Question for Theists:?

Question

7% of the scientists in the National Academy of Sciences (the most elite scientists in the world) believe in a personal God. Do you think people who become eminent scientists become atheists in the process, or do you think atheists tend to gravitate toward science and then excel?

Answer 1

For me you would have to define your idea of god first.  In my experience, people often view god as this old looking man who has all the answers.  I think that throughout history the human race equates wisdom and knowledge with age and often times that is true to an extent.  This is my theory on the invention of god.  We all, myself included, hope that there is someone or something that can and will show us the way to something better but I can't help but believe at this point in my life that if there is a true god out there, we have screwed it up so bad that it doesn't resemble the original at all.  The religions of the past two hundred centuries have used the idea of god to control and manipulate mankind to the point that I don't personally feel they can be trusted.  I believe in absolute proof of what I profess to believe in and thus far I don't believe in the god of modern day religions.  If god healed a person of blindness two thousand years ago then why didn't he/she heal humanity from blindness all together?  Talk about having a following for eternity,  whereas now all we have is the hope that if we are good little fanatics and do all the spiritual pushups and chants and give money then maybe this god will have pity on us and heal the most worthy.  I know I sound cynical but I have personally seen too many people taken for rides by the so called chosen spiritual leaders of the world.  I have chosen to be what you would call an atheist due to the lack of proof of a loving and compassonate god.  The idea of god I think resides in all of us anyway, the good and the bad and we are all capable of extraordinary things with or without a god.

Answer 2

THE HARDEST THING IN THE UNIVERSE TO COMPREHEND IS HOW LIFE CAME ABOUT FROM NONLIVING ENTITIES. HOWEVER, SCIENTISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN SPECULATION. THEY COME ABOUT THEIR CONCLUSIONS THROUGH HARD AND FAST RULES, THEOREMS, AND PRINCIPLES. I BELIEVE THAT THE MAJORITY ARE NOT ATHEISTS BUT AGNOSTICS. THEY SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW AND CANNOT PROVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

Answer 3

Ditto musicimp, but I would  suggest the struggling "scientific" believer may give up on specific dogma but still embrace a sense of  spirituality.

Answer 4

I think that there are a great deal of people in scientific professions who are believers in God. LOTS of doctors, environmentalists, and the like...serving the creator by working with the creation, many with great success in their field...look at the number of physicians who come out of religious countries and cultures like India, Israel, US. There doesn't have to be such a polarity, you know?

As for the elite of the bunch, I think that perhaps those uninhibited by faith can accept a lot more scientific theory and run with ideas instead of accepting that there are some things we are not meant to know...or that human knowledge is finite.

I do think that scientific education asks its students to consider things like evolution, big bang, etc as one body of information. As such, the struggling believer may give up on their faith in light of so much evidence to the contrary of the religious explanations of things.

Answer 5

So why does a scientist who does not believe in a personal God (by personal I am thinking of the father figure on high) have to be  called an atheist. This is something I have thought a lot about and here are a few examples of eminent scientists who do not believe in a personal God but are certainly not atheists:

To sum up my worldview, in as few words as possible: My worldview is, very close to Wolfgang Pauli’s. [The three physicists I quote (paraphrase) here are described in Ken Wilber’s book: Quantum Questions, Mystical Writings of the World’s Greatest Physicists].  A Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Pauli, earned a reputation for being a ruthless critic of ideas during the time when physics was birthing the principles governing sub atomic particles. His contributions were numerous, including the famous “exclusion principle” and the prediction of the existence of the neutrino. At the center of Pauli’s philosophical outlook was his “wish for a unitary understanding of the world, a unity incorporating the tension of opposites,” and he hailed the interpretation of quantum theory as a major development toward this end. (p. 173)

My worldview is also in tune with the profound reverence Einstein held for rationality.  Einstein believed that scientific knowledge ennobles true religion—not the religion that inspires fear in God, but rather a religion “capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself.” For Einstein, “the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence” was the highest religious attitude. (p.113)

But, even more than with Pauli and Einstein, my worldview resonates with Arthur Eddington’s. He was possibly the first person to fully comprehend Einstein’s relativity theory. He also headed up the famous expedition that photographed the solar eclipse which offered proof of relativity theory. Eddington believed that if you want to fill a vessel you must first make it hollow. He also said, “our present conception of the physical world is hollow enough to hold almost anything,” hollow enough to hold “that which asks the question,” hollow enough to hold “the scheme of symbols connected by mathematical equations that describes the basis of all phenomena.” He also said, however, “If ever the physicist solves the problem of the living body, he should no longer be tempted to point to his result and say ‘That’s you.’ He should say rather ‘That is the aggregation of symbols which stands for you in my description and explanation of those of your properties which I can observe and measure. If you claim a deeper insight into your own nature by which you can interpret these symbols—a more intimate knowledge of the reality which I can only deal with by symbolism—you can rest assured that I have no rival interpretation to propose. The skeleton is the contribution of physics to the solution of the Problem of Experience; from the clothing of the skeleton it (physics) stands aloof.” (p. 194)

So, what personal insight into our own nature can we claim? Last night I took another look at Stigmata, one of my favorite movies. Just before the end credits ran, these words appeared on the screen: “The kingdom of God is within you and all around you and not in buildings of wood and stone. Split a piece of wood and I am there, lift a stone and I am there.” These words, words taken from the gospel of Thomas, were recorded in the Aramaic language—the language of Jesus--some nineteen hundred years ago. The next words that appeared on the screen were these: “Whoever discovers the meaning of these sayings will not taste death.”

Answer 6

a little of both

--opps, you want theists--

too late: i think that some of them realize that there is no god in the process of realizing that we did in fact come from monkeys and that snakes and other animals don't talk like they do in genesis.

and the other half, well, we're not hindered by the belief that snakes talk and our minds aren't stuck justifying childhood cancer.

Answer 7

I found the phrase "personal God" to be the most important part of your  question, since a person can believe in God, but not a "personal" God.

But back to your question. I think most intelligent people are absolutely turned off by religion because the religions we have these days ask you to believe WITHOUT any evidence.

On the other hand, the ones who established those religions did recommend that people look for proof in the form of GOOD FRUITS.

So I think the reason the best scientists don't accept religion is that religions are not true to their own traditions. If this angle is of interest to you, there is more on my bio.

Answer 8

I believe that knowledge is enlightening.

There is a religious concept of God that cannot be scientifically proven and is dismissed on that basis in the conventional sense.

Scientists deal with facts not mythology. They seek absolute solutions through theory, experiment and proven results.

Scientists can accept that there is a cosmic energy as yet not wholly explainable - what most would perceive God to be.

They are not dismissing the concept just the definition as most would understand it.

Answer 9

The key phrase is personal God. The seven percent believe in the God of Abraham. A lot of the other scientists believe in the God of Aristotle or a similarly functioning God, which is an impersonal God. They are deists.

Answer 10

i think you people are living under a blanket of lies and self-denial.

if you know anything at all about how the universe works then you should automatically come to the conclusion that there is a higher power, or a personal God (whichever you prefer.)

from the smallest atom or molecule to the orbit of planets, stars, asteroids, galaxies.

the entire universe has an order to it. look it up. there is order in the apparent chaos, which indicates a designer. a grand designer. that's why these elite scientist have a personal god, because the proof or what a lot of people might call a lack there of, is in the work they are doing.