Argument from admired religious scientists

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(addl. (probably over-) wikif.)
(Counterarguments: Added a section on irreligious scientists)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
* "Isaac Newton, [[Johannes Kepler]], Galileo, and others were [[creationist]]s. Therefore creationism is scientific."
 
* "Isaac Newton, [[Johannes Kepler]], Galileo, and others were [[creationist]]s. Therefore creationism is scientific."
  
== Counterarguments ==
+
== Counter-apologetics ==
  
 
=== Religion and science ===
 
=== Religion and science ===
Line 25: Line 25:
 
Organizations like the [[Institute for Creation Research]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and the [[Discovery Institute]] also make this argument by touting the academic degrees of members of their staff. However, these scientists rarely do creationist research in their field of expertise.
 
Organizations like the [[Institute for Creation Research]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and the [[Discovery Institute]] also make this argument by touting the academic degrees of members of their staff. However, these scientists rarely do creationist research in their field of expertise.
  
 +
=== Scientists are less likely to believe in God ===
 +
 +
Since most people in general believe in God, and since all scientists are people, it makes sense that a high number of scientists believe in God, whether or not this is derived from their understanding of science.  However, numerous surveys have shown that scientists tend to be far ''less'' likely to believe in God than the general public.
 +
 +
A 1996 survey in ''Nature'' indicated that 60.7% of randomly selected scientists express disbelief or doubt concerning the existence of God.  Even more striking, however, was a 1998 survey that focused on members of the [[National Academy of Sciences]].  This survey discovered that only 7% of these members of the highest tier of scientific achievement believed in a personal God, while 72.2% were willing to state that they personally disbelieved in such a God.
 +
 +
The bottom line seems to be that the more highly trained a person is in science, the less likely they are to believe in God.
 +
 +
As a counter-point to lists of creationists who doubt evolution, the [[National Center for Science Education]] has produced their own list, known as "[[Project Steve]]."
 +
 +
== External links ==
 +
 +
''[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html Leading scientists still reject God]''
 
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
 
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]

Revision as of 05:07, 25 August 2007

The argument from admired religious scientists exists in several forms:

Contents

Counter-apologetics

Religion and science

Only the first form of the argument is valid. The existence of scientists who believe in God does prove that it is possible to believe in God and still be a good practicing scientist.

The difference between the first and second forms of the argument is subtle but important: a scientist may, for instance, believe that God intervenes in the world by performing miracles. However, she is expected to set aside her belief in miracles while working as a scientist: there is no objective evidence for the existence of miracles. They are therefore, at best, a highly-speculative hypothesis.

Argument from authority

The third form is an combination of the argument from authority and of the argument by intimidation. "X is true because Y says so" is a fallacy. The truth of a statement about the world does not depend on who believes it, but why they believe it. And smart people can still believe things that aren't true. Newton, for instance, was a believer in astrology and numerology.

The fact that a person is an expert in one field does not grant expertise in unrelated fields. The fact that a man is a brilliant auto mechanic does not mean that he is also an expert at baseball or cooking. Likewise, Newton's or Einstein's knowledge of physics do not give them special insight in theology.

Dead scientists and evolution

Creationists are fond of circulating lists of scientists who believe in divine creation. However, invariably most of the scientists on the list died before Charles Darwin presented his ideas. It is unfair to imply that these notable scientists would reject the theory of evolution, when they never had a chance to become acquainted with it.

Organizations like the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and the Discovery Institute also make this argument by touting the academic degrees of members of their staff. However, these scientists rarely do creationist research in their field of expertise.

Scientists are less likely to believe in God

Since most people in general believe in God, and since all scientists are people, it makes sense that a high number of scientists believe in God, whether or not this is derived from their understanding of science. However, numerous surveys have shown that scientists tend to be far less likely to believe in God than the general public.

A 1996 survey in Nature indicated that 60.7% of randomly selected scientists express disbelief or doubt concerning the existence of God. Even more striking, however, was a 1998 survey that focused on members of the National Academy of Sciences. This survey discovered that only 7% of these members of the highest tier of scientific achievement believed in a personal God, while 72.2% were willing to state that they personally disbelieved in such a God.

The bottom line seems to be that the more highly trained a person is in science, the less likely they are to believe in God.

As a counter-point to lists of creationists who doubt evolution, the National Center for Science Education has produced their own list, known as "Project Steve."

External links

Leading scientists still reject God

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox