Scientists who (may) believe in God

[Jway]

Just stumbled upon this link (Famous scientists) and was wondering what fellow Hypographers think about what it is saying?

 

My apologies if this has already been discussed on this site elsewhere. If so, feel free to merge this thread with that one.

 

And not that it matters much, but I will award extra credit to anyone who can guess the words I used in Google search to get to this link.

[InfiniteNow]

Here ya go: http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/18209-reconciling-science-and-religion-doomed-fail.html

[Boerseun]

The link you referred to, list Einstein as a believer. A rather baseless meme has been doing the rounds for many years stating just that. They latch on to things like Einstein saying "God does not play dice with the universe", clearly unable to see a metaphor if it struck them between the eyes on a clear sunny day. However, in one of the last letters Einstein wrote, the following was stated:

 

“the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

As for his fellow Jews, he said that Judaism, like all other religions, was “an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”

 

I somehow doubt that he was a believer.

 

As to the rest of the list, you can scrap most of those listed who lived during the inquisition. People were burnt at the stake for not professing their blind allegiance to some invisible überbully in the sky. Kepler, for instance, had to testify in his mother's defence - she was to be burnt for alleged witchcraft. Do you think he would not profess belief? That whole list is a worthless and baseless attempt at supporting faith.

 

All the above in answer to your question about what I think of it.

 

However, what strikes me as more interesting, is what your motives were for starting a thread on this particular topic?

 

Care to "enlighten" me?

[Michael Mooney]

Jway:

And not that it matters much, but I will award extra credit to anyone who can guess the words I used in Google search to get to this link.

 

"Scientists who believe in God"

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=scientists+who+believe+in+god&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=leBsIIJAIN0

 

Also, along the same lines:

 

"mystic scientists"

 

Google

 

Also "science and mysticism" has a lot of refs on the subject.

 

Google

 

I once gleaned quotes from 23 scientists, both famous and merely well credentialed who were also mystics or merely religious. "Published" the piece in "Myspace" a few years ago. I'd retrieve it if I were any good at search techniques... but I'm tech-challenged as an old fart who got my first computer in 'oo... and not too keen on learning all the them new-fangled tech-niques.:lol:

Thanks.

Michael

[Jway]

Here ya go: http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/18209-reconciling-science-and-religion-doomed-fail.html

 

Reviewed link.

Do not see the clear connection. No discussion on the scientists who were believers.

You are reinforcing my belief that you are the one who takes discussions off-topic, but project that trait onto others so as to compensate for, um, short-comings.

[Jway]

The link you referred to, list Einstein as a believer. A rather baseless meme has been doing the rounds for many years stating just that. They latch on to things like Einstein saying "God does not play dice with the universe", clearly unable to see a metaphor if it struck them between the eyes on a clear sunny day.

 

The link states: "Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe."

 

(The added link is also from the link I had in previous post.)

 

However, in one of the last letters Einstein wrote, the following was stated:

 

“the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

 

I really don't dispute that he wrote this, but would be nice to see context and/or source you are getting this from. Not necessary for me, just preferred.

 

The quote on the additional link, about Einstein's (possible) beliefs in a personal God, has Einstein saying:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

 

The link offers additional quotes of what Einstein may have believed about a deity. I'll acknowledge that what you posted, in light of other things attributed to Einstein's beliefs, appears to show a person that was conflicted about his beliefs, though I give benefit of doubt that perhaps the conflict of Einstein's diviine beliefs are projected onto the person from others with various agendas and/or biases.

 

As to the rest of the list, you can scrap most of those listed who lived during the inquisition. People were burnt at the stake for not professing their blind allegiance to some invisible überbully in the sky.

 

The link cites this, by saying:"Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus."

 

I believe there are other references to this on that same linked page.

 

Kepler, for instance, had to testify in his mother's defence - she was to be burnt for alleged witchcraft. Do you think he would not profess belief?

 

The link states: "Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!"

 

That whole list is a worthless and baseless attempt at supporting faith.

 

Baseless, how?

A claim made from someone providing quotes, without a basis (source). I believe you will suddenly produce sources for your quotes, but interesting that you chose not to. I'm guessing you will say something along lines of, "anyone with common sense knows this about Kepler." But, now that I've served it up on silver platter, perhaps you could share source and/or some context for quotes you have presented for discussion.

 

However, what strikes me as more interesting, is what your motives were for starting a thread on this particular topic?

 

Care to "enlighten" me?

 

Not just yet. More interested in playing a guessing game as cited in OP. But stick around and perhaps someday soon, that will be revealed.

[Jway]

Michael,

 

Those are all good guesses on the extra credit item. But I must say that they are incorrect. They are so close to being correct, that I hereby award you partial credit (and click on the little green square thingie by your post).

 

Thanks for sharing your comment on this thread. I think I'd be interested in the MySpace page if you ever have a link. Feel free to post on this thread or just PM me.

 

-Jway

[CraigD]

Just stumbled upon this link (Famous scientists) and was wondering what fellow Hypographers think about what it is saying?

The author of this webpage, Rich Dean, begins it with a side text beginning

Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God.

From this, I’d summarize the thesis, or central claim, of his web paper to be essentially two part:

• In the past, many scientists believed that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature.
  
• In the present, many scientists believe this.
  

In critically reading anything containing the qualifier “many”, it’s important to determine what’s meant by it. In this case, when applied to a cohort – a sample identified by a common characteristic, in this case being a scientist – I’d tend to think of “many” as meaning a fraction of the total cohort greater than a certain value, such as 1/4th.

 

A good next step in a critical reading process is to look for reliable data pertaining to the claim. Data about what people believe is difficult to obtain further back than about a century, but on the question of scientists belief in god, we’re fortunate to have good quality data on the question from a survey written by James H. Leuba and taken by him in 1914 and 1933 and by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham in 1998, with the following results:

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD          1914   1933    1998
Personal belief                 27.7    15       7.0
Personal disbelief              52.7    68      72.2
Doubt or agnosticism            20.9    17      20.8

BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY           1914    1933    1998
Personal belief                 35.2    18       7.9
Personal disbelief              25.4    53      76.7
Doubt or agnosticism            43.7    29      23.3

- source: Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998 (free access); original nature.com article (payment or subscription required)

 

Note that the surveys defined “scientist” as “leading” or “great” scientists, selecting them by their in inclusion in American Men of Science (1914 and 1933) and the (US) National Academy of Science (1998)

 

So the correctness of the second part of Dean’s thesis – that many present-day scientist believe in God – appears to depend on whether you consider 7% to be “many” scientists. Personally, I don’t.

 

For natural philosophers of Newton’s time and earlier (the term, and to some extent, the concept of a “scientist” was not used and recognized as it is today), I believe there’s a general consensus among science historians that the belief in a personal God was a much higher fraction than in the 20th century, as in many countries, such as England, most educated and recognized natural philosophers were actually clergy, this being a condition and the nominal purpose of their education.

 

So the correctness of the second part of Dean’s thesis – that many scientists believed in God – is, I think, historic fact, supported by much writing by many scientists, in particular Isaac Newton, demonstrating strong belief in God.

 

As with any statement about God, however, I think it’s important to consider critically what a particular writer actually means by “God”. From my reading of Newton’s theological writing, I believe he believed in the existence of the God described by traditional Church of England dogma, but a famous contemporary of his, Baruch Spinoza, wrote of a God (to which Albert Einstein famously and explicitly subscribed) so disagreeable to his religious dogma (Spinoza was Jewish) and those of other Europeans that he was excommunicated (issued a writ of cherem), and his writings banned by both Jewish and Christian authorities.

 

I’m not familiar with the religious beliefs of all of the 12 scientists on Dean’s list, but like previous posters, think the inclusion of Einstein is a poor choice, as his concept of god is essentially pantheistic, which I believe most readers would not consider to be “belief in God” in a usual or traditional sense.

[sman]

This is, of course, the fallacy of the argument from authority: These guys made predictions about other things that turned out to be right on - so they must've been right about God too. But, still I think it tells us something. Examples of intelligent people who believe in God tells us that belief in God is not a product of stupidity. Religous thinking is our heritage - it describes our species, with only a few odd exceptions and only very recently in history. And, yes, there are some scientists today that believe in God despite science. I'm surprised Michael Behe isn't listed - has intelligent design passed out of vogue with creationists already?

 

 

 

I'm not familiar with the religious beliefs of all of the 12 scientists on Dean’s list, but like previous posters, think the inclusion of Einstein is a poor choice, as his concept of god is essentially pantheistic, which I believe most readers would not consider to be “belief in God” in a usual or traditional sense.

 

And if Einstein is listed (despite publicly reaffirming his atheism many times) then why not Stephen Hawking for his use of the word God in A Brief History of Time: "...then we would know the mind of God"? An allusion to Kepler (who actually ment "God"). Why do physicists do this?

[Jway]

Thanks CraigD for your critical thoughts and attention to this discussion.

 

The author of this webpage, Rich Dean, begins it with a side text beginning

Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God.

 

A good next step in a critical reading process is to look for reliable data pertaining to the claim. Data about what people believe is difficult to obtain further back than about a century, but on the question of scientists belief in god, we’re fortunate to have good quality data on the question from a survey written by James H. Leuba and taken by him in 1914 and 1933 and by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham in 1998, with the following results:

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD          1914   1933    1998
Personal belief                 27.7    15       7.0
Personal disbelief              52.7    68      72.2
Doubt or agnosticism            20.9    17      20.8

BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY           1914    1933    1998
Personal belief                 35.2    18       7.9
Personal disbelief              25.4    53      76.7
Doubt or agnosticism            43.7    29      23.3

 

So the correctness of the second part of Dean’s thesis – that many present-day scientist believe in God – appears to depend on whether you consider 7% to be “many” scientists. Personally, I don’t.

 

Okay.

 

I actually find it to be a bit higher than if I consider it for more than 10 seconds. 7% on the surface seems low (aka not much). Any percentage of scientist that believe in a PERSONAL God, kinda sorta surprises me, especially given rhetoric on this site and what I find to be 'mainstream, populist opinions.' If 7.0 percent means, what 70 out of 1000, that seems again a bit higher than I anticipated. If extrapolate the percentage to say 10,000,000 scientists worldwide, then we are looking at 700,000. Suddenly, it strikes me as "many."

