Most scientists (51%) believe in god or a universal spirit/higher power vs. 95% of the general public.

https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Nope . Over 15% of U.S. population are Atheists. You lie yet again !

Just because SCat cherry-picked a 2009 Pew Study doesn't make him a bad person. How was he to know things might have changed over an 11 year period? He's certainly never changed!

SCat, the same then, now, and forever. We should all be so lucky...

Not Pew, LePew. Pepe LePew is the name.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope . Over 15% of U.S. population are Atheists.
> You lie yet again !
I back up my claims with statistics.
You've got nothing.
Who's the liar?

Liar v. Believer

Sometimes they're the same person.

Ok, but what do you make of that? Is it good or bad? Who are the ones brainwashed?

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, but what do you make of that? Is it good or
> bad? Who are the ones brainwashed?
If you come to 5h8s forum as a new ExMo, I suspect you are left with the impression that science and faith in god are incompatible. Thats nonsense. There are plenty of ways to reconcile faith in god with reason and science. And most scientists in America are capable of doing so. IOW beleiving in god isn't as stupid as atheists make it sound. Like Francis Collins says,"The extremists are just the most shrill who have taken over the stage. And many of them use science like a weapon to bludgeon believers into rejecting their beliefs"
People like you are perfect examples of what people find objectionable about atheism.

> People like you are perfect examples of what
> people find objectionable about atheism.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that bradley is an atheist? Or is that a baseless presumption?

I’m not a very faithful Atheist.

Repent! Repent and be faithless!!

For starters, it is not "most scientists (51%) believe in god", most scientists SAY they believe in god, back in 2009.

Responses change over time, and what people say they believe, and what they actually believe are often two different things. As the aphorism goes, watch what they do, not what they say.

The problem with this question is that there are so VERY many definitions of "God" among humans worldwide, and what a given person believes "is" God would often be either incomprehensible or fantastical to another person.

I don't think anyone can reliably answer this question without knowing the definition of God intended by the person who posed the question. Once you know the questioner's definition, then you can fairly easily determine whether you do, or do not, believe in THAT particular concept.

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with this question is that there are
> so VERY many definitions of "God" among humans
> worldwide. . .

Yup. Scat has at least a dozen that he uses interchangeably and that's just in one state!

Medical doctors in the survey showed around 77% believed --- it helps when scientists work with actual 'people'.

Also, most doctors believed they had seen 'medical miracles'!

Even if the numbers are correct, it doesn't provoke me into becoming a believer. What do I care what anyone believes? Most people have some weird beliefs.

William Law Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even if the numbers are correct, it doesn't
> provoke me into becoming a believer. What do I
> care what anyone believes? Most people have some
> weird beliefs.
Its not that.
Its that atheists are like the ones here, like Francis Colins described, the most extreme shrill voices occupying the stage, but in reality, most scientists believe in god, or a universal spirit/higher power.
Probably most of them are like, thats a stupid question.

There are other polls showing markedly different results.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/survey-one-third-of-scientists-believe-in-god.html

http://godreports.com/2016/02/number-of-scientists-who-believe-in-god-remains-high-a-study-says/ the second to last paragraph calls out only 7% of elite scientists who believe.

https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/roddreher/2010/04/science-vs-religion-what-do-scientists-say.html

Methodology seems to matter.

huge manatee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are other polls showing markedly different
> results.
>
> https://www.christianpost.com/news/survey-one-thir
> d-of-scientists-believe-in-god.html
>
> http://godreports.com/2016/02/number-of-scientists
> -who-believe-in-god-remains-high-a-study-says/ the
> second to last paragraph calls out only 7% of
> elite scientists who believe.
>
> https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/roddreher/201
> 0/04/science-vs-religion-what-do-scientists-say.ht
> ml
>
> Methodology seems to matter.

So does your source.
You trust Christian Post? And God Reports?
I trust Pew.

yup @William



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2020 10:57PM by Beth.

Pew surveyed self-reported scientists who are members of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Apparently I can join.

Pew footnote 1. Discussion of the beliefs of scientists is based on a survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which partnered with the Pew Research Center on the survey. AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society and includes members representing all scientific fields. However, the survey of AAAS members may not be representative of all scientists in the U.S.


