Ninety five percent of our best biologists reject the Delusion - but not 100%. OUR LATEST SURVEY FINDS THAT, AMONG THE TOP NATURAL SCIENTISTS, DISBELIEF IS GREATER THAN EVER â ALMOST TOTAL. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_fs.html http://ncseweb.org/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
well the same study is quoted in other places is quoted as saying about 40%. one issues seems to be greater scientists vs scientists and one of your links said this.... the percentage of "yes" answers in 1998 is strikingly lower than that in 1914. Does this mean that fewer scientists believe in God? Not necessarily. Consider how specific this question is. To answer "yes" to this question, one would have to believe that God is not only in communication with humankind, which many religious people do believe, but that God is in both intellectual and effective communication. What is the meaning of "intellectual" communication? "Effective" communication? Someone who believed that God communicated with humankind but not "intellectually" (whatever that means) would have to answer "no." Is "effective" used in the modern sense of the word meaning "something that works well", or in the more archaic (1914) use of the term meaning "to bring about"? Do scientists reading this question today interpret it in the same way as those in 1914? The clause about answering prayers is also problematic.There are schools of theology that hold that God is personal in the sense of watching over and caring for humankind, but nonetheless, does not answer prayers. We do not know whether members of the general public would respond similarly or differently than scientists do to this definition of God: we do know that there is a wide variety of definitions of God. the percentage of "yes" answers in 1998 is strikingly lower than that in 1914. Does this mean that fewer scientists believe in God? Not necessarily. Consider how specific this question is. To answer "yes" to this question, one would have to believe that God is not only in communication with humankind, which many religious people do believe, but that God is in both intellectual and effective communication. What is the meaning of "intellectual" communication? "Effective" communication? Someone who believed that God communicated with humankind but not "intellectually" (whatever that means) would have to answer "no." Is "effective" used in the modern sense of the word meaning "something that works well", or in the more archaic (1914) use of the term meaning "to bring about"? Do scientists reading this question today interpret it in the same way as those in 1914? The clause about answering prayers is also problematic.There are schools of theology that hold that God is personal in the sense of watching over and caring for humankind, but nonetheless, does not answer prayers. We do not know whether members of the general public would respond similarly or differently than scientists do to this definition of God: we do know that there is a wide variety of definitions of God.
I know. Infuriating isn't it? First one gets nonsensical superstitious ideas put in one's head about an imaginary magical sky God creator. Then all it takes is one of destroyers grey bunny rabbits or an ordinary dumb puddle to come along, and the invisible Father in the Firmament gets rendered superfluous. What a bummer.
You need to get a sense of humour, Mr. Creationist. I am human, obviously I have emotion, and am not some sort of "zen master". My point was that neither you, nor this discussion, are important enough to bring out my emotional side.
Note: I am not a 5000 year old earth Creationist. I have no idea why the evangelicals think a catholic monk could count generations and guess how old the earth was. especially when they know generations are not all accounted for. However, I do believe in the God of the bible and that you can know who he is is by seeing that he fulfills his promises to the Isrealites and that he had a plan even for your salvation. I am not so sure about Stu... just kidding.