Smart Guys, Part 3.

By Merle Hertzler

Previously we dealt with the claim of "Honey" that there were many smart guys in the past that believed in a religion similar to hers. Somehow, she implied that this helps to validate her beliefs. I answered her concerns at What About All the Smart Guys Who Believed. Yes, of course she found many religious scientists from the 17th and 18th centuries. Back then nearly everyone was religious or at least claimed to be religious. That does not prove their religion was right.

As we look into modern times, we find that many leading scientists reject the idea of a personal God who is intimately concerned with our lives. In the book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins explains:

A study in the leading journal Nature by Larson and Witham in 1998 showed that of those American scientists considered eminent enough by their peers to have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences...only about 7 per cent believe in a personal God. This overwhelming preponderance of atheists is almost the exact opposite of the profile of the American population at large, of whom more than 90 per cent are believers in some sort of supernatural being. The figure for less eminent scientists, not elected to the National Academy, is intermediate. As with the more distinguished sample, religious believers are in a minority, but a less dramatic minority of about 40 per cent. It is completely as I would expect that American scientists are less religious than the American public generally, and that the most distinguished scientists are the least religious of all. What is remarkable is the polar opposition between the religiosity of the American public at large and the atheism of the intellectual elite.

(See also Leading Scientists Still Reject God.)

"Honey" may claim that science supports her theistic religion, but how is it that, the more one knows about science, the more likely it is that a person will disagree with her? If science truly supported her faith, why don't experts in science agree with her? And it is no use arguing that scientists are just biased against faith. Why would we expect scientists to be more biased against faith than other people? After all, the very foundations of the scientific method demand that the scientist work to discover truth regardless of whether it agrees with his bias. So how can those who practice the scientific method and try to remove bias actually be more biased than others? And even if we were to somehow assume that scientists are more biased than others, how is it that the figures quoted above are so radically different for leading scientists as opposed to the general population? If there is a bias against the faith among scientists, that same bias does not exist in the majority of the common people in America, for most of them accept faith. It strains credibility to think that some mysterious bias is driving scientists away from the faith in far greater numbers compared to the common people. Could it be that the facts really lead to a different view from yours?

Many have tried to claim Einstein as an example of a theistic scientist who went against the flow of nonbelief found in modern science. In this they badly misunderstand Einstein. Dawkins quotes Einstein as saying:

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

Somehow, these people think that Einstein believed in a personal God, even though Einstein thought such a belief was naive. People who knew Einstein did not make the same mistake. A rabbi, for instance, wrote:

Einstein is unquestionably a great scientist, but his religious views are diametrically opposed to Judaism.

Many would love to have Einstein on the side of their theism, for they desperately want to have such authorities to boost their cause. If Einstein was alive today, he would surely correct such misrepresentations, even as he did in the past.

More details can be found in Dawkin's book, The God Delusion