"Membership is open to anyone who shares our goals and belief that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics can help solve many of the challenges the world faces today. You can lend your support to our efforts on behalf of scientists, engineers, educators, and students everywhere by becoming a member. Together we can make a difference: Join Us.

"To learn more about our community and the many benefits of membership, visit the Membership section of the website."

https://www.aaas.org/mission


A different survey narrowed the definition of scientists to members of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. 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%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2020 11:18PM by Beth.

I would nominate you but I doubt you meet the standard of 51% belief in the supernatural.

So maybe they believe. That doesn't make God real.

SCat:

Why don't you just talk about the famous equation of your "namesake?" Give us all a lesson on its meaning and how to use it.

WTF is a "universal spirit" ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTF is a "universal spirit" ?

First answer, WTF is "god"?
It's whatever that term means to you.
To me both are synonymous with the Greek word, "Logos" the active reason pervading and animating the Universe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#:~:text=The%20Stoics%20also%20referred%20to,a%20logos%20or%20spiritual%20principle.

Einstein, Sagan, Hawking and Kaku have all used similar definitions of the word, "god" (little 'g' meaning impersonal.)

Science isn't about belief. It's about what you can prove.

I'm only interested in their supplied evidence.

That you continually make some connection between personal beliefs and their profession as authenticating is flawed reasoning.

If Iñigo Montoya posted on RfM he'd be constantly remonstrating SCat, "I don't think that means what you think it means...."

He'd also count SCat's fingers.

And look for extra thumbs.

And, currently the statistics are that those who aren't Rocket Scientists or any other type scientist in the U.S.show that 75% believe in God. This is down from 82% so obviously some are wising up.

There has been a constant trend that as people become more educated and have more access to what is going on here there and everywhere, they become less religious. There are more NONEs now than nuns. Hmmmnnn.

So which direction are the numbers for believing scientist headed? Will they follow the trend of the general populace?


Why do Scientists believe significantly less than the regular folks? And why you lump Christian God believers in with "Universal Spirit" believers? Apples? Oranges? or, Bananas?


And uh, let's have a look at the elephant in the room, "universal spirit." Man, if there was ever a "one-foot-out-the-door-and-one-foot-in" term that is it.

Statistics prove that 100% of newborn babies are without belief in anything! But 99.9996% are born knowing how to suckle.

I think that proves all I need to know about life its own self: There's a sucker born practically every minute...


And of course, there is probably no position, no point of view, that can't be proven statistically.

therefore the survey is skewed / inaccurate.

I've been insulted / offended.

If I were a scientist and I wanted as much research/grant money as possible, I doubt I'd make my religious/political leanings public knowledge. Better to stay silent or neutral.

Exactly. Or a scientist who wants to sell books.

I think religion is something you need to take on faith.

Although a bit dated, this is an interesting study. Thanks for posting it. (I have no idea why your mere posting of a study, or expressing an opinion generates such abusive reactions.)

That said, my main problem with this survey, and with your posts generally, is that you lump into the same religious category (believing in God) those who believe in a personal God, and those who acknowledge a belief in a "universal spirit or higher power." I "higher power" could mean almost anything, including natural law itself, without any religious connotations whatsoever. Moreover, "universal spirit" is an equally dubious term, unless you identify what that concept entails.

The key to a genuine "religious" belief is belief in a "personal" Being (God) that is identified as a cognitive agent, having properties relevant to some minimal requirement for religious faith. Such a Being would have to have cognitive capacities (thinking, reasoning, and acting), interests, motivations, etc., all of which entail a sense of self identity. That is the minimum requirement for a personal God. A "universal spirit" or "higher power" need not have any such personal qualities.

The difference is huge. To continue to insist that people like Einstein and Carl Sagan believed in some sort of God is extremely misleading--even if they themselves improperly characterized their metaphysical beliefs as being encompassed by the concept of "God." There is no such thing as an "impersonal God" unless you mean a personal God that does not care about being "personable."

