NationStates Jolt Archive

Is that even right? Is the basic premise of empirical-based rational inquiry compatible with faith-based emotive introspection? Or no essential conflict?

Is that even right? Is the basic premise of empirical-based rational inquiry compatible with faith-based emotive introspection? Or no essential conflict?
One can do a damn good job going through the process of analyzing data and making conclusions based on that while still having a personal faith

... There may be some issues with dogma if they are a member of a dogmatic faith but they can most deffinatly be religous

Eh I think it should be left up to the indiviual scientist if he/she wants to be religious.

Completly up to personal choice.

Should Religious people be Scientists?

If said scientist choosed to be, then yes. BUT the real question is, shouldthe scientist use his religious beliefs in his experiments? The answer is no. Science is no place for religion, as just about everything about religion can not be proven in the lab.

No real conflict, IMO.

I would think that most who chose a scientific career would use actual scientific methods, and that ultra-fundies (the kind who think dino bones are "planted") wouldn't want to be in such fields.

Also, there are many branches of science, and some may be more incompatible than others...

many are [religious that is, not the sort of people to plant evidence]

Most scientists are religious. God cannot be tested for, so the smart thing to do is not even try. Keep one's personal life and work seperate, as everyone who isn't an artist should do.

A person informed by religious values can still contribute to the pursuit of scientific knowledge, provided his or her values do not predispose him or her for or against the imperical findings of whatever testing of a scientific theory they are engaged in. Science itself, is, after all, a system not entirely dissimilar to religion. Both seek to answer fundamental questions and provide meaning for people. Where science is, in principle (but not always in practice), preferable to religion is that it relies on a reliable, objective process to prove or disprove ideas, whereas religion tends to promote unquestioning, unqualified faith in ideas. Unfortunately, scientists can also fall into the trap of taking their ideas for granted and holding them above scrutiny. But so long as a truth-seeker (religious or scientific) remains objective-- never accepting an idea as an absolute fact until and unless it can be proved as such by the most rigourous scientific methodology (postulation, testing, interpretation, and confirmation or re-postulation)--, then I think the science and religion can co-exist in people.

If you believe that God created the world why should there be any conflict at all in trying to learn more about it?

Is that even right? Is the basic premise of empirical-based rational inquiry compatible with faith-based emotive introspection? Or no essential conflict?

Good scientists don't let their own desires rule their work. They are supposed to be objective.

If they can do so, there is no problem. :)

Is that even right? Is the basic premise of empirical-based rational inquiry compatible with faith-based emotive introspection? Or no essential conflict?

As long as the scientist is willing to accept his researchresults may contradict his beliefs, why not ?

As long as the scientist is willing to accept his researchresults may contradict his beliefs, why not ?

Why should they after all you wouldn't become a scientist if you thought that everything that could possibly be known by mankind had already been discovered.

Actually I was only considering this from a Christian standpoint perhaps there may be more of a dilemma in other religions.

Why should they after all you wouldn't become a scientist if you thought that everything that could possibly be known by mankind had already been discovered.

Because the whole point of science is that you try to prove things wrong. If you refuse to consider that some things are wrong - like the stories in your holy book - you cannot properly adhere to the scientific method.

Of course, there are probably plenty orf areas of science where you could do work without risking a clash of observation and belief - meaning you could still be an excellent scientist in those fields.

Obviously science has played a major role in the evolution the human race and religion has its own form of science which that too has played its own role in the evolution of the human race. So i think its wrong to assume that one outways the other in respect to which is more impotant. I guess the answer is within our soles or perhaps ones notebook

If they are scientists who are religious, then there is no problem with it. If they are religious scientists, then it might be fair to sometimes question their results.

If they are scientists who are religious, then there is no problem with it. If they are religious scientists, then it might be fair to sometimes question their results.

What's the diff betweeen scientists who are religious and religious scientists?
In your book? :confused:

Why should they after all you wouldn't become a scientist if you thought that everything that could possibly be known by mankind had already been discovered.

Actually I was only considering this from a Christian standpoint perhaps there may be more of a dilemma in other religions.

No the dilemma already exists within the Christian standpoint. Believers go to heaven where God ultimately reveals the mystery of the Universe. There is no need to do any science, just be good Christians.

Damaging to the scientific endeavor to say the least.

No the dilemma already exists within the Christian standpoint. Believers go to heaven where God ultimately reveals the mystery of the Universe. There is no need to do any science, just be good Christians.

Damaging to the scientific endeavor to say the least.

I think that scientists who are also practicing Christians might disagree with you...

Religious? They can be, but they should be able to ignore it in their work.

Spiritual, I don't mind. Einstein had it right, I reckon, in terms of his balance between faith and pursuit of knowledge. He had it right in a number of other ways too.

However, religiosity directly suggests a religiously political stance, and I'm of the opinion that scientists should not allow political leanings to interfere with their studies.

I think that scientists who are also practicing Christians might disagree with you...

Fair enough. It should be a good debate then. :)

Religious? They can be, but they should be able to ignore it in their work.

Spiritual, I don't mind. Einstein had it right, I reckon, in terms of his balance between faith and pursuit of knowledge. He had it right in a number of other ways too.

However, religiosity directly suggests a religiously political stance, and I'm of the opinion that scientists should not allow political leanings to interfere with their studies.

So you require scientists to be inhuman then?

We are all, of necessity, political animals, whether we are scientists or not. Ideally the scientist should be able to put this aspect of themself aside, but the way that science, as an institution, functions does not make this possible.

Who pays the scientist, where does the funding for the next project come from, which groups oppose his work, which ones support it? All these are essential questions to the practicing scientist.

If the scientist has strong religious beliefs then these will almost inevitably influence his or her choice of research. There is nothing wrong with this however, as research has to be chosen according to the interests of the person doing it.

No the dilemma already exists within the Christian standpoint. Believers go to heaven where God ultimately reveals the mystery of the Universe. There is no need to do any science, just be good Christians.

Damaging to the scientific endeavor to say the least.

Not at all since they must account for what they have done with their lives at the day of judgement. If God has blessed them with intelligence and inquiring mind and they neglect these gifts then they will have to answer for that. I think in this context Christianity should be a powerful motive to a scientist to enquire more deeply.

Scientists should be whatever they damn well please, as long as they continue to use objective evidence for their theories.

Science, in and of itself, is its own religion. There are tenets that cannot be proven, and there are several leaps in many theories--guesses. In many cases, "Step 2: then a miracle occurs" holds true.

The thing that differentiates science from other religions is the scientific method--generally following the rule each time, when performing experiments, to see what changes, if anything.

It's a bit easier to believe when you can see the proof with your own eyes and can explain things.

Is that even right? Is the basic premise of empirical-based rational inquiry compatible with faith-based emotive introspection? Or no essential conflict?
One word: multitasking.

I think that scientists who are also practicing Christians might disagree with you...

Indeed. I see nothing at all about Christianity that would dissuade me from using my capabilities to study the world - and to try and make it a better place.

Indeed. I see nothing at all about Christianity that would dissuade me from using my capabilities to study the world - and to try and make it a better place.

Why bother if all of your efforts are illusory? The entire physical Universe is "temporary" relative to your eternal heaven. Christian should spend all their time preaching and converting people, science is an inefficient way of scoring brownie points with God.

Is that even right? Is the basic premise of empirical-based rational inquiry compatible with faith-based emotive introspection? Or no essential conflict?

My dad is/was a scientist and is religious.

Is that even right? Is the basic premise of empirical-based rational inquiry compatible with faith-based emotive introspection? Or no essential conflict?
As long as one's core faith doesn't interact with one's line of work, unless it is directly related, one's faith shouldn't have to be called into question.

Science, in and of itself, is its own religion. There are tenets that cannot be proven, and there are several leaps in many theories--guesses. In many cases, "Step 2: then a miracle occurs" holds true.

The thing that differentiates science from other religions is the scientific method--generally following the rule each time, when performing experiments, to see what changes, if anything.

It's a bit easier to believe when you can see the proof with your own eyes and can explain things.

Is there a definition issue here? I guess "religion" can be used as loosely as "theory".

As long as one's core faith doesn't interact with one's line of work, unless it is directly related, one's faith shouldn't have to be called into question.

Such clinical separation is rarely achieved in practice. For example Buddhists who believe in reincarnation doing biology. Each experimental animal could have been reincarnated from a person. Sacrificing animals is tentamount to murder.

With such a belief system can you do science properly? If you look upon your fellow researchers as "killers" to provide your "clean" hands with cellular materials to work with? :(

What's wrong with someone having faith so long as it doesn't interfere with their work? I don't see how looking at rocks under a microscope goes against anything in the bible.

Besides, the bible is just a collection of stories. Stories that are meant to help people in the right direction. Love your neighbor. Be a good person. That's it. And when you start turning the stories into literal translations of hierarchies and power, well...

Why bother if all of your efforts are illusory? The entire physical Universe is "temporary" relative to your eternal heaven. Christian should spend all their time preaching and converting people, science is an inefficient way of scoring brownie points with God.

Is this an accurate representation of your position on this topic?

I don't care what scientists are, as long as they don't let it distort their scientific conclusions and they don't harm anybody else.

Is this an accurate representation of your position on this topic?

Quite so. I believe we do science because some essential mysteries in Nature will otherwise stay hidden. If a belief system states that good believers will get to know everything in the Universe directly from God, there is no real motivation to do science.

Quite so. I believe we do science because some essential mysteries in Nature will otherwise stay hidden. If a belief system states that good believers will get to know everything in the Universe directly from God, there is no real motivation to do science.

Except for making your earthly existence and that of others potentially better.
This attitude would however indeed not motivate people to do fundamental research.

Except for making your earthly existence and that of others potentially better.
This attitude would however indeed not motivate people to do fundamental research.

I agree. However, the effect for translational research and R&D/Medical research is also there. Why butt your head against killer viruses, cancers and neurodegenerative diseases when the suffering of your patient is "temporary" and if they were converted to Christianity they can look forward to a happy healthy perfect eternal life?

In our newspapers a few months back a person wrote a letter about how he was diagnosed with cancer. The doctor, a Christian, asked him to kneel down and pray together. The patient found this distressing, as he was not a Christian, and thought that this gesture meant that he was beyond hope and only "divine" intervention will help.

Eventually he was treated and survived the cancer, but the incident left a poor professional image of the doctor in his mind.

My official job title is "Scientist" and I'm very religious :-)

I agree. However, the effect for translational research and R&D/Medical research is also there. Why butt your head against killer viruses, cancers and neurodegenerative diseases when the suffering of your patient is "temporary" and if they were converted to Christianity they can look forward to a happy healthy perfect eternal life?



Yep. If god can heal all... what's the use of trying to find cures?... or even brushing our teeth... if god can take care if it for us if we're good enough?

My official job title is "Scientist" and I'm very religious :-)

What kind of "science" do you do?

Trying to be both a scientist and a religious believer means that the science will suffer and the religion will become a god of gaps kind of thing.

The science suffers because there are some questions that a religious believer will not ask such as why the big bang happened since they already have their big bang god but which an atheist would be quite happen to ask although that is mainly a personal problem since science has plenty of atheists to ask the questions the theists won't ask (about half of all scientists are atheists with the proportion increasing as you get into the elites) and even the theistic scientists can still produce do good research.

It also requires that the person not follow their religion since they have to re-intrepret it to fit in with modern science.

Here are the ways I know of to have faith in a god:
1. Just don't think about it too much.
2. Believe only what their holy book says to be true.
3. Place science first and insert god where science has yet to find an answer.
4. Define god in such a way that the concept is almost meaningless.

None of those options is really any good.

Trying to be both a scientist and a religious believer means that the science will suffer and the religion will become a god of gaps kind of thing.

