文库()- 中国学术评价网
 
关于 1998 年自然杂志发表的那个调查, 这里有篇文章提出质疑。 (2189 查看)
日期: January 27, 2011 12:28PM

Do Scientists Really Reject God?
Reports of the National Center for Science Education
Title: Do Scientists Really Reject God?: New Poll Contradicts Earlier Ones
Author(s): Eugenie C Scott
NCSE Executive Director
Volume: 18
Issue: 2
Year: 1998
Date: March–April
Page(s): 24–25
This version might differ slightly from the print publication.

In a recent issue of RNCSE, Larry Witham reported on research he and historian Edward Larson carried out to investigate the religious beliefs of scientists.They had surveyed a sample of 1000 individuals listed in American Men and Women of Science, (AM&WS), using questions originally asked by the Gallup organization in a series of polls of American religious views.The report, entitled "Many scientists see God's hand in evolution", concluded that although scientists were quite different from other Americans in their views of "extreme" positions— such as young earth creationism and atheism—they were very similar to other Americans in the "middle" or "theistic evolution" position.

In the table below, the full wording of Gallup's question 1 is, "Humans were created pretty much in their present form about 10 000 years ago." The difference between scientists and other Americans is striking. Scientists also respond quite differently to the third question, "Man evolved over millions of years from less developed forms. God had no part in this process." But scientists' responses to Gallup's "theistic evolution" question—"Man evolved over millions of years from less developed forms of life, but God guided the process, including the creation of Man"—directly mirrors that of the general public. The "middle ground" is apparently equally attractive to scientists as it is to the general public.

GALLUP EVOLUTION QUESTIONS

Question Scientists Public
1. Special Creation, 10 000 years 5% 46%
2. Evolution, God Guided 40% 40%
3. Evolution, God had no part 55% 9%

Larson and Witham also asked the AM&WS sample a second set of questions, repeating a survey performed in 1914 by sociologist James H Leuba. Leuba had found that, in contrast to the high levels of religious belief in the general American public, scientists exhibited low levels of belief in God. He predicted that over time, more and more scientists would give up their belief in God, as scientific knowledge replaced what he considered to be superstition. Larson and Witham found to the contrary that disbelief among scientists remained stable: 58% in 1914 and 60% in 1976 (Larson and Witham 1997).

Leuba had taken a subsample of more prominent or "greater" scientists in the AM&WS sample and reported that they exhibited a higher rate of disbelief (70%) compared to less prominent AM&WS scientists. Recently, Larson and Witham asked Leuba's questions of members of the National Academy of Sciences, since AM&WS no longer lists "greater" scientists. They claimed to find that NAS scientists had higher levels of disbelief and agnosticism, reporting "near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists" (Larson and Witham 1998).

Are you confused? How can scientists be so like other Americans in one survey and so different in another? We can find part of the explanation in the considerable differences between the questions asked by Gallup and those asked by Leuba.

The wording of questions in any survey can influence the results. Gallup's questions are quite straightforward, well designed to reveal people's attitudes towards evolution. For reasons that will become important later in this article, a question that requests an opinion on only one issue is superior to one which queries attitudes about two or more.

First, let's look at Leuba's questions, which are, to be charitable, ambiguous. The "personal belief" question attempts to ascertain belief not just in some sort of God, but a very specific kind of personal God.
1. I believe in a God in intellectual and effective communication with humankind, i.e., a God to whom one might pray in expectation of receiving an answer. By "answer", I mean more than the subjective psychological effects of prayer.
1. I believe in a [personal] God...
AM&WS NAS
1914 1998
27.7 7.0

Indeed, the percentage of "yes" answers in 1998 is strikingly lower than that in 1914. Does this mean that fewer scientists believe in God? Not necessarily. Consider how specific this question is. To answer "yes" to this question, one would have to believe that God is not only in communication with humankind, which many religious people do believe, but that God is in both intellectual and effective communication. What is the meaning of "intellectual" communication? "Effective" communication? Someone who believed that God communicated with humankind but not "intellectually" (whatever that means) would have to answer "no." Is "effective" used in the modern sense of the word meaning "something that works well", or in the more archaic (1914) use of the term meaning "to bring about"? Do scientists reading this question today interpret it in the same way as those in 1914?

The clause about answering prayers is also problematic.There are schools of theology that hold that God is personal in the sense of watching over and caring for humankind, but nonetheless, does not answer prayers. We do not know whether members of the general public would respond similarly or differently than scientists do to this definition of God: we do know that there is a wide variety of definitions of God.

Not only have there been changes in theology since 1914, which may be reflected in different Americans' definitions of God, but there have been improvements in survey research techniques. Experienced pollsters simply do not ask paragraph- long questions anymore because they know that they elicit contingent (and therefore difficult to interpret) answers!

Most educated, late 20th century Americans are "test wise" and know that the more components to a question, the more likely it is that the question is "wrong". I doubt that this was the case in 1914, when citizens 'were exposed to far fewer surveys than they are today. I surmise that modern survey-wise scientists would be more likely to answer "no" to a multi-component question like Leuba's number 1 than "yes".

What about Leuba's second question?

2. I do not believe in a God
as defined above.
AM&WS NAS
1914 1998
52.7 72.2

How might this question be interpreted? There is more than one way—which means it's not a good question.You might answer "true" if you did not believe in God at all, which is how Leuba, and apparently Witham and Larson, interpret the question; they describe these answers as demonstrating "personal disbelief." But you might answer "true" if you believed in a different kind of God than Leuba defined! A "yes" on question 2 would include both non-believers and those who believe in a less personal God than that of question 1.

