UK scientists are ‘significantly less religious’ than Brits in general

[lpetrich]

UK scientists are ‘significantly less religious’ than Brits in general | Barry Duke
noting
Are the late Stephen Hawking’s religious beliefs typical of U.K. scientists?
noting
The Religiosity of Academic Scientists in the United Kingdom: Assessing the Role of Discipline and Department Status - Ecklund - 2018 - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion - Wiley Online Library

From the second link,

In a new study, researchers from Rice University, Baruch College and West Virginia University find that U.K. scientists are indeed significantly less religious than the U.K. general population.

In addition, U.K. scientists at elite universities are more likely to never attend religious services than those at less prestigious schools. The study also indicates biologists are more likely to never attend religious services than physicists.

...
The researchers found that while only 18 percent of people in the U.K. said they do not believe in God, 45 percent of U.K. scientists responded the same way. In addition, the researchers discovered that scientists in elite departments (a categorization based on the number of publications per department, published department rankings and insider knowledge) are about twice as likely to never attend religious services than scientists in nonelite departments.

The authors of that study speculated that this could be in part from social reasons, like pressure to satisfy some social norm. But why some social norm and not another?

I suspect intellectual reasons, because biologists get closer to the nature of humanity than physicists. This may explain other trends in religiosity among scientists.

 

[lpetrich]

Leading scientists still reject God

Belief in personal God	1914	1933	1998
Personal belief	27.7	15	7.0
Personal disbelief	52.7	68	72.2
Doubt or agnosticism	20.9	17	20.8
Belief in human immortality	1914	1933	1998
Personal belief	35.2	18	7.9
Personal disbelief	25.4	53	76.7
Doubt or agnosticism	43.7	29	23.3

Back in 1914, psychologist James Leuba surveyed 1000 randomly-selected scientists, and found that 58% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind", and that amount 400 "greater" scientists, it was nearly 70%. Nearly 20 years later, he repeated his study, he found fractions of 67% and 85%.

Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. 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).

This is in agreement with the proximity-to-humanity theory. Mathematicians are the farthest, physicists and astronomers in between, and biologists the closest.

 

[lpetrich]

Sociologist Steve Bruce has written a very interesting book, God is Dead: Secularization in the West. His chapter on science and religion (p. 110) contains a poll on religiosity of US scientists in 1969, as percentages. It asked whether:

• One regularly or never attends religious services.
• One's religious identity was religious conservative or no religion.

Scientific	Regularly	Never	Religious	No
Field	Attend	Attend	Conservative	Religion
Mathematics/statistics	47	35	40	27
Physical sciences	43	38	34	27
Life sciences	42	36	36	29
Social sciences	31	48	19	36
Economics	38	42	26	30
Political science	32	43	18	30
Sociology	38	43	16	36
Psychology	20	62	12	48
Anthropology	15	67	11	57

The least religious scientists are the ones whose research gets them the closest to how our minds work, and the most religious the farthest.


However, another possibility may be that the usual academic way of researching religion may not be very palatable to the more strictly orthodox sort of believer.


The rest of that chapter is most interesting, with Steve Bruce having a bit of insight into the creationist-engineer phenomenon. He makes a distinction between "mundane" science and "advanced" science, which is roughly a distinction between science that uses settled knowledge and exploratory science. The former is what's in applied-science fields like engineering and medicine, fields which tend to have the more religious and more fundie scientists.

He suggests that there are similarities in approach between "mundane" science and fundie religion, that both of them work from what is presumed to be some well-established source of truth. In effect, there is not much difference between using some engineering handbook and using some sacred book in fundie fashion, so there is not as much cognitive dissonance as one might expect.

Of course, when one takes a broader perspective, that is completely absurd. The provenance of each type of document and the methodologies involved in their construction is completely different, as are the reliabilities of each type of document. But that is not apparent to the fundie, who may concoct elaborate arguments to the effect that their favorite sacred book is as reliable as an engineering handbook.


