Which comes first, the atheist or the egghead?

The first major study of the religious beliefs of scientists has just been released, and shows that contrary to popular belief, people don't become atheists because of the scientific evidence in front of them, instead atheists gravitate to work in the field of science.

I would tend to agree, because strong atheism is less rational as a belief system than Christianity, so what we're seeing is a bunch of people who want the evidence to support their beliefs, and are happy to work in areas that reinforce those beliefs.

In other words, science is in danger of becoming atheism's high priesthood (presumably with Dawkins as ultimate Poohbah).

If the survey had found that people enter science as Christians, then see the evidence and become non-believers, you might be able to argue that the objective evidence  was overwhelming.

They didn't, and it isn't. Those who are attracted to a naturalistic belief system seek work in that area.

But fascinating how younger science graduates are more likely to believe in God than their older peers. What's that about?

Comments

[James]

"I would tend to agree, because strong atheism is less rational as a belief system than Christianity"

oh please!

[fugley]

We are all atheists - I just believe in one less god than Ian.

[Adolf Fiinkensein]

Might have something to do with the fact that younger people are less bigotted than the previous generation and are sufficiently intelligent to recognise that even science itself is a gift from God.

[peter]

Sounds like a common sense result to me. The scientist tends to be the more analytical and dispassionate type of person. Not easily swayed by emotional rhetoric - more inclined to look at hard evidence.

I would say that doctors and other medical professionals would be the same. There would be conflict in telling them what is best for them clinically and mentally - and the kind of attitudes I constantly see on sites like these.

[scrubone]

"But fascinating how younger science graduates are more likely to believe in God than their older peers."

I think a few years back science *was* effectively a religion. Now, a lot of young people see it as just science, and they can also have a religious aspect to their lives.

[peter]

I would say that the preference of young for religion would be unlikely in NZ, given the exodus there has been from the churches between last two censuses.

[Psycho Milt]

Your conclusion is backwards, Ian. It's not so much that science is attractive to atheists, as that it's unattractive to people who've based their life around a superstition.

The fact that younger scientists are more likely to believe in God is probably an indication that the huge sums of money religious lobby groups pour into anti-science propaganda is having an effect. All the more reason we need guys like Dawkins around.

[Dave mann]

Don't be so stupid. "strong atheism is less rational as a belief system than Christianity". You are a completely programmed mindles drone to make such an idiotic statement.

[ian]

That was deep, Mann.

Perhaps you can explain why strong atheism is more rational as a belief system. But I suggest you read this thread first:

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/why_atheism_is_.html

[ZenTiger]

That was deep, Mann.

boom. boom.

[James]

Perhaps you can explain why strong atheism is more rational as a belief system. But I suggest you read this thread first:"

You were done and dusted on that one Ian so give it up faith boy!

[ian]

No...as I recall you guys couldn't engage in the abstract debate because it offended your sensibilities.

You'd make terrible lawyers because you could only argue cases you agreed with.

[fraser]

strong atheism? what do you mean?

do you mean the people who claim with certainty that there is no god?
or do you mean people who claim that based on a balance of probabilities that there is no god?

lets keep in mind that atheism is a lack of belief. It is, of itself, not a belief system

and please, christianity is more rational? yeah like, "we buried this guy and 3 days later he came back to life and ascended to heaven" thats highly rational.

This looks like a classic example of the religious trying (and failing) to define atheism via a religious context. IMO that wont actually work.

The fact that sites such as these continually display an alarming lack of knowledge about what atheism actually is (according to what atheists actually say about themselves - not what other religious groups claim them to be), is evidence of this.
And yup, i guess the problem goes both ways.

look i know im not going to change your mind. But basically youre claiming that science is less rational than religion.

just. plain. stupid.

Be a believer if you want, cool, but at least be honest about the fact that faith is faith. it is not logic, reason or truth

your above link is truncated by the way. brings up a 404

[Dave mann]

Yes, I have read the link you kindly quoted for my education (after filling out the 'html' bit properly). And the assertions you make are, frankly, laughable.

For example "To be a true atheist, you must do more than lack an opinion on the existence of a deity, you must adhere to a belief that the deity is fictional." What you have done here is to squeeze in the word 'belief' where it properly doesn't belong. Belief does not come into the atheist mindset. An atheist (or at least, a scientific atheist) does not 'believe' in things or ideas; he makes rational judgements on the basis of known and empirically verifiable facts. There are no empirically verifiable facts to suggest the existance of a conscious creative being that humans call 'God'. Ergo, the rational (and, actually, courageous in the face of our sick mental programming ) stance is to say that There is no God. God is a human construct created by humans out of their own imaginations to fill a deep emotional need in the face of a lack of verifiable facts.

Belief has no place in the equation. As long as you continue to frame arguments about facts in the language of superstition and fear, you will never release yourself from your own mind trap.

[robk]

fraser,

You say "...based on a balance of probabilities that there is no god?"

You can't, by definition, say there is no God "based on probabilities". All you can say is it is 'unlikely' of there is a 'one in a hundred chance'.

Actually it can be more rational to believe in a Creator God. The chances may seem small to you, but what about the science offering of the probability of the first self replicating cell 'creating' itself from a soup of chemicals? The probability has been calculated, and it is essentially ZERO. It is NOT rational to believe in a 0/1 probability.

A dead person regaining life doesn't seem so hard... Medical people bring people back to life in hospitals on occasion, admittedly after only a few minutes... Would be much easier for God. :-)

[Dave mann]

BTW, Psycho, your comment is brilliant. Much more succinct than I could have put it. Thank you.

Ian, your comment about lawyers is hilarious. To introduce such scum, such despicable sub human parasites as lawyers into a debate about God demonstrates the extent to which you have banished rational thought from your mind.

[robk]

Dave Mann

You say" Ergo, the rational (and, actually, courageous in the face of our sick mental programming ) stance is to say that There is no God. "

Nope. All you can say is something like "based on the evidence we have discovered SO FAR it seems unlikely there is a God".

And if you do say it, then you are totally ignoring the liklihood of the complexity we EMPIRICALLY see around us arising by chance - which is pretty much zero. ERGO it is not courageous, but blind.

[peter]

Ian says ...

"No...as I recall you guys couldn't engage in the abstract debate because it offended your sensibilities.

You'd make terrible lawyers because you could only argue cases you agreed with."

Lawyers and journalists yes, they take a brief, and advocate it for a fee. Is that what you are doing Ian? Seeing how far you can push a case that you do not believe in?

Surely the case for countless clergy as well!

[Dave mann]

Oh really (sigh)...

Do you know anything about the Theory of Evolution? Have you actually read The God Delusion?

*Chance* does not enter into the equation. Nothing happens by *chance*. Life forms EVOLVE as certain species demonstrate a higher capacity for survival and development due to the process of NATURAL SELECTION.

The thing that really really pisses me off about you people is your absolute willingness to twist and distort other people's arguments in order to validate your own sick agenda.

But more frightening is your insidious ability to taint the education of our young people in their schools with this pack of twisted lies.

[robk]

Dave,

Your arguments are really just emotive, not rational.

If you have a 'chemical soup' the meeting of chemicals and the zapping of lightning MUST be by chance. Please explain how it could not be? You can't, because you have been swayed by emotive statements such as are found in Dawkins' book (which I have scanned, but not read).

You say "The thing that really really pisses me off about you people is your absolute willingness to twist and distort other people's arguments in order to validate your own sick agenda."

You don't have any idea what you are saying. :-(

You say "But more frightening is your insidious ability to taint the education of our young people in their schools with this pack of twisted lies."

Actually it is evolution which is taught in schools, and I think what you said applies to this.