The science suffers because there are some questions that a religious believer will not ask such as why the big bang happened since they already have their big bang god but which an atheist would be quite happen to ask although that is mainly a personal problem since science has plenty of atheists to ask the questions the theists won't ask (about half of all scientists are atheists with the proportion increasing as you get into the elites) and even the theistic scientists can still produce do good research.

It also requires that the person not follow their religion since they have to re-intrepret it to fit in with modern science.

Here are the ways I know of to have faith in a god:
1. Just don't think about it too much.
2. Believe only what their holy book says to be true.
3. Place science first and insert god where science has yet to find an answer.
4. Define god in such a way that the concept is almost meaningless.

None of those options is really any good.

Yes you brought up a good point. God as an explanation is of limited utility (apart from the "ahs" and "oohs") to anyone because it explains too much on little evidence. In contrast science is so specialized and fragmented despite having tons of evidence and solid replicable results it claims too little.

Geek: Guess what. I found a protein in a virus that may be targeted by drugs.

Priest: So do we have a cure yet?

Geek: Not really, existing drugs have bad side effects. Future drugs are still being synthesized. Besides the viral genome is mutating so rapidly this approach will have to be optimized continually. It will take me years to sort everything out. And it might not work.

Priest: Such uncertainties. But you can always be certain of God. Come, let preach eternal life to all the patients of the viral disease! We can save more souls!

Very religious folks won't want to spend their time mucking with all the complexities of Nature to fix specific problems. They would ask "what's the point in researching this or that?" They prefer the "big picture" view of saving everyone's eternal souls, which is much more convenient.

I suspect religious scientists will have this dilemma.

It all depends on what sort of religion and what sort of scientist they are. It also depends on how devout they are and how willing they are to accept new ideas. An open-minded religious person would be better suited to science than a closed-minded athiest who may stick to old theorems and ideas that may have considerable evidence against them. Mindset is more important than theological position. There are none so blind as those who won't see.

If it doesn't affect their work, it's their own business.

Yes you brought up a good point. God as an explanation is of limited utility (apart from the "ahs" and "oohs") to anyone because it explains too much on little evidence. In contrast science is so specialized and fragmented despite having tons of evidence and solid replicable results it claims too little.Pretty much true. I think the big issue is that any explanation involving a god asks more questions then it answers (e.g. what is god? how powerful is god? how did god create the universe? etc, etc).

Not to mention that anything which involves god lacks predictive power.
Very religious folks won't want to spend their time mucking with all the complexities of Nature to fix specific problems. They would ask "what's the point in researching this or that?" They prefer the "big picture" view of saving everyone's eternal souls, which is much more convenient.

I suspect religious scientists will have this dilemma.It is true that the very religious people aren't going to bother with trying to fix problems in nature (nor do they ever give much thought into why their god screwed up so badly if he's meant to be perfect) but most religious scientists aren't exactly fundies (and a great many have a very different idea of god to what the religion they profess says) so I don't think that problem will show up much.
It all depends on what sort of religion and what sort of scientist they are. It also depends on how devout they are and how willing they are to accept new ideas.Completely true.
An open-minded religious person would be better suited to science than a closed-minded athiest who may stick to old theorems and ideas that may have considerable evidence against them.Yes, in most matters there wouldn't be much difference between the atheist and the theist and there are some very good theists in science as well as some bad atheists but the statistics do indicate that atheists are more common in science (especially at the elite levels) than they are in the general population.
If it doesn't affect their work, it's their own business.Yeah.

Even if it does I think it is still mostly their own business (provided they don't do what the creationalists do). Science itself probably isn't suffering too badly from it since whilst religion and science do contradict pretty much everywhere most of the religious scientists accept pretty much all of modern science so it'd really only be at the edges of knowledge that a problem would occur (and most scientists are working in fields where the traditional rationalisations of why religion and science don't contradict don't come crushing down).

In a slight stretch of the word, I'm a scientist and I'm spiritual; I believe in Jesus Christ and I consider myself a christian.

