Why are so few scientists theists?

[Jase]

If we look at the National Academy of Sciences, something like 95% of the members are atheists. The trend also lends itself to the less mathematical sciences being slightly more likely to be theists than the heavily mathematical ones ( for example, of the small percent of theists, most are biologists, almost none are physicists).

Does anyone know why this is the case and to the TEs, does it have any impact on your faith and beliefs, or cause you to question?

 

[Molal]

If we look at the National Academy of Sciences, something like 95% of the members are atheists. The trend also lends itself to the less mathematical sciences being slightly more likely to be theists than the heavily mathematical ones ( for example, of the small percent of theists, most are biologists, almost none are physicists).

Does anyone know why this is the case and to the TEs, does it have any impact on your faith and beliefs, or cause you to question?

Speaking on personal opinion, I am a structural geologist at the masters level, I am well known in my study area and I am reasonably well published.

It has been and continues to be a very difficult walk in my faith - but it is only difficult because creationists make it difficult. They often insist (both on these forums and at my church) that you are not a true christian if you do not take genesis literally, and since I do not take genesis literally, I am not a true christian.

I find this thinking absurd and quite degrading. I believe that my knowledge enhances my faith by allowing me a unique insight into creation.

Being a TE makes people paint you into a corner; you are either a bible literalist or a liberal.

So, to conclude, questioning ones faith is generally spurred by the creationist crowd.

I am not sure if this helps, I can certainly expound upon my scientific position as well as my theological position?

 

[Melethiel]

I know most of the Physics faculty at my university (a large, fairly liberal state university), and most are Christian...some are even elders in their churches...

 

[birdan]

If we look at the National Academy of Sciences, something like 95% of the members are atheists. The trend also lends itself to the less mathematical sciences being slightly more likely to be theists than the heavily mathematical ones ( for example, of the small percent of theists, most are biologists, almost none are physicists).

Does anyone know why this is the case and to the TEs, does it have any impact on your faith and beliefs, or cause you to question?

I think one reason is the mindset of those attracted to the sciences. Scientists seem to pursue lines of reasoning, whereas many other people are quite comfortable simply accepting a broader holistic approach without so much attention to details.

That said, it would seem the logical end result for scientists would be agnosticism rather than atheism. Given that these two terms are often used interchangeably, I would question that most scientists are atheists rather than agnostics.

I would imagine that my process over several decades is not unique. Being brought up in a religious (Catholic) environment, I started out with a belief in a very concrete, biblical God. By logically pursuing lines of reasoning (which seems to be hard-wired and not a matter of choice) I was not only attracted to the sciences, but also questioned the logical basis of my views of God and the supernatural. This led to a gradual diminishment of the role of God in the world from the childhood bible stories of a very active God to a much more "vague" God who functioned more behind the scenes: the prime mover, the "hands off" guider of the universe, etc. A God-of-the-gaps, if you will. Eventually those gaps got so small that God became irrelevant in my life. God became superfluous, a construct that added nothing to my understanding nor to the way I led my life. Hence I ended up as an agnostic. If there is a God, it is one that is non-interventionist, so its existence or non-existence is not an important issue for me.

 

[Mallon]

Science promotes skepticism, and skepticism inevitably leads one to question God's existence. So it's no surprise that so many scientists are atheists.
The problem, of course, is that many scientists don't recognize the methodological limits of science and, espousing scientism, reject God on those grounds. Similarly, anti-evolutionary creationists are just as guilty of scientism, only they chose to reject logic over God.
The solution: Do a better job of teaching the strengths and limitations of science in high school (and of the Bible in Sunday School, for that matter). The public's understanding of science is abysmal, no matter which country you live in.

 

[stumpjumper]

There is an interesting breakdown with the overall group as well with biologists being the least likely to claim belief in God and (I believe) physicists being the most likely.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Science promotes skepticism, and skepticism inevitably leads one to question God's existence. So it's no surprise that so many scientists are atheists.
The problem, of course, is that many scientists don't recognize the methodological limits of science and, espousing scientism, reject God on those grounds. Similarly, anti-evolutionary creationists are just as guilty of scientism, only they chose to reject logic over God.
The solution: Do a better job of teaching the strengths and limitations of science in high school (and of the Bible in Sunday School, for that matter). The public's understanding of science is abysmal, no matter which country you live in.

Logic > God?

 

[shernren]

I be a theistic wannabe physicist.

And as a wannabe physicist, I think wannabe physicists are heavily governed by a mechanistic metaphor for nature. X exerts force on Y which exerts force on Z etc. etc. The funny thing is that as you go higher in physics, the mechanistic metaphor actually becomes less and less applicable. Nuclear physics doesn't really use "force" except as "slang". Everything you've heard about quantum mechanics etc. being really postmodern has a grain of truth in it: one of the most fruitful ways to view QM is to consider that a particle takes all possible paths between A and B (even the ones that go faster than light / backward in time / etc. etc.) and somehow "add them up" over the underlying field to get the most probable path. Not only is this approach more correct, it's also computationally a whole, whole lot easier than the good old X forces Y forces Z approach of classic Newtonian physics. (And Newton didn't come up with it, by the way, because he had no notion of energy. Poor guy.)

Anyways. I think Mallon hit it right on the head, because the mechanistic metaphor really doesn't work. Even on a macroscopic level (billiard balls etc.) the "other" approach works a lot more cleanly and simply than the force-force approach. As such, as a physicist, I find it entirely self-consistent and reasonable to consider the universe as an organic whole, and to consider God's role in the universe as a top-down causative agent (top-down causation being similar to considering, say, that when I get mad I make my brain secrete certain chemicals, instead of saying that when my brain secretes certain chemicals they make me get mad). There's just so much cultural baggage associated with the superiority (and mechanical nature!) of science that students just don't break free.

That be what I believe.

 

[InTheCloud]

There is an interesting breakdown with the overall group as well with biologists being the least likely to claim belief in God and (I believe) physicists being the most likely.

Thats is true, in my country there is a large scientific research institute and the biologist are almost agnostic/atheists and the few physists are at least open to religious questions and some of them are either christians or buddists.
I believe that the very nature of physics propel people to make methaphysical questions.
Also the fact that many churches have taken issues on evolution as a rival to a literal Genesis (forgotting things like cosmology) have forced many people to choose between belief and science. And of course is the empirical, naturalistic positivist mindset of science that discourages any type of faith in thing that cannot be proven.

 

[gluadys]

Thats is true, in my country there is a large scientific research institute and the biologist are almost agnostic/atheists and the few physists are at least open to religious questions and some of them are either christians or buddists.
I believe that the very nature of physics propel people to make methaphysical questions.
Also the fact that many churches have taken issues on evolution as a rival to a literal Genesis (forgotting things like cosmology) have forced many people to choose between belief and science. And of course is the empirical, naturalistic positivist mindset of science that discourages any type of faith in thing that cannot be proven.

I think both your points are valid. It is very easy to slip from science to scientism.

And the impact of religious opposition to the fundamental basis of modern biology must also have an effect.

Another instance in which creationism nurtures atheism.