Roughly 40% of scientists are believers I think I remember reading (roughly the same as at the turn of the last century as well). You’re right - that’s a lot, though it’s a very course statistic if treating ‘believer’ as a binary response. I can’t remember which bucket that would have put Einstein in, for example.
To add to prior lists …
Particle physicist and priest, John Polkinghorne: “Belief in God in an Age of Science” or “Science and Theology”
For the last century if I remember correctly, 54% of nobels in scientific matters were specifically Christians, not even theists or deists.
Just made a research and it turns out that I was actually being conservative
“Given the focus on the sciences, one would expect atheists and agnostics would form the greatest percentage of Nobel Prize winners over the last century. Below are the surprising facts:
Over 65% of Nobel Prize winners identified as Christian. And, among the science awards, Christians received 64% in physics, 65% in medicine, and 74% in chemistry.
Twenty percent were Jewish, yet .02% of the world’s population is Jewish.
Less than one percent were Muslim, yet 20% of the world’s population is Muslim.
Just less than 11% were atheists or agnostics. Further, 35% of those who won were in the field of literature, with scientific awards being only a fraction (7% chemistry, 9% medicine, and 5% physics).”
…and yet we are rightly cautioned by passages you yourself posted against trying to find any significance or solace in any such numbers.
Your best move would be to ditch whatever feeds or sources that keep referring you to such reactionary or sensationalist sources, and instead get your reading lists from more spiritually mature places. (And this very thread includes a lot of that.). The more you take in well considered work, you’ll be less swayed and alarmed by all the whimsical gusts of current culture or living by fearful (or triumphalist) glances towards popularity polls. Those are not reliable pointers towards truth, as we should know very well by now here in the U.S.
Absolutely, which is why I regard the fact that there are so many Christian scientists as nothing short of a miracle, as I said, and I wasn’t writing that metaphorically.
I don’t see it as something normal at all.
It’s not a question of reactionary sources, the question is whether those data are true or not. If they are, I believe that it’s a very powerful sign from God.
Wikipedia gives similar figures regarding the percentage of Christians in those fields:
“By one estimate made by Weijia Zhang from Arizona State Universityand Robert G. Fuller from University of Nebraska–Lincoln, between 1901 and 1990, 60% of Nobel Prize in Physics winners had Christian backgrounds.[2] In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901 and 2000, about 65.3% of Physics Nobel prize winners were either Christians or had a Christian background.[1] ”
So I see no reason to discard those data simply because they go against the spirit of the age, which likes to suggest that only the uneducated can be Christians (A prominent Italian scientist, Piergiorgio Odifreddi, has even gone so far as to call Christians “cretins”)
Either the data are accurate or they are not. And if they are not, then that should be proven.
I believe Christians should stop being so accommodating to the spirit of the age and stop conceding the high ground to atheists claims even when said high ground is non existent.
In case anyone thinks I’m exaggerating, here is the translation (from this “Perché non possiamo essere cristiani” (e meno che mai cattolici) | Recensione link)
“Long awaited after the great success of The Impertinent Mathematician, Piergiorgio Odifreddi’s book on Christianity has finally appeared. From its very title, the volume invokes Bertrand Russell—another logician and mathematician, as chance would have it—and, in an obviously negative judgment, Benedetto Croce, who bears responsibility for a text (Why We Cannot But Call Ourselves Christians, 1942) that has by now become the mantra of those who champion the Christian roots of Italy and Europe.
This time, however, the impertinent mathematician has given way to the conscientious logician. Much as Isaac Asimov once did in In the Beginning, analyzing Genesis as though it were a scientific text, Odifreddi now examines above all the internal coherence of the Holy Scriptures, as well as of the dogmas distilled from them by the various Christian confessions. Rather than biblical criticism, one should therefore speak of textual criticism, embodied here in a work that might almost be called an exercise in secular exegesis, insofar as it approaches the text as though it were being read for the first time. This is why the quotations and notes are drawn almost exclusively from Scripture itself.
