Peez

From time to time the issue of whether or not scientists are, in general, religious comes up in here. This is usually a ‘red herring,' but just in case some of you happen to need some data on the subject, I came across a short article titled "Scientists and Their Religions" on p. 7 of the magazine The Scientist (May 19, 2003). The article reports the results of what appears to have been an informal survey of about 500 "readers" (apparently presumed to be scientists) out of 3,000 "invited" to respond (it is implied that this is a high rate of response to such surveys). Of those who responded, 41% had a "Religious Affiliation" of "None," implied to be atheist or at least agnostic. A total of 52% chose "Christianity," with slightly over half of them being Catholic. Clearly this is not a meticulous study, but it does suggest (not surprisingly) that it is not unusual to find religious scientists. On the other hand, it also suggests that scientists without a religion are rather common, perhaps more common than in the general population (contrast with the ~21% listed as atheist or agnostic in this haphazardly selected online survey). Anyhow, no big eye-opener here, just a tidbit of information.

Peez

ps418

I know its an informal survey, but I wonder if the 5/6 of invited readers who did not respond were similar with respect to religious beliefs to those that did respond, or if believers or nonbelievers were more likely to go to the trouble to respond? Its not obvious to me that either group would be more or less likely to respond, but I find that most of my atheist friends do not make much effort to make their beliefs known in real-world situations, whereas most of the theists I know do in fact go out of their way to make their beliefs known. Of coure, I dont know that my experience is representative or would generalize to an anonymous survey. Just a thought. Clearly you're right that religion and theism is far from rare amongst scientists, though much less prevalent than in the general population.

Patrick

Craig

It all depends on what you consider science. In the "hard" sciences (physics, astronomy, geology etc) you tend to find very very few religious people, under 1% generally. In the "softer" sciences like biology, psychology, etc the percentage goes way up. I have a feeling that the majority of people responding were of the second variety.

Of course I can't find my numbers to back this up, but I am pretty sure Carl Sagan talked about it in A Demon Haunted World.

ps418

Actually, I think 1% is way too low, and that biologists and physcists are the most "atheist." I'll try to find my source for that.

Patrick

Craig

Some of the numbers on here may have been what I was thinking. I suppose I may have confused "creationism" with "belief in a god."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

MrDarwin

I know and/or work with many scientists (biologists) but it's hard to say just what their religious beliefs are because, by and large, it's something we rarely discuss. But I think it's safe to say that few, if any, belong to evangelistic or fundamentalist Christian churches.

Nic Tamzek

No no, I saw one of the major surveys on this (somewhere), and the real hard core atheists were:

psychologists.

Ponder that if you will. Physicists beat out biologists. Biologists actually tended to have more agnostics that atheists, probably due to the influence of Huxley IMO.

Peez

This is certainly the major caution on this and similar surveys.I tend to agree, generally, but on the other hand the more "expressive" theists may be less likely to enter the sciences, leaving us with a bunch of quietly religious scientists. Bottom line: the survey should be regarded with due caution.Except that pesky "Evolutionism" thing.

Peez

Minnesota

You might find the following of interest.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Peez

This is also a good point. The magazine in question seems to be directed at molecular biologists and biochemists, so I presume that the majority of "readers" are in those fields.That is an interesting distinction: in what sense are "physics, astronomy, geology etc" "hard sciences," and "biology, psychology, etc" "softer sciences"?I would be curious to know if someone has a source for this.

Peez