Many scientists believe in a personal God; Biblical or otherwise, usually having little to do with their scientific endeavors. However, the more interesting question is whether a scientist who does NOT believe in such a personal God, nevertheless does believe in a "transcendent" reality beyond materialist science. A transcendent reality is a reality beyond the laws of the universe, such that if known would explain the existence of such laws. Einstein believed in such a reality, as did many of the early 20th century physicists. Such a believe is usually tied to a belief that the improbable order of the universe needs an explanation of some sort. I would guess that most scientists today do NOT believe in such a transcendent reality.

Now, here is the main point: Any scientist or layperson who denies the existence of ANY transcendent reality, forfeits any claim to "spiritual" experiences. "Spiritual experiences" by definition require the acknowledgement of a reality beyond what materialist science can explain. It requires metaphysical beliefs! Such people can have emotional experiences, awe inspiring experiences, experiences of great appreciation, experiences of wonderment of the universe, etc. But all of that is merely the physical operation of neurons, neurotransmitters and hormones. And there is nothing "spiritual" about such deterministic operations, anymore than there is something spiritual about the operation of a computer.

So, when you have scientists, or people on RfM, high-jacking the word "spiritual" or "sacred" or other religious terminology while denying the transcendent, they are apparently longing for something that they expressly deny. In some cases they may have had such experiences themselves, but they believe that acknowledging them for what they are would undermine their scientific credibility.

Finally, suggesting that "spiritual" experiences are just "deeper" experiences than ordinary experiences adds nothing, unless by deeper one just means transcendent.

And yet reality has not been shown to be that way through any demonstrable method.

It might be that way. And it might not.

While common usage of language conforms with your presentation, that only reflects the usage and does not dictate that reality be so. This disconnect between words we know and our ability to think beyond those artificial constraints is an interesting thing.

You don't get to define the word "spiritual."

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't get to define the word "spiritual."

That's true. So, here's the standard definition:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=definition+of+spiritual&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&msnews=1&rec_search=1&refig=7e933783ac8342fa995e2118baa44915&sp=-1&pq=definition+of+spiritual&sc=8-23&qs=n&sk=&cvid=7e933783ac8342fa995e2118baa44915

Now, if you want to deviate from these metaphysical definitions in order to accommodate some secular need you might have, be my guest. I suggested you provide an alternative definition in the other thread, but all you could come up with is a human experience that somehow is "deeper" than ordinary experiences. That definition, of course, means nothing!

I think you asked someone else for a definition, not me. That definition was offered and you choose to ignore it here.

But yes, I'm happy to help you out. In fact, I will offer definitions from three different sources in addition to the one previously provided to you.


----------
Cambridge Dictionary:

1) "relating to deep feelings and beliefs, especially religious beliefs."

That clearly includes "deep feelings and beliefs" that are NOT religious.


4) "Of or relating to the inner character of a person."

So here again we see that "spiritual" does not require anything transcendent or supernatural.


---------------
Oxford English Dictionary:

3) "(of the mind etc.) refined, sensitive; not concerned with the material."

Thus a refined sensitivity of the sort D&D experiences in nature or elsewhere.


----------------
Collins English Dictionary:

1) "Spiritual means relating to people's thoughts and beliefs, rather than to their bodies and physical surroundings."

Here we see that "spiritual" directly encompasses "thoughts and beliefs" and religion and transcendence don't enter into the main definition at all.


--------------
So yeah, your definition is absurdly narrow. Those of us who speak of a "spiritual life" that need not encompass the supernatural or transcendent use the term squarely in the dictionary sense.

It is you who are making things up, not us.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cambridge Dictionary:
>
> 1) "relating to deep feelings and beliefs,
> especially religious beliefs."
>
> That clearly includes "deep feelings and beliefs"
> that are NOT religious.

First, I seriously doubt this is Cambridge's complete definition 1) of "spiritual." Where is the part you conveniently cut off?

Moreover, there is that word again, "deep" feelings and beliefs. What does that mean? How does this definition help in differentiating between what is a secular and what is a spiritual, other than what one chooses for convenience to call it. It is entirely vacuous. By this definition a person with deep feelings and beliefs about white supremacy, for example, can claim to be deeply spiritual. Any other ideology, regardless of how harmful and absurd, can claim "spirituality" so long as one's feelings and beliefs are "deeply held."
Ridiculous!
>
> 4) "Of or relating to the inner character of a
> person."
>
> So here again we see that "spiritual" does not
> require anything transcendent or supernatural.

Definition 4, great. Where is 1-3. How low did you have to go to find a meaning that was vacuous and secular?

Also, what is it about "the inner character of a person" that warrants the designation "spiritual?" Again, this is an entirely subjective determination that is entirely vacuous--unless you introduce metaphysical assumptions about moral character and human nature.
>
> ---------------
> Oxford English Dictionary:
>
> 3) "(of the mind etc.) refined, sensitive; not
> concerned with the material."
>
> Thus a refined sensitivity of the sort D&D
> experiences in nature or elsewhere.

This definition is NOT in my Oxford Dictionary. Where is the part you cut off?

Moreover, this definition begs the question as to what "of the mind" means, not to mention how the words "sensitivity" and "not concerned with the material" relate to someone's state of mind. Again, the key question is, 'Given this definition, how does one objectively go about differentiating between someone who is spiritual, or has a spiritual experience, as opposed to someone who just has an ordinary experience. The only place to address the objective question is in how the person characterizes his or her experience. There is NO objective content.
>
> ----------------
> Collins English Dictionary:
>
> 1) "Spiritual means relating to people's thoughts
> and beliefs, rather than to their bodies and
> physical surroundings."
>
> Here we see that "spiritual" directly encompasses
> "thoughts and beliefs" and religion and
> transcendence don't enter into the main definition
> at all.

"Thoughts and beliefs?" really. O.K. what defines a "thought" and "belief" as spiritual, as opposed to thoughts and beliefs that are not. Are we back to "deep" feelings and beliefs? Given that definition, few groups of people were more "spiritual" than the Nazi storm troopers, or Southern slaveholders. I'm sure they would welcome your secular definition.
>
> --------------
> So yeah, your definition is absurdly narrow.
> Those of us who speak of a "spiritual life" that
> need not encompass the supernatural or
> transcendent use the term squarely in the
> dictionary sense.

Definitions have to have a use that makes some objective sense, such that one knows when it is appropriate to apply the word and when it is not. None of these lower level definitions you suggest--assuming they are legitimate as you claim--provide such objectivity. What that means is that you can take almost anyone's claim to "spiritual" either as to themselves or others, or an experience, and there is absolutely nothing beyond such a claim where one can look for legitimacy as to the use of the word. There is no further question to ask to inquire about the the use of the word, and how it might apply to an experience or person.

These may be definitions in some very broad sense, but certainly these are on the bottom end of understanding and usage for the term "spiritual," unless the broad secular meanings have begun to take root to entirely destroy the word.
>
> It is you who are making things up, not us.

Not so. Everything I said above is perfectly valid. If you want to reach for expansive, lower-end definitions of "spiritual in order to secure a vacuous definition of "spiritual" to satisfy your own craving for metaphysical meaning, that's fine. But don't pretend that such definitions have ANY objective content.

> First, I seriously doubt this is Cambridge's
> complete definition 1) of "spiritual." Where is
> the part you conveniently cut off?

Look it up yourself. You will find that I repeated the entire first definition word for word.


--------------
> Moreover, there is that word again, "deep"
> feelings and beliefs. What does that mean? How
> does this definition help in differentiating
> between what is a secular and what is a spiritual,
> other than what one chooses for convenience to
> call it. It is entirely vacuous. By this
> definition a person with deep feelings and beliefs
> about white supremacy, for example, can claim to
> be deeply spiritual. Any other ideology,
> regardless of how harmful and absurd, can claim
> "spirituality" so long as one's feelings and
> beliefs are "deeply held."
> Ridiculous!

You apparently have an argument with the Cambridge dictionary. I suggest you bring it up with the Cambridge editors, who will doubtless agree that you know the language better than they.


------------------
> Definition 4, great. Where is 1-3. How low did
> you have to go to find a meaning that was vacuous
> and secular?

How far did I have to go to get to Definition 4? Uh, to "Definition 4." And I had to go all the way to Definition 1 to find Definition 1. But you would know that if you had bothered to Google the matter.

As for "vacuous and secular," again you should bring that embarrassing mistake to the attention of the linguists and editors at Cambridge.


-------------
> Also, what is it about "the inner character of a
> person" that warrants the designation "spiritual?"
> Again, this is an entirely subjective
> determination that is entirely vacuous--unless you
> introduce metaphysical assumptions about moral
> character and human nature.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but you should take your objections to the people at the OED. I mean, what would they know about English? It's not like they are the world's foremost authority on the language. Right?


----------------
> This definition is NOT in my Oxford Dictionary.
> Where is the part you cut off?

I am quite confident that you do not own an Oxford Dictionary. My heavens, you have demonstrated an unwillingness to Google these definitions: why would a person like you waste space on a reference book?

Be that as it may, the third definition in The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary reads precisely as I wrote. If you go to the 14 volume OED you'll find a more capacious set of definitions that will infuriate you even more.


----------------
> Moreover, this definition begs the question as to
> what "of the mind" means, not to mention how the
> words "sensitivity" and "not concerned with the
> material" relate to someone's state of mind.
> Again, the key question is, 'Given this
> definition, how does one objectively go about
> differentiating between someone who is spiritual,
> or has a spiritual experience, as opposed to
> someone who just has an ordinary experience. The
> only place to address the objective question is in
> how the person characterizes his or her
> experience. There is NO objective content.

Look, I really don't care about your objections to the authoritative definitions of the word "spiritual." We, your opponents in this debate, fit squarely within the definition as established by experts.


----------------
> "Thoughts and beliefs?" really. O.K. what defines
> a "thought" and "belief" as spiritual, as opposed
> to thoughts and beliefs that are not. Are we back
> to "deep" feelings and beliefs? Given that
> definition, few groups of people were more
> "spiritual" than the Nazi storm troopers, or
> Southern slaveholders. I'm sure they would
> welcome your secular definition.

I couldn't care less about your dissatisfaction with the English language.



--------------
> Definitions have to have a use that makes some
> objective sense, such that one knows when it is
> appropriate to apply the word and when it is not.
> None of these lower level definitions you
> suggest--assuming they are legitimate as you
> claim--provide such objectivity.

Why don't you just look them up? Are you really that lazy?


------------------
> What that means
> is that you can take almost anyone's claim to
> "spiritual" either as to themselves or others, or
> an experience, and there is absolutely nothing
> beyond such a claim where one can look for
> legitimacy as to the use of the word. There is no
> further question to ask to inquire about the the
> use of the word, and how it might apply to an
> experience or person.

So what? Your objections don't change the English language.


------------------
> These may be definitions in some very broad sense,
> but certainly these are on the bottom end of
> understanding and usage for the term "spiritual,"
> unless the broad secular meanings have begun to
> take root to entirely destroy the word.

I'm sorry the English language has so disappointed you.


----------------
> Everything I said above is perfectly
> valid. If you want to reach for expansive,
> lower-end definitions of "spiritual in order to
> secure a vacuous definition of "spiritual" to
> satisfy your own craving for metaphysical meaning,
> that's fine. But don't pretend that such
> definitions have ANY objective content.

Hah! The Oxford and Cambridge English Dictionaries "don't. . . have ANY objective content." That's great!


-----------------
You asked for a definition. I gave you several. They demonstrate my point, not yours. If you don't like the established meanings of words, that's your problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2020 06:32PM by Lot's Wife.

Posted by: bradley ( )
Date: October 24, 2020 06:04PM
Re: Most scientists (51%) believe in god or a universal spirit

"Not Pew, LePew. Pepe LePew is the name."
---

Polly: As in LePew the skunk?

It's nice to see you two playing so nicely!

But you're taking away from whatever point SCat was trying to make! ...Assuming he had a point to make and wasn't just caught up with quoting 'authority'. Sort of like the song, "I fought the authority and the authority won."

Yes, yes. But Salviati has offered an argument every bit as entertaining as Scat's.

Don't miss it.

So what? Did they use "science" to come to that belief? More important question I think. Nobel prize for the one who did awaits.

HH =)