|
A recent study discovered that belief in God among academics, by discipline, was ordered about like this: (Most Atheistic) "Does God exist?" is mainly a philosophical or religious question, an area in which "verbal" (non-numerical) reasoning is most important. However, if we look at the GRE scores (h/t Vox Day) of these disciplines, we find that percent of atheism doesn't neatly correlate with logical (non-quantitative) reasoning abilities. In fact, the correlation appears (except for Physics) to be somewhat inverse: (Strongest Verbal Reasoning Skills) Besides those shown, Philosophy, English, History and Religion majors thoroughly trounced Biologists, Physicists and Sociologists in non-mathematical reasoning. So it would seem the average atheistic biologist has poorer logical abilities than a theologian-in-training. (While I could easily accept the opposite outcome, I'm not surprised, given the rather poor reasoning behind some of (say) Richard Dawkins' arguments. He may be a respected biologist, but he seems to make a lot of really basic mistakes in his logical arguments.) The GRE scores above would also seem to undermine our cultural belief that "scientists" are the smartest people in the population. True, scientists are sharper than the average non-academic, and many have truly stunning quantitative (mathematical) reasoning abilities -- but it seems that in terms non-mathematical reasoning skills, they're not even the smartest among academics. Like philosopher Keith Burgess-Jackson, I don't think that intelligence really determines that much about whether a person is likely to believe in a religion or not. What I think is going on here is that materialists tend to turn to science as a kind of surrogate religion; I suspect intelligent religious people tend to be attracted to other disciplines (such as philosophy, theology, or medicine -- the last having a very high percentage of God-believers) or non-academic pursuits. And indeed, the aforementioned study came to the same conclusion -- it wasn't so much that scientists' exposure to science turned them from believers to unbelievers, but more that they were unbelievers in the first place.
This information goes a long way towards refuting the (ironically) poor reasoning and research skills* displayed in atheistic arguments like this one, citing studies which found that scientists, academics, Mensa members, and other self-selected "smart" populations tend to disbelieve in God. Scientists aren't necessarily the smartest people out there, and a belief is not necessarily true even if smart people do believe it.** (** I'm sure the average Marxist was historically much smarter than the average non-Marxist. Likewise, during the late 19th and early 20th century, scientists tended to believe the cosmos had no beginning, whereas the average Baptist didn't.) (* The cited article also shows a marked tendency towards cherry-picking: For example, a 1950 study which implied atheists were more likely to help the poor is cited, but decades of evidence showing atheists are less charitable are omitted. And I would be embarrassed if I were founding citing, seriously, a 1927 study which treated the showboats who paid to appear in "Who's Who in America" as a representative sample, or citing a study which could be summarized: "Found a negative correlation between the strength of religious values and research competence. How these were measured is unknown"! Almost no studies after 1975 -- they seem to think the heydey of reliable sociological research was the 1930s and 1940s!) I can think of two obvious reasons for biologists scoring most atheistic, both concerned with evolution. (1) The erroneous belief promulgated in the media that belief in God is incompatible with belief in any part of evolutionary theory could drive biologists, who are faced with clear evidence for some parts of it, toward atheism. (2) Those who are already atheistic will be attracted to a field they believe demonstrates strong support for their position. Posted by: SursumCorda on March 19, 2008 05:17 AM And I suspect there's probably a feedback loop going on between #1 and #2. Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on March 19, 2008 10:40 AM Add your two cents...
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once. |
How intriguing that biology scored higher than physics. One would think that the study of life, that incomprehensible creation of God would inspire more awe, but perhaps that's just from my slant of a little study in biochemistry. (Which is so mind-bogglingly intertwined and complex.) Perhaps also, with Chemists being less atheistic, they're closer to the "raw metal" and that explains the discrepancy. (I'm not sure how much 'biologists' are actually on the side of biochemistry in this mix, or just taxonomers, etc.)
It's also not much of a surprise that physicists top that list. There's an epidemic of remote pantheism, deism, hippyism (syncretism) and atheism in the world of physics. It's unfortunate, because in cosmology, you study a universe that's uniformly expanding, with background radiation seeming to indicate an origin at a single point. Of course, instead of sitting in awe and letting the Creator speak, you have to invent n-dimensional membranes in a currently unfalsifiable theory crashing into each other to create major shockwaves that just happen to resemble the universe we live in. Along with intelligent beings that randomly come into and out of existence in femtoseconds. (Can you believe that tax dollars and tuition pay these guy's salaries?)
Posted by: Michael Zappe on March 18, 2008 11:10 PM