One notable exception is Jews, who make up a larger proportion of the scientific community (8%) than the general population (2%).

I did notice that Tumah, but how many of those Jews are observant? To what extent? And how much do they believe? If a pollster asked me if I was a Jew, I suppose I'd say yes, but I am not sure that would give the pollster much information about my religious beliefs or practices. I would have still said yes when I identified as a Christian. I think that particular question can be tricky for what the poll wanted to reveal.

 

[Avi1001]

One notable exception is Jews, who make up a larger proportion of the scientific community (8%) than the general population (2%).

And most Jewish scientists are reform Jews.

 

[seeking4truth]

I think that it is the concepts of God developed in pre-scientific ages that cause some people to reject 'God'.
God is something we can experience but not necessarily explain except through our own environment and language.
As languages, cultures and environments are different so explanations of God are different.
Science tries to explain the world round us and has added enormously to our understanding but it cannot and does not explain everything. A lot of science is theory, constantly being tested and improved.
God is the creator of all things, seen and unseen, known and unknown so cannot be explained by natural science.
To say that ONLY science is acceptable as an explanation of experience is to limit us to the physical and exclude spiritual life. Yet spiritual life is a human experience much more ancient and widely established than science.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I think that it is the concepts of God developed in pre-scientific ages that cause some people to reject 'God'.
God is something we can experience but not necessarily explain except through our own environment and language.
As languages, cultures and environments are different so explanations of God are different.
Science tries to explain the world round us and has added enormously to our understanding but it cannot and does not explain everything. A lot of science is theory, constantly being tested and improved.
God is the creator of all things, seen and unseen, known and unknown so cannot be explained by natural science.
To say that ONLY science is acceptable as an explanation of experience is to limit us to the physical and exclude spiritual life. Yet spiritual life is a human experience much more ancient and widely established than science.

But that doesn't explain the stats in question. Do you think most religious people are worshiping a pre scientific concept of God? If so, what do you mean by that and how do you think that is different from what you espouse?

 

[Tumah]

I did notice that Tumah, but how many of those Jews are observant? To what extent? And how much do they believe? If a pollster asked me if I was a Jew, I suppose I'd say yes, but I am not sure that would give the pollster much information about my religious beliefs or practices. I would have still said yes when I identified as a Christian. I think that particular question can be tricky for what the poll wanted to reveal.

Do they need to be observant? It seems to me the question was about the relationship between faith (I am understanding this as the belief in G-d) and science.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Do they need to be observant? It seems to me the question was about the relationship between faith (I am understanding this as the belief in G-d) and science.

Yes but it's not clear to me what the identification says substantively about faith. If you have agnostics identifying as Jews what can you say about the relationship of science and faith from that stat?

 

[seeking4truth]

Do you think most religious people are worshiping a pre scientific concept of God? If so, what do you mean by that and how do you think that is different from what you espouse?

No, I think that people who have a primitive/pre-scientific concept of God are the ones who reject religion or compartmentalise it, keeping it separate.

 

[brokensymmetry]

No, I think that people who have a primitive/pre-scientific concept of God are the ones who reject religion or compartmentalise it, keeping it separate.

What do you think they are rejecting precisely? What if they are rejecting what evangelicals, a large category among the general public, believes about God?

 

[Tumah]

Yes but it's not clear to me what the identification says substantively about faith. If you have agnostics identifying as Jews what can you say about the relationship of science and faith from that stat?

No, you're right. I would say that there is not enough information.

 

[outhouse]

I suspect that the scientific education has a strong role to play in this..

You suspect right.


The more knowledge and eucation one gets, in religion and science. The gap where a deity can actually exist, becomes very very small. Which for me, means there is no chance at all any deity exist anywhere.


I see a very clear picture of how the monotheistic god was created by ancient men who knew nothing of the natural world around them from previous mythology and polytheism. They compiled two gods into one as well as some serious redacting to meet the cultural needs of monotheism.