Leuba's third question also allows for multiple interpretations.

3. I have no definite belief
regarding this question.
AM&WS NAS
1914 1998
20.9 20.8

Well, there has been no change in the number of "yes" answers over time, but what does the question mean? To me, a "yes" means "I don't think much about religion in general" rather than meaning, as Leuba, Larson and Witham conclude, "I have 'doubt or agnosticism'." Nonbelievers might very likely answer this question "false", because they do have definite views on this question! Most of the atheists and agnostics that I know have quite definite views about belief in God! Just as with the other Leuba questions, a "yes" answer reflects more than one possible opinion. Positive answers to this question include those who do not believe, as well as those who are not especially interested in the topic.

What one might conclude from the 1998 Larson and Witham study of NAS scientists is that belief in Leuba's definition of a personal God has decreased over time among scientists. The main problem, however, is that Leuba's questions are not well designed for investigating the religious views of scientists (or anyone else).

The Gallup questions, which deal with views of God's role in evolution, rather than general belief or disbelief in God, are far less ambiguous. When these questions were used (Larson and Witham 1997), the answers showed that a large proportion (40%) of prominent scientists believe in a God that is sufficiently personal or interactive with humankind that human evolution is guided or planned.

The title of the recent Larson and Witham article in Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God" is premature without reliable data upon which to base it.

REFERENCES
Larson EJ, Witham L. Scientists are still keeping the faith [Commentary]. Nature 1997 Apr 3; 386:435-6.

Larson EJ, Witham L. Leading scientists still reject God. Nature 1998 Jul; 394:313.

Witham L. Many scientists see God's hand in evolution. RNCSE 17(6):33.

选项: 回复引用


主题 发布者 已发表
方舟子的“科普”是邪教活动(例一)。 (2011 查看) zhiyan-le 01/19/2011 10:09AM
“科学没有宗教是跛足的”是什么意思? (2020 查看) idear 01/19/2011 10:09PM
有趣。我曾有篇《无神论本质是‘我是神’》。大陆无神论协会曾把我看作眼中钉而搞大批判。后来他们哑巴了:霍金和教皇握手言欢。 (1867 查看) zhiyan-le 01/19/2011 10:19PM
重读爱因斯坦的《科学与宗教》 (1925 查看) idear 01/19/2011 10:01PM
方舟子:爱因斯坦信不信上帝? (1860 查看) idear 01/19/2011 09:53PM
关于 1998 年自然杂志发表的那个调查, 这里有篇文章提出质疑。 (2189 查看) 圆排骨 01/27/2011 12:28PM
参与那个调查的 Larry Witeman 发表过这篇报告。 (1536 查看) 圆排骨 01/27/2011 02:02PM
Very Good Article!eye rolling smiley (1250 查看) 明天会更好 01/27/2011 01:18PM
Fang 叉叉这种僵化,死板的脑筋怎么可能comprehend 这样稍微sophisticated 一点的问题呢?eye rolling smiley (1402 查看) 明天会更好 01/27/2011 01:27PM
我表示一些不同意见 (1285 查看) 夏雨天 01/19/2011 05:18PM
四)看看霍金与天主教皇会面对话,可能对西方科学和宗教两者对“人格化上帝”的态度一致的理解、有所帮助。 (2199 查看) zhiyan-le 01/19/2011 08:34PM
补:纽约时报问:Do you believe in God? 霍金回答:I don't believe in a personal God. (1649 查看) zhiyan-le 01/19/2011 10:31PM
三)国际社会有统计,爱因思坦是宗教信徒。他对至高无上上帝力量的尊重与霍金一样,而他们都不是基教信徒,即: (1983 查看) zhiyan-le 01/19/2011 08:28PM
二)爱因斯坦原文,我看了且给了来源。我的一位老美朋友是爱因斯坦学派代表人物之一、公认的萨根科普事业接班人。 (1554 查看) zhiyan-le 01/19/2011 08:25PM
谢讨论。在美国,人格化上帝和科学教都是邪教,但依然可存在,2010年人口统计包括、就是例子。 (1501 查看) zhiyan-le 01/19/2011 08:23PM
补充:譬如,基督教堂绝没基于“人格化上帝”的弥撒。一旦那么做,就可能违教犯法双重问题。WACO事件是个例子。那是个 (2176 查看) zhiyan-le 01/19/2011 08:46PM
Christians believe in a personal GOD (1257 查看) 夏雨天 01/20/2011 01:14AM
我说了,我信奉基督教,但不是神职人员。不想也没资格对教义做解释。我的说法只是根据美国官方推荐的2010年人口统计。按照该统计, (1641 查看) zhiyan-le 01/20/2011 05:39AM
基督教信仰的是PERSONAL GOD而非PERSONALITY CULT (1966 查看) 夏雨天 01/20/2011 08:12AM
呵呵,太粗心了,发帖居然变成了帮人顶贴了 (1341 查看) 里奥斯基 01/19/2011 10:21AM
谢提示。请考虑使用“先来后到、时间倒序”而不是“跟帖置顶”的版面设计。 (1341 查看) zhiyan-le 01/19/2011 04:04PM


对不起,您在本论坛没有发帖或回复的权限。
2250s.com does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by users.

This forum powered by Phorum.