IMO - They have no faith. They have to see it to believe it.

Here's a different question. Why can't science and religion coexist? Could science be the explanation of how God put everything together?

IMO - I believe that religion was created to explain the unknown. The earlist use of religion was used to control groups of people (I'm talking pre-christianity). Religion explained things that people feared and created a set of rules to follow before civil laws came into existence. I don't think religion is the necessity today that it was when the first societies were being created.

The definition of faith is a strong belief in a supernatural power that controls human destiny. Wikipedia defines faith as a belief not resting on logical proof or material evidence. Why is faith a good thing? By definition, an atheist cannot have faith and someone who believes in God automatically has faith. So to say they have no faith is a moot point.

I see nothing wrong with an individual who makes judgments based on observations/knowledge rather than following a religion written by men about their interpretations of what "God" wants and written with the knowledge/predjudice of their society at that time.

I don't believe science and religion should coexist at least not from the standpoint of the science, maybe from the religious standpoint. They are two separate things that with different purposes. Science is based on the scientific method and observation of the natural world. It seeks to understand the natural world.

Religion is a philosophy that seeks to explain why we exist and what will happen when we die, and seeks to govern how we should live our lives. They are two different approaches to two different subjects. I do think that people with religious views can find ways to accept scientific theory, especially if they tell themselves that theory is explaining God's creation. But I don't think Science should be conducted on the premise of there being a God since it is unknown and cannot be tested/proved through the scientific method.

Just a guess but perhaps most see their studies not in agreement with the popular perception of what God is.

On another note two of my best friends from high school are twins their parents both college professors on philosophy and one psychology are atheists never went to church. However one of their sons decided that there's got to be something that made all of this. Never did they dissuade his curiosity or criticise it. They actually had very intelligent discussions about it and encouraged him to explore it more. He is now the only believer in his family.

I have always thought that you aren't questioning your beliefs on some level, then you aren't spending much time thinking about what you believe.

Does that imply that if you question your beliefs that you are not as devout? I don't think so. I believe it is natural to ponder all things...so why would your beliefs be immune?

Of course to do this one must have some position of an "open mind" to do so. I think that when I question my beliefs, some are confirmed or strengthened and others then are merely pondered more.

Isn't the title misleading? The majority of scientists believe in some sort of higher power.

Yep...I read the article twice before commenting. The first time I was like...what? It didn't add up.

I mean...I am slow sometimes but.........

Yogaforlife has made the case I would want to make, so I will go more personal. I grew up what today would be called as a “conservative” Roman Catholic. I listened, believed and lived by church teachings. I went to a catholic University where 16 credits of theology and 20 credits of philosophy was part of the ‘core’ program for a baccalaureate degree. One of the senior year philosophy courses was called “Theodicy”, where we were going to prove the existence of God without relying on “revealed truths”. I was sorely disappointed on how weak those proofs were, and how they violated some of the principals of other philosophy courses like logic and epistemology. The best we could do in my mind was defining that ‘first cause” as God. What was not proven that this “first cause” was sentient, or that it could perform all the functions we associate with God, all knowing, all present, watching over and judging individuals? There were too many unanswered questions. I in my arrogance/naivety, said to myself, crap I can do a better case then that. It started me on a 40 year journey, that lead me down the path of comparative religions, more intense readings of the thoughts of every noted philosopher I could find, and finally in science, chemistry, biology, and astronomy. That journey has led me to the conclusion that philosophy behind organized religion in the area of “revealed truths” are deeply flawed, that the bible is a book of great historical and literary value, and should be read by anyone who has an interest in either area. As far as containing contemporary revealed truth failed key tests. Those prophets writings were written down many years after they ascribed, and can be pretty well documented by looking at prophesies that came true (written after), and when those prophesies went awry, the time of actual “pen to paper”. What surprises me is I often wondered how I was going to handle my final years, was I going to keep true to my intellect, or panic over the fact in a very short time, I will go from “Cogito Ego Sum” to “Non Cogito Ego” . The fact is my attitudes have not changed one wit. My wonder now is what would be my reaction to being wrong, my guess it will be one of amazement, and apprehension. One thing I can not see myself doing is apologizing for my actions. If I was born with a free will, and I used that free will in a diligent search for the truth, then I will have to stand by the way I lived my life.

Yes Grandpa. We and many others have traveled that same path but found different destinations. I find myself questioning some of the beliefs pounded into my head as a young child, when you simply believed what you were told to believe and considered it an act of faith in doing so.

On my journey I have realized more and more it is an act of simple faith and sometimes not much more than that. Is my faith in God? To a degree. I cannot discount the overwhelming feeling of peace which has touched me at times in my life...or perhaps I am just touched.

Either way, having faith in something positive should bring positive tidings...so that is what I choose. My hope is that my fellow man is looking to the positive as much as I am. It seems to be an almost "mutual" admiration...all seeking that which is not destructive--so constructive.

The feeling that we feel when we know we are doing our best, hoping for the best, and looking for the best in those around us....is my faith.

I sincerely believe that Karma does exist, if not to just humble people when it is needed. I do not think "God" wishes anyone ill will, causes great pain, nor is the keeper of all that is both good or evil.....just as he does not create our joy but perhaps reaffirm it. We are indeed the guide in our journey and ultimately accountable.

Do we need a deity or higher power? That is an interesting question. I think humans need to believe there is something more to just what seems tangible...as it gives us motivation to reach higher. Call it "be all that you can be" or "be Godly"....it is the same to me.

RE: being accountable to God...

Ever seen the movie "Defending Your Life?" it really gave me a different perspective about how I live my life.

RE the movie: You defend the choices you chose NOT to make when you knew it was right but chose poorly.

You are faced with defending the actions you failed to act upon. You are suddenly realizing it was the path you chose NOT to take....the bully you refused to fight...the wrong you didn't make right.

It was the regrets.

That was indeed a heavy thing to consider. Regret is horrible.

Sorry about the title (took it from the article that highlighted the Pew report) - I guess I could say why are so many scientists atheist - since 49% of scientists being atheist is not comparable to the 5% of the general population.

I changed the title to say why are so many scientists atheist...

I still find it interesting that say looking at physics/astronomy, people who believe in something only make up 43%, while 46% are atheist. That is so different than general society. Why? Why does the breakdown for scientists not follow the trend of society?

My first thought was level of education - but teachers and lawyers are highly educated and I don't know but would guess they follow more closely with the trend of society. So my next thought was maybe the majority of atheists become scientists. But I don't really think that is the case. 5% of the 300 million people in the U.S. is 15 million atheists. That's an awful lot of scientists So now I'm thinking it has to do with the way scientists are taught to think. We question and analyze everything. Maybe the very questioning nature leads to so many not being able to just accept the written words in a book as proof of God or a Higher Being.

In science a hypotheses or theory does not become a fact until there are proofs that successfully test that theory. Those proofs have to be able to be replicated and tested by other scientists.

I was under the impression that everything remains a theory, that you cannot prove absolutely anything. You can provide compelling evidence that supports a theory, but nothing more. And yes, for a theory to have any weight, it needs to be able to be replicated and tested and those results need to be reviewed by other scientists.

The most that you can hope is that you disprove a hypothesis. You can never prove something, only disprove something.

Once a theory has been proven it becomes a "Law", like the "law of gravity".

You are so correct. How on earth could I have forgotten that? Ugh...I swear my brain is fried today. I use Boyle's Law and Navier-Stokes at work, duh!

There's not many theories that ever get proven to the point of becoming a law. But it is possible to eventually disprove a law as new knowledge is gathered.

I wonder how people stayed on the ground before the law of gravity was passed?

Yes, they were hoping to prove the law with regards to the speed of light, all without success.

Einstein had stated it would be the exception to the rule of "all laws can be broken", I believe

Well the earth was flat, so where else would they have gone? Strange to think that people on the other side of the earth are standing with their feet pointed in our direction.

Grandpa - what are your views on climate change? This is another topic I often find interesting insomuch that when I worked in the south, my religious coworkers did not believe in climate change whereas my atheist coworkers did.

In fact a religious coworker told me that his son, who is in a religion based private school was taught that you don't need to protect the environment, that Jesus will rise within his lifetime to take them all to heaven, so what's the point of protecting the environment in the meantime.

There are looney people out there, and I think your coworker is one of them. Personally, I believe in climate change, since the earth's climate is dynamic, it's always changing. I don't believe that humans have had any measurable effect on the earth's climate.

Climates change all the time. Man's impact is negligible, and we are now in a cooling period. increased Sunspot activity = increase temperature, and vice versa. No one on the global warming side can or will produce the raw data they used to make their scare projections.

UnDave - my coworker believes that humans have no effect on teh earth's climate and that God is in charge of it. He thinks that the increase in tsunamis, droughts, wildfires, etc. is God's way of punishing us.

The problem is we haven't really had an increase. (I will make an exception for wildfires, but when humans don't clear underbrush, and don't let mother nature do it naturally by burning, eventually it becomes a giant tinderbox waiting to be lit.) I won't disagree that there are Christian denominations out there that are completly unhinged. There teachings aren't really in the realm of God's teachings.

I believe that we are polluting the environment on a grand scale. I personally see our manipulation of the environment as having a negative effect and I think man's impact on the environment is noticeable - although I think once we are gone (or change how we live), that our effects will go away.

This is what I do for a living and I've studied the environment for 6 years during my undergraduate/graduate studies. I still can't decide if I want to give up a decade to pursue a doctorate. I do think we are seeing the climate become less predictable and becoming more extreme in terms of scale. I'm a water person, so I tend to focus on the water cycle, which is impacted by climate.

Oh I agree - the reason we are seeing wildfires happening on such large scale is because we didn't understand how necessary regular small wildfires were to the health of the forests. And it's the people's own fault for building homes in areas where wildfires happen.

My coworker was southern baptist. Maybe it's a baptist belief?

It may be just that church. I know Southern Baptists are a lot conservative, but the Baptist denomination allows each church to essentially follow their own beliefs. I know of many Baptists that are decent, but I also know of congregations that speak in tongues, and many other weird things that are totally taken out of context.

What is speak in tongues?

impact on the environment is inevitable to support the worlds growing population. I find it ironic, the ones who scream the loudest about anything they perceive as "as anti environment are the same ones who want open borders, and amnesty for illegals..

Grandpa - I'm anti supporting the world's population at the expense of the environment. I think we need to stop population growth. I am all for families only having at most 2 children - one to replace each parent.

What do open borders/amnesty for illegals have to do with protecting the environment? (I have no opinion on open borders/amnesty - it's not a subject I feel I have enough knowledge on to make an informed opinion.)

For these two girls, it meant speaking gibberish, andacting like they understand each other. In the book of Acts (I think), it talks about the 11 having flames suddenly appear above their head, and they were able to speak in different tongues. (A bunch of people who didn't speak Hebrew) each heard the 11 speak in their own language.

This one Reverend took that to mean that speaking gibberish is the same as speaking in tongues. Just because you and I don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't a real language.

Yoga, there is no way to enforce population growth, short of outright murder, or forced sterilization.

We have how many illegal aliens in the US, Yoga? They need to be clthed hosed and fed, all take resources from the enviornment.

Grandpa, I can dream! I realize there is no way to check population growth short of us running out of resources and people dying on a massive scale. Or maybe new disease will emerge that will wipe out a portion of the population. Either way it's not going to be pretty and it's going to severely stress society.

I have no clue how many illegal aliens in the U.S. I'm an engineer/scientist, not a humanitarian or politician. I guess I have heard reasonable points made from both sides concerning illegal aliens. What thoughts I do have are formed so far off of what I have heard but I don't think I have nearly enough understanding of both sides to make an informed decision. I do think we should finds ways to stop it (illegal immigration - not immigration in general). However I'm not sure what we should do with the ones who are here - especially if it involve children born here but who's parents are illegal immigrants. We are a country that was founded on immigration and I think it would be bad if we close our doors and focus inward on ourselves. I don't think illegal immigration is something we can solve completely on our own. The countries/government's the illegal aliens are fleeing from (whether because of persecution or lower standard of living or less opportunity) need to step up and take responsibility to remedy the situation too.

However, I don't think the illegal immigrants take up near as many resources as the average citizen. Most don't own cars, or there's one car for several families, they don't have a family of 3 living in a 3,000 sq.ft. house. While they are more people to feed, I would hazard a guess that they still use far less resources than most americans. I still don't think we should allow illegal immigration, but I don't think we can use their impact on the environment/resources as justification.

i think scientists are atheists, well a small percemtage of them, because they believe in facts and not in belief of an unseen force.

" 95% of Americans believe in "God" or a "Higher Power" with approx. 83% having a religious affiliation according to a 2006 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center."