I am not religious. I make a specific distinction between faith in God and faith in religion.

But I do not have a problem with science and faith. In fact, I would credit my study of physics for pushing me out of agnosticism and into a strong faith in God.

Many great scientists were religious.

Darwin was a devout Christian, and his conclusions in the Origin of the Species terrified him. His beliefs didn't stop him publishing.

Much early astronomy was carried out by the Church (though they got a bit "stroppy" with Galileo's conclusions)

Darwin was a devout Christian, and his conclusions in the Origin of the Species terrified him. His beliefs didn't stop him publishing.Yes. Though I think it should be noted that Darwin died an agnostic.

Why bother if all of your efforts are illusory?

What is illusory about them?

The entire physical Universe is "temporary" relative to your eternal heaven.

So? And is it?

Christian should spend all their time preaching and converting people,

Says who? Depending on what you mean by "preaching and converting", I would argue that none of our time should be spent on such things. Christians should "preach" simply by living their lives - no extra effort should be needed.

science is an inefficient way of scoring brownie points with God.

(a) Who said anything about scoring "brownie points"?
(b) How do you know what God wants?

Trying to be both a scientist and a religious believer means that the science will suffer and the religion will become a god of gaps kind of thing.

No, it doesn't. It is one possibility, but it is hardly the only one.

The science suffers because there are some questions that a religious believer will not ask

There are no questions that I will not ask - within religion or within science.

such as why the big bang happened since they already have their big bang god but which an atheist would be quite happen to ask although that is mainly a personal problem since science has plenty of atheists to ask the questions the theists won't ask (about half of all scientists are atheists with the proportion increasing as you get into the elites) and even the theistic scientists can still produce do good research.

This is untrue. Religiosity studies have found that the percentage of atheists among scientists is no higher or lower than that in the general public. Scientists may show a tendency to reject the idea of a personal God, but this has not been well studied.

It also requires that the person not follow their religion since they have to re-intrepret it to fit in with modern science.

Anyone who isn't constantly reinterpreting both their science and their religion in the face of new facts/ideas/experiences is not treating either properly.

Here are the ways I know of to have faith in a god:
1. Just don't think about it too much.
2. Believe only what their holy book says to be true.
3. Place science first and insert god where science has yet to find an answer.
4. Define god in such a way that the concept is almost meaningless.

None of those options is really any good.

Perhaps you should find another option.


Except for making your earthly existence and that of others potentially better.
This attitude would however indeed not motivate people to do fundamental research.

That makes no sense. You cannot do the type of science that makes the existence of others better without doing the fundamental research on which to base it. Every medical breakthrough is based on basic biology discoveries made before it.

I agree. However, the effect for translational research and R&D/Medical research is also there. Why butt your head against killer viruses, cancers and neurodegenerative diseases when the suffering of your patient is "temporary" and if they were converted to Christianity they can look forward to a happy healthy perfect eternal life?

Because suffering, even if temporary, is something to fight against. Suffering is "temporary" whether you believe in a God or not - whether you believe in eternal life or not.

In our newspapers a few months back a person wrote a letter about how he was diagnosed with cancer. The doctor, a Christian, asked him to kneel down and pray together. The patient found this distressing, as he was not a Christian, and thought that this gesture meant that he was beyond hope and only "divine" intervention will help.

This action was both unprofessional and unnecessary. If the patient had asked the doctor to pray with him, that would be fine. But it shouldn't have happened the other way around.

Very religious folks won't want to spend their time mucking with all the complexities of Nature to fix specific problems. They would ask "what's the point in researching this or that?" They prefer the "big picture" view of saving everyone's eternal souls, which is much more convenient.

I suspect religious scientists will have this dilemma.

Such generalizations. You claim to understand the thinking of every religious person?

I find it amusing that atheists are trying to tell me how I should think and act as a christian.

And I'm so often accused of not dealing with the facts as they are by atheists too!