 

Stats generally humor me. I appreciate them, but data like this is easy to play around with, as I just did to come up with 700,000. Is 10 million scientist worldwide too high? Cause I'd gladly lower than number, and lower the 700,000 figure. I'm okay if we say there are 100,000 scientist worldwide, and thus just 7,000 who believe in PERSONAL God. Yeah, I'm emphasizing personal because that actually skews the data in a direction that really surprises me. I wonder if things would be different in the data if the "personal" part was removed? I'm thinking higher. But I must also concede, based on the sampling and figures above, that another fair extrapolation IMO, would be to assume that the 7.0 is perhaps too high in 2009, based on observable downward trend. Even if say 4.0 now, that would be a bit surprising to me. I'd find it interesting to have discussion with scientist who is not shy about his/her beliefs in personal god. I honestly believe I'd ask some of the same questions you all would, minus the indignation. If you wouldn't have any indignation, then I wasn't speaking about you per se, more like a general you that shall go unnamed.

 

So the correctness of the second part of Dean’s thesis – that many scientists believed in God – is, I think, historic fact, supported by much writing by many scientists, in particular Isaac Newton, demonstrating strong belief in God.

 

I'll admit I was a bit ignorant on such beliefs with Newton. Admittedly, I'm still at least a little bit skeptical, but mainly because I feel influenced by idea (bigotry?) that would suggest: no scientist worth his/her weight could possibly have a belief in a personal God. It would be grounds for banishment from the Club. (LOL)

 

As with any statement about God, however, I think it’s important to consider critically what a particular writer actually means by “God”.

 

I agree, though admittedly, I may be less critical. There's critical and there's, "I doubt you even believe in God. You must be thinking something else and don't know what you mean. Care to recant your statements on this matter?"

 

I’m not familiar with the religious beliefs of all of the 12 scientists on Dean’s list, but like previous posters, think the inclusion of Einstein is a poor choice, as his concept of god is essentially pantheistic, which I believe most readers would not consider to be “belief in God” in a usual or traditional sense.

 

If indeed it is pantheistic, I would very much include Einstein as believer in God. But would concede that this may not, I would say unlikely, be the same for the author of the web page.

 

Again, thanks CraigD for your contribution and well thought through post. I found your writing to be well organized and respectful.

 

Cheers,

-Jway

[freeztar]

I'll admit I was a bit ignorant on such beliefs with Newton. Admittedly, I'm still at least a little bit skeptical, but mainly because I feel influenced by idea (bigotry?) that would suggest: no scientist worth his/her weight could possibly have a belief in a personal God. It would be grounds for banishment from the Club. (LOL)

No banishment necessary. A belief in a personal God is a personal choice. Scientists are not banished for their personal beliefs (well, they shouldn't be anyways). If a certain scientist states that purple is her favorite color, she is not banished because of this. Of course, if all of her experiments involve the color purple, it might be argued that her personal choices are affecting her professional choices. This is not a good situation in science and might certainly warrant "banishment".

 

So, if Einstein believed in God or not is mostly irrelevant to the science behind his ideas. The same goes for any other scientist for that matter. When I'm reading a scientific paper about a black hole, I don't normally question the author's beliefs. There is no reason to. Of course, if they claim that God is responsible for black holes, then I would look for evidence and would research the author to determine what personal motivations they may have.

 

Science is not free of human folly, but it strives to be.

As a member of these forums for a few years now, I've seen the gamut of claims regarding science as close-minded, arrogant, and stubborn. In some cases, these claims are valid. But, in a majority of cases, these claims are not valid.

 

For instance, some very contentious topics here at Hypography have been evolution and climate change. In both cases, several members have railed against the respective science with a number of fallacies and misinformation. (For brevity sake, I'm not going to introduce example quotes, but if you're curious, send me a PM.) Climate change "research" has been presented that has an obvious bias in favor of the oil companies, with some scientists getting paid handsomely for their sell-out. For evolution, I've seen many links that point to "research" with an obvious religious agenda.

 

It's ok to have whatever belief you want as an individual. As a scientist, one should respect the profession enough to pursue the truth, however ugly it may be. This often times requires leaving one's bias at the door. Some scientists are successful at this and some are not.

 

So, is it really important to know a scientist's personal religious/spiritual beliefs while reading their scientific research paper? I would say it is irrelevant.

 

Jway, you might enjoy the following thread. If I've read you right, it should interest you quite a bit.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/15040-science-is-close-minded.html

 

In conclusion, Einstein's Theology is irrelevant to Relativity Theory. A scientist's beliefs are not relevant to empirical results.

 

(Fwiw, Einstein's theology was discussed quite a bit in a thread here entitled "God doesn't play dice". Also, it has been argued that the cosmological constant had theistic importance for Einstein causing him to create his "biggest blunder" which is now essentially Lambda in the current cosmological theory forerunner. This would be better expounded upon in another thread though. ;))