Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Real Conflict Between Science and Religion

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The supposed conflict between science and religion is not only bad history, it also goes unsupported by on-going polls of the religious beliefs of scientists. As the story goes, empirical science uncovers inconvenient truths that religious people resist in a losing battle. But if there was a conflict between science and religion, and furthermore if science has uncovered findings inimical to religion, then one might expect a small and dwindling fraction of scientists who are religious. But a recent poll showed that a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power. And that is up from the 42% who responded similarly almost a century ago in 1914.  Read more

Comments
Finally, every one of the members of my department at Cornell (with whom I have discussed this issue) went into biology because: 1) they had an enormous curiosity about nature; 2) they enjoyed discovering new information about the natural world; 3) because of #1 they were very good at accomplishing #2. To whom, exactly, is O'Leary referring, and upon what evidence is she basing her conclusions? Inquiring minds want to know...Allen_MacNeill
February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
Also, the nationalities of the biologists surveyed in Dr. Graffin's study were: USA = 43% Canada = 7% UK = 13% Europe = 22% Rest = 15% REFERENCE CITED: Graffin, G. (2004) Evolution, monism, atheism, and the naturalist world-view. Polypterus Press, Ithaca, NY, page 31.Allen_MacNeill
February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
P.S. I am an evolutionary biologist at Cornell University, not an atheist (see http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/03/answer-now-what-was-question.html ), and believe in "free will" (properly defined).Allen_MacNeill
February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
In comment #1 O'Leary wrote:
"...78% of evolutionary biologists are pure naturalists (no God and no free will), according to a recent study."
According to Dr. Greg Graffin's study of 151 biologists who are members of the national academies of science worldwide (percentages rounded to nearest whole number) [see: http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/ ]:
atheist/agnostic [op cit, pg 34]" = 59% believe in free will [op cit, pg 38]" = 79% materialist [op cit, pg 39]" = 73% "metaphysical naturalist" [op cit, pg 48]" = 79%
As all but one of these data are significantly different from those cited by O'Leary, it would perhaps improve the quality of this discussion if she would please cite her reference(s). REFERENCE CITED: Graffin, G. (2004) Evolution, monism, atheism, and the naturalist world-view. Polypterus Press, Ithaca, NY, 252 pages. This study was Dr. Graffin's PhD dissertation, completed under the supervision of Dr. William Provine (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Provine )Allen_MacNeill
February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
There is no conflict between science and true religion but there is disharmony between science and Intelligent Design. For all practical purposes, a proof is any completely convincing argument. And the problem with Intelligent Design is that most scientists are simply not persuaded that the highly ordered physical reality we live in and obviously exists is the work of an Intelligent Designer. It could very well be, and I believe it's likely, that most scientists are being unreasonable in denying the existence of the Designer but it is the nature of science to be extraordinarily skeptical. I don't want to see the standards of science lowered so that the whims of the Intelligent Design movement would be satisfied. According to Dr. Michael Behe, astrology is a scientific theory. I refuse to be taken there. I believe that the standard of what is called science must be raised higher than it is now.Shubee
February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
It is pretty hard to be a success at anything if you don't think there is some kind of purpose. And to concede there is a purpose pretty much concedes there is a higher power.tribune7
February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
You know it truly is ironic Dr. Hunter, as I have come to a deeper understanding of the true state on the actual evidence, that the only real conflict between science and religion that there really ever was, is the irreconcilable conflict that exists between "true" science and the religion of materialistic atheism.bornagain77
February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed, Lock, StephenB, tgpeeler, kairosfocus, I have replied to all of you yesterday but the comments are still in moderation. I have had a much better experience than I thought I would have had in discussions with all of you and don't want you to think I am ignoring you as a lot of you put a lot of work into your replies. I am much to frustrated to comment any further on this site as anything I put together may not appear for days if at all. So again, thanks to all of you, and I do intend to keep on lurking.Toronto
February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
But 78% of evolutionary biologists are pure naturalists (no God and no free will),...
I am an atheist and believe I have free will. If I decided to convert to Christianity, I believe that it would have been my free will to have made that decision. If you agree that I believe I have the free will to make that decision, why, with my being an atheist, do you think that I don't believe I have the free will to make any others.Toronto
February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Some points about the survey data: We are only talking about US scientists. Only 33% of scientists in the survey said they believed in God - 18% believed in a higher power - whatever that means. Is 33% is a high or low number? It is certainly a lot lower than the US population as a whole. It is meaningless to compare this to a survey of scientists in 1914. It is a completely different population of people. Those scientists are all dead. Any change in percentage could be accounted for by a million different things other advances in science - for example ethnic background, average age, gender - who knows. This just demonstrates the difficulty the press has in dealing with statistics. However, if you did want to compare them it is only reasonable to compare like with like. In 1914 42% of scientists believed in a personal God. This is surely to be compared, if anything, to the percentage who now believe in God - 33%.Mark Frank
February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
But 78% of evolutionary biologists are pure naturalists (no God and no free will), according to a recent study. Surely they go into that area because it enables them to front their religious beliefs at tax expense.O'Leary
February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply