This is more consistent with the studies I've read: Interesting that 48% of the scientists have a religious affiliation while only 33% believe in God. I can't tell from the data if the 33% and 18% are exclusive categories but it might explain the number with religious affiliation. It makes sense a number of people would let go of specific god beliefs but still be reluctant to let go of god beliefs altogether.
The article Steerpike cited was from 2005. The study described in the following was conducted from 2005-2008 so I don't know if the two compare but I would imagine the first published report had a similar if not the same sample. Eklund's research described in her book uses a survey that was conducted entirely in the US. There would be some foreign nationals included but it was not a worldwide sampling. She also notes that her geographic sampling within the US is additionally limited. Interesting in that she also criticizes Dawkins in the introduction then goes on to look at a US population sample to counter him.
A - gnostic simply means "without knowledge," thus the agnostic on my dog tags means those 3 little words men hate: "I don't know." Those 3 little words are easy for a few scientists, but anathema to that gross majority.
More practical than easy. Why waste your time with questions that can't likely be answered (at least not soon) when there are realizable discoveries 3-10 years down the road?
If the ladies don't find ya handsome, they'll sure find ya handy. And just what might we be realizing 3-10 years down the road? That Noah wasn't the fairy tale we make him out to be?
That makes some sense. It would explain why there is much more resistance to teaching evolution in some areas of the USA where there are higher numbers of Evangelicals than there are over here. I'm pretty sure evolution has been taught in British schools for some time.
So it's not a belief in God, as I said. Deists are not theists, if that's what you were referring to.
That is correct. Most who proclaim agnosticism, do so with the argument that the existence of a deity cannot be proven. I believe in a supreme deity because Occam's Razor takes the path of least resistance, thus denotes an abiogenesis subsequently denotes a lazy bum personified. The razor is the mother of all deities.
Or just religious identification. There are a lot of Jews, for example, who consider themselves Jewish because they identify very strongly with the Jewish community, and are "socially" Jewish, yet have stopped practicing, going to Temple, or doing anything really important having to do with the religious aspects. Many of these people are actually atheist or agnostic, yet will still identify as "Jewish."
I agree. Darwin himself was devoutly religious, and his religious beliefs certainly weren't weakened by his discoveries and theories.
I do believe you are oversimplifying the truth and have the facts wrong as well. From Wiki (with plenty of sources cited) Evolution deniers like to bring up the discredited, "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" claim. From Wiki:
Thanks - you may well be right (though on a quick read-through I don't see anything from what you've quoted from Wiki that specifically suggests that? But in so far as I was summarising something in a sentence, I don't doubt that I was simplifying).
My understanding of Darwin is that he was fairly religious in his younger years. He almost went into the clergy, after all. His views evolved (no pun intended) over time. I don't think he would ever have qualified as an atheist, but he seems to have been pretty well agnostic by his death. It stands to reason his scientific discoveries could have played a role in that.
You said, "his religious beliefs certainly weren't weakened by his discoveries and theories" but they were, very much so. It was deeply troubling to him according to historians. ____________________________________________ I have a Darwin anecdote I learned on a cruise in the Galapagos. Darwin was on the Beagle for about 4 years as it sailed around South America. He was so sea sick the entire time that he would get off wherever he could and travel by land to the next port to join the ship again. It was on these journeys in South America he first saw relatives of the animals he found on the Galapagos. When he got to the Galapagos, it wasn't that he first noticed the differences in species from island to island, it's that he was immediately struck by the differences between life in the Galapagos and their respective relatives on the mainland. Noting species were different on each island confirmed what he initially suspected.
Don't forget that Newton as well as his colleague, LaSage. It surely was incurred through knowing the fate of some who challenged the church before them. Because of them we have found many innovations, but their perseverance actually benefitted the human right to worship the atheist point of view. Perhaps it emerged to them about how creation as we know it needed personification. Logic, in creating life and living beings, would have the higher intelligence beings made more resilient. We are frail. Our very structure suggests poetry.
What are you saying? This isn't even a sentence. What was incurred? I'm not following you. To the best of my knowledge, nobody "worships" the "atheist point of view." People who don't believe in any god don't worship. But it doesn't need personification (if, by that, you mean a conscious creator). Logic is not the creator of life and living beings. And the "higher intelligence beings" (if you mean humans) are very resilient. That's why our population has kept increasing over the centuries to the point where it's a serious world problem. As individuals, sure. As a species, we are anything but. You've got me there. I can't really figure out what point you were trying to make in this post. It's pretty confusing. Can you clarify it?
People who worship themselves and deny it... should be no "that" The fact that you can't understand something a bit abstract if not evasive, does not invalidate its argument. Sometimes I spare feelings. Many of that 95% mainstream are people that think in 2 dimensions about things in 4 or 5 dimensions at best. That 5% range from people who find it hard to think in fewer than 5 +1 dimensions to those who can fully fathom concepts involving 10 + 1 dimensions or even more abstract concepts involving the infinitesimal. One must have a good sense of imagining the path of filament streams. As for the joke of our frail bodies... er... of course not the species as a whole. Why on earth would vital organs such as the larynx be left outside of bone? Carotid arteries? Femural? Aorta? Logic insists on building to the environment. Species? All the kings horses. If theism, not deism, has possible transition history, we might not want to dismiss it entirely as fairy tale. What sort of theory might you offer for stopping global warming? It's a major UN issue nowadays.
Are you saying atheists worship themselves? True. I didn't understand your argument, so I didn't try to invalidate it. I asked you to clarify it, so people as dim as I am can follow it. This simply explains why your argument was over my head. It doesn't clarify it. You said earlier: So you believe in a supreme deity because of Occam's Razor, even if the rest of the sentence doesn't parse. But then you say: Are you saying the reason the larynx is outside of bone (etc.) is that logic built "to the environment"? Why, logically, would the environment demand that? Or are you saying that the supreme deity was illogical in building the human body that way? You said you believe in the deity, yet he/she/it did something illogical. Is that the way your deity operates? If humans were not created but rather evolved, logic doesn't really have to have anything to do with it - no perfection of design is demanded. Whatever works lives on. I mean these as serious questions - I'm not being sarcastic here. I don't understand what you're trying to say, and I'd like you to clarify it.
I'm saying logic devoid of personification demands nothing save for learning from its surroundings, so protects its vitals, if not more. Personification can create a human as a stooge the same as we would create a Mr. Bill. Both are vulnerable. One man cannot speak for humanity, but humanity can speak for one man.
Logic, as defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity." It is, by definition, not personified. Logic "devoid of personification" cannot demand; nothing devoid of personification demands. Demanding requires personification. How can a non-personified "reasoning" learn from its surroundings? Or protect its vitals? What are its vitals? You are not making sense, unless you are using definitions of common words you're not explaining to us. Can you explain this process, please? "Personification" of what? And why must the human be a stooge, and a stooge of whom? These statements are non sequiturs. DrWhozit, each post you make is less helpful than the last. Can you help us out?
So? I'm not out to become writer of the year by posting on writingforums, just socializing and learning the same as you. Beyond that I'm in a writing forum because, like many other writers, have things to say I feel the world should hear. In that I question why you are choosing to dissect a meaningless argument. My posts make no sense to you because you are having difficulty with abstract concepts. I'm not the man to assess into what level that expands. Let me try this, nonetheless. You are a person. Correct? Your persona might have the skills to create a non-personified entity but a non-personified entity could not have the skills to create your personified entity. It would appear you might be getting stuck by not accepting comma omissions, such as about logic. Logic is inanimate. Worse its an interpretation and subject to change because of its environment. If its environment demands it, logic will live or die because of and depending on its own namesake's process of reasoning. (Not just one of these disparagement bots I take it? By that last phrase, I'm referring to a literal bot as one is known to the net. These exist now.)