Forgive me if someone already posted this:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Another point, even IF it is a bad thing (which it shouldn't), I would be very much against discriminatory actions against scientests because of their religion.

This is untrue. Religiosity studies have found that the percentage of atheists among scientists is no higher or lower than that in the general public. Scientists may show a tendency to reject the idea of a personal God, but this has not been well studied.Making things up is not a good idea.

http://blog.case.edu/mxs24/2006/02/08/the_religious_beliefs_of_scientists1
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

It is very clear that scientists are a lot more likely to be atheists than those in the rest of the population. Unless you want to believe that half the people in the US are atheists.
Here are the ways I know of to have faith in a god:
1. Just don't think about it too much.
2. Believe only what their holy book says to be true.
3. Place science first and insert god where science has yet to find an answer.
4. Define god in such a way that the concept is almost meaningless.

None of those options is really any good.Perhaps you should find another option.Well there is always just getting rid of religious belief.

Oh, a way to have faith in god. I can't think of any other way. You haven't provided one so it may very well be that I have listed every possibility.
That makes no sense. You cannot do the type of science that makes the existence of others better without doing the fundamental research on which to base it. Every medical breakthrough is based on basic biology discoveries made before it.Yes. But once the basics are accepted and the religion re-intrepreted to fit with them you can do applied research without having to worry about anything contradicting your view of the world.
Forgive me if someone already posted this:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert EinsteinEinstein's religion was not what those who would use that quote would consider a religion.
Another point, even IF it is a bad thing (which it shouldn't), I would be very much against discriminatory actions against scientests because of their religion.I think it is a bad thing for a scientist to be religious but there is no need to discriminate against them. They can do it all by themselves (as we see by the fact that the elite scientists are much less likely to religious).

Making things up is not a good idea.

http://blog.case.edu/mxs24/2006/02/08/the_religious_beliefs_of_scientists1
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

It is very clear that scientists are a lot more likely to be atheists than those in the rest of the population. Unless you want to believe that half the people in the US are atheists.
Well there is always just getting rid of religious belief.

Oh, a way to have faith in god. I can't think of any other way. You haven't provided one so it may very well be that I have listed every possibility.
Yes. But once the basics are accepted and the religion re-intrepreted to fit with them you can do applied research without having to worry about anything contradicting your view of the world.
Einstein's religion was not what those who would use that quote would consider a religion.
I think it is a bad thing for a scientist to be religious but there is no need to discriminate against them. They can do it all by themselves (as we see by the fact that the elite scientists are much less likely to religious).

Well said, and I especially like the part in bold.

I find it amusing that atheists are trying to tell me how I should think and act as a christian.

And I'm so often accused of not dealing with the facts as they are by atheists too!

So are you saying you're a scientist?

Scientists have faith in science.

(Selah.)

Nobody should be religious. I suppose that includes scientists.

Making things up is not a good idea.

I'm not.

http://blog.case.edu/mxs24/2006/02/08/the_religious_beliefs_of_scientists1

Ah, Leuba. A guy who has long since been discredited by those who study religiosity because his questions do not answer the questions he thinks they do. Note that he didn't ask, "Do you believe in a God?", "Do you believe in a higher power?" or anything like it. He asked, "Do you believe in a personal God?" This would not answer the question of whether or not someone was an atheist. A person could answer no to that question and still be a theist.

Meanwhile, it has been shown numerous times that Leuba's questions don't work at all for Eastern religions - they simply don't fit the religion well enough to determine anything about a person's beliefs. They also leave out the possibility of those who claim to be "spiritual, but not religious".

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm

A study which followed Leuba's tactics, despite them having been long since rejected by sociologists who study religiosity.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

See above.

It is very clear that scientists are a lot more likely to be atheists than those in the rest of the population. Unless you want to believe that half the people in the US are atheists.

No, it isn't. Disbelief in a personal God does not equate to atheism.

If you are going to use scientific studies, you need to look more closely at the questions asked - and whether or not they answer the question you are getting at.

Well there is always just getting rid of religious belief.

