Ignorant Atheists?

[Brick-top]

If they have the PHD, degree etc then they're Scientists. What they believe means jack shit.

I highly disagree. Having a PhD is not a prerequisite to being a scientist. All that I see as being reasonably neccesary is that one formally studied a science in college and has a degree in one of those sciences.

Do you know that Einstein didn't have his PhD when he created special relativity?

Pete

Then what does prerequisite to being a scientist?

If I have a degree in cosmology, but I rarely make any discoveries, am I not a scientist?

[Tiberius]

I agree with Pete. A scientist is an expert in a field of science.

To be a scientist you must have a degree in science, or at least have studied it enough to be considered an expert by the scientific community. A PhD is not necessary.

[josef rosenkranz]

When you are speaking of scientists who believe in God you should be more specific: some of them might be practicant religious devouts,some
of them UG believers and some of them as I called para-atheists,see my topic on this point

[Edwardo Piet]

If a creationist has the degrees that make him a scientist and this therefore means he is scientist;then even if he is considered a scientist he certainly can't be considered a TRUE scientist since his creationism is not based on scientific evidence and it contradicts the science he practices!

So he is a scientist if you believe a scientist is based on his degrees that 'make' him a scientist.
He is not a scientist if you believe that a scientist is based on the practice of science (without contradiction from faith (or faith disguised as belief with fake evidence) in supernatural garbage).

In my opinion science and evolution are incompatible with creationism so a 'scientist' with the degrees to 'make' him a scientist - but who believes in creationism which is NOT compatible with science because it is not compatible with REAL evidence - in my opinion is NOT a scientist.

Well thats what I think anyway

[Meatball]

I think you guys are overthinking this.

A scientist is by definition someone who practices the scientific method. A creationist is not a scientist. A child touching a hot kettle to confirm his suspicions that it will hurt is technically a scientist.

Degrees don't mean anything other than you've been accredited by an educational institution. Of course, that means you have learned a great body of knowledge, but that doesn't automatically make you a "scientist".

It's like saying having a driver's license makes you a mechanic.

[Alan]

Being a scientist means practicing the scientific method and knowing wtf you're talking about. Neither applies to creationists. End of discussion.

As for the OP: he should have know that the problem with such surveys is the definition of "God". MANY scientists use the metaphor of "God" to simplify: Einstein is a prime example for this (no sane person would argue he was a theist in any relevant sense -- creationists do, though). An unfair survery may easily use this fact to skew the results into the desired direction (in fact, ALL surveys are biased, precisely because they are surveys -- the questions are worded with certain intentions and the conclusion are made with certain intentions; if the surveys were completely factual, we would be talking about correlations in test groups, not about universal truths).

I would say that MANY "scientists" "believe" in "God" (sorry for the abundance of quotation marks, but I want to make it clear that we're talking about vaguely defined concepts here) in some way or another. But I would also say that using that fact to make a claim about "most scientists" being "religious" is misleading and impractical, to say the least.

Besides, scientists are human and humans tend to hold silly beliefs. As long as that doesn't show in their work, it doesn't belong in a discussion about the merits of science.

[infidel666]

I agree that a scientist is one who adheres to the scientific method. Scientists existed before there were science degrees. Creationsists can follow the scientific method with respect to many things. For example, I would think a creationist could apply the scientific method effectively in the field of chemistry without much difficulty. But they have a number of false assumptions and an irrational acceptance of a non-parsimonius explanation. A creationist scientist is a scientist who has a long way to go, at least in some respects.

[starbucks]

I agree with Pete. A scientist is an expert in a field of science.

To be a scientist you must have a degree in science, or at least have studied it enough to be considered an expert by the scientific community. A PhD is not necessary.

I agree with you also.

I also want to add that it's also in the way the scientist conducts his research and findings (using the scientific method by having measurable data and stuff).

Thus, a creationist can be a scientist as long as they adhere to all of that.

But the data must also reflect the hypothesis. Too many times people pull up data that is irrelevant to what they're trying to prove.

[Meatball]

To be a scientist you must have a degree in science, or at least have studied it enough to be considered an expert by the scientific community.

I agree with you also.

This simply isn't true. 'Scientist' isn't a vague term. It has a very clear, universal definition.

If I am practising the scientific method, I am acting as a scientist. I don't need a degree. Before the advent of the Academic Degree were there no scientists? Background knowledge doesn't matter, it's simple linguistics.

If I am running, I am a runner.

If I am playing a piano, I am a pianist.

I am am practising the scientific method, I am a scientist.

[Edwardo Piet]

The following possibility could occur, atleast somewhere, or at sometime:

If there is an atheist alive today who is BRILLIANT at practicing and studying science by looking at the evidence but who has no degrees and he is therefore what you could call an 'amateur scientist' , is he not; more of a scientist; than someone for example, who could have all the degrees that 'make' him a scientist... but is in fact terrible at studying and practicing science despite his degree, someone who is in fact a terrible scientist... and who is also, for arguments sake, a creationist.

Is the amateur scientist not more of a scientist? Since the amateur atheist scientist actually STUDIES and PRACTICES science PROPERLY by looking at the EVIDENCE...Considering that's what a scientist DOES...doesn't that makes him a scientist? You can have all the degrees, but if you don't truly practice and study science properly...you're no more than a pseudo-scientist...a fake scientist, disguised as a true scientist, - ESPECIALLY if you actually BELIEVE IN GOD. You can be partly scientific if you believe in God...but supernatural beliefs can interfere with science....because supernatural beliefs; are NOT scientific. So TRUE scientists... don't believe in the supernatural... because science is about truth...and supernature almost certainly...isn't true.