Steve Bruce also illustrates the crudity of fundie epistemology by noting that in one sermon, Billy Graham had asked his audience to read the Gospel of John 5 times and then ask for salvation. All that was necessary was to read it, with no effort to understand it being necessary.

 

[lpetrich]

Psychologists are the least religious of American Professors | Tom Rees noting Religiosity of American College and University Professors8 | Sociology of Religion | Oxford Academic and The Relationship Between Psychiatry and Religion Among U.S. Physicians | Psychiatric Services

From the first link,

Fifty percent of professors of psychology at US universities and colleges do not believe in any god, and another 11% are agnostic. That makes them the least religious of a pretty heathen bunch.

From the second link,

With other factors controlled, biologists and psychologists—relative to professors outside the top 20 fields—are less likely to believe in God and less likely to hold traditional views of the Bible; professors of communications, English, and history are less likely to hold traditional views of the Bible; sociologists are less likely to have a traditionalistic religious orientation overall; and professors of accounting, finance, and nursing tend to be more religious.

...
Those who are oriented primarily toward research are less likely to believe in God, less likely to have a traditionalistic view of the Bible, less likely to attend religious services, more likely to describe their overall religious orientation as “not religious,” and less likely to consider themselves spiritual persons.

Parallel to this may be the finding that psychiatrists are the least religious doctors (the third link).

Also agreeing with the theory of proximity to the human mind.

 

[Tammuz]

Is there any society in which the scientists are not less religious than the general population?

 

[rousseau]

I'd expect any profession that relies on empirical rather than emotive/social thinking to be less religious. There's a pretty well demonstrated correlation between high IQ and atheism.

 

[lpetrich]

I'd expect any profession that relies on empirical rather than emotive/social thinking to be less religious. There's a pretty well demonstrated correlation between high IQ and atheism.

Believers then get huffy about that and whine "Are you calling us irrational?"

Table 1 from Religiosity of American College and University Professors | Sociology of Religion | Oxford Academic:

Belief in God	Percent
I don’t believe in God	9.8
I don’t know whether there is a God	13.1
I do believe in a higher power	19.2
I find myself believing in God some of the time	4.3
While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God	16.6
I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it	34.9
No answer	2.2

Though that study did not try to be specific about what was meant by "God", as James Leuba did. JL specified "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind". However, JL's definition is what most people mean by "God", even though a few highbrow theologians might maintain that that's nothing but an atheist smear. Metacrock often seems like that, for instance.

These are the 20 largest fields by number of undergraduate degrees awarded. The columns are the rows of the previous table:

Accounting	7.4	14.8	0	7.4	7.4	63.0	0
Elementary education	0	0	4.6	9.1	29.6	56.8	0
Finance	8.6	0	8.6	5.7	28.6	48.6	0
Marketing	20.9	4.7	7.0	4.7	16.3	46.5	0
Art	10.0	15.0	15.0	2.5	10.0	45.0	2.5
Criminal justice	9.3	7.4	9.3	9.3	16.7	44.4	3.7
Nursing	1.9	7.4	14.8	7.4	24.1	44.4	0
Economics	23.3	16.3	11.6	0	4.7	44.2	0
Management information	2.9	31.4	5.7	0	17.1	40.0	2.9
Electrical engineering	2.4	33.3	14.3	9.5	2.4	38.1	0
Computer science	21.9	15.6	6.3	0	15.6	37.5	3.1
Business	2.8	27.8	11.1	0	19.4	30.6	8.3
Sociology	17.9	17.9	25.0	7.1	3.6	28.6	0
History	9.4	20.8	11.3	22.6	7.6	28.3	0
Communication	11.1	13.3	17.8	8.9	17.8	26.7	4.4
English	13.0	16.7	22.2	1.9	20.4	22.2	3.7
Biology	27.5	33.3	2.0	2.0	13.7	21.6	0.0
Political science	22.9	18.8	16.7	2.1	18.8	20.8	0.0
Mechanical engineering	44.1	2.9	14.7	0	14.7	17.7	5.9
Psychology	50.0	10.9	4.4	6.5	15.2	13.0	0

Biologists and psychologists are the champions in atheism and agnosticism, at about 60%.

