It's a big, fat myth that all scientists are religion-hating atheists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/occams-corner/2013/mar/04/myth-scientists-religion-hating-atheistsPosted by
Sylvia McLain
Monday 4 March 2013 10.59 EST
Whether or not you think science is wonderful, the stereotype of all scientists being atheists is unrealistic. There is, however, a special dance
Science and religion: not mutually exclusive. (Detail from stained glass window at Lincoln Cathedral by Pommiebastards on Flickr)
Scientists used to be white guys in white lab coats with crazy hair, spectacles and an autistic inability to relate to other people. Now scientists are (mostly) white guys who are obsessed about the wonder of science and hate religion; and I think they all like Star Trek quite a bit too. This new religion-hating, super-awed scientist stereotype seems to based on some very strange amalgamation between Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins. And this cartoon-version of "what a scientist looks like" is all sort of tangled up in religion; where science pundits are either vilified because they are seen to all hate religion or almost worshiped like gods they supposedly detest.
Ignoring that science and religion are really not the same thing, on the love side Cox has been said to resemble what God would have probably looked like "with hair that falls around his face like a helix".
On the flip-side, popular scientists have been attacked for using the misty-eyed language of religion – because apparently using the word "wonder" ain't allowed if you are an atheist or a scientist. As Eliane Glaser put it last week: "It's ironic that the public engagement with the science crowd is so pro-wonder, because they're so anti-religion."
All scientists; religion haters. Also it is a little known fact but now when you get a physics PhD in the UK, you are given a job-lot of Wonders wallpaper for your new office and complementary D:Ream CD; which must be played on high days and holidays. We also learn a special dance but I am not allowed to talk about this.
more at link
= new reply since forum marked as read
Let me ask you this. Do you have any doctors? Do you know if they are religious or not?
There are people who are religionists in the same way that a man can be a feminist, if you know what I mean.
Lol - were you guided by some force to the religion group? It can be a fun place to learn about how others think.
As to the talking point about everyone being an atheist, I reject it. There is a huge gaping grey area between being a pure theist and an atheist.
Too bad he didn't have you around to advise him. 
significantly higher than the general public, it is far from the "vast proportion" according to what I have read.
Here is a good article:
http://www.annarbor.com/faith/science-vs-religion-what-are-scientists-religious-beliefs/
The point for me is that these are two different things that are not at all mutually exclusive.
The "wonder" issue is an interesting topic. Most people's understanding of science is very limited and they have to accept scientific finding as some sort of leap of faith, as they do not have the tools to assess the validity of the methods or findings.
This is a particular problem due to the internet, where many otherwise rational people accept anything that is put out there as a scientific finding as fact. I hear it every day - people use completely bad science as fact because they read it on the internet.
In physics, the proportion of unbelievers is very high; in biology, still high, but not so much. The average of all scientists, only a third believe in God. I don't know how anybody can claim that that's a high percentage. Here's a typical study (from Pew):
http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
In short, it is a fact that working scientists generally are not God believers. The reasons for this should be obvious.
On the Internet issue, you are oh so correct. There is so much woo and pseudoscience that it scares me. People will apparently believe anything, if it is presented with authority. Ironically, scientists above all must learn to distrust authority to be successful. That's one lesson that most people have not learned. The only valid authority is nature herself! It certainly isn't a person in a pulpit or even somebody with a Nobel medal.
One mythical creature or another. 
and the general public. I can't dispute that. But there is also some significant overlap. Those that overlap would be an interesting group to talk to, imo.
I hope children are being taught how to evaluate internet information in a scientific way. Things like peer reviewed studies, basic statistics and critical reading would go a long way in helping stem the tide of bogus information out there.
I have friends spending a fortune on supplements and other quackery. When I take the time to go over the "data" they are using to support this, they are sometimes grateful, but often they just insist that what they have read is true.
...though I do know many religious people who are so all-fire eager to find atheists to be hypocrites that if an atheist says the word "wonder," the religious person will jump all over them. No atheist worth listening to is unaware that any human being can have what is commonly called a numinous experience--meaning a moment of "Wow" when looking at a distant galaxy or a beautiful sunrise. But it's hardly surprising that certain religious types insist that, like morality, a belief in the divine is necessary to experience such things. It's yet another way to scare people into not being atheists--"You'll lose your sense of wonder!"
Such religious groups also tend to use the "scientists are atheists" meme as a way of keeping their members from learning anything outside of what the religion wants them to believe (i.e. thinking and researching things for themselves). The stereotype of the atheist scientist isn't, after all, new. Look at all the old movies where the scientist "plays at being god" and something horrible happens. The message: godly folk stay away from science! Knowledge is dangerous and god doesn't want you to think. This has always been a way for certain religious groups to keep their followers believing only what the "church" tells them.
I had presumed, however, that those of us who actually read and research and are informed (theists and atheists) would know better: that science won't turn you atheist any more than gay marriage will turn you homosexual. Apparently not if someone felt the need to write an essay assuring us well-informed thinking types (who else would be reading it?) that scientists can believe in god. It's doubly sad that you felt this essay needed to be posted on the DU--do we really need to be told something so friggin' obvious? If so, how very tragic for us.
If we here on the DU can't think of anything better to argue about than whether a scientist who finds a cure for cancer has the ability to believe in god or not--then we might as well pack our bags and give into the climate change. I really thought we were better informed than that--or at least that a scientist's religious belief (or lack thereof) shouldn't matter to us.
I am pretty much with you.
Until you wondered why this was posted here on DU...
Well, it was posted in the Religion forum which puts articles like this well within DU scope. In fact, this is a topic which is common here, which is why such things usually get some good response.
Having been in both religious and scientific communities at various points in my life, I never really thought there was a conflict at all. In fact, I don't think I had ever heard the argument made for a conflict until I started posting in this group.
But I still maintain that they are completely different things and that no conflict need exist unless one tries to deny science with religious beliefs or deny religion based on scientific beliefs.
One didn't justify nor deny the other. And personal choices were separate from professional choices for the most part. His personal standards were his and his alone. There was no need to apply them to anyone else, one way or the other.