That is one.

Oh, a way to have faith in god. I can't think of any other way. You haven't provided one so it may very well be that I have listed every possibility.

I have faith in God because I have personal experience of that God. My evidence may not be empirical, but then again, neither is my evidence that my fiance loves me. God need not limit my science, because science does not investigate the supernatural - only the natural.

Yes. But once the basics are accepted and the religion re-intrepreted to fit with them you can do applied research without having to worry about anything contradicting your view of the world.

You seem to think that religion has to come from another person. It does not. There is no need for "re-interpreting" any religion to "fit" with the basics of science. Any religion which is true will have no conflict with the natural world.

Einstein's religion was not what those who would use that quote would consider a religion.

How do you know what others consider to be a religion?

I think it is a bad thing for a scientist to be religious but there is no need to discriminate against them.

Why is it bad? Most scientists, like most lay-persons, have some form of religion that they believe in, whether they actively follow it or not. It hasn't stopped science from progressing.

They can do it all by themselves (as we see by the fact that the elite scientists are much less likely to religious).

Define "religious".

Scientists have faith in science. Why? Science has been shown to work so you don't have to deny evidence to believe that it provides a good way of describing the world.
*square brackets stuff up quoting and have been omitted
Nobody should be religious. I suppose that includes scientists.Agree completely and for the second part it does.
Ah, Leuba. A guy who has long since been discredited by those who study religiosity because his questions do not answer the questions he thinks they do. Note that he didn't ask, "Do you believe in a God?", "Do you believe in a higher power?" or anything like it. He asked, "Do you believe in a personal God?" This would not answer the question of whether or not someone was an atheist. A person could answer no to that question and still be a theist.

Meanwhile, it has been shown numerous times that Leuba's questions don't work at all for Eastern religions - they simply don't fit the religion well enough to determine anything about a person's beliefs. They also leave out the possibility of those who claim to be "spiritual, but not religious".I would not expect Eastern Religions to figure very much in the beliefs of scientists from the US.

You also have not presented any evidence of your contention that belief in god is the same in the scientific community than in the general population (and even if you had proof that most of the scientific community believes in a god it would still not be the god that most of the people outside the scientific community believe in).
No, it isn't. Disbelief in a personal God does not equate to atheism.No. But it does not seem much of a step to assume it does in most cases.
I have faith in God because I have personal experience of that God. My evidence may not be empirical, but then again, neither is my evidence that my fiance loves me.Sounds like it might be number 4 or maybe you use number 3.
God need not limit my science, because science does not investigate the supernatural - only the natural.OK. Maybe your option 5 is believing in a god which does nothing at all and thus can not possibly be detected (though it seems kind of pointless to hold that belief). Still sounds like it could be described by 3 or 4 though.
Why is it bad? Most scientists, like most lay-persons, have some form of religion that they believe in, whether they actively follow it or not. It hasn't stopped science from progressing.I think the fact that the more elite a scientist is the less likely they are to be religious should show pretty clearly that religion and science don't go well together.

If you know of any better data why don't you present it? Or do you not know of anything which actually supports what you say?

I would not expect Eastern Religions to figure very much in the beliefs of scientists from the US.

Why not? And why do only scientists from the US count?

People in the US come from all backgrounds, all cultures, and all religions. Why would you assume that you wouldn't have Budhists, Hindus, Taoists, etc. in the US?

You also have not presented any evidence of your contention that belief in god is the same in the scientific community than in the general population

I'm looking for the studies. It's been a while since this subject came up. I have, however, shown that the studies you quote are useless for the question.

(and even if you had proof that most of the scientific community believes in a god it would still not be the god that most of the people outside the scientific community believe in).

If a god exists, is that god defined by its own existence, or by what people think? Meanwhile, what does this have to do with anything? You made the statement that there are more atheists among science, something you have not backed up. Even if every religious scientist held different beliefs than every religious non-scientist, it wouldn't at all back up your claim.

On top of that, every religious person holds different beliefs than every other religious person, so it really wouldn't show anything.

