When I first quoted the study early in the thread I did add the proviso that when comparing to Europe we would need to take the increased secularism in Europe into consideration.
As far as disciplines go, the study does differentiate between Natural and Social Scientists and the questions were put to members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science which is a reputable association which should not have any innate pro-religious stance amongst it's membership.
Another study makes much the same conclusions...
we also have to be careful on how we frame the question and what definition and context we are putting on the question.
I would support the fact that Scientists are less likely to be religious and less likely to hold a belief in a particular definition of God, however that is some way from stating that Scientists are mostly Atheists or that as Bhavv keeps repeating that Intelligence leads to Atheism. Because the statistics simply do not hold those propositions to be true. I would (with some reservation) be more likely to agree with the statement that Increased Intelligence leads to Agnosticism.
This is interesting, because I too know a disproportionate amount of scientists (I live with two for a start) and when asked the question "Do you believe in God" invariably the answer is "By what definition" and rightly so.
If we look at your examples....If we define God as being the Flying Spaghetti Monster or A Pink Elephant in Space then we can determine a probable likelihood to some degree of certainty.....this is because the proposition has specific definitions as to what we are considering to be true....and as such the probability would lean toward an atheist position. On this I think we can agree.
However, if we defined God as being the Universe itself with, or even without, a sentience that we cannot currently determine then the probability is somewhat more difficult to ascertain...so the answer to the proposition would lean toward the agnostic position....we simply do not know.
This is the problem with trying to apply scientific methodology to an unfalsifiable proposition...so much depends on how that proposition is defined and how many assumptions can be made as to it's likelihood. This is why Science and by implication the professional opinion (as opposed to a personal opinion) of Scientists logically and rationally should follow an agnostic approach to the question "Is there a God".
This should be the default position until such time as a falsifiable definition of God can be universally applied.
Last edited:
