I was talking with someone who made the observation that very few scientists believe in God. So I checked it out.
One writer observed: “About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.” More specifically, as the original article indicates, about 38% of natural scientists say they do not believe in God. (http://www.physorg.com/news5785.htm) So only a minority of “2,148 faculty at 21 of the top U.S. research universities” don’t believe in God. Just a hair above one third.
Now I know truth is not dependent upon consensus–consensus Science is not really science. But it is significant that my friend’s long held assumption–part of his justification for rejecting Christianity–turns out to be based on myth and not Science.
Another bit of research (originating with Leuba) indicates that 40% of American Scientist believe in God. Not only so but this percentage has remain the same since first tested in 1913. (http://www.allaboutcreation.org/scientists-who-believe-in-god-faq.htm)
“Francis Collins directed the National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research Institute efforts.” (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/faqs1.shtml) In an April interview with CNN Francis Collins very openly discusses not merely his belief in God but in Jesus Christ as well. He says people ask him: “Aren’t evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection? Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers.” (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html) And yes, Dr. Collins is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
I found an article at http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm with the headline: “Scientists More Likely than Ever to Reject God Belief”. As the source for this proclamation they cited the same research referenced above stating that 40% of Scientists believe in God. (http://www.allaboutcreation.org/scientists-who-believe-in-god-faq.htm) When the exact same questions were asked in 1998 as were asked in 1913 (Leuba) the same results were uncovered: 40% of scientists believe in God. The article does go on to say that only 7% of members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in a personal God.
A 2004 article in National Geographic also referred to this study, saying, “Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history’s greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work.” (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html)
It would seem then, if we stick with the scientific facts of the matter, that belief that most scientists do not believe in God is an unscientific statement.
vs
The category of truth–is it still a viable concept? 
“You have your truth; I have mine.” Truth isn’t an objective reality. “There is a tree in front of us.” “No, I don’t believe in trees.” Is either right or wrong?
Yes. Either there is a tree there or there isn’t. Both perceptions of reality can’t be right at the same time. It doesn’t matter what ‘my truth’ is or what ‘your truth’ is the tree is, or isn’t.
Does God exist? This is exactly the same thing as the tree. It can’t be true and untrue at the same time. It’s not ‘my truth’ vs. ‘your truth’. It’s just true or not true. Most people believe in God. Like 95% of Americans.
But what kind of God do we believe in?
If God has no objective reality; only the projection of my own God-wish, then whether or not he exists is completely irrelevant. Who cares!
But if there is the category of truth–a tree is or isn’t there at this particular point on the space-time continuum–then God can’t be simply what you or I want him to be. He is–interestingly God actually calls himself “I AM” the Being One. And since God has objective existence.
Which means, obviously, that some things about God are true. And, some things about God aren’t true.
And there’s the rub. We simply don’t like anyone telling us what God is like–maybe not even God himself. Why? Because I have to accept him on his terms instead of shaping him according to my preferences. (Do you see where I’m headed?)
Since God is what he is I am faced with the (unpleasant?) necessity of fitting myself into his reality instead of fitting him into mine. I can no longer be God. I’m stuck with being subordinate to him. He’s God and, therefore, I’m not.
It’s a long way down from the throne of heaven to earth. But it beats living in a slowly imploding fantasy.
Why do religious people get so upset when other people start connecting with God? I’ve seen times when God was obviously present–people made commitments, the music was rocking everyone was happy, but someone, or two, start looking for stuff to complain about.
I had a sociologist explain it to me like this: When a church starts growing, new people start showing up and it creates a social disequilibrium at an almost preconscious level. The new faces are a little threatening but since everyone knows you should be happy when new people come to church, you can’t just come right out and say, “I don’t like all these new people in my church.”
It’s a dilemma. So instead of accepting the fact that having new people around is uncomfortable, the uncomfortable person has to look for something more ’spiritual’ to blame. “The service it too long; there’s not enough Scripture, there’s too much Bible reading, the music’s too loud, the sermon’s too vague….”
That way we can maintain the illusion of self-righteousness while ’sanctifying’ our selfish preferences. It’s a convenient way to keep ourselves as the center of the universe while convincing others that we have legitimate ‘concerns.’
Maybe he’s right. Maybe that’s all it is. But it seems like it might be more–it feel like evil to me.
Peace.
Recent Comments