Stats from survey of college faculty

[RJT]

The following information is not meant as an argument for or against any previous posts. I only post it as reference material.

My source and quotes are all from “For the glory of God”, Rodney Stark, 2003, Princeton University Press. Stark is a Sociologist and Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University.

“In 1969 the Carnegie Commission conducted a massive survey of more than 60,000 professors - approximately one-fourth of all the college faculty in America and by far the largest survey of its kind.”

The following statistics are taken from the results the Carnegie Commission Survey.

Mathematics/statistics - -60% consider themselves deeply or moderately religious - 47% attend services regularly (2-3 times a month or more) 40% are religiously conservative - 27% claim to have no religious affiliation.

Physical sciences - 55% religious - 43 attend regularly - 34% religiously conservative - 27% no religious affiliation.

Life sciences - 55% - 42% - 29%

Social sciences - are all % less than the above, with anthropologists being the least religious @ 29%.

Statistics from other surveys:

The 1973 General Social Survey - found that in the general population: 44% attend services regularly.

More quotes from Stark:

“…Steven Bird* found that high school students with “fundamentalist” affiliations were no less likely than anyone else to declare scientific majors in college.”

“Furthermore, longitudinal data show that professors and students do not become less religious as they progress through their scientific training; instead those enrolling in the social sciences are less religious than the general population before entering college and graduate school.” **

* Steven Bird, 1993, “Religion and Modernity in the United States: A Rational Choice Analysis of Conflict and Harmony”, Ph.D diss.,Purdue University.

** The quote is still from Stark, his source is Robert Wuthnow, 1989, “Communities of Discourse”, Harvard University Press.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
“In 1969 ..."

[/ QUOTE ]

I would wager those stats would be very different today.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiousness_and_intelligence)

[ QUOTE ]
Highly educated groups

In one study examining people in the USA, 90% of the general population surveyed professed a distinct belief in a personal god and afterlife, while only 40% of the scientists with a BS surveyed did so, and only 10% of those considered "eminent."[4]

Another study, again surveying people in the USA, found that mathematicians were just over 40%, biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God.[5]

A survey of members of the United States National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.[6]

Noted skeptic Michael Shermer (2000) found a negative correlation between education and religosity in the USA. Although Rice University indicates this may not apply to the social sciences.[7]

[/ QUOTE ]

[RJT]

I’ll take that bet.

There is a famous study by James Leuba conducted in 1916 in which he found that 40 % of scientist believe in a God. When this exact survey was replicated by Edward Larson and Larry Witham in 1996 the same stats held.

Time didn’t change things from 1916 to 1996. I doubt whether the stats from the Carnegie study changed much since 1969.

Btw, the reason these numbers differ from the Carnegie Study is that in the Leuber study the question was asked in the following stringent manner:

1) I believe in a God to whom one may pray in the expectation of receiving an answer. By “answer” , I (the respondent) mean more than the subjective, psychological effect of prayer.
2) I do not believe in God as defined above.
3) I have no definite belief regarding the question.

Article (from comments)
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_fs.html

Table of changes in beliefs over time among 'greater scientists'.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/fig_tab/394313a0_T1.html

[David Sklansky]

Seems to be a BIG conflict between the two studies.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems to be a BIG conflict between the two studies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I repeat:

Btw, the reason these numbers differ from the Carnegie Study is that in the Leuber study the question was asked in the following stringent manner:

1) I believe in a God to whom one may pray in the expectation of receiving an answer. By “answer” , I (the respondent) mean more than the subjective, psychological effect of prayer.
2) I do not believe in God as defined above.
3) I have no definite belief regarding the question.

I’ll add now:

Carnegie Study asked questions such as:

What is your present religion?
How religious do you consider yourself?
How often do you attend religious services?

[RJT]

Your links are stats from (and using) Leuber's questions?

See my post quoting Leuber's actual question.

Also, read the Carnegie questions that were asked.

[David Sklansky]

"1) I believe in a God to whom one may pray in the expectation of receiving an answer. By “answer” , I (the respondent) mean more than the subjective, psychological effect of prayer."

This and the afterlife question are the ones that matter. The rest is Pair The Board stuff.

[RJT]

When reading this link, don’t forget to click and read the “The neutrality of this article is disputed”.

I would venture to guess though that the percentage would indeed decrease if the Carnegie study polled a group narrowed to the “greater” or “elite” scientists.

[RJT]

It isn't so much a conflict as it is two different studies - completely separate questions.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
"1) I believe in a God to whom one may pray in the expectation of receiving an answer. By “answer” , I (the respondent) mean more than the subjective, psychological effect of prayer."

This and the afterlife question are the ones that matter. The rest is Pair The Board stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you regarding the afterlife question matters.

I am not sure I understand why you find the 1) above of such importance.

If you are saying - whether there is a personal God or not matters. I agree with that.

But, I think 1) above has little (if any) connection to those of us who believe in a “personal” God. Most don’t think of their “personal” God as a magic genie and that is how I read number one.

[ QUOTE ]
When reading this link, don’t forget to click and read the “The neutrality of this article is disputed”.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I saw it. I included it because this particular passage has a link to hard data.