In orderly and methodical sequence, the Old Testament, the New Testament, Christianity, and Catholicism are all put through the grinder. All in all, though, with less impertinence and disdain than some had feared—or hoped for—even if the volume opens with a chapter entitled Christians and Cretins (a pairing, moreover, with a certain etymological justification). The Bible is described as an account of ‘the petty quarrels of a people of Middle Eastern shepherds from three thousand years ago’: books steeped in violence, to the point that ‘the number of victims attributable to good old Yahweh, from Lot’s wife to Saul, comes to 770,359 people, give or take a few errors and omissions,’ as the meticulous professor dutifully notes. This circumstance provides good reason to ask ‘why the one dictating [the Holy Scriptures] would ever have wanted so many things to be written down that, as we have begun to note and will continue to note, are scientifically wrong, logically contradictory, historically false, humanly foolish, ethically reprehensible, literarily ugly, and stylistically slapdash, instead of simply inspiring a work that was correct, consistent, true, intelligent, just, beautiful, and straightforward.’
Why indeed? Because all sacred texts inevitably reflect the political, economic, social, and cultural conditions of the communities that produced them. Or rather, of the elites that produced them. Even the New Testament is no exception to this observation, especially where Jesus says to his disciples: ‘To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the others only in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’ The author’s commentary is scathing: ‘according to Yahweh’s twisted logic […] his word must therefore not be understood, so that on the one hand he may perversely rage against his people for failing to understand […] and on the other hand he may then magnanimously forgive and heal them. This twisted logic is thus inherited by his Son as well, or whoever stands in for him, who speaks in parables so that people cannot understand him, in order that the prophecies may be fulfilled.’
The inevitable consequence, the author argues, is that Christianity reveals itself to be ‘a religion of illiterate cretins,’ unworthy ‘of human rationality and intelligence.’ ‘We cannot be Christians, still less Catholics,’ he declares forcefully, ‘if at the same time we wish to be rational and honest. Reason and ethics are in fact incompatible with the theory and practice of Christianity.’ “
There is no position that has “just the facts”. There is no “just the data”. All data is curated to you, and it is significant which curators you choose to pay attention to. Yes - some sides disregard and deny a lot more data than other sides, and that should be noted. But all sides will choose which data is important and which to leave out. In my case, I’m not disputing the accuracy of what you’re claiming. I just don’t buy into its relevance - even if it’s true. That six out of ten people in some room or even the entire nation turn out to prefer president ‘x’ is not a sign from God that ‘x’ is God’s chosen one. That should be abundantly clear by now.
I don’t think I’ve ever said (or even implied) otherwise. But it does highlight the absolute idiocy of idiots who claim that only stupid or ignorant people can be theists or Christians.
The foolishness of that claim is already obvious enough, but I can assure you that the notion that “thinking people” don’t believe in God (let alone in Christianity) has carried enormous weight in the eyes of much of the Western public over the past six decades or so.
I was just reacting to your apparent preoccupation with how well Christians are represented among any given admirable professions or award winners. I’m glad you agree that truth is not determined by vote - or even representation among the estimable. I guess there are situations where that could be very relevant. But in matters of faith, I hope I wouldn’t lean on that very much.
Absolutely. Truth would be truth even if the entire world didn’t recognize it.
The religious or Christians have no exclusive claim to foolishness or stupid claims. When I first started using forums it was atheist forums I gravitated to where the stupidity and meanness were rampant. Sure I hadn’t found a way to makes sense of many religious positions then and so they seemed simple minded. But the net gain for me was seeing how foolish and pigheaded the ones on my side could be. Eventually I think we all recoil more from those closest to our own position who behave badly or communicate dishonestly. That helped to propel me away from atheism early on to agnosticism which I still endorse along with everything else I believe.
