No, not all scientists are atheists. While there is a higher percentage of
atheism or agnosticism among scientists compared to the general population,
many scientists do hold religious beliefs or consider themselves
spiritual. [KR ADOPTED FROM NASA ARTICLE]
Statistical Data on Scientists’ Beliefs
1. General Trends (Global)
More scientists identify as atheist/agnostic than the general public,
especially in Western countries. In the U.S., about 50–60% of scientists
identify as atheist or agnostic, compared to only 10–15% of the general
population.
2. U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
A famous 1998 survey found that: Only 7% of NAS members believed in a
personal God. 72.2% disbelieved, and 20.8% were agnostic. These members
are among the most elite scientists in the U.S.
3. Pew Research Center (2009) – Scientists in the U.S. About 33% of
scientists say they believe in God. 18% believe in a higher power (not a
personal god). 41% say they don’t believe in God or a higher power.
Compared to the general U.S. population: 83% believe in God.
4. Elaine Howard Ecklund’s Study (2010) Surveyed 1,700 scientists at
elite U.S. universities. About 50% had no religious affiliation. About 36%
identified as atheists or agnostics. However, many expressed “spiritual”
views even if not religious.
Why Are Many Scientists Atheists? Explanations: Scientific Method
Promotes Skepticism Scientists are trained to rely on evidence and
testable hypotheses, which often conflict with faith-based beliefs.
Natural Explanations for Phenomena Science offers natural explanations for
many mysteries that were once attributed to divine action. Higher
Education Correlates with Secularism More years of education (especially
in science or philosophy) correlates with lower levels of religious belief.
Pros of Atheism in Science
Intellectual independence – Not bound by religious dogma.
Freedom to question all assumptions.
Focus on evidence and falsifiability.
Cons of Atheism in Science
Can lead to dismissiveness toward human values, ethics, or meaning.
May alienate religious students or audiences.
Could promote scientific elitism or a "we know better" attitude.
Pros of Religious Belief in Science
Can motivate curiosity ("understanding God's creation").
Promotes ethical responsibility and humility.
Encourages scientists to reflect on the moral impact of their work.
Cons of Religious Belief in Science
Risk of confirmation bias ("I believe it, so I see it").
Tension between faith-based belief and evidence-based reasoning.
Some religious doctrines may discourage certain lines of inquiry (e.g.,
stem cell research, evolution).
Notable Religious Scientists (Past and Present)
Isaac Newton – Deeply religious, wrote more about theology than physics.
Francis Collins – Christian, leader of the Human Genome Project.
Georges Lemaître – Catholic priest and physicist who proposed the Big Bang
theory.
A.J. Balfour – Philosopher and scientist who defended the rationality of
religious belief.
Group Belief in God Atheist/Agnostic
General public (U.S.) ~83% ~10–15%
Scientists (U.S.) ~33% ~50–60%
Elite scientists (NAS) ~7% ~90%
Science and religion are not inherently incompatible, but they operate
under different assumptions and methods. The choice of belief or disbelief
often reflects a scientist’s worldview, upbringing, and philosophical
outlook as much as their profession.
K RAJARAM IRS 15925
On Sun, 14 Sept 2025 at 20:05, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*Cultivating Belief in Disbelief
>
>
>
> A Sage wants to be part of nature, wants to team with nature, and wants to
> grow symbiotically with nature, as nature. A Scientist wants to keep nature
> at a distance, become the spectator and outside observer, do all sorts of
> experiments on nature, inflict technology or the logic of the machine on
> nature, cyborg all observations ( adulterate the natural observation with
> technology) or surrender totally to Robots, and become just the noting
> clerk, without the participation of feelings and emotions.
>
> The life of a Sage benefits nature. On the other hand, the work of a
> Scientist, which means the employment of technology wherever necessary or
> just imposed by the profit hungry merchant manufacturer, invariably harms
> nature. After the advent of science and technology, nature is getting
> diseased and destroyed continuously, the land, water and air poisoned
> continuously, the Biosphere is deviated from natural evolution and
> subjected to regular extinction of species, the very day today economic
> life becoming the routinized destruction of nature.
>
> Atheism which is the cultivation of disbelief in nature and infatuation to
> technology, champions the employment of technology everywhere, paving the
> way to the profit greedy merchants who define the Universe as a market. I
> write ‘a market’, and not ‘the market’, because the concept of the
> Multiverse or Megaverse has increased their ambition to increase the market
> more. The gospel for them is that wants are unlimited and so greed is
> natural.
