They go on to report that among
scientists in the top positions the atheistic trend does appear to be
increasing, they also note that it has been pointed out that,
"There's a reward system to being irreligious in the upper echelons."
Thus, it has been suggested that the extreme atheism at the very top
is probably more of a result of "200 years of marketing that if you
want to be a scientific person you've got to keep your mind free of the
fetters of religion."
Er... Who pointed it out? On what basis did they conclude that there was a 'reward system?" Of what does the 'reward system' consist? Has it been studied, or is this some religious scientist's 'impression,' and if there has been a study of the phenomenon, what type of evidence was gathered for the study? Who is doing the 'marketing,' and of what does it consist, aside from, presumably, free speech on the part of intelligent scientists among each other? What is the evidence on the basis of which they "note it has been pointed out" (not hypothesized, noooo, "pointed out"!, lol) and then "suggested" that rewards and not having top brains yield the "extreme atheism" at the top?
This is my intuition about that "noted" and "pointed out" and "suggested" item:
No "reward system" that means anything was found or identified, but a couple of religious guys with an agenda noticed that the top scientists, the upper echelon, smartest, most competent ones, increasingly didn't believe in a God or Gods, but manifested "extreme atheism," and instead of drawing the conclusion that there was a connection between more functional brains, and more scientific acumen, and extreme atheism, decided to "suggest" that somebody, somehow, must had had a nefarious influence on them via a system of "rewards."
Maybe the obvious reason for extreme atheism at the top is the correct one. If you have an article offering some evidence that it isn't, do please post that one.
That's my guess, and I've offered as much evidence for it as the article you posted offered for theirs! |