There are some oddities, like mechanical engineers having a lot of atheists and electrical engineers having a lot of agnostics.

 

[lpetrich]

Using as columns the rows in the previous post's first table, I find

Health	1.2	4.9	11.0	6.1	19.50	57.3	0
Other	7.0	11.7	11.7	7.6	17.8	42.6	1.5
Comp sci, engr	16.9	15.7	10.2	3.6	14.5	35.5	3.6
Humanities	16.3	13.0	23.6	1.6	10.2	31.3	4.1
Social sciences	23.4	16.0	16.0	5.6	12.6	24.7	1.7
Phys, bio sci	19.5	32.9	3.7	2.4	17.1	24.4	0
Agriculture	0	12.5	75.0	0	12.5	0	0

I think that the agriculture sample size was very small: 8.

The physical and biological sciences were about neck-and-neck with the social sciences. Given all the creationist engineers, it is rather satisfying to see engineering not much worse than the "pure" sciences.

Here is a table by kind of religiosity.

--	Progressive	Moderate	Traditionalist	Not religious	No answer
Two-year	37.8	13.4	23.9	19.3	5.5
Four-year	19.5	31.2	6.7	36.7	5.9
Nonelite doc	18.6	26.3	4.8	43.7	6.6
Elite doc	23.9	26.3	11.8	31.8	6.2
Total, relig only	38.6	42.4	19.0	--	--
Phys, bio sci	13.0	32.2	5.2	37.4	12.2
Social sciences	32.5	23.0	4.8	34.9	4.8
Humanities	35.0	20.7	6.6	31.7	6.1
Comp sci, engr	11.3	39.6	17.0	28.9	3.1
Health	12.0	36.1	36.1	12.0	3.6
Business	13.5	32.3	18.8	26.0	9.4
Other	23.2	22.4	13.5	34.5	6.5

[tr]

[tr]
The religious ones in the social sciences and humanities are mostly progressive, while those in the natural sciences and engineering are mostly moderate. Engineering has more religious traditionalists than the previous three, something that may explain the creationist engineers, and business was much like engineering. Health had the most religious conservatives of all (!)

The religious ones being progressive in the social sciences also fits this proximity thesis, though in the humanities that thesis does not work very well. An alternate possibility is what would be a good place for creative people, and traditionalists are not big on creativity.

 

[lpetrich]

This table is how a sample of 1400 professors divide up by religious affiliation. I've lumped together all the Protestants and all the other religions:

• None: 31.2%
• Catholic: 15.9%
• Protestant: 39.4%
• Eastern Orthodox: 0.7%
• Jewish: 5.4%
• Other religions: 7.6%

This roughly fits the profile of the US population, though with more unaffiliated.

 

[Politesse]

Scientists cultivate skepticism as a practical skill integral to their work; it is hardly surprising if many find atheism (or noncommital "none"-ship) with its reified skepticism and minimum of testable claims appealing. Religious authority in particular is apt to be problem; scientists don't tend to be rabid patriots either, and their family sizes are noticeably smaller. We generally ignore unsigned sources of information, and habitually eschew most sources of socially sanctioned authority by the simplest expedient of gamely ignoring it while at work.

 

[lpetrich]

It must be disquieting to advocates of traditionalist theologies that the scientists whose work gets them the closest to the human mind are the scientists least likely to believe that our minds are made of some special soul-stuff that will depart from each one's body in one piece when that body dies.

History and Theology: Mind-Body Dualism and Possibility of Artificial Intelligence, Even “Born Again” Machines! Some Xian theologians are now moving away from their traditional doctrine of substance dualism, and I'm sure that Xian apologists will start to claim that their religion has never taught it.

But one's consciousness surviving the death of one's body would be hard to do under most alternatives to substance dualism. Most other theories have a much tighter connection between mind and body, so when the body dies, the mind goes with it. What is Consciousness — Information is Beautiful has some nice illustrations of various theories.