No. But it does not seem much of a step to assume it does in most cases.

Actually, it is a huge step. Deism has been a popular belief for quite some time - going back even to the founding of the US. There are many who believe in a Creator that does not now interact with Creation. There are many who believe there is a God, but are strongly agnostic - believing that they can determine nothing about this deity. And so on....

Your naivete rules out quite a bit of cases of theism.

Sounds like it might be number 4 or maybe you use number 3. OK. Maybe your option 5 is believing in a god which does nothing at all and thus can not possibly be detected (though it seems kind of pointless to hold that belief).

Nope. None of the above.

By definition, God cannot be detected empirically, but this does not mean that God does nothing, nor that God cannot be detected by any means.

I think the fact that the more elite a scientist is the less likely they are to be religious should show pretty clearly that religion and science don't go well together.

Depends on how you define "religious". Scientists may fall under the category of persons likely to say, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual." But what, really, is the difference? When you talk to such persons, the only difference seems to be that they don't follow organized religion. They are no less (and are often more) religious than most members of a given church, but will not describe themselves as such because they associate the word only with the organized structures.

And here we get into one of the biggest problems in religiosity studies. Your own perception of what religion is will always skew your studies in some way. Questions must be worded as broadly as possible, but even then might get in the way. Someone might be asked, "Do you believe in a personal God," and answer no. You would make the incorrect assumption that they must be an atheist, although they could simply be a deist or hold some other belief that would lead them to reject the description "personal". You may ask, "Do you believe in God?" Many would assume this is the Judeo-Christian God and say no, even if they do believe in a deity or deities. You may ask, "Do you believe in gods?" and a member of a Judeo-Christian religion would most likely say no, because they only believe in one God. You may ask, "Are you religious?" and someone who strongly believes in a God may say no because they believe they are "spiritual" instead of "religious", and so on.

People's perceptions of what religion is, what it should be, and what it means to them are so different that no question can capture them all.

If you know of any better data why don't you present it? Or do you not know of anything which actually supports what you say?

Like I said, I've seen the studies, but the question hasn't come up in a while. My fiance may have them on his computer.

Edit: The real problem is the lack of data out there. Very few studies ask any questions that can really lead to an accurate count of atheists. Quite a few link careers in science to a lack of churchgoing - but that really only backs up the idea that scientists are less likely to join an organized religion. Quite a few link science to those who question their beliefs - who express some doubt - but that would actually, to me, suggest that scientists were more strongly faithful than the laypersons. Quite a few link science to "atheism or agnosticism" but do not separate them out - and a person can be both theist and agnostic.

One thing is clear: Any study using Leuba's methods is not going to answer the question, as there are quite a few theistic beliefs that do not involve what most would refer to as a "personal" God.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I have a better one.

"I don't answer God questions." - Stephen Hawking

That pretty much sums up this whole thread. It doesn't matter whether scientists are religious or not. The important thing is that they recognise that their religion has no place in their science and that their position as scientists gives them no elevated religious status.

I think the fact that the more elite a scientist is the less likely they are to be religious should show pretty clearly that religion and science don't go well together.

Meanwhile, just to further answer this part:

Even if the studies you quote did show that more "elite" scientists were less likely to be religious, instead of simply being less likely to meet your personal definition of "religious", this statement would be silly. Correlation and causation are two different things. Did you know that one of the factors with the highest correlation to heart disease is telephone usage? Do you think that telephone usage causes heart disease?

Einstein's religion was not what those who would use that quote would consider a religion.

I know precisely what Einsteins religion was. The quote is still applicable.

I have a better one.

"I don't answer God questions." - Stephen Hawking

That pretty much sums up this whole thread. It doesn't matter whether scientists are religious or not. The important thing is that they recognise that their religion has no place in their science and that their position as scientists gives them no elevated religious status.

Agreed, though I can't help myself:

"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the 'Big Bang' are enourmous. I think there are clearly relgious implications." - Stephen Hawking