This makes me LOL- in a sad, head shaking way. If 95% of Americans truly believe that they are saved then they truly believe wrong. There are so many people who think they are going to Heaven when they pass who are not saved and not going to Heaven, never mind they are also missing out on having a relationship with God while they are alive. They think they are saved because they went to church with their parents growing up, because they go to church now, because they were baptised and confirmed, because they say they believe in God, because they call themselves a Christian or identify with God in another way, yet the Bible clearly states that the road to Hell is wiiiiiide and the path to Heaven is *narrow*, and FEW will enter in. Why few, because God wants few to enter? Of course not, it's few because people believe that they are saved and have genuine faith when they aren't and don't. True salvation means a true relationship with Christ, it means showing good fruit, a true change in your heart where you are for God now, not your own self anymore- without these things, your just religious. Or worse, your a religious poser. There are tons of people who sit in church every Sunday who have no real relationship with Christ and who are going to Hell- it's unbelieveable, but yet it's not. They don't come there to listen and pray to be saved, they come to look good and keep up with the Jones'. It is a very sad thing.

But back to the main topic- my answer would be, why do so many God-fearing people want to work in ministry?
Right, because they do what they believe in and believe in what they do. Science can either be used to explain Gods existence or used to try to explain it away, however you feel like stacking the facts. If one is prone to not believing in God, one is drawn to science as a way to try and disprove God more so than to any other realm of study.

What would be interesting would be a poll that showed how many of these scientists felt this way before they became a scientist...i.e. how many atheists became atheists only after entering the scientific field and how many "believers" started off as atheists before entering the field.

That would be interesting - to see who has changed their views.

I have heard both, yogaforlife- I have also heard of many people who tried to disprove God using science and ended up becoming belivers through their research. They just could not disprove God. More than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell is a book written by one such person.

Science cannot be used to disprove the existence of God. Because you can't disprove it does not mean it exists.

I'm glad that you at least see that science cannot disprove God, yoga. That will go a long way in leaving a possibility for you to at least be open to God if He wants to show you how real He is someday. I would much rather you be wrong about God existing when you die and there be no God and no eternity anywhere, than for you to be mistaken about God not existing and there being an eternity in Hell awaiting you. Of course, I know that there is a God but just for 'arguments' sake...

BTW, I hope you read my reply to your question for me in the other post about fearing God. It's vital for you to know that God did not origionally plan for a Hell to exist, and it certainly wasn't and isn't His will for any soul to end up there. Hell was created as a pit to throw satan into when he rebelled against God, and since then satan has been manipulating people into using their free will to believe in his lies and thereby end up unbelievers and facing an eternity without God when they pass/

justanerd - I understand you full heartedly feel your conviction and beliefs about God, but I have to say I think you are just blindly following the teachings of the bible and because you feel so strongly about it, you don't ever question your beliefs. You really don't seem open to any interpretation other than what you believe.

What you are stating about heaven and hell and God not intending for there to be a Hell is a christian belief, created by christians. It's one thing to say that God has been there for all people since existence, but it's another thing to think that your God has had the same requirements (as written/believed by christians) for everyone. I guess the scientist in me just does not understand how you can so absolutely believe that what you read in the bible is the absolute truth. I think your intensity of belief limits your ability to question and ponder what you are saying because in your mind, it's an absolute truth and there can be no other possibility.

Yoga, follow the dictum of the conservative atheist.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced for everyone.

Sincerely held beliefs should not be trivialized, as long as they don't push their beliefs down your throat.

Grandpa - I don't mind the mention of people's religious views at all. I am not one of those people who wants "under God" removed from public/government. The swearing in on a bible to public office, doesn't bother me. Religion does not bother me until they tell me I should be following their dictates or try and condemn me for not believing.

I have to be tolerant being married into a catholic family. I just wish people were more tolerant of atheists - instead of condemning or preaching to us. When people preach to me about their beliefs like it's the absolute truth and only way - that gets on my nerves. I'm here to try and understand people's religious beliefs, not to have them speak to if their belief is the absolute truth. I make allowances that I may be wrong and there may be a God afterall, I don't know - hence why I'm an agnostic atheist. But most religious people are so absolute that they don't consider the possibility that they may be wrong and to suggest it is offensive to them. I respect their right to believe in God, but I ask that they respect my right to not believe in it and to not preach to me like they are better than me and they know some truth that I don't know. Faith in something is not knowledge.

I think Penn and Teller expressed it best when they said they had the test as to whether you were an agnostic or an atheist. They said first picture your own personal belief as to who god is or would be, Christ, Allah, Buddha, whatever it doesn’t matter as to the actual concept other then he is “God”. Now picture this entity coming to you and asking you to kill your only or oldest child. If your answer is “No way”, you’re an atheist, if you agree, well keep those way the heck away from me.