NAS at 85% atheists — Let’s bump it up to 100%
| December 7, 2006 | Posted by William Dembski under Religion, Science |
The presentations of the Beyond Belief 2006 conference recently held in San Diego are available at http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch. Here is an excerpt from Session 2, which begins with a presentation from Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of the Hayden Planetarium. At the conclusion of his talk (beginning at the 40:47 mark in the clip) is the following exchange:
Tyson: I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here. Otherwise the public is secondary to this. [Moderator then turns to the panel for responses.]
Larry Krauss: It’s hard to know how to respond to Neil, ever. But the question you asked about “Why 15%” disturbs me a little bit because of this other presumption that scientists are somehow not people and that they don’t have the same delusions — I mean, how many of them are pedophiles in the National Academy of Sciences? How many of them are Republicans? [laughter] And so, it would be amazing, of course, if it were zero. That would be the news story. But the point is I don’t think you’d expect them in general to view their religion as a bulwark against science or to view the need to fly into buildings or whatever. So the delusions or predilections are important to recognize, that scientists are people and are as full of delusions about every aspect of their life as everyone else. We all make up inventions so that we can rationalize our existence and why we are who we are.
Tyson: But Lawrence, if you can’t convert our colleagues, why do you have any hope that you’re going to convert the public?
Krauss: I don’t think we have to convert those people. They’re fine. That’s the point. They’re doing science. I don’t understand why you need to do that.
It’s rare for Larry Krauss to come across as the voice of reason in these debates. But that’s only because Tyson is by comparison so scary. Not only does Tyson want to “convert” his fellow scientists to atheism but he won’t be content with anything less than 100% conversion. I seem to recall past leaders who demanded that 100% of their subjects conform to the religion of the land on pain of death. Is this any different? But of course it is: that was religion, this is science!
Question: You think there might be some self-selection going on at the National Academy of Sciences?
69 Responses to NAS at 85% atheists — Let’s bump it up to 100%
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Oh, dang, I said I’d shut up, but here goes:
The American Cancer Society and the Red Cross are non-religious charities. The Red Cross http://www.redcross.org was founded by deist-Unitarian, Clara Barton. There is also http://www.networkforgood.org which has both secular and religious charities listed.
I have two sponsor children through Children International and I give to any organization that promises to help all people. I also belong to SPLC, Medecins sans Frontiers, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. Minnesota Atheists is having a fundraiser for Katahdin, which works with at-risk youth. (It should be noted that some organizations refuse $$ from atheists.)
These aren’t strictly “atheist” charities but atheists don’t object to partnering with others of a different persuasion. However, American Atheists, the Council for Secular Humanism, American Humanist Association and other similar organizations were very active in promoting charity toward the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
I work for a non-profit and there’s always a substantion overhead involved in forming one–plus admin. staff–ugh. If they’re not volunteers one has to pay them!
I don’t think atheists are inclined to give away their money away.
Oh yeah, because we’re not human beings! I forgot.
Why do I even try?
WinglesS–by the way, even if what you’ve said were true at all:
“The truth that’s told with bad intent
beats all the lies you can invent.”
–William Blake
I need no justification for altruism. “It is the action which shapes the thought.”
–Antonin Artaud
Take care, DaveScot. This is farewell.
kharley, you are carefree and that’s how young people should be but keep in mind that the reason you can be carefree is that a lot of people aren’t.
One of those days you will have cares, and life is not going to seem an adventure. You will likely find broken trust and heartache in love or business or law or politics.
When that should happen, rather than give in to disillusion, remember that Jesus’ sacrifice was real and that He loves you.
“Oh yeah, because we’re not human beings! I forgot.
Why do I even try?” – kharley471
For a single person to give money away without grounds is also not hard to find. Or for a person to give money away on a whim isn’t hard to find either. For the populace in general to give money away consistently is another. I didn’t say that altruism is impossible for an atheist. It’s not impossible, but it’s impossible to justify consistently.
kharley471,
Reality check. Red Cross was founded by Jean-Henry Dunant. I can only imagine why he came up with the symbol of the Cross.
http://www.informatics.org/redcross/history.html
“Few people realize that Jean Henri Dunant was also one of the founders of the World Alliance of YMCAs(young mens Christian association) in Paris in 1855. Dunant started very humbly by inviting a few friends to meet regularly at his house to study the Bible, to encourage each other in good works, and to bring about a spiritual awakening among young people.” () parens emphasis mine.
Anyone ever hear of the Geneva Convention?
What is a Deist? Curious how Kharley472 see’s it. Because there are various definitions.
“Clara had, however, a favorite phrase she often quoted, “perfect love casteth out fear” (1 John 4:18).”
Interesting she found inspiration in the Bible. Many people considered her anti-Christ from a Pharasee point of view(she did not attend church regularly).
But what were her actions and words while not in church?
“I suppose I am not what the world denominates a church woman. I lay no claims to it. I firmly believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Jesus of Nazareth, in his life and death, of suffering to save the world from sin, so far as in His power to do.”
“Further proof of Clara’s reliance on God can be found in a favorite Bible passage she often quoted: “In as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren ye have done it unto me” (Matt. 25:40). In reference to this verse Clara said, “I never in my life performed a day’s work in the field that was not grounded on that one little sentence, and that it did not come to me hourly till kindly sleep brought relief to both body and soul.”"
“She often declared that her Lord’s approbation and good will were her final reward. “If acceptable to Him who gave us the courage, protection, and strength to perform it, we need care little more.” Clara never failed to give credit and the glory for her many accomplishments to God. It was usual for her, at the end of any relief project, to hold a service giving thanks to and praising God.”"
Philip L. Jewett, 1998, Spirituality Today,
http://www.spiritualitytoday.o.....ewett.html
Whatever she was, deist, etc., she was obviously inspired and gave reverance to the Lord. The very words of Yeshua she went to sleep with at night.
kharley471, “what just-so stories?”
Oh, how about this one:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...../1135013v1
Anything is possible in fiction.
DaveScot said, There are many examples of cultures where the majority were religious and prospered for hundreds or thousands of years.Quite so. Culture comes from “cult”, there is no culture without a foundational religion. Atheists are free riders on cultures. You need a working culture first before you can start indulging the intellectual luxury.
The most recent study in Nature 1997 recorded only 7% of NAS fellows as believing in a personal God.
http://grove.ufl.edu/~dmorgan/.....201997.pdf