Did you read my second post with links from Nature, in particular the table? Have a look at the questions they asked the Academy of Science members, and how their response has changed over time...I think that says a lot.

[David Sklansky]

"But, I think 1) above has little (if any) connection to those of us who believe in a “personal” God. Most don’t think of their “personal” God as a magic genie and that is how I read number one."

However you want to define it, the study supposedly said that 90% of the general poulation believes in it, 4O% of scientists in general, and 10% of eminent scientists. And you want to attrribute that to psychology rather than intelligence?

[RJT]

I reread your second leak. I failed to realize that Leuber did indeed narrow his sample to “greater” Scientists.
It is interesting that although the numbers don’t change over time for the whole group of Scientists, that they do indeed change over time in the smaller group of elite Scientists.

My guess is that if his question was asked of the general population (scientist and non-scientist) and then narrowed to a group of “greater” General Population, there would also be a decrease in percentages in the group of “elite” general population as compared to the whole general population. Whether the decrease would be proportional to the same decrease of the “greater Scientist” group to the whole Scientist population, I am not sure.

It would be interesting to know though.

(It is my understanding that the question asked to NAS is the same question Leuber used.)

[RJT]

Part of this large percentage of decrease in belief can be attributed to the different “elite” groups that Leuber used and Larson Witham used.

As stated in your link - the Lasron/Witham group of elite scientist was even more narrow (smarter folk) than Leuber’s.

So, the theory that as one narrows the group by eliminating those less intelligent and asking the question Leuber asks the results seem to be that the % does indeed decrease.

I am not sure that we can say things have changed over time(although it might have) - but we can say things change when narrowing the group.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure that we can say things have changed over time(although it might have) - but we can say things change when narrowing the group.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll agree with that.

It's a fascinating question. I often wonder if the religious differences among general scientists and non scientists isn't just selection bias. People who are less emotional and less socially and emotionally adept tend to go into science (that's been my experience anyway). People who grew up in bigger families and around religions tend to pursue other, more socially and emotionally fulfilling pursuits (once again from my observations).

With regard to elite scientists, I think the numbers say something different entirely. To be a member of this group definitely requires a high natural intelligence and an ability for seeking out truth. If there was any group whose conclusions I would defer to it's this one.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
"But, I think 1) above has little (if any) connection to those of us who believe in a “personal” God. Most don’t think of their “personal” God as a magic genie and that is how I read number one."

However you want to define it, the study supposedly said that 90% of the general poulation believes in it, 4O% of scientists in general, and 10% of eminent scientists. And you want to attrribute that to psychology rather than intelligence?

[/ QUOTE ]


The numbers quoted here from Wikipedia are misleading (not saying they are wrong or would be different) Wikipedia seems to be combining different surveys (and probably different questions completely) and lumps the stats together. The Wikipedia does not give a source for the 90% (or erroneously includes it with the Larson/Witham study.) I have never read the actual Larson/Witham study, but all the articles I have seen regarding Larso/Witham none have said they surveyed the general population.

Of course, I do not want to attribute it to psychology rather than intelligence.

The numbers seem to suggest that as intelligence levels increase the level of belief decreases.

But, read my next response here to see what I think are some further points to investigate relative to this point
versus assuming that it says something it might not actually be saying.

Might take a while to post my next post - busy watching Notre Dame take on Michigan. So far the prayers are working - joking, relax.

[theben]

they know all about science and they still beleive that stuff? how can you know so much and still beleive in that BS? all they learn tells them its false

[benkahuna]

That's too simplistic of a way to conceptualize this issue. Lack of evidence is not proof of lack... as they say.

Any idealist belief has no foundation in the material world where evidence rules. And most religious beliefs are in some way idealist, i.e. faith-dependent involving reality beyond the material world.

[RJT]

My main point in posting the stats I did here is so that any future discussion can be based on numbers that we can agree on.

I would like any additional factual information if anyone has any, but I think we can take what we have thus far and see where (if anywhere) we can go with it. *

I summarize the stats below and would like to see if we agree so far, please post any additions or corrections:

1) Different stats show different things - especially when based on different questions. We need to know what questions were actually asked when we look at the summarization of surveys.

2) We have stats on scientists relative to questions regarding religion and or God.

3) We have stats on groups of scientists (larger population of scientists and a more narrow field , the more intelligent scientists) relative to at least one definition of God.

4) We have stats on the general population relative to questions regarding religion and or God.

5) We do not have stats on the general population versus the elite general population regarding the same questions asked to the scientists.

Two questions that I think we need the answer to is this:

1) Since the data seem to show that as intellect increases in members of the group we are calling scientists their belief in some sort of God seems to decrease; can we assume this to be the case for the general population? As intelligence level increases in the general population, does the belief in a God decrease, too?

2) If it does, does the same hold over any random group, example farmers or truck drivers? If not what are the parameters when it does holds?


* David S. has already taken much of this and gone somewhere with it. I want to see if we can take it either differently or even somewhere else. Or if we find his is the only direction, then to continue the discussion where David left off. I think his is an important (at least interesting) theory. I want to see if it does indeed hold up relative to religion specifically. He has given the impression that it should, but I think further analysis of his presentation is needed. Where he left off, needs to be further examined as to what it actually tell us.