“Are 93% of the Members of the National Academy of Sciences Atheist and Agnostic?”

Scientific Method fails miserably in religion : it is not designed for it

 There took place a good discussion on the above topic in my favourite discussion forum <http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/>;one could view the post one likes by clicking the # of post. One could join the discussion in the forum or here in this blog by one’s comments which are always welcome:

 #13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shermana

It has been frequently stated that 93% of members of the National Academy of Scientists are Atheists or “Agnostics”. 

Is there a way to prove what percent of them are not “Agnostic” or are of the “Atheist-leaning Agnostic” category?

If so, can one draw an inference from this number about the NAS from this number? Especially in light of the whole “Can science disprove God” concept? Can we suggest there may be confirmation bias in their publications one way or another? Can such a confirmation bias be ruled out? Can it be inferenced that this number has nothing or little to do with their general statements and conclusions?

For instance, if one said that Creationist Institutes are overwhelmingly if not entirely Christian, then many might completely reject their conclusions if they aren’t Christian due to a perceived confirmation bias. Does the same apply to those on the other end of the belief spectrum?

Paarsurrey said:

Even if there is one scientist who believes in the one true God; that proves that science is not exclusive of religion.

#19   

Paarsurrey said:

Science does not deny the one true God; it is not a subject of science. If a scientist believes or does not believe in Him; it is neither a concern of science nor it has any bearing on the existence of the one true God, in my opinion.

It is something very personal of an individual.

#24 Originally Posted by Shermana

#25 MysticSang’ha

#26 Monk Of Reason

#27

 Paarsurrey said:

It is the choice of the Atheists/Agnostics and their other connotations associated with them to live in doubt; they may come out of it and opt to live in certainty; if they so please.

#28 Revoltingest

#30jmn

#31

Paarsurrey said:

Who forced one to live in doubt? If nobody forced or compelled then it is sure to be an option.

#32

Paarsurrey said:

But scientific method though useful in science for which it has been designed yet it fails miserably in religion; it is of no use in religion.

Religion does not deny usefulness of the scientific method in science; rather it supports it.

#33 Sculelos

#34 Kilgore Trout

#35 Sculelos

#36

Originally Posted by Sculelos

Unseperateable means : To not be able to be unattached from the study of energy of a higher (infinite) form giving his energy to us pouring energy into us. This is not recognized by the dictionary but it is a word and that is it’s meaning.

Inseparable means a pulse that is spread in you and locked on from some other divided locked (aka finite) energy source. 

So yes I stay with my saying that they are Unseperateable.

Paarsurrey said:

I am with you.

Nature is the Work of the one true God; religion is the Word of one true God; they are from the same one source.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to ““Are 93% of the Members of the National Academy of Sciences Atheist and Agnostic?””

  1. xe toyota yaris rs 2014 Says:

    xe toyota yaris rs 2014

    “Are 93% of the Members of the National Academy of Sciences Atheist and Agnostic?” | paarsurrey

  2. xe ford cũ bán Says:

    xe ford cũ bán

    “Are 93% of the Members of the National Academy of Sciences Atheist and Agnostic?” | paarsurrey

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: