Talk:List of nonreligious Nobel laureates

New, improved list

Under the name List of atheist Nobel laureates, this list has been the subject of multiple deletion debates. I have cleaned it up and it now has a title that is consistent with the selection criteria, and they in turn are consistent with the sources that provide evidence of notability for a stand-alone list. Moreover, all the entries are now properly sourced, so the objections to previous versions have been answered. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

The text on the page quotes 10% atheist/freethinkers/agnostics. This should be updated to at least 18%. The image on the he page quotes 4,7% of physics prizes go to a atheists/.. /... But coe lost I get 433 Mattias73 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

43 in physics can't be 4,7%.. Should rather be ca 25% Mattias73 (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Based on the material on this page, you're right. Unfortunately, Wikipedia expects such claims to have sources, and the only sources I could find use the figures that are quoted in the current version. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The main source of this article is not reliable

I came across this page somewhere, and the results reported are extremely unlikely. My blog has a summary of the investigation, but to summarize: 1) the source is quite obscure by an obscure author without expertise in the topic, 2) it is not well cited by academics, 3) the numbers are in extreme contrast to known associations between atheism and intelligence/education, 4) the numbers are in extreme contrast to surveys of scientists [1, 2], 5) checking the source reveals that no proper study was undertaken (like a survey or reading of autobiographies) and no method is described except to say that he looked at Nobel prize awards (which do not record the information). Does anyone think this still should be counted as a reliable source (WP:RS)? I think it should be removed, and the usual list approach with sources for particular persons kept. Deleet (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There are very few studies on Nobel prizes and religious affialtion for one thing. But I think you may be extrapolating from other studies which do not really deal with noble prizes at all but are on distribution of rank and file scientists beliefs, for your justification for it not being a reliable source. Keep in mind that belief in God and religious affiliation are not the same thing. This are article is about religious affiliation, not belief in God per se.

As a side note, by the way..The results on scientists views on God are mixed. For instance with Pew that you cited above, 51% believed in God or a higher power and only 41% did not on either. Eugene Scott, who is known in the creationism controversy wrote an article addressing problems with the nature study and noted that a more reliable and better worded study showed that around 40% of high ranking scientists believe in god and that the wording on NAS study was problematic [1]. A study on natural scientists at elite universities found that 20% did not believe in God, 33% did not know if God existed, 44% believed God existed, and 4% believed in a higher power [2]. Of course in the whole study, which included social scientists along with the natural scientists only 10% were atheists, 13% were agnostic. So the numbers fluctuate by study and certainly it seems to be about half and half more or less of what scientist views are on God.

Anyways, for the purposes of wikipedia, a source need not be super famous for it to be reliable. The publisher for the 100 Years of Nobel Prizes states "Atlantic Publishers and Distributors Pvt Ltd, established in 1977, is known for quality academic, professional and general publishing. It is also India’s leading distributor of books from across the globe, partnering world's leading publishers in Science & Technology, Management, Humanities and Social Sciences." and 2 Nobel laureates endorsed the book too. So it looks pretty decent. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Deleet: Nice blog. I am guilty of adding this source, which I don't have much faith in either, so I guess it was a bit lazy of me to include the statistics from it. I believe this list could be used to obtain more reliable percentages than any in the literature, but Wikipedia's policy on verification wouldn't allow that. Perhaps these statistics could be replaced by a discussion of some of the surveys mentioned by @Ramos1990. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, one of the benefits of "100 Years of Nobel Prizes", aside form the fact that it has unique information compiled in one place, is that it provides a list of laureates names, which can be used to look up and enhance this list and others too. Sometimes the biographies on wikipedia already have affiliations and those can be linked to this list. But from experience with biographies, some scientists have no particular belief in God, yet they affiliate with a religion. So it can be tricky since those may not fit on this list irrespective of their views on God. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this source is fine as a source of names and can help to establish the notability of the list. But perhaps the statistics should be replaced. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't previously aware of this policy, but WP:EXCEPTIONAL seems to go against this source. Deleet (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Tagging

@Epachamo: Several of the sources used in the article are not reliable, eg NNDB which is deprecated. Citing stuff elsewhere is not a sufficient substitute for having good sourcing here. As to notability, it does not appear that consensus for that has been established - what sources do you believe satisfy NLIST? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: There are 142 different sources in this article. NNDB is just one of them. Rather than tag the whole article, just find a different reference. As far as notability, there are 142 different sources that help to establish notability. From WP:LISTN, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Epachamo (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The quote you present and your argument are in opposition: of the article's 142 different sources, most purportedly support the inclusion of entries to the set, but not the notability of the set in general. What sources do you believe support the latter? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Ok, NNDB has been removed from this article. What other sources do you feel should be removed/replaced? Epachamo (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

NNDB is still present. Other questionable sources include Freethought Almanac and Big Mac Publishers. Additionally because some citations are incomplete it is difficult to assess reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Ok, I have removed/replaced Freethought Almanac, Big Mac Publishers, and the last of the NNDB reference. What other sources do you feel should be removed/replaced? As far as notability, I really have a hard time taking this seriously. The grouping of both religious and non-religious Nobel Prize Winners has been discussed ad nauseum in countless books, articles, debates, etc. Epachamo (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, it should be easy to find sources that satisfy the notability requirements. What are they? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Fair enough. To establish notability, we need reliable sources that discuss the "grouping or set in general." See here for a sampling:

• Beit-Hallahmi, B. Atheists: A Psychological Profile. In M. Martin (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007
• Sherby, L.S.& Odelberg, W. (2000). Who's Who of Nobel Prize Winners 1901-2000. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press
• Tessman, Irwin. "A Darwinian View of a Hostile Atheist." Skeptical Inquirer 32.1 (2008): 37.
• Dawkins, Richard. 2006. "The God Delusion." New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. page 100.
• Shalev, Baruch Aba (2003). "Religion of Nobel prize winners". 100 years of Nobel prizes. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Distributors. pp. 57–61
• Kimball, John (2015). Physics Curiosities, Oddities, and Novelties. CRC Press. p. 323. ISBN 978-1-4665-7636-0

Hm. I don't have access to all of these, but for the ones I do I certainly would not agree that they satisfy NLIST. For example, "A Darwinian View of a Hostile Atheist" has a single sentence indicating that Dawkins compiled stats on the religion of Nobel winners. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Well, that single sentence is at the very least evidence that Dawkins compiled and published stats. If you don't feel it is enough, go ahead and cross it off the list. This is from the "Beit-Hallahmi" article:

"In an unpublished study, I have used the book by Sherby and Odelberg (2000) to determine the religious affiliation and religiosity of Nobel laureates between 1901 and 2001. The book contains the most reliable biographical information on 696 laureates, who in terms of nationality represent mainly the USA (282: 41%), Britain (77: 11%), Germany (68: 9.7%), France (51:7.3%). Behind them are Sweden (26), Switzerland (14), Austria (13), Denmark (13), the Netherlands (13), and Italy (12). Other nations have smaller representations. The Nobel Memorial Prize is awarded each year in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, peace, and literature. Since 1968, The Bank of Sweden Award in Economic Science has provided an entrée for the social sciences. Sherby and Odelberg (2000) tried to provide a nominal affiliation for each laureate, not looking at the level of individual religiosity, but attempt to do that showed that the issue was religiosity. As they report, it was most difficult to locate information regarding affiliation in most cases, and this is for individuals who are public celebrities! Only 49% of laureates could be classified (as Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Unitarian, or Other). For the remaining 51%, 20.26% were classified as None, apostates (e.g. "from Christian background") or No Record (!!).For almost 35% of laureates, the classification was speculative, ambiguous, and generic, such as "Protestant" (no denomination), "Christian", or "Most probably Christian". This was an indication of how reluctant these individuals were to align themselves with any denominations. To appreciate this, it should be noted that 5 of the economics laureates, who received the award fairly recently and are world famous, are listed as No Record. In addition’ those 18% of the Nobel laureates that were listed as Jewish do not represent a religious group, but an ethnic label. We know that the vast majority of them are thoroughly secular. As to those openly identifying themselves as Nones, two things should be noted. First, they are the largest group among the literature laureates (31 out of 97). Second, they were found among the laureates as early as the first decade of the twentieth century. When it comes to Nobel Laureates The "eminence effect" (Leuba, 1916), showing a lower level of religiosity among scientists of renown, as compared to lesser ones, has been demonstrated again. What this study of the most eminent scientists of the century has shown is that eminence accentuates differences in both religious affiliation and religiosity between scientists and the general population, so that eminence in natural and social sciences (and even in literature) is clearly tied to a personal distance from religion. If there were any doubts about the irreligiosity of eminent scientists after looking at the biographical, secondary, data in the Sherby and Odelberg (2000) book, they were laid to rest thanks to the survey done in 1996 by Larson and Witham. Larson and Witham (1997, 1998) performed an exact replication of the 1914 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. They used the same wording, and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (i.e. mathematicians, physicists and astronomers . Many members of the United States National Academy of Sciences are Nobel Laureates). The return rate was slightly over 50%. The results showed that the percentage of believers in a personal God among eminent scientists in the United States was 27.7 in 1914, 15 in 1933, and 7.0 in 1998. Belief in personal immortality was slightly higher (35.2% in 1914, 18% in 1933, and 7.9 in 1998). The findings demonstrate, first, that the process of turning away from religion among the most eminent scientists has been continuing over the past century, and, second, that in the United States, eminent scientists, with only 7% believing in a personal God, present a mirror image of the general population, where the corresponding percentage hovers around 90% in various studies. Larson and Witham state that "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)". The article concludes with the following remarks: "As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools.... The booklet assures readers, 'Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral'. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: 'There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.' Our survey suggests otherwise." What the findings regarding the Nobel laureates and the US National Academy of Sciences show is that since the nineteenth century, an international intellectual elite, made up of creative and highly secular individuals, committed to the life of the mind, has been in very much existence. Those studied by Leuba in 1914 and those awarded the Nobel in the early years, between 1901 and 1950, had their formative years in the nineteenth century. Among those warded the Nobel Prize before 1920, most were born before 1850. Academics and scientists are expected to excel in critical thinking, innovation, and independence. A psychodynamic interpretation would suggest that what these individuals had, in addition to their creativity and high intelligence, was a strong wish to create distance between themselves and their parents."

