Just StumbledUpon this and figured I'd post it here.
Printable View
Just StumbledUpon this and figured I'd post it here.
The Templeton Foundation regularly pay people and scientists to say good things about religion.
This article is hardly surprising.
I think I love you.
[edit] You being Oneironaut
Wannywan: What part of that article do you have a problem with? Do you think what it says is logically flawed?
I just don't like the Templeton Foundations agenda.
Wiki it.
But that's my prerogative.
Aside from that, does the article say anything that disgusts your logic?
The Templeton Foundation has a political/religious agenda. Their 'research' isn't really to be trusted as being objective. Having an agenda in science is just horrible, actually. Look at all the 'objective' research for and against global warming, for instance.
Perhapse, but does anyone have any major problem with the article itself? Does the article say something that offends you logically?
Not that I can see. I just wanted to be sure.
Cool.
40 percent of scientists believing in god in 1997 sounds unlikely, since among actual scientist right now it is more like less than 10 percent (that actually believe in a personal god). Probably they added all the agnostics, deists and theists together to get a nice 40 percent. Still, hard to actually find those polls on the internet.
Also, this article at most is in favor of deism, or a very uninvolved god. The bible is still a piece of crap, this article isn't going that argue that. Also, it's mostly saying "Oh gosh, it's possible". While more (probably far more) than 60% of the scientists say "Fuck off idiots, you are just seeing what you want to see".
What about the 2% of scientists (scientists of animal studies or some shitty branch of science) that might believe in reincarnation?!?! Why don't they have a foundation spreading their propaganda? : (
Give me an article that actually has something in it but filler, and I might care.
Neruo: Other then that, do you have a problem with the other parts of it?
Man, I love this word, "reconcile". We just love people trying to merge things that are completely incompatible. You want to give me a pedicure while performing a vasectomy with your head dipped in a fryer? Hell yeah, you go! You wanna be a gay Muslim who visits Christian churches every now and then and adopt a Hindu child after you've married a priest? We fuckin' applaud people for that. "Hey, look at me, I'm a big-ass hypocrite and nobody's noticing. This makes me progressive and tolerant." Fuck you.
They make some statments (other then the ones you say are biased). What do you think of them?
Hm.
The only website I could find that claimed to list 'Nobel Prize-winning Christians' came up with six, out of a total of several hundred scientific Nobelists. Of these six, it turned out that four were not Nobel Prize-winners at all; and at least one, to my certain knowledge, is a non-believer who attends church for purely social reasons. A more systematic study by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi 'found that among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as those in literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiosity, as compared to the populations they came from.'
A study in the leading journal Nature by Larson and Witham in 1998 showed that of those American scientists considered eminent enough by their peers to have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to being a fellow of the Royal Society in Britain) only about 7 per cent believe in a personal God. This overwhelming preponderance of atheists is almost the exact opposite of the profile of the American population at large, of whom more than 90 per cent are believers in some sort of super-natural being.
It is completely as I would expect that American scientists are less religious than the American public generally, and that the most distinguished scientists are the least religious of all.
The overwhelming majority of fellows of the Royal Society, like the overwhelming majority of US Academicians, are atheists. Only 3.3 per cent of the Fellows agreed strongly with the statement that a personal god exists while 78.8 per cent strongly disagreed . There were a massive 213 unbelievers and a mere 12 believers.
"Sociologist Zena Blau of the University of Houston recently conducted a study of more than a thousand children in Chicago. In 1981 Blau reported that IQs were lowest among children whose mothers have overly strict religious beliefs. Children whose mothers were from a non-denominational or non-religious background had the highest average IQs - 110 for whites, 109 for blacks. Children whose mothers belonged to "fundamentalist" religious groups tended to have IQs that were 7 to 10 points lower. According to Blau, these religion-IQ differences hold even when you take into account the mother's social class, current occupational status, and education"-'Understanding Human Behaviour' by James V McConnel.
Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine, 2002, reviewed all studies taken of religion and IQ. He concluded:
"Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind."
The tittle of the article by itself feels like misleading propaganda.
I can't disagree with anything said there because no real arguments were given.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein
"God doesn't exist" - Einstein
Einstein was a pantheist, which is similar to what I believe. Pantheism does not say that there is no God, but that God is Nature, or God is Everything. I believe that God is Everything, but also that their is more to the universe than we can humanly percieve.
http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.../pantheism.cfm
Einstein was a naturalistic pantheist, which is the same as being an Atheist.
I would disagree. Saying that there is no God is different than saying that God is nature. If you spend a lot of time thinking about this subject you start to realize that.
Lumping a bunch of belief structures into one group makes it hard to have a meaningful discussion.
Naturalistic pantheist believes nature exists, calls it god.Quote:
Naturalistic Pantheism is a form of pantheism that holds that the universe, although unconscious and non-sentient as a whole, behaves as a single, interconnected, and solely natural substance. Accordingly, Nature is seen as being what religions call "God" only in a non-traditional, impersonal sense, where the terms Nature and God are synonymous. Therefore, naturalistic pantheism is also known as "impersonal pantheism" and "impersonal absolutism," and does not posit any form of supernatural belief.
Atheist believes nature exists, calls it universe.
It's the same.