Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

NAS at 85% atheists — Let’s bump it up to 100%

William Dembski
December 7, 2006
Religion, Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The presentations of the Beyond Belief 2006 conference recently held in San Diego are available at http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch. Here is an excerpt from Session 2, which begins with a presentation from Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of the Hayden Planetarium. At the conclusion of his talk (beginning at the 40:47 mark in the clip) is the following exchange:

Tyson: I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here. Otherwise the public is secondary to this. [Moderator then turns to the panel for responses.]

Larry Krauss: It’s hard to know how to respond to Neil, ever. But the question you asked about “Why 15%” disturbs me a little bit because of this other presumption that scientists are somehow not people and that they don’t have the same delusions — I mean, how many of them are pedophiles in the National Academy of Sciences? How many of them are Republicans? [laughter] And so, it would be amazing, of course, if it were zero. That would be the news story. But the point is I don’t think you’d expect them in general to view their religion as a bulwark against science or to view the need to fly into buildings or whatever. So the delusions or predilections are important to recognize, that scientists are people and are as full of delusions about every aspect of their life as everyone else. We all make up inventions so that we can rationalize our existence and why we are who we are.

Tyson: But Lawrence, if you can’t convert our colleagues, why do you have any hope that you’re going to convert the public?

Krauss: I don’t think we have to convert those people. They’re fine. That’s the point. They’re doing science. I don’t understand why you need to do that.

It’s rare for Larry Krauss to come across as the voice of reason in these debates. But that’s only because Tyson is by comparison so scary. Not only does Tyson want to “convert” his fellow scientists to atheism but he won’t be content with anything less than 100% conversion. I seem to recall past leaders who demanded that 100% of their subjects conform to the religion of the land on pain of death. Is this any different? But of course it is: that was religion, this is science!

Question: You think there might be some self-selection going on at the National Academy of Sciences?

