Theists; why are the people who know the most about reality and who work intimately with it vastly less likely than the average peasant to believe?

While we are waiting for a theist to respond, let me try to fill in the silence.

Blessed are the peasants. They have faith. And riches stored in heaven (in abundance). All they have to do now to collect is to die.

They are vastly superior to those atheist city-slicker scientists. They will reap boils, locusts and frogs.

Source?

Spoiler:

Scripture

One legitimate response, which I disagree with, is that their intelligence and pursuit of scientific answers cloud the inherent faith present in all of us, thus elevating themselves arrogantly beyond the ability or necessity to know God.

Where did you pick up the notion that science is the study of reality?

They repeatedly eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

I remember watching a Ben Stein HBO or Showtime special, where it seemed that the "religious" scientists were ostracised from the community. That may play a part.

Then you could go down the "illuminati" train of thought...

Also who exactly qualifies as a scientist. Do car mechanics count?

Yea, that was super credible.

They are realists, intelligent, and grown ups. They dont believe in fairy tales because they realize more than the avg person just how ridiculous they are and that these things (bible stories) are just impossible. Something the average ignorant religious person cannot do

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expe...gence_allowed/

Ha, I didn't say it was the Gospel, but I'd assume the point I referenced has some validity.

The reference in particular (what I had in mind), seemed to be addressing college professors and tenure more than anything else.

Which only sparks another question; why are religious scientists so thoroughly crushed in an open intellectual forum like science?

From that being what science is?

Fyi, OP will not be coming back. I will let the threads stay open if people want to keep discussion going though.

The study of reality is covered in philosophy, not science.

However, many scientists have interest in the philosophy of quantum mechanics, for example, which tries to find out what "reality" is.

But science is simply tring to generalize our observations of the observable universe and come up with good models for what happens. We aren't even close to explaining everything and most intelligent people believe we never will.

Its such an abstract convoluted sphere of discussion, its difficult to tell who really is crushed.

I think there are very few people who God would endorse as his spokesman fwiw.

This really isn't my specialty (or significant interest) as I find the "science" I would guess you guys are in to, to not only have very little real world application, but little relevance in "the case against God." IMO

OP got banned for this?

There was probably a deleted post. C'mon jib give us the goods!

ORLY? what do you do exactly?

I'm pretty sure that OP was rizeagainst. I've suspected it for awhile, and figured it was only a matter of time before Jibby requested an IP check.

I think something like this is plausible - not that it's arrogance though.

A scientist, by necessity, must attempt to excise all considerations of the unobservable in their work. As such, I would expect many of them to form mental habits not so much dismissing 'god stuff' but just not considering it as a potential explanation. This doesnt mean I consider theism to be opposed to science, merely that one's professional life often affects how one thinks about issues outside of work.

I think many scientists will maintain a life which includes faith, but in any group where a significant proportion of their mental life is engaged with purely naturalistic explanations and the search for those, it seems quite plausible that there will be a greater number who extend this to all facets of life (rather than just science). Being comfortable with not knowing and restricting one's speculations to things which are testable could easily spill over into an acceptance of 'weak atheism' as a default state, in my opinion.

I would rather not derail the thread so let's leave it at this post, yes it was rizeagainst

Science is the study of reality. Anyone who's trying to cut out the domain of philosophy as the study of reality and science as something else is in a measure misunderstanding science and in another getting too fancy and complicated as science itself involves philosophy.

39.3 percent of scientist are theist then if I read op correctly. Not really a landslide in a lol sample size of 1000.

Just fyi jib has known for awhile that it was rize. I'm sure he had a short leash but i doubt it was just because of the previous banning.

Ok sorry for the derail. Jib post in the LC thread maybe?

I find it hard to understand the figures really:

"In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%."

To me, this seems to imply that in 1996 60.7% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God but 72% expressed positive disbelief. My interpretation doesnt make sense, but I cant really see what is intended.