On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: > I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was going > with his question. Am I right?
Pretty much. I've notice religous people like to sidestep these questions because they don't have a rational answer. > > > >>Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of > >>Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal > >>god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at > >>least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? > > > >Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its > >methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% > >group, but of course that could be selection bias. > > > > > > A while back I remember reading a story about a website where scientists > who believe in God and spirituality could connect and voice their views > without fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. If it's > still around, when I get more time, I'll post it to the list. Here is my explanation. Science is by far the best tool humans have developed for testing knowledge. And it is quite necessary since humans have a great ability to fool themselves when they don't test their knowledge in a disciplined manner. Naturally, people with scientific training are better and testing knowledge in a disciplined manner. Therefore, the dramatic difference is easily explainable by saying that there is most likely no personal god and no afterlife, because most scientists see no empirical verification of such phenomena. In other words, the error rate of accepting erroneous "knowledge" as correct is much lower in the scientist population than in the general population. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