Comments
[…] Many people who self-identify as scientists and agnostics affirm proposition #2 rather than #1 because their basic assumptions about the universe conform to philosophical materialism. In my opinion, these “agnostics” are not-so-cleverly disguised atheists. Their worldview rules out the possibility of God, and because of this they simply ignore him—and often mock those who trust in God. Though he claims otherwise, Neil deGrasse Tyson certainly appears to be an atheist. At a conference in San Diego in 2006 he said, “I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here” (UncommonDescent.com). […]Two Kinds of Agnosticism, and Faith in God
September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PST
I don't think Neil had the intention of forcing people to become atheist, he was just puzzled at how can someone be a scientist and believe in God. I think Lawrence was saying that people are never going to agree on everything. I think the term atheist is the most abused word. It can not be compared as a religious belief as they may have a belief in Buddhism or secularism, humanism or just nothing at all. Atheist may not follow any practices or rituals. If someone who doesn't believe in Islam what does it make them?kiwichico
June 27, 2012
June
06
Jun
27
27
2012
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PST
The most recent study in Nature 1997 recorded only 7% of NAS fellows as believing in a personal God. http://grove.ufl.edu/~dmorgan/Articles/religion-sci/scientists%20and%20faith%20-%20nature%201997.pdfilovegod
December 12, 2006
December
12
Dec
12
12
2006
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PST
DaveScot said, There are many examples of cultures where the majority were religious and prospered for hundreds or thousands of years.Quite so. Culture comes from "cult", there is no culture without a foundational religion. Atheists are free riders on cultures. You need a working culture first before you can start indulging the intellectual luxury.Jaz
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PST
Anything is possible in fiction.mike1962
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PST
kharley471, "what just-so stories?" Oh, how about this one: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1135013v1mike1962
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PST
kharley471, Reality check. Red Cross was founded by Jean-Henry Dunant. I can only imagine why he came up with the symbol of the Cross. http://www.informatics.org/redcross/history.html "Few people realize that Jean Henri Dunant was also one of the founders of the World Alliance of YMCAs(young mens Christian association) in Paris in 1855. Dunant started very humbly by inviting a few friends to meet regularly at his house to study the Bible, to encourage each other in good works, and to bring about a spiritual awakening among young people." () parens emphasis mine. Anyone ever hear of the Geneva Convention? What is a Deist? Curious how Kharley472 see's it. Because there are various definitions. "Clara had, however, a favorite phrase she often quoted, "perfect love casteth out fear" (1 John 4:18)." Interesting she found inspiration in the Bible. Many people considered her anti-Christ from a Pharasee point of view(she did not attend church regularly). But what were her actions and words while not in church? "I suppose I am not what the world denominates a church woman. I lay no claims to it. I firmly believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Jesus of Nazareth, in his life and death, of suffering to save the world from sin, so far as in His power to do." "Further proof of Clara's reliance on God can be found in a favorite Bible passage she often quoted: "In as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren ye have done it unto me" (Matt. 25:40). In reference to this verse Clara said, "I never in my life performed a day's work in the field that was not grounded on that one little sentence, and that it did not come to me hourly till kindly sleep brought relief to both body and soul."" "She often declared that her Lord's approbation and good will were her final reward. "If acceptable to Him who gave us the courage, protection, and strength to perform it, we need care little more." Clara never failed to give credit and the glory for her many accomplishments to God. It was usual for her, at the end of any relief project, to hold a service giving thanks to and praising God."" Philip L. Jewett, 1998, Spirituality Today, http://www.spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/884034jewett.html Whatever she was, deist, etc., she was obviously inspired and gave reverance to the Lord. The very words of Yeshua she went to sleep with at night.Michaels7
December 11, 2006
December
12
Dec
11
11
2006
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PST
"Oh yeah, because we’re not human beings! I forgot. Why do I even try?" - kharley471 For a single person to give money away without grounds is also not hard to find. Or for a person to give money away on a whim isn't hard to find either. For the populace in general to give money away consistently is another. I didn't say that altruism is impossible for an atheist. It's not impossible, but it's impossible to justify consistently.WinglesS
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PST
kharley, you are carefree and that's how young people should be but keep in mind that the reason you can be carefree is that a lot of people aren't. One of those days you will have cares, and life is not going to seem an adventure. You will likely find broken trust and heartache in love or business or law or politics. When that should happen, rather than give in to disillusion, remember that Jesus' sacrifice was real and that He loves you.tribune7
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PST
WinglesS--by the way, even if what you've said were true at all: "The truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent." --William Blake I need no justification for altruism. "It is the action which shapes the thought." --Antonin Artaud Take care, DaveScot. This is farewell.kharley471
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PST