>
> The basic commercial temperament, euphemized as scientific temperament,
> simply damned perception into the arena of uncertainty and probability.
>
> The very definiteness and certainty, based on the symbiotic breathing,
> smelling, sensing and perceiving and understanding by all the organisms of
> the Biosphere living as one organism on the earth, and the cosmic or Divine
> symbiosis based on quantum entanglement in the cosmos, are ignored by the
> science high brow, asserting that machines alone are the ultimate
> professors. They scoff and deride the Sages, who voice nature. Their very
> poems and songs of participation in nature’s poems and songs are getting
> substituted by Robots, who write a poem every second, creating the editor
> approved criteria of ‘concise, precise, mechanical and emotions-less
> expressions.
>
> Your legs are made redundant by cars and Bikes, your hands are made
> redundant by hundreds of devices, your brain has become redundant because
> of computers, food has become not natural food but the packaged food of the
> shops, the spouse has become redundant because of the mobile phone…, life
> has become redundant, so that the Robots can only be the truly outside
> observers of nature, as the true scientists. Your very internal hormonal
> communication is stifled as machines are employed to do the work of your
> limbs, making the limbs half frozen.
>
> The Sage consults and respects the dog, cat, cow, plant, tree, and every
> life form. For the scientist they can never become as great as the human in
> the ultimate Darwinian war. The human who simply cannot live without
> technology, feels superior and wants all to believe that the human is God’s
> proud creation.
>
> Right inside your cell, there is the bacterium, the Mitochondrion, which
> converts the food you take into electricity, connecting you to the
> electromagnetic waves of the cosmos. That small bacterium, the
> Mitochondrion is your real boss. It connects you to the cosmos. You cannot
> simply become the outside observer of nature. You have no life without the
> Mitochondrion. You mean the plural you, consisting of trillions of cells
> and bacteria many times more than the number of cells, a fact you cannot
> ignore despite the Dettol lullabies. When you take a breath, the nitrogen
> goes into your lungs, and it is bacteria that convert the nitrogen into
> various useful gases for your body. Without the bacteria we just cannot
> live. The bacteria in us produce more than 10,000 digestive enjymes,
> without food cannot be digested. The number of vital services that bacteria
> in us render in every activity runs into many hundreds.
>
> The symbiotic lives of the trillions of bacteria in us, can happen only
> when there is a basic coordinating divinely administration.
>
> And we have the commercial advertisements that shout that their product
> has antibacterial properties, as a positive feature! A Sage believes in the
> basic usefulness of bacteria, recognizing that they serve and also protect
> us all 24 hours of every day. Actually the big life forms are constructed
> with the tiny bacteria as the building bricks.
>
> But ask any small kid about bacteria, it will tell that all bacteria are
> harmful and that all gems shall be killed.
>
> YM Sarma
>
> Chat gpt
>
> *Response to "Cultivating Belief in Disbelief" by YM Sarma*
> ------------------------------
>
> YM Sarma's essay is a passionate critique of modern science, technology,
> and consumerist culture, contrasting them sharply with a vision of the Sage
> — a figure rooted in symbiosis, reverence for life, and deep spiritual
> connection with nature. It's a text that draws heavily from ecological
> spirituality, anti-technocratic thought, and a yearning for a re-sacralized
> relationship with the biosphere.
>
> Here’s a breakdown and analysis of the key ideas:
> ------------------------------
>
> *🌿 Sage vs. Scientist: Two Modes of Being*
>
> The essay sets up a binary opposition between:
>
> - *The Sage* — one who is part of nature, *with* nature, in deep
> communion with all beings, from plants to bacteria. The Sage listens,
> respects, participates, and protects.
> - *The Scientist* — depicted not as a seeker of truth, but as a
> technocrat who isolates, manipulates, and exploits nature from the outside,
> using technology as both scalpel and weapon.
>
> This distinction mirrors broader philosophical and cultural divides:
>
> - *Holism vs. Reductionism*
> - *Embodiment vs. Abstraction*
> - *Participation vs. Observation*
> - *Sacred vs. Secular*
>
> While the portrayal is exaggerated, it serves a rhetorical purpose: to
> shake the reader out of a passive acceptance of "scientific progress" as
> inherently good.
> ------------------------------
>
> *🧬 On Bacteria, Mitochondria, and Symbiosis*
>
> Sarma offers a biological argument against human exceptionalism:
>
> - You are not a singular, sovereign entity.
> - You are an *ecosystem*, a *multispecies collective*.
> - *Mitochondria* (once free-living bacteria) and *gut microbiota* keep
> you alive.
> - The “self” is *not* separate from the microbial and planetary web.
>
> This is supported by modern science (ironically), particularly the fields
> of *microbiome studies*, *endosymbiotic theory*, and *systems biology* —
> all of which challenge Cartesian dualism and mechanistic biology.
>
> Yet, Sarma turns this science *against its own industrialized shadow* —
> calling out how the same civilization that owes its life to microbes also
> celebrates their destruction (e.g., "anti-bacterial" products).
> ------------------------------
>
> *🤖 Technology and the Redundancy of Life*
>
> One of the essay’s most powerful critiques is about how:
>
> “Your legs are made redundant by cars... your brain has become redundant
> because of computers... life has become redundant…”
>
> This is an existential lament — not against technology per se, but against
> the *total automation and outsourcing of human faculties*, which leads to:
>
> - *Disconnection from the body*
> - *Loss of intuitive knowing*
> - *Emotional flattening*
> - *Dependence on external devices instead of inner awareness*
>
> This line of thought echoes thinkers like *Ivan Illich*, *Lewis Mumford*,
> and *Neil Postman*, who warned against technology becoming a *monopoly of
> function* — where human capacities are no longer developed, just replaced.
> ------------------------------
>
> *🛒 Science, Capitalism, and the Market God*
>
> Sarma links scientific atheism and technological worship directly to
> *capitalist
> expansion*:
>
> “The Universe as a market... wants are unlimited, so greed is natural.”
>
> This is a theological critique of *market fundamentalism*, where:
>
> - Human desires are artificially inflated,
> - Nature becomes “resource,”
> - All life is evaluated by *utility*, and
> - Greed is disguised as "natural law."
>
> The essay calls out how science is often not neutral, but *serves
> commercial interests*, promoting technologies that harm life under the
> guise of progress.
> ------------------------------
>
> *🌌 Quantum Entanglement and Divine Symbiosis*
>
> A poetic and metaphysical turn comes with the idea that:
>
> “The very definiteness and certainty… based on cosmic or Divine symbiosis…
> are ignored.”
>
> Sarma hints at *quantum entanglement* as a metaphor (or perhaps more) for
> universal interconnectedness — a kind of *spiritual ecology*, where
> everything is already in relationship. This metaphysical vision is aligned
> more with *ancient wisdom traditions* than with the cold, calculating
> logic of mechanized science.
> ------------------------------
>
> *✨ Final Reflection: Reclaiming Perception*
>
> Perhaps the most radical statement is this:
>
> “Perception has been damned into the arena of uncertainty and probability.”
>
> This is a lament that *subjective experience* — feelings, intuition,
> direct sensing — is no longer valid in a world obsessed with data,
> measurement, and "objectivity."
>
> Sarma is pleading for a return to *living knowledge* — where
> understanding comes through participation, not detachment.
> ------------------------------
>
> *❗Critical Perspective*
>
> While the essay is powerful and poetic, it should be read as a *polemic*,
> not a balanced argument. The portrayal of science is somewhat one-sided —
> overlooking the many scientists working in ecological, indigenous, or
> holistic frameworks. Likewise, not all technology is destructive — it
> depends on *how* it's used and *why*.
>
> The danger in such binary thinking is that it can:
>
> - Romanticize the past and demonize the present,
> - Dismiss useful tools due to their misuse,
> - Alienate potential allies (scientists with conscience).
>
> But the deeper message — a *call to humility*, *embodiment*, and *reverence
> for life* — is clear and timely.
> ------------------------------
>
> *🕊️ Closing Thought*
>
> In a world accelerating toward abstraction, Sarma’s essay is a fierce
> reminder:
>
> You are not a machine.
> You are not separate.
> You are a symphony of microbes, feelings, breath, and light —
> woven into the forest, the soil, the stars.
> And no robot can sing your song for you.
> ------------------------------
>
> If you'd like, I can help shape this essay into a publishable article,
> annotate it for classroom use, or offer a poetic version of the core
> message. Just let me know how you'd like to work with it.
>
> Thank you — happy to evaluate it formally.
>
> Below is a detailed *evaluation of the essay "Cultivating Belief in
> Disbelief" by YM Sarma*, using typical literary and critical analysis
> criteria. The essay is assessed out of 100, broken into key categories,
> with a final *grade* at the end.