Eventually I realized the way atheism is framed, though dishonest, made it seem compelling to claim. I mean do you or do you not believe in supernatural beings? If not then supposedly that consigned me to their club. It was only after reading The Matter With Things which makes a strong case against reductive materialism that I could get out from under the attraction to physicalism. The final chapter is on The Sense of the Sacred which should convince any humanities major that ‘supernatural beings’ is a woefully distorted accounting of what is sacred.
When he walks you through the range of conceptions of God it becomes pretty clear that there are many with some appeal which any fair minded person could find use for provided they can get out from under physicalism and the ridiculous idea that the methodology of science is what should determine what one can believe in every aspect of life. Now I have a strong attraction to the notion of God and soul but I still have no inclination to trade the open reflection which got me there for the easy answers of any institutional doctrine.
I could argue I am a Christian in the way Rob is (or was?) on the basis of my appreciation of some of the insights inherent to the Christian mythos - but why bother swimming up stream against all the resentment which meets anyone who doesn’t bend the knee all the way. I’ll just be grateful that it is there with its riches for all to partake in even without joining up. I suppose a community of likeminded has some appeal but the constant struggle to hear your own drummer would nix it for me. I think I prefer a Christian adjacent position without going all in.
In my experience, religious fundamentalists (young-earth creationists, for example, if we are speaking specifically about Christianity) and materialists often display the same degree of stupidity and fanaticism. The real problem is that philosophical materialism enjoys a level of credibility and cultural prestige that it doesn’t deserve in the slightest, largely because secularists have gained the upper hand in shaping mainstream opinion and defining the boundaries of what is taken to be common sense, especially in Western Europe.
And the so-called Enlightenment played a major role in bringing about this situation. Mind you, I’m not saying that the Enlightenment was simply absent from America; it was present in both worlds.
The difference is that, in Western Europe, the Enlightenment more often developed into a broad cultural and intellectual challenge to traditional religious authority, whereas in the United States it was absorbed more selectively, above all into political and constitutional thought. In Europe, by contrast, Enlightenment ideals were frequently linked to anticlericalism and to the effort to push religion out of the center of public life, and that mattered enormously, because in Western Europe secularization didn’t mean only private doubt or declining belief; it also meant the gradual transfer of moral, intellectual, educational, and political authority away from the Church and toward the state, the university, the press, and secular public reason.
By contrast, the United States integrated Enlightenment thought in a less anticlerical and less culturally totalizing way and, while Enlightenment ideas helped shape American constitutionalism, the language of rights, and political theory, they did not displace religion to the same extent, and American society remained deeply marked by Christian culture and by the enduring public legitimacy of religion.
What I’m saying is that the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment elites in Europe often treated religion not merely as something to be reformed, but as something to be domesticated, privatized, and intellectually superseded. That is why elements like Clowndifreddi are able to make such outrageous claims, and why views of that sort are becoming increasingly mainstream. I am only 36, and I constantly see that people who are just ten years younger than I am, give or take, have often not so much rejected the faith as simply never received it in the first place. My fianceé and soon-to-be-wife, for example, is twenty-four, and she confirms exactly this; we have spoken about it many times. And i’ve personally known many who don’t even know the “our Father”.
Europe is gradually becoming mission territory again (and as I said multiple times I believe that we are in the early stage of the great apostasy predicted in the Scripture, with Europe being the first to fall and the rest of the world will follow suit in the next few centuries, two or three centuries at most, if my estimation is correct, before the entire world will be ready for what will happen, with the man of lawlessness and the second coming). And I am not speaking here only of Europe in general, but of Italy itself: the lion’s den of Christianity. If Italy is in this condition, one can imagine the rest of Western Europe. Spoiler alert: it’s much worse.
You are quite right to call it a ridiculous idea; and yet it is so widespread that there is hardly even any contest, even among religious people, many of whom seem to believe that their faith has nothing to say about reality and can only be held privately, as a kind of strange or even vaguely embarrassing belief. In this age of post-truth, unfortunately, narrative matters far more than truth.