Oh, dang, I said I'd shut up, but here goes: The American Cancer Society and the Red Cross are non-religious charities. The Red Cross www.redcross.org was founded by deist-Unitarian, Clara Barton. There is also www.networkforgood.org which has both secular and religious charities listed. I have two sponsor children through Children International and I give to any organization that promises to help all people. I also belong to SPLC, Medecins sans Frontiers, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. Minnesota Atheists is having a fundraiser for Katahdin, which works with at-risk youth. (It should be noted that some organizations refuse $$ from atheists.) These aren't strictly "atheist" charities but atheists don't object to partnering with others of a different persuasion. However, American Atheists, the Council for Secular Humanism, American Humanist Association and other similar organizations were very active in promoting charity toward the victims of Hurricane Katrina. I work for a non-profit and there's always a substantion overhead involved in forming one--plus admin. staff--ugh. If they're not volunteers one has to pay them! I don’t think atheists are inclined to give away their money away. Oh yeah, because we're not human beings! I forgot. Why do I even try?kharley471
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PST
I don't think atheists are inclined to give away their money away. There is no reason to. It takes a more than just a good mood to get people in general to give away 10% of their income. Then again, evolution explains altruism. (more specifically it gives an explanation for, not necessarily a true one) Must have been good for society therefore religious societies persist and no atheistic societies survived. Maybe the war against religion is ultimately a self-defeating battle. Perhaps you can't beat religion without creating a new one. How does one justify altruism scientifically?WinglesS
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PST
Okay, I swear I'll shut up after this. You're not going to like it but I think all law is manmade, because religions are manmade. I for one don’t care to participate in making my culture a test bed for what happens when humanity is elevated to the highest authority in the universe. But that will never happen. There is an objective reality and I believe in it. We're subject to it. That's why humans do science. The principle that a higher authority exists is a cornerstone of the culture that established the United States of America and we are doing very well by it. My whole point is the U.S. of A. is full of people who don't do well by it, who must endure the multiple attempted makeovers of us by conventional minds who seem more horrified by artistic children than delinquent ones (because people love dead artists who were denounced in their time, but feel they must denounce living artists in our time). I got the message: I am "lost." My soul is "in peril." That's not news to me. Believe me.kharley471
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PST
kharley There are countless churches in the United States ranging from neighborhood congregations with dozens of members to national organizations with millions of members. It is almost a rule that these churches engage in voluntary charitable activities. Given that 10% of the population are positive atheists and 80% are Judeo-Christian one might reasonably presume that if atheism is as inherently interested in helping those less fortunate then for every eight charity programs run by Judeo-Christian organizations there be one charity program run by atheist organizations. Where are all the voluntary atheist-run charitable programs? I'm not saying they don't exist in proportionate number but I sure can't point to them. Can help me out by listing those you know of? DaveScot
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PST
kharley There are many examples of cultures where the majority were religious and prospered for hundreds or thousands of years. There are no examples of cultures where the majority were atheist and prospered for hundreds or thousands of years. We know that belief in a higher authority who sees everything we do, knows everything we think, and will judge us after we depart this plane of existence has an influence on how we choose between what we as individuals know is right and know is wrong. What will happen to a culture that wholly or largely adopts the belief that threat of manmade law & punishment is the only consequence of choosing wrong instead of right? That is the question we ask. We don't know the answer to that and I for one don't care to participate in making my culture a test bed for what happens when humanity is elevated to the highest authority in the universe. The principle that a higher authority exists is a cornerstone of the culture that established the United States of America and we are doing very well by it. Forty-five state constitutions attest to the fact America was founded upon this principle. Yet post-modernists would have us abandon it for some untested principle that a majority will do the right thing absent the belief in a higher authority. Note this has nothing to with the truth of falsity of religious belief. It is all about the practical consequences of presence or absence of that belief in any given culture.DaveScot
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PST
Would you still have that same outlook if you were raised in Somilia or Saudi Arabia or North Korea? I have wondered that! I can't answer that, because I don't know. But considering the stories that my family tells of me when I was minus one it seems that no matter where I would have been raised I would have still been a headstrong little bundle of joy. Some of the Somali women I know tell me they prefer the U.S., for obvious political reasons, but also that here they can practice Islam the way that they want without warlord micromanaging, so there you are. I also know former Muslims not born in the U.S. who became atheists. Nature v. nurture, beats me.kharley471
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PST
Anyone notice a pattern here in these post? Hint, look at several post above and below. Who is not present commenting here in their admonishment of NAS and these scientist? Who attacks ID, YECS, but then is noticeably absent here to defend Christ, or their brothers in Christ? Or at the very least join in rebuttal agaist such vile trash talking? Should not all Christians(of any theory) be outraged when someone like Krause twist the truth and effectively establishes Guilt by Association between pedophiles, Republicans, and Christians while the audience of "scientist" laughs? Loser, loser, and now "ignorant loser Christians too"? There will always be a few? Is this the Bill Maher Christian Hate Club of Sarcastic Scienctist? in disclosure; I'm Independent Christian. Attack ID, but whatever you do, don't attack Atheist.Michaels7
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST
I don’t know that I base my view on anything because it’s always been true for me, even as a child. Would you still have that same outlook if you were raised in Somilia or Saudi Arabia or North Korea?tribune7
December 10, 2006
December
12
Dec
10
10
2006
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PST
Upon what do you base your claim that life is its own meaning? I’ll try to keep it relatively short but let’s face it, I’ve been trying all my life to explain this to people I’ve grown up with. I don’t know that I base my view on anything because it’s always been true for me, even as a child. Life is an adventure and adventures are by definition open-ended. We learn by doing, and I think that we truly find meaning by doing, too. Purpose is co-emergent with creativity. Life is to be lived. Naturally this conflicts with the idea of a “fallen” world in which we avoid temptation. I was always more curious about the world than religion. People didn't like it (especially for a girl), but I don’t know what to do about that. Who decides that they don’t buy into Christianity at age nine? I did. Was I “designed” that way? I doubt anyone would say that. And yet, my religious relatives ask me for advice all the time, because I'm happy, because I do the things they hesitate to do. Shouldn't the situation be reversed if my life is meaningless? As you see this is a personal answer, rather than a philosophical template for others.kharley471
December 9, 2006
December
12
Dec
9
09
2006
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PST
tribune7, "The source is findable. I found it " Congratulations. I wish you the best.bj
December 9, 2006
December
12
Dec
9
09
2006
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PST
But, I do not know the ultimate source of this experience and these truths, The source is findable. I found it :-)tribune7
December 9, 2006
December
12
Dec
9
09
2006
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PST
Hi tribune7, "Why would that make sense? If there is an objective reference, we are accountable to it. If it is unknowable, how would we know what we must do?" I am only speaking for myself in my quest in believing that there is something that orients us in reality. For instance, our experience that there is a real difference between that which is good and that which isn't. Also, there is a general wisdom in most all cultures about what is a wise way to live-an agreement across all religious systems. But, I do not know the ultimate source of this experience and these truths, and I do not know whether we are accountable to he/she/it, etc.bj
December 9, 2006
December
12
Dec
9
09
2006
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PST
Well, that’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it? ,/i> Exactly but it’s exact nature is unknowable Why would that make sense? If there is an objective reference, we are accountable to it. If it is unknowable, how would we know what we must do?tribune7
December 9, 2006
December
12
Dec
9
09
2006
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PST
tribune7, bj — If there is no objective reference from which one establishes reality, you can believe whatever you wish "If there is an objective reference, you can’t. Is there an objective reference?" Well, that's the $64,000 question, isn't it? From my perspective, evidence points in that direction, but it's exact nature is unknowable, hence my agnosticism.bj
December 9, 2006
December
12
Dec
9
09
2006
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PST
kharley471 --Prove it. . . You mean, mathematically? Upon what do you base your claim that life is its own meaning?tribune7
December 9, 2006
December
12
Dec
9
09
2006
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PST
bj -- If there is no objective reference from which one establishes reality, you can believe whatever you wish If there is an objective reference, you can't. Is there an objective reference?tribune7
December 9, 2006
December
12
Dec
9
09
2006
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PST
Prove it. Whoa! You mean, mathematically? Because that's the only realm in which one "proves" things.kharley471
December 9, 2006
December
12
Dec
9
09
2006
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PST
tribune7, If there is no objective reference from which one establishes reality, you can believe whatever you wish and you don't have to prove anything.bj
December 9, 2006
December
12
Dec
9
09
2006
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PST
kharley471 --Life is its own meaning. Prove it.tribune7
December 9, 2006
December
12
Dec
9
09
2006
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PST
CJYman, "Why get mad at religion? There’s so much religion around, it must have been selected by nature for some evolutionary reason. Maybe it’s best for humanity and evolution in the long run that religion stays and science goes." I don't believe that the content system of any of the established religions of the world can be known to be true. Yet, in another thread Gil Dodgen relates the effect in his life of his transformation from atheism to Christianity. This transformation has to be taken at face value and noted, no matter what it's ultimate source. It has value. As you say, it was selected for a reason. Maybe it's best for humanity that both religion and science stay and each perform their respective good for the sake of all.bj
December 9, 2006
December
12
Dec
9
09
2006
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PST
1 2 3

Leave a Reply