-Caveat Lector-
from: AMERICAN ATHEISTS
subject: AANEWS for August 24, 1999
A M E R I C A N A T H E I S T S
#629~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 8/24/99
http://www.atheists.org
ftp.atheists.org/pub/atheists/
http://www.americanatheist.org
---------------------------------------------
A Service of AMERICAN ATHEISTS
"Leading The Way For Atheist Civil Rights
And The Separation Of State and Church"
----------------------------------------------
In This Issue...
* Scientific American article likely to ignite debate, controversy
* Atheist group organizing in Union County, N.J.
* Resources
* About this list...
GOD AND THE SCIENTISTS: A NEW DEBATE, AN OLD QUESTION
Over a year after being reported in the media, a study measuring the
attitudes of leading scientists on the question of the existence of a
god has found its way into the pages of Scientific American magazine.
The September issue of the prestigious publication featured a piece,
"Scientists and Religion in America" by Edward J. Larson and Larry
Witham, which includes findings reported last year in the journal
Nature. That article stimulated another round of debate within
scientific, religious and philosophical circles over the implications
of scientific findings for theology, and was even denounced by U.S.
Congressman James Traficant (D-Ohio) who charged that "super smart"
scientists not believing in God "cannot find the toilet."
Larson is the Richard B. Russell Professor of History and Law at the
University of Georgia, and won the 1998 Pulitzer Prize in history for
book "Summer for the Gods" (Basic Books, Harper Collins, 1997), an
account of the infamous Scopes evolution trial. Witham is an author
and religion reporter for the Washington Times newspaper.
Last year, the pair announced results of a study which replicated
surveys made in 1913 and 1933 by sociologist James H. Leuba that
measured attitudes within the scientific community concerning the
existence of a deity. Leuba had reported a decline in personal belief
among scientists in a "God in intellectual and affective communication
with humankind" from 27.7% in the 1913 study to only 15% by 1933.
"Disbelief" rose from 52.7% to 68%, and "doubt or agnosticism" fell
slightly from 20.9% to 17%. The 1998 Larson-Witham study which
replicated Leuba's work found "Personal belief" in a deity at only 7%,
while "Personal disbelief" had risen to 72.2%, and "Doubt or
Agnosticism" to 20.8%.
The survey measured attitudes among members of the prestigious
National Academy of Sciences. Witham and Larson noted:
"Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was
65.2% and 69.0% respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was
79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with
few believers. 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)."
But this profound disbelief doesn't appear to reflect the pop-culture
sense that, somehow, science and religion are moving toward a
convergence or reconciliation of some sort. Writing in Astronomy
magazine, for instance, Dr. Victor Stenger of the University of
Hawaii explored the volley of claims being made in support of such a
view, such as the July 20, 1998 Newsweek issue which announced:
"SCIENCE FINDS GOD." Indeed, participants at a conference "Science
and the Spiritual Quest" organized by the Center for Theology and
Science (which also included theologians) expressed the view that, as
Stenger observed, "science and religion are now converging, and what
they are converging on is God."
And the Newsweek essay advanced the dubious claim that while "The
achievements of modern science seem to contradict religion and
undermine faith ... for a growing number of scientists, the same
discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints at the very
nature of God."
Is this really accurate?
George Johnson noted in the New York Times that "religious believers
seem more eager than ever to step over the line, trying to interpret
scientific data to support the revealed truths of their own theology."
Examples can be found in augments claiming that the cosmos is "custom
made" or "designed" for consciousness, or that the Big Bang "proves"
that a creator initiated a sequence of titanic cosmic events. One
incentive for this is the lucrative Templeton Prize for Progress in
religion, established in 1972 by mutual funds wizard John Templeton.
Under the terms governing the Foundation awarding the cash prize, it
must always be in excess of any other annual prize for strictly
scientific achievements. In 1999, Minnesota physicist and theologian
Ian Barbour -- a former pupil of Enrico Fermi and a graduate of the
Yale Divinity School -- won the $1.24 million award. "There is a new
interest in religion," Barbour told the Ottawa Citizen newspaper,
"because scientists who have been looking at the Big Bang find it
raises questions that cannot be fully answered within science."
Another Templeton winner is Paul Davies, Professor of Theoretical
Physics at the University of Newcastle, and author of numerous works
such as "God and the New Physics" and "The Cosmic Blueprint." Davies
is one of a small but vocal group of scientists who claim that
findings in astrophysics, cosmology and related areas allow them to
get beyond the thicket of traditional theological arguments, and
produce direct evidence for some kind of intelligent design -- and a
designer -- in the universe. "The very fact that the universe is
creative," insists Davies, "and that the laws have permitted complex
structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness -- in
other words, that the universe has organized its own self awareness --
is for me powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind
it all. The impression of design is overwhelming..."
