ANSWERS: 39
  • Because scientists are smart, and educated.
  • Plenty allow for a "prime mover", no? It's the anthropomorphisized God who cares about us that most would find dubious. ;-)
  • I don't know why fundementalists can't understand this, but a large number of scientists are also religous.
  • Call for reference. Many scientists are religious. Charles Darwin was a devout Catholic at the time he developed his theory of evolution. Albert Einstein declared, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
  • Most scientists don't. The percentage of scientists who are Atheists is a little higher than the general population but most scientists are Monotheists who have no problem with having a Creator God of the Universe. Georges Lemaître (1894–1966), a Belgian Catholic priest and professor of physics and astronomy, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre The Big Bang theory lends support to the idea of creation by God ex nihilo ("out of nothing"). In 1951, Pope Pius XII gave a speech before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences discussing the Big Bang theory: "…it would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux [Let there be Light], when along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies." Here is the entire address: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12EXIST.HTM With love in Christ.
  • I don't think they have a problem with that so much as they do the people who follow Jesus around all day.
  • If the universe was created, then who created the Creator? It is foolish to say that you know the answer and live your life by a set of rules, when there is no proof. It is obvious to me that the whole Creator idea is a man made one, intended to be used to manipulate human beings. The only reason people assume there is a Creator of the universe and live their lives accordingly is because they are afraid of something. To be reasonable would be to admit that you don't know the truth, and call yourself agnostic.
  • scientists deal with evidence to support hypothesis, something like evidence of a god, cannot (so far) be measured or weighed with any accuracy or proof. In many instances scientists don't rule out the idea of a god, they do not deny or accept the existance of a creator, they reject the ideals of religion and man and the many many many inacuracies within religion that are supposed to be proof of a god.
  • How do you define scientist? All the engineers that like to call themselves scientists? High school mathematics teachers?. Nobel prize winners? Which countries are you including or excluding? Perhaps a majority of Chinese or North Korean scientists don't believe in a creator god, but you'll have a difficult time finding a majority of scientists who believe (or not) as you claim.
  • because the whole premise of science is to be able to prove or disprove something. and there is no proof or disproof there is a god. so scientifically... gods irrelevent.
  • It's not so much a problem as a lack of any reason to include one. Science tells a story of how things got to be the way they are, how they work, and where they will go. It addresses the big questions which answered in Genesis and the creation & end of days myths of many other religions. However, science has proved effective at finding these answers - without science you wouldn't have a computer in front of you, for instance - and though none of those answers directly say "There cannot be a god" they also don't need a god. So, most scientists see no more reason to ad a superfluous god to the picture than, say magic pixes who did it all. +5
  • I don't know how many scientist believe or disbelieve in a creator. But there seems to be a perception of one group being more intelligent than other groups. I don't agree with that. While I believe scientist are very intelligent, especially in their specialized field, that doesn't mean they have more wisdom in life than other people. I have witnessed great wisdom from regular everyday people with common education qualifications, or even uneducated people. I think we sometimes put scientists on an undeserved pedestal. There is no doubt that when they talk science they will be able to talk over our heads, but I'm not so sure their wisdom or their ability to come to an accurate conclusion is greater. If that were true and they all knew the truth, there would be very little disagreement amongst themselves. We are all affected by our environment, education, emotions, and brain power. We all have certain biases that tend to make us look at information differently. It's important to think for ourselves and come to our own conclusions while keeping an open mind. As far as believing in God, we won't know until He manifest Himself to us either in this life or the next. For me, I hope there is a God, because I hope there will be something for us beyond this minute and temporary life.
  • scientists believe facts no facts point 2 religion bein true
  • Because they want a scientific explanation. ...which they will never find. You can't explain God, a supernatural being, a miracle worker...with science.
  • State your source.
  • What data do you have to support your premise? I don't know that "most" scientists have the problem you suppose. What I DO expect is that a vanishingly small percentage of "scientists" believe in any literal interpretation of the Bible -- or any other creation myth that has a god creating man-as-we-know-him-today, having literal speech with his creations, and following all of the other various fairy story scenarios laid out in each competing religion's mythology.
  • They have no problem with having a God. And they have also no problem with not having a God. They just don't need it to explain anything, except the unexplainable. And why try to explain the unexplainable anyway?
  • Because there is no evidence to support this claim.
  • My GF's Stepfather is a scientist who works for NASA of all places. He's a very church going religious guy and actually gives me a little flak because I don't go to church LOL! I guess it depends on the scientist. He is actually one of the few people who has actually tried, hinted or implied that maybe I should convert.
  • Because they believe what other scientists tell them they must believe if they are to be credible, if they want a career in science, if they want to be taken seriously. There are plenty of scientists who do believe in a creator, however. A good friend of mine is a Ph.D scientist working on top secret government programs and fully believes in a creator.
  • Probably because the way Science explains the creation of the universe and evolution and all that, is completely different from what the religious people see, which is that there is a god(s) which created the universe.
  • because the idea of a creator of the universe is just not plausible.
  • Because there is no evidence. Not a friggen trace. Scientists look solely at evidence.
  • Intangibility.
  • What data do you have to support this claim, or is this just an unsupported generalization? Belief in God varies widely among scientists depending on their field, but about two-thirds of scientists say they do believe in God. http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html
  • Science deals with that which can be directly observed. As there is no evidence for deities and no ability to observe them even if there was evidence, creator gods are not subject to scientific inquiry.
  • Because there's no proof and even less common sence to back it up.
  • I cannot tell you why, because your assumption is not correct. Scientists do not have a problem with a creator god. What they do have problems with is a PERSONAL god, who (for instance) care so much for your uncle Ed and aunt Bridget that he made them miss their flight to Mexico City on the day the Earthquake killed lots of people there. AFAIK many religious people have trouble with that logic too ;-) regards JakobA
  • Actually, there are many Christian scientists and more who at least believe in and Intelligent Designer. On the other hand, the mind set of most secular scientists is one of if you can't put God into a test tube to poke, prod, test, analyze, reproduce, or prove, then He simply cannot exist. They want physical, touchable, visual proof that a Creator exists which is difficult to do with a Spirit.
  • Science deals with the natural universe. For a creator of the universe to exist, it must exist outside of the natural universe. So, really, even if such a being did exist, it would not be within the realm of science to explain it.
  • Albert Anishtain is an exception in this case. Though he had no faith in personal god but he severely believed in creation.
  • Science is very good at answering certain kinds of questions. The are very good at answering the “how”. How did the universe start? How do stars shine? They can sometimes answer the “why”. Why is the sky blue? Why do we have tides? They can do this by examining the world around us. A scientist could tell you a great deal about the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. He could describe in detail the pictures. He could analyze the paint and plaster. He could find evidence of the brush strokes that made it, and perhaps a hair or two from the brush stuck in the paint. He could tell you an awful lot about the painting, but his evidence will not point to why it was created. Without an historical record to draw from he could not tell you who created it. He may be able to eliminate some one as possibly being the painter, but he cannot conclusively state who did it, nor why it was created. An historian may have records to indicate that Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel. His records may not indicate exactly how it was done. In fact it may say things like he breathed life into the paintings. It may say that he did it at the behest of the pope, or that he was just creating a thing of beauty. Does this mean that we have an irreconcilable conflict? The scientist saying the ceiling was created by paint brushes, and the historian saying it was made by Michelangelo? Arguments and accusations flying back and forth? Could both be true? Could Michelangelo have created the Sistine Chapel frescos using paint and brushes? Why then is it so far fetched to think that God may have created the universe and all that fills it by means of the big bang and evolution?
  • Many scientists have no problem with it at all - in fact see a creator as the only scientific explanation for the universe's development. However, those who do have a problem with a creator concept have a hard time accepting the hard to avoid conclusion that some intelligent being exists which they may not be able to study, let alone understand.
  • Simply because scientific thinking largely pivots around verifiable empirical evidence and there is none to back the existence of God.
  • because they wanna feel special...even though god might not exist...
  • Because the scientist cannot match with God.
  • If "God" created the universe, where did he come from? What was he doing BEFORE he created the universe? Sure, there might be one creator of our universe, but if there is, he would most likely be using the science created in another, older universe.
  • Because a Universe with a half-way competent creator would look very different from this one. There is no evidence for a creator, and if the were a creator, he/she/it/they would have done a much better job. The Universe *looks* like it just happened. If there is a creator, (1) they should give more evidence *if* they want to be believed in,and (2) they should apologise for the rotten job they have done.
  • It's those that believe in a creator of the universe that have a problem with science that contradicts their assumptions about the way things are, not the other way around. Hate to break it to creationists and their ilk, but you are the ones that have to put up the burden of proof to support your beliefs. If science contradicts you, it's up to you to either show why the science is wrong or accept that you are wrong. So far, nobody has disproved the wealth of evidence about the history of the Universe, Earth, and the evolution of lifeforms on Earth.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy