From "the guardian"


It's a big, fat myth that all scientists are religion-hating atheists

Whether or not you think science is wonderful, the stereotype of all
scientists being atheists is unrealistic. There is, however, a special
dance

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.

I really hate to be the one to break the news, but scientist is not
synonymous with atheist. Scientists also don't all have the same
gender, race, sexual orientation or political ideology, much less
religion or lack thereof. Whether or not a person is religious, with
respect to their vocation as a scientist, is completely irrelevant.
Just like sexual orientation, race and gender should be irrelevant to
being a scientist. Reinforcing the scientist = atheist stereotype,
whether you are for it or against it, necessarily excludes people. No
one should be excluded from science if they want to do it, be excited
about it or read about it.

Richard Dawkins aside, the view that all scientists – even if they be
atheists or famous people – hate religion is not really true. Peter
Higgs has very sanguinely criticised Dawkins for his anti-religious
stance, and goes on to say that he doesn't think science and religion
are incompatible. Brian Cox himself echoes the same sentiment. There
are, moreover, a number of prominent openly religious scientists, such
as Frances Collins, currently the head of the US National Institutes
of Health; Gerhard Etrl who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry (2007)
and William D Phillips who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. And
this is just naming a few. Most scientists in the media don't make a
stand one way or another, perhaps because they too think it is
irrelevant. Maybe this is a crazy idea but I am guessing a fair few
scientists don't like Star Trek either.

The cartoon stereotype that all scientists are religion-hating
atheists isn't just annoying; it is harmful. It is divisive and does
nothing to encourage people into scientific discovery. In fact, it
reinforces the idea that only a certain type of person can do science.
This is not true. Professional science has enough diversity problems
as it is, with women and minorities still grossly under-represented,
without throwing religious-typing in there too. Public scientists and
critics alike need to take a bit more care in lumping all scientists
into the same stereotypical category. The world is much more complex
than that.

• Dr Sylvia McLain runs a biophysics research group at Oxford. She is
on Twitter – @girlinterruptin