Talk:God/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

How many scientists

Should the text say "many" scientists or just "some". Well, the text goes on:

"For example, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of deities in 1996."

So that leaves 40%, which is a big percentage. Note however that this only refers to the United States.

"Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 93% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998."

Here we are left with 7%, which is a small percentage. However, note that this refes both to the US and one spectrum of scientists (leading scientists).

So we have a large percentage of US scientists and a small percentage of leading US scientists believe in God.

Both numbers refer only to the US, so it cannot serve as a basis for whether there are generally many theist scientists in the world.

And more general, in absolute numbers there are many theist scientists even in the US. Our sentence did not refer to precentages.

There is no reason to replace "many" with "some". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

there is an excellent reason not to replace "some" with "many", and you have given it above. We don't know precisely; it is clear it is not a majority (even a bare majority); hence "some" which does not speculate on the percentage at all, but leaves it open. You need to strongly support a value weighting such as "many" in order for it to be in the article - as would anyone wanting to replace "some" with "few". KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with KC. The term "many" is undefined and speculative in this context; the term "some" is accurate and not at all problematic. Balance, accuracy, and NPOV guidelines would all support the use of "some" in this instance. Doc Tropics 19:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the placement of the NPOV tag. The minor change in text is both more accurate and less POV. Using proper terminology is certanly not inherently POV. I'll remove the tag for now; if you wish to replace it again, please provide a convincing justification for it. Thanks. Doc Tropics 19:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The change is not more accurate, as I explained above. In absolute numbers "many" is absolutely correct. I agree that we can't speculate on the percentage but I am not convinced of the value of percentages here, as if majorities mattered in this. To me "some" needlessly belittles the actual numbers of scientists that do believe in some form of God. And the numbers given, as I pointed out, are focusing on the US of A - why should we base ourselves on that? And if we do, we must acknowledge it and not extrapolate from American figures to a general statement about some and many. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this may actually be a moot point. After reviewing the refs cited for this para, I think it needs significant rewrite. The numbers quoted on this page don't seem to represent an accurate reflection of the information cited. I will post a possible "new version" here for community review shortly. Doc Tropics 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Some quotes from Darwin may be good for this section - notably I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars. regarding the problem of evil with regard to biology/evolution, and perhaps the difficulties with the Bible with regard to the Age of the Earth etc, which he also discusses in Origin of Species. Richard001 10:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalization

Wasn't there a guy who vandalized this page? What did he do to it? PNI 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Given how often this article is vandalized, you might need to be a bit more specific : ) Doc Tropics 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Perspectives

I had noticed that the last para of this section doesn't seem to accurately reflect its own references. I've made a brief rewrite and I'll post both versions here consecutively for review and comments. I've removed all the actual refs from both of these versions, just so it doesn't muck up the format of the talkpage. I know my prose isn't grand, my spelling is atroshus, and this could use a bit more work. However, I do feel that it more accurately depicts the original publication that it refs. I could have included quite a bit more of the original material, but that didn't seem to be either necessary or desireable (this whole section is a brief mention in a long article; no need to add to it unduly). Doc Tropics 22:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Original version

On a personal level, some scientists believe in God (whether in a non-interventionist or otherwise) and many others do not. For example, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of deities in 1996. This percentage has been fairly stable over the last 100 years. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 93% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998. Sigmund Freud regarded God as wish fulfillment for the perfect father figure. This however is an argument from motive.

Proposed version

In the last 100 years there has been much debate regarding the religious beliefs of scientists. After a U.S. survey conducted in 1998 which indicated that only 7% of National Academy of Sciences respondents professed a belief in God, the author concluded "...among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever - almost total." Mathematicians were the most likely to profess such a belief (14.3%), followed by physicists and astronomers (7.5%). Among biological scientists, only 5.5% responded that they believed in God. Sigmund Freud regarded God as "wish fulfillment for the perfect father figure"; this however, is an argument from motive.

Comments

I like the proposed version, but I am curious about the source for the 60% figure. Guettarda 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Same here - whatever we have, we need to source the statistics. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you follow the ref-link in the main article, the numbers are all from the same source, but there were 4 different surveys discussed, and the numbers in our original para were (literally) a mixed bag of results ranging from circa 1914 to 1998. The numbers that I cite in the "proposed" version are all from the same survey (the latest), which seems a more accurate usage. Thanks for some positive input; let's wait a bit for other comments and see what happens. Doc Tropics 02:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the "last 100 years" - could we rephrase? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be better without mention of the time period, or simply rephrased like this perhaps:

• With the increasing prominence of the natural sciences since the mid-19th century, there has been much debate regarding the religious beliefs of scientists.

Did I go the wrong way, or is that an improvement? Doc Tropics 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement. Guettarda 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps simply "There has been much debate..." without going into time span or increasing prominence of natural sciences? I do prefer the rephrase without time span better. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This one is short and to the point, no extraneous material. Doc Tropics 17:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• There has been significant debate regarding the religious beliefs of scientists. After a U.S. survey conducted in 1998 which indicated that only 7% of National Academy of Sciences respondents professed a belief in God, the author concluded "...among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever - almost total." Mathematicians were the most likely to profess such a belief (14.3%), followed by physicists and astronomers (7.5%). Among biological scientists, only 5.5% responded that they believed in God. Sigmund Freud regarded God as "wish fulfillment for the perfect father figure"; this however, is an argument from motive.

• It must be clear that the survey is only referring to the US. Though this is stated in the presentation of the survey, the conclusion doesn't mention this.
• Therefore there should be a general, introductory passage in the vain of the one that was first changed and then removed.
• There should be a split between the statistics and the Freud statement, as with this we are delving into actual arguments instead of simply reporting a present situation (even if the survey is limited.)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I agree that the transition to Freud is quite abrupt and moving the material into the first sentence would be a good idea. As for the extra emphasis on the "U.S." aspect of the survey, I'll incorporate the suggestion by a brief mention at the end:

• Sigmund Freud regarded God as "wish fulfillment for the perfect father figure", but this in itself is recognized as an argument from motive. However, there has been significant debate regarding the religious beliefs of scientists. After a U.S. survey conducted in 1998 which indicated that only 7% of National Academy of Sciences respondents professed a belief in God, the author concluded "...among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever - almost total." Mathematicians were the most likely to profess such a belief (14.3%), followed by physicists and astronomers (7.5%). Among U.S. biological scientists, only 5.5% responded that they believed in God.

Note that I've not re-incorporated the excised bit about "Some/many scientists believe...", that was one of the problems that this rewrite is trying to solve. For accuracy, any mention along those lines would need to be "A small minority of scientists believe...", so it seems better to avoid it. Doc Tropics 03:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This would still link Freud and the statistics.

I cannot agree with your take on the numbers, given the limited scope of the survey, but I am not sure on the whole, how the statistics relate to a "scientific perspective".

Also, I do not know why the same thought by Freud has to be covered twice, both in "theological" and the "scientific" section. Where shall it go?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't noticed the Freud statement in the "Theology" section. You're right, it certainly shouldn't be mentioned twice. It makes more sense to me to have the quote in the science section, because he was a neurologist and psychologist rather than a theologian, but I don't think it's a huge issue. The quote can go in either one and we'll just remove the other. Which section do you think it would fit better?

I'm not sure I understand your comment about the numbers and scope of the survey. Yes, it was a U.S. survey, not a global survey (I'm not aware of any global survey on this topic) but it included virtually all top U.S. scientists, over 700 members of the NAS, so I don't see it as being limited. Also, the text carefully (and repeatedly) points out that it was a "U.S. survey", so there is no possibility that it is misleading in any way.