 

[Lion IRC]

...There's a pretty well demonstrated correlation between high IQ and atheism.

It's important that those who reject God, do so with confidence, arrogance and conceit thereby leaving no doubt as to their position and no wiggle room when they find themselves standing at the Pearly Gates.

 

[skepticalbip]

It must be disquieting to advocates of traditionalist theologies that the scientists whose work gets them the closest to the human mind are the scientists least likely to believe that our minds are made of some special soul-stuff that will depart from each one's body in one piece when that body dies.

History and Theology: Mind-Body Dualism and Possibility of Artificial Intelligence, Even “Born Again” Machines! Some Xian theologians are now moving away from their traditional doctrine of substance dualism, and I'm sure that Xian apologists will start to claim that their religion has never taught it.

But one's consciousness surviving the death of one's body would be hard to do under most alternatives to substance dualism. Most other theories have a much tighter connection between mind and body, so when the body dies, the mind goes with it. What is Consciousness — Information is Beautiful has some nice illustrations of various theories.

But on the bright side for theists, after their death they will not be regretting having wasted so much of their life studying and worshipping the wishful thinking of so many religious leaders that came before them. Like everyone else they can't regret or rejoice in how they spent their time during life.

 

[atrib]

...There's a pretty well demonstrated correlation between high IQ and atheism.

It's important that those who reject God, do so with confidence, arrogance and conceit thereby leaving no doubt as to their position and no wiggle room when they find themselves standing at the Pearly Gates.

Confidence, arrogance and conceit coupled with a sense of unbridled self importance are the hallmarks of many theists around the parts I have lived for the past 30 years.

Confidence: Many never went to college, but they are certain that evolution is wrong and that science supports young earth creationism.
Arrogance: Their belief that their preferred god is the right god and everyone else is wrong, and going to rot in hell (which is what you said/implied in your post).
Conceit: They believe that their god created the universe just for them to enjoy.

You yourself have been called out for acting like a smug, superior prick on these forums by various people. And yet here you are again, telling us that atheists are stupid and wrong and unworthy of your imaginary skycreature's benevolence.

 

[Angry Floof]

...There's a pretty well demonstrated correlation between high IQ and atheism.

It's important that those who reject God, do so with confidence, arrogance and conceit thereby leaving no doubt as to their position and no wiggle room when they find themselves standing at the Pearly Gates.

Religion is nothing if not petty moralizing and goading of non-believers. I hope your own confidence, arrogance, and conceit, not to mention blind bootlicking, help you sleep at night, because there is nothing of humanity or conscience in your world view.

 

[ideologyhunter]

For a Love God whose most consistent value, we are told, is forgiveness, he sure makes a big deal with the threats.

 

[Lion IRC]

You yourself have been called out for acting like a smug, superior prick on these forums by various people.

"...Not tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, or nakedness, peril, sword…neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature…"

Yes, I suppose that does sound a little arrogant.

 

[atrib]

You yourself have been called out for acting like a smug, superior prick on these forums by various people.

"...Not tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, or nakedness, peril, sword…neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature…"

Yes, I suppose that does sound a little arrogant.

You keep threatening us with damnation and denying us your imaginary friend's grace, and yet you think you are somehow being persecuted because some people react unfavorably to your threats? Unbelievable.

 

[Lion IRC]

Nobody ever persecuted me. Wanna try?

How can God be a threat if He doesn't exist?

 

[atrib]

How can God be a threat if He doesn't exist?

I am not worried about your little psychopathic friend. But I am sick and tired of being told that I am arrogant and conceited and stupid, and that I am going to burn in hell. Especially when the people telling me this are the same people who behave in an arrogant and conceited manner, the people who habitually lie to cover up the gaping holes in their apologetics, the people who believe they have the right to speak for their god and judge others.

If you choose to live your life on earth as a slave because you believe that will allow you to spend eternity kissing your imaginary friend's ass, fine. That is your choice. But if you try to impose your slave mentality on others with threats of violence and torture, you are going to get called out for being an asshole. That is how the real world works.