If Davies is right, though, and if the "impression" of intelligent
design -- in other words, God -- is "overwhelming," more scientists
should be reaching the same kind of conclusion. They aren't, at least
according to Leuba and, more recently, the survey taken by Larson and
Witham. The latter went to considerable length to precisely duplicate
Leuba's earlier techniques, and their Scientific American piece gropes
for answers to explain what clearly is a trend away from God belief
and toward atheism within the highest echelons of America's scientific
community.
The Larson-Witham study presents a somewhat different picture, though,
when one examines the broader scientific community, not just the
National Academy of Science. The pair, following Leuba method and
earlier work, surveyed "a random sample of biological and physical
scientists (the latter included mathematicians) listed in the standard
reference work American Men and Women of Science..." Four in 10 of
those responding to Leuba's original survey believed in a God, and
today the figure hovers around the 40% mark. In Leuba's time, about
50% of that cohort believed in an afterlife, but in the Larson-Witham
survey, that figure declined to about 40%. Indeed, disbelief seems
more pronounced among what Leuba defined as the "greater" scientists,
reaching the 90% mark in the new study. "NAS biologists are the most
skeptical," notes Larson and Witham, "with 95% of our respondents
(NAS) evincing atheism and agnosticism." Similarly, as intellectual
historian Paul K. Conkin observes, "Today the higher the educational
attainment, or the higher the scores earned on intelligence or
achievement tests, the less likely are individuals to be Christians."
Musing about the implications of black holes or dark matter may be
intellectually safe, but Larson and Witham note that with the ongoing
debate over evolution, the biological sciences are more of a political
minefield. Noting that "Disbelief and belief have often become a
major public relations issue for science in religious America," the
pair attempt to explore the touchy subject of human origins, and how
scientists respond. Dr. William B. Provine, an outspoken
evolutionist and atheist, recalls, "I asked some people at the NAS why
they don't have a section on evolution... Too controversial." The
recent decision by the Kansas Board of Education to not require that
evolution be presented to students as factual, and to allow discussion
of Christian creationism or even new age accounts on how life and the
universe began, suggests that the subject remains controversial and
volatile.
If there is a downside to the Witham-Larson study as presented in
Scientific American, though, it is the suggestion that maybe, just
maybe, this disbelief among the "greater" cohort of scientific
intellectuals is due a process of subtle selection. "Are the deepest
contemporary scientific minds drawn to atheism, or do the higher
echelons of academia select for the trait of disbelief?" they ask.
Matthew Cartmill, president of the American Association of Physical
Anthropologists is quoted: "Many scientists are atheists or agnostics
who want to believe that the natural world they study is all there is,
and being only human, they try to persuade themselves that science
gives them the grounds for that belief..."
"It's an honest belief," he told Discover magazine, "but it isn't a
research finding." Larson and Witham then go on to discuss the 1997
symposium of the Society for Neuroscience where the so-called "God
module" was the hot topic of discussion, "a spot in the brain that
apparently produces religious feelings."
So, Larson and Witham -- and those like Cartmill who make similar
statements -- thus buy into a kind of one-sided postmodernism. The
claims of the Templeton winners, scientists like Paul Davies, are
provocative enough to be taken seriously -- maybe, just maybe there is
indeed this grand reconciliation between the frontiers of science and
theological doctrine. Those who "believe" in atheism -- a system of
thought that is actually more of a lack of belief in the supernatural
-- are thus presented as "cobelievers" of a sort. Unlike Leuba, or
even Larson and Witham when confining themselves to replicating the
earlier surveys, there is no statistical evidence to profile these
alleged scientists so enthralled by their disbelief that they,
presumably, filter and selectively distort any experimental evidence.
Larson and Witham also argue that "Concern for the environment has
provided common ground for nonbelievers, humanist scientists and
liberal religionists," and note Carl Sagan's 1990 open letter
"welcoming and challenging the religious community to get on board the
movement to save the planet."
"The next year Sagan stood beside a robed Episcopal bishop in
Manhattan Cathedral of St. John the Divine as they co-chaired the
joint appeal by science and religion for the environment."
There may be a convergence of common interests here, but it is not
clear that "welcoming and challenging the religious community" to add
their voice to the complex debate over environmental issues is either
practical or can result in greater understanding. Sagan was taken to
task for some of the conclusions he advanced; and any scientist steps
into precarious territory when trying to use academic expertise from
one area to argue facts -- and social policy -- in another. William
Shockley helped to invent the transistor, but advanced bogus arguments
about ethnicity and intelligence. Linus Pauling became a torchbearer
on behalf of hyperbolic claims touting the ubiquitous benefits of
vitamin C. Indeed, though Sagan remains a hero to many skeptics and
atheists, he may well have succumbed to the old "argument from
authority" pitfall when using his credentials and status as a public
celebrity to opine beyond his areas of competence and expertise.
Finally, building on the earlier work by Leuba, Witham and Larson
construct a hierarchy or spectrum which describes the gradations of
attitudes scientists appear to have in respect to religious belief.
There are those who embrace intelligent design and 'theistic science,"
and those who agree with Provine, that the universe is, essentially,
all there is and lacks transcendent purpose. There are also those who
see Darwinian evolution as "a rich resource for seeking a theistic
presence in their lives," by accepting a "young earth" or even "old
earth" scenario, the latter obviously more at home with the vast body
of evidence in support of a Darwinian model. "A few flood geologists
with secular doctorates in science" populate one corner of this
creationist universe, while "the old-earth camp wants to convert such
people to ancient time, to work together on poking holes in orthodox,
neo-Darwinian evolution, which they find implicitly atheistic."
Witham and Larson should have cited both "camps" for their attempt to
impose a theological construct on a body of physical evidence --
something they seem to accuse the "atheistic" scientists of the NAS of
doing.
Following this segue into the various nuances and positions which
constitute the continuum of opinion scientists have on the question of
god, Witham and Larson then launch into their own questionable
summation. Thanks to the influence of Templeton and the rise of what
they term" postmodern relativism," they insist that "many on both
sides now sound willing to admit limits to their way of knowing."
That may be true of those leaning toward atheism, for even scientists
(and nonscientists) who stop short of the "hard atheism" of Provine
often admit that they do not have and may never possess those answers
to the "ultimate questions" once considered only the province of
eschatology and theology. Can Davies, or Barbour or the other
champions of "intelligent design" say the same?
Concluding, the Scientific American authors do reveal, however, a
poignant fact of intellectual life in the midst of the divisive and
heated culture wars. They observe that "some politically savvy
scientists recognize the value in downplaying the negative
implications for the supernatural that arise from their study of the
natural." Even coming from Witham and Larson, the statement is
prescient in light of another study being released this month which
shows that Americans have a significantly stronger belief in
supernatural teachings, including the existence of a deity, than our
European counterparts. Dr. George Bishop of the University of
Cincinnati noted astonishing high percentages of respondents in the
United States who believed in "theistic evolution," or rejected any
form of evolutionary mechanism in order to explain the origins of
life. Groping for explanations, Bishop suggested the existence of a
vigorous belief-bazaar where a slew of different religions compete for
followers, and a "spiral of silence," a climate where people with
atheist or agnostic viewpoints are reluctant to state their views in
public."
The new Scientific American article is sure to prompt further discussion and
controversy in a debate which has raged for decades. It could, for
good or bad, suggest that intellectual elites are far more skeptical
of religious belief than the average person. Indeed, Americans
reflect a marked ambivalence about science, trusting and indeed even
enthusiastically embracing its practical uses, while still clinging to
doctrines which many scientists argue have little or any basis in
fact.
**
NEW JERSEY GROUP ORGANIZING IN UNION COUNTY
Those AANEWS readers living in the Newark, N.J. metropolitan area may
want to check out a new Atheist/Freethought group being organized by
Joe Zamecki. Just drop the Dunkin Donuts at Elmora/439 and Grand
Avenue, or visit the group's new web site at
http://www.angelfire.com/nj2/atheists -- or contact Joe directly
through [EMAIL PROTECTED] The group meets at the Dunkin Donuts every
Sunday at 11:00 a.m.
**
RESOURCES FROM AMERICAN ATHEISTS...
* For information about American Atheists, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Please include your name and postal mailing
address.
* For a free catalogue of American Atheist Press books, videos and
other products, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kindly include
your postal mailing address.
* The American Atheist Magazine is now on the web! Check out select
articles from the current or back issues, as well as special web-only
features. Visit us at http://www.americanatheist.org
* If you are a current member of American Atheists, sign up for our
e-mail discussion group, aachat. We have over 120 participants who
discuss topics such as Atheism, religion, First Amendment issues and
lots more! Contact Margie Wait, the Moderator, through
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ABOUT THIS LIST...
AANEWS is a free service from American Atheists, a nationwide movement
founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair for the advancement of Atheism, and
the total, absolute separation of government and religion.
You may forward, post or quote from this dispatch, provided that
appropriate credit is given to AANEWS and American Atheists. Edited
by Conrad Goeringer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Representative for
American Atheists is Margie Wait, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