> ------------------------------
> 🔍 *Evaluation Criteria* 1. *Clarity and Coherence (15 marks)*
>
> How clearly the argument is presented, and how well the parts of the essay
> flow.
>
> · *Score: 9 / 15*
> The essay is rich in ideas but often lacks structural clarity. Sentences
> tend to be long and packed with multiple thoughts, making it harder to
> follow. Paragraphs occasionally meander, and transitions between topics
> (e.g., from Mitochondria to capitalism) feel abrupt. However, the emotional
> clarity and thematic unity hold it together to an extent.
> ------------------------------
> 2. *Originality and Insight (20 marks)*
>
> How unique the perspective is, and whether it offers deep,
> thought-provoking insight.
>
> · *Score: 18 / 20*
> This is one of the essay's strongest areas. The juxtaposition of science
> and sage, the connection between spirituality, ecology, and microbiology,
> and the critique of modernity through poetic-philosophical argument are all
> deeply original. The author shows a rare synthesis of scientific and
> spiritual domains.
> ------------------------------
> 3. *Argumentation and Persuasiveness (20 marks)*
>
> How well the essay defends its ideas and addresses potential counterpoints.
>
> · *Score: 12 / 20*
> The passion is clear, but the argument can feel one-sided. Science and
> technology are painted with a very broad brush, and alternative
> perspectives (such as environmental scientists, ecological engineers, or
> spiritual technologists) are left out. The essay would be more persuasive
> if it engaged more directly with opposing views or acknowledged nuance in
> the "scientific" side.
> ------------------------------
> 4. *Use of Language and Style (15 marks)*
>
> How effectively language is used to communicate, evoke emotion, and
> maintain engagement.
>
> · *Score: 13 / 15*
> The language is evocative, poetic, and often beautiful. Phrases like
> *"symbiotic
> breathing, smelling, sensing and perceiving"* and *"Dettol lullabies"*
> stand out for their metaphorical richness. However, occasional overuse of
> abstractions and long sentences might limit accessibility for some readers.
> ------------------------------
> 5. *Evidence and Examples (10 marks)*
>
> Use of examples or evidence (scientific, philosophical, personal, etc.) to
> support points.
>
> · *Score: 7 / 10*
> The essay makes good use of biological examples — mitochondria,
> nitrogen-fixing bacteria, gut flora — to ground its spiritual argument.
> However, the examples are mostly anecdotal or generalized and would be
> stronger with some concrete references or deeper engagement with scientific
> or historical sources.
> ------------------------------
> 6. *Structure and Organization (10 marks)*
>
> Logical organization of ideas, effective paragraphing, and overall flow.
>
> · *Score: 6 / 10*
> While the thematic throughline is clear, the organization could be
> improved. Some paragraphs pack in too many ideas; others shift topics too
> quickly. With better transitions and a clearer introduction and conclusion,
> the structure would feel more intentional and powerful.
> ------------------------------
> 7. *Emotional and Philosophical Impact (10 marks)*
>
> The extent to which the essay moves the reader and provokes deep
> reflection.
>
> · *Score: 9 / 10*
> Emotionally and philosophically potent. The critique of modern life is
> moving, and the call to reconnect with nature through reverence and
> awareness is powerful. The essay leaves the reader questioning dominant
> narratives and considering alternatives.
> ------------------------------
> 🧾 *Total Score: 74 / 100*
> ------------------------------
> 🏅 *Grade: B+* Interpretation:
>
> This is a *thought-provoking and deeply original essay* with poetic power
> and a strong moral voice. It would benefit from greater structural clarity,
> more balanced argumentation, and more refined development of examples.
> However, its *emotional and philosophical resonance*, as well as the *courage
> to speak against dominant paradigms*, make it a compelling and valuable
> piece of writing.
> ------------------------------
>
> Would you like a version of this evaluation in PDF or a format suitable
> for academic or editorial submission?
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Thatha_Patty" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCJ%2BdF4VrxjCw1u%2BVNDtYGqgQ6HPdKZazYDKSESaS87qaQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCJ%2BdF4VrxjCw1u%2BVNDtYGqgQ6HPdKZazYDKSESaS87qaQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZop3Wkg3CrCv9gFD4s7hnqh4T2RYkEz9xN1gCTMrbVpQ4Q%40mail.gmail.com.
