As I recall, the results of the repeat survey was published in Nature. The
results showed a considerable define in beliefs that most here would
associate with traditional Christianity. However this decline, as you note,
translated into only a small decline in belief (doubtless vague and wooly) in
some form of supreme being.
PJ seems to think that ID is the way to return "theism" (in his book belief
in God) to scientific respectibility, and thereby (one would hope) bring
about a revival of Christian faith. However these data indicate that such
general theism is still widespread, and, if we want a Christian revival we
need to preach Christ, not ID.
Jon
John W Burgeson wrote:
> Larry also wrote:
>
> "Meanwhile, let's get to the battle you mention, of changing the ruling
> paradigm in present-world academia, the often underlying assumption that
> God is
> either nonexistent, or unemployed. ..."
>
> Not having been in academia since graduate school, I find it difficult to
> comment on what you say is a "ruling paradigm." Those people I know in
> academia are, AFAIK, all Christians or Jews. But I know only a small set,
> hardly randomly selected.
>
> I do recall a 1916 survey of scientists in which 42% said they thought a
> personal God did exist and that they had some expectations of answered
> prayer. That survey was replicated a few years ago and the percentage
> then was 37%. While that may indicate some fallout (or may be within
> reasonable error bounds), it does not support your claim of "ruling
> paradigm."
>
> Perhaps others from academia on this LISTSERV would like to comment?
>
> Burgy (John Burgeson)
>
> www.burgy.50megs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 02 2001 - 17:22:56 EDT