Yep, that’s the point. I’ve seen it referenced frequently in the numerous evo/crevo science/religious threads that haunt FR, and raised almost exclusively by scientists. Which made me wonder the degree of its accuracy. Scientists are supposed to be accurate.
”I didn't bring my SuperDuperLinkerater to the discussion.”
A SuperDuperLinkerater, huh. Wow! {8 ^) But, I think an honestly researched, statistically valid, professionally conducted survey would be of more value.
”If you believe I am wrong in my assertion, then you have made that point. How does that move the ball and to what end?”
You tell me. It’s your assertion. I assume that you are in the habit making assertions that you believe to be relevant and to be reasonably correct. What was the purpose for your making this particular assertion? How did you believe you would “move the ball” and to what end?
”I can Google studies if you like -- does it make any point to the subject?”
You’ve not done that already? Why would you make an assertion before you know the degree of its accuracy or correctness? And since you raised it, what did you believe its point to be?
”I ask again: Other than a "gotcha" to me for being a bit lax in my memory, ”
We’ve now twice gone all the way around the mulberry bush on the rather simple question I raised. Stop the dancing, or end this discussion.
” what point towards the OP does this provide for you?”
Why, simply the degree of the reliability of your assertion. What was the point towards the OP you believed you were providing when you made your assertion?
”Are you saying that scientists are less Christian? If you are merely saying you don't know one way or the other then you make my point.”
Trying to change the subject won’t work with me, so don’t put words in my mouth. If I wanted to know the truth of an issue, I certainly would be interested in the reliability of its data. More dancing.
”And to reiterate, my point is to counteract the suggestions (overt and implied) that scientists are atheists and wish to push the mystical atheist agenda on schoolchildren.”
Why didn’t you say so in the first place?
”You have upbraided me on my imprecision and for that I thank you.”
I don’t know how a simple question can be thought a rebuke, but you’re welcome just the same.
”But it still makes no point in the context of the discussion.”
I don’t know how an inquiry into the accurateness of a statement could have no point, but if your statement had no point in the context of the discussion then it’s for you to explain why you made it.
”Other than diminishing a post of mine, what is your point? There are two stands on one of the many subtopics here: Scientists are "all" atheists or they are no more or less atheists than the general populace.”
OK. Which stand is it? I assume by now you would have hashed that out (but, come to think of it, you’re still talking about it).
”I thank you for pointing out I have a bit lax in my posts -- I should have started with my thesis instead of a blatant assertion. Had I merely asked why anyone would think Scientists are atheists we would not be having this digressive discussion. I will be more careful in the minefields of rhetoric in the future.”
I’m not inclined to stand off and sharp-shoot anyone. I just wanted to know the accurateness of an assertion I had seen often enough that it piqued my interest. By the way, I’ve discovered to my own regret that those rhetorical minefields are too often of our own making.
”But, now that we have run that gamut together, what is your point vis a vis the OP? Are scientists who understand TToE atheists who hate God (which was what started this entire sub-topic)? Or are they just intelligent men who understand that there is no conflict between faith and science?”
Well, I guess that’s what you were trying to establish. I get a sense that you somehow want to transfer ownership of your assertion to me. You made the assertion. It’s your baby.
Anyhow, thanks for writing.
Well, I had a few minutes free and did use my Google-fu and found.... (wait for it)... I was wrong.
There are a bunch of studies, none of which appeared comprehensive and at least some of which appear to have an agenda. But the scan looks like the number of scientists who are agnostic or atheistic is around 60% — certainly not in line with the general populace. I can fire up the SuperDuperLinkerator if you wish, but I need to find that hatpin and the dwarf with the cantaloupe.
I like my crow with a light Bearnaise and could you be kind enough to remove the feathers, feet and beak?
Now that we have that behind us, I am not sure that one can conclude that because the large % is atheistic/agnostic (many of the studies seem to agree that the survey answers could be interpreted either way) that they are pushing an agenda and using science as a club to beat God out of the children.
But I certainly need to frame my arguments around facts.
As a final note: Did you know that 87.5% of all statistics posted on a message board are pulled out of the poster’s butt?
;)