Why do some professionals in the sciences reject religion?

[Gary Childress]

Is it because there are many religions, and many seem to disagree on various matters in ways that they cannot resolve conclusively? Is science a one-explanation-fits-all approach to understanding the world? Or do scientists also have fundamental disagreements on various matters in ways that they cannot resolve conclusively? Do scientists treat things they cannot resolve conclusively in a different manner than religions do?

One way that science may treat disagreements that it cannot resolve conclusively that I can think of, which religions maybe do not, is that science seems to operate on "theories" that can be revised and updated if and as needed. Do religions also operate on "theories" that can be revised and updated if and as needed?

It's difficult to imagine that the world can discard science and thrive on religion alone, however, can the world discard religion and thrive on science alone? Or is religion needed in some way? What can be said of religions that have endured for centuries? Is cultural success proof enough of a religion's validity?

Finally, is a pluralistic approach to the world the best way ahead for humanity or is it necessary to weed out what seem like bad ideas in favor of what seem like good ones? In other words, do we strive for diversity and multiculturalism in knowledge, or do we strive for a single unifying standard in knowledge? Can we strive for both simultaneously?

[godelian]

A professional whose religion is Christianity has no choice in that regard. Christianity and logic is like water and fire. Christianity is an illogical concoction meant to justify why you should worship the fake divinity of a man and his single mother. Christianity insists on the staunch belief in glaring contradictions, such as Jesus is his own father, or Jesus was praying to himself, and so on. Therefore, Christianity is not compatible with mathematics, science, engineering, or medicine. Note that Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism do not have this problem.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think it would be good first to establish THAT professionals in the sciences reject religion. Where are you getting your info from? What are the statistics?

I'm not disagreeing, I just think it's nice context to have.

[Flannel Jesus]

Is it because there are many religions, and many seem to disagree on various matters in ways that they cannot resolve conclusively? Is science a one-explanation-fits-all approach to understanding the world? Or do scientists also have fundamental disagreements on various matters in ways that they cannot resolve conclusively? Do scientists treat things they cannot resolve conclusively in a different manner than religions do?

Science isn't *exactly* a one explanation fits all situation, but it's MUCH CLOSER to that, and that's, I think, an epistemic strength.

Scientists often disagree on what model is likely to be true(er) on the frontier of science, but scientists tend to agree on a huge portion of basic facts that aren't at the frontier. Scientists pretty much all agree on the atomic model of chemistry, for example, even if they happen to disagree on their interpretations of quantum mechanics. Science has a pretty huge repotoire of well-established, virtually unanimously agreed upon facts.

And they do treat their disagreements differently. Scientists don't tend to think anybody shoud go to hell for thinking the wrong thing about scientific ideas. "Oh, you think such-and-such is true? I think you should be tortured for eternity!" When it comes to the human endeavour of figuring out how our world works, attitudes like that are... retarded.

[BigMike]

It's honestly strange—almost unbelievable—that in 2025, with AI writing symphonies and robots performing surgeries, there are still people clinging to the idea that a god is necessary for human existence. I mean, look around. Machines we built—machines without souls, without prayers, without myths—can now do almost everything we used to think made us “special.” And they do it better.

If we needed a divine spark to explain life, where’s the god in a self-driving car that avoids pedestrians better than a human? Where’s the deity in an AI that can predict protein folding more accurately than decades of human trial and error? The gap that god used to fill is now a gap that algorithms and physics fill—with repeatable, observable outcomes.

This is exactly why so many professionals in the sciences reject religion. Not out of arrogance, but because the tools of science actually work. Religions tend to freeze ideas in time. Science evolves. It corrects itself. It thrives on uncertainty and testing. Religion, by contrast, demands belief even in the face of contradictory evidence—and punishes those who ask too many questions.

And when people say religion must be needed because it's endured for centuries? So did alchemy. So did bloodletting. Endurance is not evidence of truth. It's often just evidence of how stubbornly a false idea can cling to a culture.

So in the end, is pluralism valuable? Sure, culturally, yes. But not all ideas are equal. We don’t need to pretend flat Earth theory deserves a seat at the table just to be polite. At some point, we have to start weeding out what’s plainly wrong—especially if we care about building a future based on what’s true, not just what’s traditional.

[phyllo]

professionals in the sciences reject religion?

There is a general trend towards atheism in the West. It's not surprising that science professionals would be part of it.

There is a trend to separate secular and non-secular pursuits ... separating religion and work.

There is a trend for negative attitudes towards religion. Professionals may simply choose to avoid it by keeping their beliefs to themselves.


That said ...

Scientists tend to find that holy scripture does not hold up under scrutiny.

They also do not like the idea that laws of nature are altered/suspended/ignored by miraculous events.

Therefore, they are more attracted to deism than to the common religions.

[godelian]

Christians pray to a hominid and his single mother because they believe in their fake divinity. So, why not pray to the emperor of Japan? Isn't he also a god? Or to the Holy baboon and his favorite bitch? Ok, now we get it. It is the Holy Zoo of New York who created the universe!

[Impenitent]

sciences? ask an army chaplain...

Jesus/Allah/Uncle Sam says kill that nonbeliever/infidel...

-Imp

[Flannel Jesus]

professionals in the sciences reject religion?

There is a general trend towards atheism in the West. It's not surprising that science professionals would be part of it.

I would suspect that, more than being a part of it, they're at the forefront of it. Rather than going along with the trend, I think those in the scientific fields have been the ones making it a trend in the first place.

[phyllo]

sciences? ask an army chaplain...

Jesus/Allah/Uncle Sam says kill that nonbeliever/infidel...

-Imp

Doesn't sound like what Jesus would say.

[Impenitent]

sciences? ask an army chaplain...

Jesus/Allah/Uncle Sam says kill that nonbeliever/infidel...

-Imp

Doesn't sound like what Jesus would say.

he would have said it in Aramaic or Hebrew...

ask the chaplain...

-Imp

[phyllo]

professionals in the sciences reject religion?

There is a general trend towards atheism in the West. It's not surprising that science professionals would be part of it.

I would suspect that, more than being a part of it, they're at the forefront of it. Rather than going along with the trend, I think those in the scientific fields have been the ones making it a trend in the first place.

I don't think so. I think it's driven by affluence.

Poor people need God and religion. Those with a roof over their heads and a full stomach, don't think they need either one.

[Flannel Jesus]

There is a general trend towards atheism in the West. It's not surprising that science professionals would be part of it.

I would suspect that, more than being a part of it, they're at the forefront of it. Rather than going along with the trend, I think those in the scientific fields have been the ones making it a trend in the first place.

I don't think so. I think it's driven by affluence.

Poor people need God and religion. Those with a roof over their heads and a full stomach, don't think they need either one.

Wealth and religiosity do negatively correlate like you say, but I'm pretty sure scientific education and religiosity negatively correlate even more.

And of course, one of the ways that wealth affects religion is perhaps indirectly, via education. Wealthy people get more education generally, and higher educated people are less religious.

Here's some interesting reading: https://ncse.ngo/do-scientists-really-reject-god
Apparently, more prominent scientists are even less likely to believe in god than less prominent scientists, and I suspect the level of disbelief there can't fully be explained just by wealth alone - I really doubt the rate of atheism among the wealthy exceeds the rate of atheism among prominent scientists, but it's hard to find the right figures to compare.

(PS I asked an AI, shame on me I'm sure, and it seems that atheism among scientists has long exceeded atheism among the wealthy. The wealthy today are only nearly as atheist as scientists were in the early 1900s. Scientists are leading the trend, it seems to me)

(PSS I asked the AI for sources, here's a pew survey about income and religiosity: https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-l ... tion/100k/ , this was taken in I think 2023-2024, so very recently, and even then the rates of atheism among people earning more than 100k [perhaps that's not high enough for 'wealthy', idk] are outstripped by rates of atheism from scientists even a century ago. You might personally like to theorize that wealth is the trend-setter here, but I think you'll understand if I disagree here, it just doesn't look that way to me)

[Alexiev]

When all the scientists are in hell they can develop weapons to tip the balance of the war between heaven and hell in Satan's favor. Uh oh!

[Flannel Jesus]

When all the scientists are in hell they can develop weapons to tip the balance of the war between heaven and hell in Satan's favor. Uh oh!

It can't just be me that thinks the idea of hell for people who just believe the wrong thing seems incredibly perverse.