The following reply to Jim Clark's very interesting post is long and if you have no interest in this topic, (why did you open this message?), I should remind you that you are voluntarily reading this message and you may stop at any time with no penalty. Rick Froman Psychology Department John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] JC:
I'm not sure I get the militia and ACLU comment, unless it was meant to communicate the expectation that there would be zero overlap between science and religion. Such an expectation is to me very surprising in anyone with experience with social science research, or even natural science research for that fact. Surely people have a rather remarkable capacity to live with contradiction between beliefs or between belief and action (e.g., "thou shalt not kill" with executions and war). RF: They certainly do but I think it is less likely that a person would choose to make their life's work something that they believe to be incompatible with a central belief (atheist priests or vegan butchers) thus the militia-ACLU reference. One thing we do know about cognitive dissonance is that it is an uncomfortable state and not something a person would generally choose to spend a lot of time in. They are usually very motivated to escape or reduce the contradiction. JC: With respect to the breadth of disbelief across scientific disciplins, I pointed out in my earlier posting that numerous other surveys are consistent with the one of evolutionary biologists. I included that one because of its recency and its more detailed questioning (e.g., that lack of belief is associated with lack of evidence ... more below). For a summary of another well-publicized study that was broader in scope, see http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/sci_relig.htm RF: Nothing I said before can be taken to mean that I believe that there are a large percentage of scientists who are believers in God. I simply said that the reason for the low percentages have a lot to do with the current cultural milieu. The link Jim sent us to had the following results: The results were as follows (figures in %): 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 Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high The decreasing levels of belief among scientists fits well with my idea that it is the cultural milieu today including the common belief (among both believers and unbelievers) about the incompatibility between science and faith that accounts for the small percentage of believers among scientists. Assuming that the nature of science today is no more incompatible with faith that it was early in the 20th century, it is interesting to see how the numbers have changed. Even more interesting to me were the beliefs about immortality among biologists. Below the numbers cited above was the statement, "Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%". So almost one-third of biologists do not state a disbelief in God? They didn't provide the specific numbers who were agnostic vs. believers. Even more interesting, only 69% of biological scientists were affirmative disbelievers in immortality. I can think of no biological explanation for immortality (kind of analogous to perpetual motion in physics) so evidently, as scientists, (and not just any scientists -- this sample was in the National Academy of Sciences) as many as three out of 10 didn't see any inconsistency between science and a belief in immortality. What possible biological empirical evidence could they have had for that? JC: I was careful to use the word "association" for the relationship that I reported so as to avoid any implication of causality. And Rick's hypothesis is certainly one possible alternative explanation. My own hypothesis, in line with the responses of the biologists to the evidence question, is that there are profound and fundamental contradictions between religious beliefs and a scientific attitude. Religious conviction depends on either (a) a rejection of the idea that empirical evidence is necessary to substantiate such beliefs (i.e., it is pure faith-based), or (b) a considerable watering down of one's critical capacities when it comes to evaluating the quality of evidence (e.g., anecdotal reports, personal experiences, ...). And of course in the extreme there are direct contradictions about matters of fact, such as the age of the earth in young-earth creationists and scientists. RF: I agree that those with religious beliefs reject the idea that controlled empirical evidence is necessary to substantiate such belief. They also don't believe there is any controlled empirical evidence to disconfirm their beliefs. As to uncontrolled evidence, they interpret what they see around them as evidence of God's existence. Many believe that science is the most reliable and best method for investigating questions that are open to scientific investigation but that some important questions are beyond scientific investigation. For example, "why should I not do all I can to maximize my outcomes at the expense of everyone else?" Evolutionary theory can explain why we care for our progeny but not why we should or why we should even have progeny. After all, we won't be around to see it so what difference does it make to us? I am not saying a religious viewpoint is necessary to answer such a question. I am only saying that science does not answer it. There are any number of such questions and Jim cites some from David Myers. I don't think a lack of purpose plus natural selection answers why there is something rather than nothing. I think to say that science answers all questions (Jim's "scientific worldview") is to ignore the questions that science doesn't answer as irrelevant or meaningless. Although clearly a majority of scientists don't believe in God, I would be interested in seeing the number of scientists who believe that all questions relevant to the human condition, values, morals, purpose and ethics are potentially answerable by science. I think it would be a small minority. If ethics were inherent in science or derivable from scientific methodology, scientific organizations would have only methodological guidelines, not ethics codes. The principles on which the codes are based do not have empirical support with regard to their being right or wrong. JC: To bring this back to teaching, I would be very interested in knowing whether believers who teach their students critical thinking would advocate that those same skills be brought to bear on students' religious beliefs, or that religion is beyond the scope of critical thinking, or that nothing should be said about the relationship between critical thinking and religion. RF: There is a difference between reason and empirical evidence. Critical thinking and reasoning can (and I would say "should" although I have no empirical evidence to support that) be brought to bear on all beliefs including religious beliefs, whether or not empirical evidence is available, looking for internal inconsistencies and hypocrisy. Sorry for the wordy reply. Thanks for the very interesting (to me anyway) conversation. Rick
<<winmail.dat>>
--- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