• There has been significant debate regarding the religious beliefs of scientists. After a U.S. survey conducted in 1998 which indicated that only 7% of National Academy of Sciences respondents professed a belief in God, the author concluded "...among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever - almost total." Mathematicians were the most likely to profess such a belief (14.3%), followed by physicists and astronomers (7.5%). Among U.S. biological scientists, only 5.5% responded that they believed in God.

This version is relevant to the section, accurately written, and properly sourced. Any objections? Doc Tropics 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support this version. Also support removing Freud from theology, and keeping him here. Str is right, no need to have him twice. And Doc T is right, better in Science. We should also all keep our eyes open for data from other countries, this is a biased towards the US. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Though Freud is not a scientist in a narrow sense it makes more sense to have him here. As for the statistics, for me it is still too obscure that these are American figures. I know this now but readers would have to find out by following the National Academy link. Furthermore, the mentioning of the US only at the end, in reference to the biologists may suggest to the reader that the other figures are not based on the US alone. Finally, the wording formerly said that the NAoS figures was referring to top scientists, not scientists on the whole. If this is true, this should be made clear as well. Thanks. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent; there is general agreement that Freud belongs here, so that's something concret to work with. As for the figures, the fact that it is a U.S. survey is mentioned not once, but twice in 3 sentences, per your specific request; so I don't think that there could be any confusion on that point. Similarly, the quote provided specifically states "...among the top natural scientists..." (emphasis added), so it seems to be quite clear. Finally, regarding KC's suggestion to "...keep our eyes open for data from other countries", I completely agree. So far I was just trying to clarify the materail already present, but extra stats from other countries would be an excellent addition. Thanks to everyone for your participation and input so far : ) Doc Tropics 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, I've been re-reading the above, and think that perhaps I was misunderstanding your point. If you feel the latest proposal has shortcomings, perhaps it would help if you posted a rewrite of it? The numbers cited in this version are accurate, which was one of my major concerns, and I'm comfortable using any verbiage that is equally accurate. I think that we are close to something that would be mutually satisfactory; if you feel it would be more clear to phrase it differently, then I'd be happy to see a specific proposal. I'm looking forward to polishing this up and moving on : ) Doc Tropics 00:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Doc, I somehow overread the occurence of US at the start of the sentence. If you want a suggestion, this would be it:

There has been significant debate regarding the religious beliefs of scientists. After a 1998 survey on the beliefs of top U.S. scientists indicated that only 7% of National Academy of Sciences respondents professed a belief in God, the author concluded "...among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever - almost total." Mathematicians were the most likely to profess such a belief (14.3%), followed by physicists and astronomers (7.5%). Among biological scientists, only 5.5% responded that they believed in God.

Note, that this is my suggestion if we need these statistics at all. I still don't see how the statistics on the beliefs of a certain group of professions (in this case scientists) makes up for "scientific perspectives". (And I could wish for more comprenhesive surveys.) But be it as it may.

The Freudian passage belongs in the section but not in this paragraph. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Str1977, that looks good to me. I'm totally satisfied with the prose, and I spotted a better place to mention Freud in an earlier paragraph. Personally I tend to think the stats are relevant because they provide insight into how many scientists actually believe, but I agree that's not necessarily the same as "scientific perspectives". I'd like to include the material for now, but if there is ever a strong consensus that it just doesn't belong, we could certainly remove it. Since we seem to have a good general consensus at this point (KC and Guettarda previously agreed to a near-identical version of this), I'll go ahead and make the change. RL is busy for me today, but I'll also look for more comprehensive surveys when I have a chance. Please review once I've entered the new text; if there are any problems just revert my changes and let me know. Thanks! Doc Tropics 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your changes, Doc.

Though I maintain what I said about the stats I think that after scientism they are best placed, since (and that was my concern about them) their special mentioning are only valid under the premises of scientism (as we do not note the statistics among brick-layers, medical staff, farmers or other vocations).

Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Length of article

Does anyone else feel that this article is way too long? Olleicua 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, 36kb for a topic like this is actually very reasonable; it almost qualifies as a "brief overview" given the number of sub-topics. Doc Tropics 19:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Theos

I'm pretty sure that Theos has the same etymology as Deus, so there shouldn't be an "origin uncertain" in parantheses.

Draygomb's Paradox

To quote this article, "In 1999 Draygomb's Paradox came up with the strongest evidence for God not existing." What is this so called paradox and why is it considered the strongest "evidence" for GOD's nonexistence? --208.127.64.94 02:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The material had been added when the Draygomb article was created, and should have been excised when it was deleted. I've removed it now. Doc Tropics 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I would just like to say that I highly disagree with having the intro as basically a discussion about the existence of God which is longer than that section of the article. The intro is supposed to summarize the article, so shouldn't it go God is... there are arguments for and against God...there are several names of God...history of developments of idea of God...ect? Roy Brumback 07:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said twice above, I did not agree with blanking the intro. I think now, I agree somewhat that the old stuff was too detailed, but I believe that there is salvageable content, so I have tried my hand at condensing the old intro. I hope we can reach a compromise. --Andrew c 16:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

God and Multi-dimensional Math

While this is part of THE LIGHT; The Rainbow of Truth collection of research ideas attributed to the philosophy of Thinking in Colour, it is also the logical development of Alfred North Whitehead and his observation that "There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil".

In the realm of Mathematics we appear focused in the world of concrete reality, whereby in the world of abstracts and mult-dimensional representations we have different answers. American school redefines mathematical paradigm

The simple reality that in the absolute concrete world, 1+1 = 11, and in the pure abstract world, 1+1=1, case example, the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William were united and formed the city of Thunder Bay, Ontario. Here the addition of concepts remains the same, only that the concept is larger.

The addition of variables can have different values if the value of each integer has sub-values. One bag of marbles plus one bad of marbles equals 200 marbles. The complexity of the variables has changed in this particular example; multi-dimensional math.

In the world of pure abstraction, nothing, plus nothing, plus nothing equals nothing. A trinity that may reveal a solution to the question of God. According to the verses of Saint John, in the beginning was 'the word' and the word was God and the word was with God. A possible solution is 'nothing'. That pure state of nothingness would have existed prior to the creation of the universe and will exist in the end; the alpha and the omega.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 23:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fit This Quote In?

In Chapter 2 (pg. 31, "The God Hypothesis") of his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins says that "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidical, philocidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" [1] (video, ≈8:15-8:54). --172.162.239.214 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We have added this to the article about The God Delusion, but I see no tasteful way of fitting it into this article. I was going to suggest Yahweh, but I see you have already been there. Wherever else you have put this, at least fix philocidal -> filicidal. --Merzul 16:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Watch for what you say about God. For he may exist, at least a creator of the universe as Einstein belived to exist after his equation to the universe. Which he also at that time believed to be God. Who has right about God?, Muslims, Jews or Christians?, I'm not sure. Neither are you?. Well whatever you think don't put effort trying to destroy his name. Oh and I forgot to say, In some cases you might think he is unpleasant, he probably was for the good of your own, and for the future of the earth and the world (reffering to the reason he even putted us on this planet). Or maybe he wasn't unpleasant.

"claim to believe"

If someone claims to believe something, short of using a polygraph, you're pretty much stuck with accepting that they do believe it. Let's just say that people believe in God and not employ this POV suggestion that they're lying about their beliefs. Grace Note 09:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "profess a belief in"? My concern with saying outright that they "believe" is that I suspect lots of the religious counts just ask what religion they subscribe to and not whether, in their heart of hearts, they believe each tenet of the faith. Anyway, "profess" is a nice religious term! bikeable (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we do better?

The cited source says, "Sizes shown are approximate estimates, and are here mainly for the purpose of ordering the groups, not providing a definitive number." --JWSchmidt 03:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)