I respect the fact that you are, as you put it, “ a whateverist, not a Christian”, but Bob made specific claims, for example, about the Resurrection, arguing that it was a later theological construct. Now, anyone is free to believe whatever he wishes, but that particular claim is objectively false and falls squarely within one of my areas of expertise, so to speak. One cannot make such a claim and then expect it not to be challenged.
This is not a matter of being “aggressive” or anything of the sort. Specific claims can sometimes be right, sometimes wrong, and sometimes the correct judgment is non liquet. But when they are plainly wrong they have to be addressed, otherwise we only reinforce this culture of post-truth, in which truth no longer matters and everything is reduced to pure subjectivism and to whichever narrative one happens to find most appealing.
A building may be delightful to look at, but if it has no firm foundation it will go to ruin.
It seems that one of Rob’s main arguments is that if some idea makes people feel better it has truth value. But continuing to dance in the ballroom on a sinking ship will not avoid the disaster.
Part of the message framing the Gospel is that things are bad, that we need a Savior. Rob’s position seems to be that things aren’t actually bad and no Savior is needed.
I submit that this is not an intelligent path because it operates by denying foundational questions.
Exactly.
Rationally, if there is anything real about what we call “spiritual”, that thing must have a Source. The sensible way to learn proper spirituality, then, is to seek what that Source has communicated – because if the Source has not communicated, It is not worthy of our attention.
So true.
If a ship is sinking, is it more important to get passengers to understand each other or to get across the fact that the ship is sinking?
Getting people to understand each other is useless unless there is a focus on truth.
But those are dumb ideas if you listen to Jesus.
But I don’t believe God has given us sinking ships. His good creation is one which is always becoming. Whether or in what sense we as individuals with a set of memories and dispositions continue on beyond isn’t knowable for us. We can all form an opinion about that or even one which best fits with all our other most strongly held beliefs.
But calling out that the ship is sinking is a little like yelling fire in a theater. Isn’t there a danger that someone might panic and loosen their grip on their own beliefs? Why should they abandon what has been given to them to believe just because you hold different ones?
Did you catch the quote Merv shared in Pithy Quotes?
Only if you choose not to trust Jesus’ words and the testimonies about Him. That is certainly possible, but it is not true to say that these things are unknowable to us. They become unknowable only if we reject the revelation given in Jesus’ life.
Furthermore, if there is a God, but He does not care about us or preserve us in any meaningful way, then even His existence would not matter, because He wouldn’t be worthy of adoration. A God who places us in a world full of pain, trouble, unavoidable loss, and decay, only to allow us to fall into eternal oblivion, wouldn’t be a God I could worship. In fact, I would rather worship whatever spiritual being opposed Him.
A relationship has to be mutual, and I would want no part in a deity who creates human beings only to let them suffer and then either perish into eternal oblivion or be recycled into other lives with no memory of the present one. For our current self, that would amount, for all practical purposes, to secular annihilation. It would make no real difference. If “I,” in another life, had been a pirate, a saint, or a Pope, that person would now be entirely dead and nonexistent, exactly as if secular annihilation were true.
If there is a God, but He doesn’t truly care for me and my loved ones, and instead allows us either to perish forever or to be recycled like plastic, then He is not a deity to be adored, but an enemy to be opposed. I love God because He loved me first. And how do I know that He loved me? Because of Jesus ( and also because of some of my own experiences, though that is beside the point).
If your beliefs give you a meaningful life worth living I’m happy for you. I have no opinion about your beliefs but am happy with mine.
And that’s fine, Mark.
Ted was a professor of the history of science at Messiah College.
The doctrine of the Trinity isn’t specifically spelled out in the Bible. It’s a theological conclusion that seems inescapable from the statements of scripture, even if it’s a logical paradox, just like the divinity of Christ.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.