27 ms·

I seem to recall seeing a breakdown of belief in God by discipline, and it was the opposite of what I would have expected. Abstract mathematicians were the mos

I seem to recall seeing a breakdown of belief in God by discipline, and it was the opposite of what I would have expected. Abstract mathematicians were the most likely to believe in some form of God, followed by physicists, with biologists being the least likely to believe. Considering how complex and unpredictable biological science is compared to something like particle physics, I was surprised by this.

gjm11 6y ago
I don't think it should be surprising if biologists are the least likely group to believe in God. One common reason for believing in God is how ingeniously designed living things often are. The reason why this turns out not to be a very good reason is that evolution explains this better (dealing e.g. with cases where the design seems needlessly complex, malicious, etc.). Biologists are more familiar with evolution and spend more time thinking about it than other scientists. Relatedly, evolution has frequently been the target of attack from religious people and groups. Biologists are likely to notice this more and be more bothered by it (imagine a world where there's a strong anti-technology lobby motivated by religion; engineers would likely be more likely to be opposed to religion in that case). Pure mathematicians are used to thinking of intangible things like numbers, sets of sets of sets of sets, equivalence classes of functions from manifolds to abelian groups, etc., as real things even though they clearly don't "live" in the physical universe, and perhaps even as more perfect than the tangible inhabitants of the material world. I think this may make the idea of a sort of spiritual universe with inhabitants like a Most Perfect Being Imaginable particularly congenial to pure mathematicians. (On the other hand, pure mathematicians ought to be less vulnerable to some varieties of philosophical flim-flam used by religious apologists. For instance, the so-called "ontological argument" is composed mostly of logical errors, and I would expect pure mathematicians to notice this more readily than anyone else. ... But: Kurt Goedel, who was one hell of a good logician, actually put some effort into coming up with a logically sound version of the ontological argument. Of course it's no good because it relies on axioms there's no reason to think apply to the actual world, but it does indicate that a sufficiently ingenious mathematician may react to a terrible argument not by dismissing it but by finding a way to make it less terrible.) [In case anyone cares: I am a pure mathematician, or at least I was one before moved into industry where one gets paid more for doing easier work. I was a religious believer for many years but am not any more.]
- jack_riminton 6y ago
  I think the cause may be a lot more prosaic than all of that; namely that doctors are more likely to be the children of ambitious immigrants and are therefore more likely to be religious
- mattkrause 6y ago
  In a similar vein, a lot of "ingenious biological designs" turn out to be amazingly hacky close up. The eye, for example, has blood vessels blocking some of the photoreceptors. A moderately intelligent designer wouldn't run the power cables directly in front of the camera's lens! Or...maybe we're not made in His Image: cephalopods don't have this problem, after all. Cthulhu ftaghn....
  - abandonliberty 6y ago
    If you accept that God is an internet startup, it all makes sense. Everything barely cobbled together, but it looks pretty good from the outside!
- abandonliberty 6y ago
  >One common reason for believing in God is how ingeniously designed living things often are. Any decent genetics/medical class will thoroughly disabuse you of this notion. There's a clear lack of any intelligence in our design beyond satisfying evolutionary requirements. Up to 9/10 first time mothers suffer a perineal laceration during childbirth. 65% require stitches. Male/female ducks are in an evolutionary arms race for control of breeding. Males have extremely long corkscrew penises for rape, while the females have vaginas with fake paths designed to resist. Humans have the same conflict, but it plays out socially (e.g. faking signals of high value during courtship) or in war. A number of religious people, both genders, have argued to me that we can't apply human concepts of rape to animals/god. Nuts. Either God is a sick, twisted, sadistic fucker, or life wasn't intelligently designed. Pick one.
  - gjm11 6y ago
    > Any decent genetics/medical class will thoroughly disabuse you of this notion. That was my point: this is one reason why biologists are particularly unlikely to believe in God. (At least in places where the dominant form of belief-in-God gives prominence to the idea that God is responsible for the design of living things.)
throwawaygh 6y ago
Makes sense. Abstract math and physics are very... platonic. I can understand why someone who believes in a Divine Order would be attracted to abstract mathematics or theoretical physics. Also makes sense that messy experimentalism would be less allured by the idea of especially Abrahamic God.

gjm11 6y ago

I don't think it should be surprising if biologists are the least likely group to believe in God. One common reason for believing in God is how ingeniously designed living things often are. The reason why this turns out not to be a very good reason is that evolution explains this better (dealing e.g. with cases where the design seems needlessly complex, malicious, etc.). Biologists are more familiar with evolution and spend more time thinking about it than other scientists. Relatedly, evolution has frequently been the target of attack from religious people and groups. Biologists are likely to notice this more and be more bothered by it (imagine a world where there's a strong anti-technology lobby motivated by religion; engineers would likely be more likely to be opposed to religion in that case). Pure mathematicians are used to thinking of intangible things like numbers, sets of sets of sets of sets, equivalence classes of functions from manifolds to abelian groups, etc., as real things even though they clearly don't "live" in the physical universe, and perhaps even as more perfect than the tangible inhabitants of the material world. I think this may make the idea of a sort of spiritual universe with inhabitants like a Most Perfect Being Imaginable particularly congenial to pure mathematicians. (On the other hand, pure mathematicians ought to be less vulnerable to some varieties of philosophical flim-flam used by religious apologists. For instance, the so-called "ontological argument" is composed mostly of logical errors, and I would expect pure mathematicians to notice this more readily than anyone else. ... But: Kurt Goedel, who was one hell of a good logician, actually put some effort into coming up with a logically sound version of the ontological argument. Of course it's no good because it relies on axioms there's no reason to think apply to the actual world, but it does indicate that a sufficiently ingenious mathematician may react to a terrible argument not by dismissing it but by finding a way to make it less terrible.) [In case anyone cares: I am a pure mathematician, or at least I was one before moved into industry where one gets paid more for doing easier work. I was a religious believer for many years but am not any more.]

jack_riminton 6y ago
I think the cause may be a lot more prosaic than all of that; namely that doctors are more likely to be the children of ambitious immigrants and are therefore more likely to be religious
mattkrause 6y ago
In a similar vein, a lot of "ingenious biological designs" turn out to be amazingly hacky close up. The eye, for example, has blood vessels blocking some of the photoreceptors. A moderately intelligent designer wouldn't run the power cables directly in front of the camera's lens! Or...maybe we're not made in His Image: cephalopods don't have this problem, after all. Cthulhu ftaghn....
- abandonliberty 6y ago
  If you accept that God is an internet startup, it all makes sense. Everything barely cobbled together, but it looks pretty good from the outside!
abandonliberty 6y ago
>One common reason for believing in God is how ingeniously designed living things often are. Any decent genetics/medical class will thoroughly disabuse you of this notion. There's a clear lack of any intelligence in our design beyond satisfying evolutionary requirements. Up to 9/10 first time mothers suffer a perineal laceration during childbirth. 65% require stitches. Male/female ducks are in an evolutionary arms race for control of breeding. Males have extremely long corkscrew penises for rape, while the females have vaginas with fake paths designed to resist. Humans have the same conflict, but it plays out socially (e.g. faking signals of high value during courtship) or in war. A number of religious people, both genders, have argued to me that we can't apply human concepts of rape to animals/god. Nuts. Either God is a sick, twisted, sadistic fucker, or life wasn't intelligently designed. Pick one.
- gjm11 6y ago
  > Any decent genetics/medical class will thoroughly disabuse you of this notion. That was my point: this is one reason why biologists are particularly unlikely to believe in God. (At least in places where the dominant form of belief-in-God gives prominence to the idea that God is responsible for the design of living things.)

throwawaygh 6y ago

Makes sense. Abstract math and physics are very... platonic. I can understand why someone who believes in a Divine Order would be attracted to abstract mathematics or theoretical physics. Also makes sense that messy experimentalism would be less allured by the idea of especially Abrahamic God.