__/ [Lance] on Tuesday 01 November 2005 20:30 \__
> Velvet wrote:
>> Look at the careers of most of the top scientists. Many but many will
>> have come on as 'nerds' and often enough social, THUS emotional
>> illiterates, by virtue of immersion in their chosen fields of 'studies'
>> from the pre-pubic ages. In order to have reached the pinnacle of a
>> career in any case, many years of living around and within a restricted
>> academic environment, huddled over 'theories'...will have reinforced
>> the sense of APPRECIATION which may prove impossible to 'resist' in an
>> other kind of Theory...namely the religious godhead, which 'wants' only
>> for a thread into its/a final proof. And so many eminent personages in
>> their fields beforehand, are there to pass down the substantiating
>> baton of 'credibility'.
>> Doctors, solicitors and other long lead in professions will generally
>> have HAD to have been ambitions pursued through schools, correct
>> panoply of studies and 'qualifying' universities, from a young age in
>> order to gain the correct list of qualifications and academic
>> placements, particularly by 'swats' for who, surely, the notion of a
>> Greater Being is just one more level, albeit end game, in the stripping
>> away of 'apparent' mysteries of Existance.
>> In those of weak social integration it is rather, UNsurprising that
>> many must show up 'conformist' to the Nth degree.
> I have seldom read more pompous prose.
He raises good points nonetheless (reminds me of edge.org). It just needs to
be read carefully as plenty of information is 'compressed' using prose.
> At any rate As Jeffrey Goldberg pointed out, there is evidence that
> academics and scientists are less likely to be religious than the
> general population.
In simple terms -- yes. Velvet alluded to that, but concentrated on the fact
that certain occupations lead to social incompetence, whereas others do not.
Moreover, they require it.