This quote also makes reference to another citation on my list, which should suffice the requirements of NLIST. I found this book online that will allow you to partially check. Didn't have the 2000 version. Epachamo (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This quote is from the Kimball 2015 book:

"11.4.5.1 Does One Need to Be an Atheist to Win the Nobel Prize? Religious faith, especially of the traditional type, is surely less common among the Nobel Prize winners. A list of the nonreligious, the agnostics, and the atheists (in physics) probably constitutes a majority of individuals. It is hard to be certain because religion is a private matter for many, and a person’s religious views often change with age. But, some public nonreligious Nobel Prize winners are well known. They include Philip Anderson (1977), John Bardeen (1956 and 1972), Hans Bethe (1967), Niels Bohr (1922), Subramahyan Chandrasekher (1983), Pierre and Marie Curie (1903), Louis de Broglie (1929), P. A. M. Dirac (1933), Albert Einstein (1921), Enrico Fermi (1938), Richard Feynman (1965), Lev Landau (1962), Isidor Rabi (1934), C. V. Raman (1930), William Shockley (1956), Erwin Schrodinger (1933), Johannes Diderik van der Waals (1919), Eugene Wigner (1963), and Stephen Weinberg (1979). In this group, opinions varied. Enrico Fermi was an agnostic. At the other extreme, Steven Weinberg said “Religion is an insult to human dignity.” Albert Einstein is an ambiguous case. He frequently mentioned God, but it is not obvious what he meant. Some have suggested that he thought God created the universe, but then left it alone. The Humanist Manifesto III was signed by six physics Nobel Prize winners: Owen Chamberlain (1959), Philip W. Anderson (1977), Sheldon Glashow (1979), Jerome I. Friedman (1990), Pierre-Gilles de Gennes (1991), and David J. Gross (2004). This manifesto says science reveals the world and makes our lives better, evolution is valid, and people who help other people are happier. There is no mention of God in the Humanist Manifesto. The religious Nobel Prize winners are an interesting minority. Wolfgang Pauli (1945) is an example of the pitfalls of a simple description. His extended interactions with psychologist Carl Jung led him far from his Catholic background, but it is hard to say what religion meant to him. Werner Heisenberg (1932) said: “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Others, including Charles Glover Barkla (1917), Max Born (1954), William Henry Bragg (1915), Robert Millikan (1920), and Max Planck (1918) held fairly traditional religious views, as does Charles Townes (1964), whose age at this writing was 99. Lev Landau (1962) chided James Franck (1925) on his religion. Landau thought it was outmoded for a scientist. Brian Josephson (1973) is director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project at the University of Cambridge in England. He and his fellow workers study the relations between quantum mechanics and the human conscience. He believes physics may explain telepathy and psychokinesis. Some of his work is related to the teaching of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It is not clear if Josephson’s ideas should be considered a religion. Pierre Curie also had an interest in the paranormal. He attended séances and took notes. He wondered if there was some connection between science and the spirit world. Abdus Salam (1979) was a devoutly religious Ahmadiyya Muslim who claimed that all of science is part of Islam. The Pakistan government said his faith was not really Muslim. This is one reason he left Pakistan. Abdus had two wives and two separate families (up to four wives is acceptable). He married his cousin at age 23. Nineteen years later, he married Louise Napier Johnson, who was an Oxford professor. Both wives attended his Nobel award ceremony, which led to some amusing adjustments of standard protocol." Epachamo (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is a paragraph from the Shalev book.:

Atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers comprise 10.5% of total Nobel Prize winners; but in the category of Literature, these preferences rise sharply to about 35%. It can be speculated that the latter have a greater urge to be totally free of any formal religious attachments so that they can better express universal ideas.

This book additionally has two tables and a pi chart that notes religion, to include "atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers." It discusses the subject in passing at various other points in the book as well. Epachamo (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the best way forward may be an article on the topic of religious views of Nobel laureates, rather than a list. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NLIST, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." In this case, we actually do have a source that tries to exhaustively list Nobel Prize winners religion, and several reliable sources that have partial lists. A list is entirely appropriate. Do you have any other objections to any of the sources in this article before I remove the tag? Epachamo (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree - the existence of statistical breakdowns doesn't demonstrate the notability of the set. The sources presented are better suited to a topic article rather than a list. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There is one of these sources that literally lists every Nobel Prize Winner with their religion. Again, WP:NLIST states specifically that only the grouping or set in general has been documented. A statistical breakdown absolutely documents that the set in general has been documented. If you still object, I recommend you work to change the policy. Epachamo (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

what is this graph? it is inconsistent with the content of this page

in the table there are 50 Physiis nobel laareates who are irrelgous. that is almost 20-25% of total. then on what basis is it just 4%? ChandlerMinh (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)