Sir

It is perfectly fine to poll leading scientists about God1, but scientists are elected to the US National Academy of Sciences because they are great in one area. This election does not imply “superior knowledge”2 in other subjects, especially one so personal as a belief in God. One British scientist is quoted1 as writing: “But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word” and “have religious beliefs”. This is condescension, not insight.

There is a saying in theology that “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no proof is possible”. Some religions claim that divination of religious truths, including faith, represents insights bestowed on a person (rather than earned through some ‘deep’ probing). Great scientists are often fascinating persons. If as a whole they do not believe in God, so be it. But let us not extrapolate the implications of such a census to something about deeper universal truths. (The authors of ref. 1 make no attempt to draw such an inference; they merely report the results.)