This thread is for proof that God exists (page 12)

shepherdless

Jacob Meza states:

The majority of U.S. scientists either belive in a diety or in a higher power.

Jacob supports this contention with a 2009 Pew Research report that reads in part:

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.

The Pew Research sets out the same, in a bar chart.

Cofty in reply:

Your misuse of statistics was not very honest was it?

[He attaches the same bar chart that actually supports Jacob Meza]

Only 7% of members of the American National Academy of Scientists believe in god.

Talesin effectively points out that the bar chart agrees with what Jacob Meza's statement.
Cofty:

The 7% figure refers to the NAS and comes from a different study.

But no concession or apology to Jacob Meza No link to the "different study".

Cofty, that is twice that you have done that sort of thing, on this thread alone. Perhaps you are just reading the comments and replying a bit to fast, and making mistakes. You have done excellent work, particularly in relation to demonstrating a large number of proofs that evolution is reality. You are a clear thinker, and a great deal of thought and research has gone into them. Great job! However, it is not your role to play high speed "wack a mole" with every potentially non-conforming opinion posted here. Or please at least take better aim.
Those comments are intended to be constructive, not negative, by the way.

Hadriel

....@sheperdless drops mic.

trevor

Mary Midgley gives the example of the river Thames. Say you have various representations, including perhaps a painting, a chemical analysis, a poem, a map, a geological account, a historical treatment. Do you begin to appreciate how ridiculous it is to describe some of these representations as having a "better understanding of reality" than the others? They are different ways of looking at the same thing.

Slimboyfat, I understand your post and agree with what you are expressing. They are different ways of looking at the same thing, but all they are doing is looking and forming different impressions and interpretations of what they see. The river is a changing reality as the water is replaced every day. Only a fish swimming in the river is immersed in it's reality. The fish swims, eats, breaths and reproduces, all without thought or reasoning. The fish is part of the reality. Perhaps the only way to experience the reality of the river Thames is to swim in it, as I have many times at Runnymede.

You know all this - I just wanted to comment.

Fisherman

Chemists seem to believe in God the most for some strange reason.

Chemist find it science fiction to believe that organic molecules (methane for example) synthesized life from nothing.

Fisherman

That is why the comment that scientists have "a better understanding of reality" is ignorant and stupid.

I agree that the comment reveals that the commentator has a flagrant disregard for logic -and here is why: The statement assumes that reality is limited to mean 'the measurement of the physical universe and how it works'.

cofty

assumes that reality is limited to mean 'the measurement of the physical universe and how it works

No but reality INCLUDES 'the measurement of the physical universe and how it works.

Scientists have all of the same emotions and feelings and experiences as the rest of us. However they also have knowledge about the way the world works in a way that most non-scientists do not. There is a correlation between a scientist's knowledge about reality and the likelihood that they reject belief in a god.

Only 7% of the members of the American Academy of Science believe in god.

Why do you think that is?

Landy

There was a survey done on the members of the royal institute a few years ago, and iirc, it came out that about 8% believed in some sort of god. (Not necessarily theistic). Interestingly there were no biologists among them.

I'll see if i can google it when i get near a pc.

I'm not sure why theists feel the need to grasp the coattails of the odd (normally fruitloop) scientist who states a belief in God.

If you compare the number of scientists that were believers in the nineteenth century to the number of believers now you will see a very sharp drop.

I would hazard a guess to say that the next generation of scientists will contain no theists at all.

Ruby456

cofty

science is a human activity in the same way as art, anthropology, sociology, history etc etc. The point is to accept that reality consists of many different perspectives and the great thing is to see how far each can go until it loses coherence or when evidence is lacking (example: dawkins and crew). Then too science can only go so far while human reality (or should i say human realities) goes much further than what science can offer at present and still be coherent and be backed by evidence - just different kinds of evidence

think about humans flying, or going through solid objects - we have been imagining these things for a very long time and finally we are able to do so - at least how to do so - rockets, aeroplanes, TV etc.

edit: landy it depends on what questions you are asking scientists. Most are religious minded if you asked them different questions. that religion is about Beliefs in God is a nineteenth century european invention and arguments that follow from this invention are always circular. it is truly mind boggling that we thought we'd left circular arguments behind when we left Jehovhas witnesses only to find that they are everywhere

cofty

humans .. going through solid objects ... finally we are able to do

Eh?

Ruby456

eh?

think about humans flying, or going through solid objects - we have been imagining these things for a very long time and finally we are able to do so - at least how to do so - rockets, aeroplanes, TV etc.

edit: is that better Mr. pernickety?

This thread is for proof that God exists

Share this