Like Gary, I'm also a former theist with a lifelong love of science. People are very good at compartmentalizing, so with one area of their mind, they are rational and skeptical; in another part of the mind 'god', 'spirituality', or other nonrational thought flourishes. I view the transition to a fully rational mindset as a form of maturity. It can also mean that others view the rationalist as being like "Spock" on Star Trek
Like Smiling Eyes, I have known people who applied science at work, then went home to Jesus. I used to know a Lesbian couple who were both biochemists. Their work was all involving genetic engineering. They were also evangelical christian. Compartmentalization.
Kole clinches it as well. A physicist or a chemist has much less basis for exclusion of theism from their mindset. An engineer, even less, since the field is mostly applied math, physics, and material sciences. The biologist has a much bigger issue, since without evolution, all biology falls apart. The biochemist, especially the geneticist, really has to lie to themself if they beleive in gods and are still creating new life forms in the lab. Still, it happens.
It is not a big surprise if one realises the fact that science does not involve itself with belief in God or proof that God exist, unlike as in Phillosophy. There is no science topic on the existence or non-existence of God. The onus is on individuals to conclude or decypher.
Finally, the human brain is made of 2 lobes. One controls our rational thoughts like logic, mathematics while the other lobe takes care of our emotions, like music, poetry, love. sentiments etc..Irrational thoughts.
Individuals make use of both lobes in different proportions. If there is a brain scan, most genuine scientists would be seen to utilise the rational or logical lobe more than the irrational lobe.
Women for example are found to utilise the 'emotion lobe' and probably explains why there are fewer female scientists, mathematicians, compared to men and why there are more women as church goers despite the fact that the abrahmic religions relegate the status of women including the discrimination against women.
How about snanning the brain of blacks like me? Does that explain why we are still very religious despite what abrahmic religion has done to our psyche as a race. Slavery and Apatheid inclusive.
Could it be genetic? nature or nurture? Whats to blame?
I totally agree; being a scientist does, in some respect, makes one a more rationally thinking person. However, that does not mean that he or she will apply that rationality to his or her acceptance of a religion. As for black people, and I think people in general, are still prone to emotionalism, which is an underlining aspect of religious doctrine. As it has been show, just as a child would do when they are trying to make sense of what they are confronted with in the natural world, early humans developed elaborate explanations to make sense of what was happening in their natural environment, and these explanations were certainly developed to calm their emotions; emotions such as fear. However, as we grow up, we are supposed to be able to recognize that these explanations (religion) were myths designed to calm emotions of children. However, most of us (blacks), and other people, have a hard time recognizing that because these myths are continuing to be taught as facts to us from childhood
God is very much a social (or cultural) meme. I'll wager a buck that the percentage of scientists in Islamic cultures, that believes in God, is much higher than 1-in-3. (My bad. I mean the ones that still have their heads attached to their bodies.)
It is hardly worth a comment, as suspect many of those tagged with scientific credentials hardly rate them in operative terms. When I was a Catholic one of my priests was a respected physicist and he was definitely a religionist. I often wonder about him becasue he is the one who taught my friends and I the scientific method. The idea of him doing that seems strange now. Or, perhaps he really followed the process and let evidence speak. That's why I often wonder where and what he is now.
If I may add some comments to the thoughtful replies here -
Danladi discusses brain scans, and whether there are differences as seen in female vs. male, or racial differences. It's true that there are very subtle differences, very difficult to locate, between women and men - even between straight men and gay men. I don't know that anyone has identified differences in functional scans. I could be wrong and often am. As to difference in function among races, I suspect that has not been done - too controversial. It would depend partly on how race is defined. Also, diversity among different ethnic groups in Africa may be greater than differences between Black and white. That due to the divergence of ethnicity that occurred in ancient times, prior to migration of all "nonAfrican" peoples from Africa. Then, with diaspora, colonialization, slavery, war, and emigration, there was a major reshuffling of genetic and anatomic traits. I think it's a complicated question.
Grenadian Freethinker discusses emotionality, also comparing races. Is this finding correct? Or stereotype? I'm asking a question, I don't know the answer. If it is correct, is it culture? In other words, nature vs. nurture. I know there are cultural stereotypes, Italian, French, Irish, Greek = emotional, English Scandinavian & German=stoic. I guess the implication is that emotionality = more likely to be religious; rationality = more likely to be, well, rational. It seems like a good point. I think that I am more rational, or at least more controlled in expressing my emotions, compared to my religious family members. Do the writers here feel the same way? Why did that happen?
AcesLucky - I have a feeling that you are right. But - Iran wouldn't be near getting the bomb, and Pakistan wouldn't have it, if they don't have scientists making them. Are those scientists beleivers? Or stuck in a bad place? Or nationalists? I have no idea.
Kenneth - I have never read either of those works. I have read a bit about European inquisitions. And Chinese. There is no limit to human cruelty in the name of religion, or ideology.
BDWS - I've also known a number of religious scientists. That gets us back to compartmentalization, if not in different sections of the brain, at least in different sections of the thought process.
Compartmentalization is a social, not neurological problem. Rationalism and irrationalism are inextricably intertwined in modern society, as are specialization and the division of labor. Fragmented society ridden with contradictions engenders people embodying those very qualities. Modern science broke out of the feudal pattern led by the carrot of the mastery of nature. But what about the mastery of social organization, of culture and the totality of human life?
Before I would accept the assertion of any survey, especially one conducted or endorsed by BlackPlanet.com, I would have to see the data. How did the surveyor(s) determine the definition of a scientist? Were they qualified to make this determination? How reliable was their cross section? After scrutinizing the answers to questions like these, the report may not even deserve any serious attention.
I think part of the answer as to why an objective scientist might embrace a particular religion might have its roots in basic human vanity. It can be very unsettling to resign oneself to the "fact" that this person that I've come to know and love as "me," will perish and never be heard from again. Some of the major religious syndicates offer a way out of this impending oblivion...just a thought. For those that are interested, I have a blog page; http://hamptonroads.com/blogs/african-american-agnostic. I would appreciate any type of feedback from the people that contribute this forum, I'm happy to have found this site.
Where did they get their numbers? All of the reports I've seen show that of all scientists, ALL, less than 3% are believers in the Christian god. When these numbers come out, it is always smart to find out who wrote the article, who they included as "scientists," and who paid for the research. WHen I see trhese kind of figures immediately think religion and I am right 99% of the time.