Main Reason For Atheism

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

Not to go off on a tangent, but I am married to an evolutionary biologist, and I know many others.

Sorry to continue your tangent, but what exactly is an evolutionary biologist? I know what a biologist is, but what is an “evolutionary” biologist?

I ask because it seems to me that it would be at odds with scientific objectivity for people to call themselves evolutionary biologists…it gives the impression they are looking at the science through an evolutionary lens.

Nevertheless, I am hopeful that with access to such a person, it will aid you in answering the questions from my preceding posts.

 

[cheddarsox]

Chris W:

1. Evolution as it is understood by evolutionists - that we evolved due to certain scientific perhaps even observable reasons. This answer requires an explanation in my opinion and that is what I am requesting of you.

An evolutionary understanding would be that these characteristics exist because when they occured part is they made the organism more successful at meeting its needs and competing in the ecosystem.

For a species that lives in communities, charateristics of behavior that form strong, altruistic bonds can be an asset for survival.

That, is my understanding of the evolutionary theory.

cheddar

 

[cheddarsox]

john doran:

excuse me, but i have never heard of neo-darwinian evolution being described as anything other than the combination of random mutation and natural selection.

perhaps it is the use of the word “chance” that is being mutually misunderstood…for sure, once there ***is ***a (heritable) mutation to some base pair or pairs in an organism’s DNA, then the organism will proceed to develop acording to (fairly) well understood biological laws and processes.

but the occurrence of the mutations themseves are random, at least in any scientific vernacular with which i am familiar.

**They are not entirely random. There are factors, certain stresses in the enviornment that lead to a greater number of mutations taking place.

While there is an element of randomness there are also clear tendencies due to the way atoms and molecules interact.

The very tendancy to mutate is part of the order built in!

And within the molecule of DNA itself, there are tendencies and limitations to how the mutations occur, and what type of mutations are likely to occur.
**
but let me ask you a question: if evolution does not essentially include a random mechanism, then how does the development proceed?
**
There is an element of randomness, but even the randomness is important to the process. The randomness is sort of factored in, if you will, and is part of what makes the process function. It is what allows for the variety of adaptation. There is no way for the molecules to “know” what enviornmental situations the organism needs to adapt to, the randomness keeps things “shook up” so that the dynamic interplay allows for a percentage of organisms within a species to be able to deal with a greater variety of challenges.

This is not the place for a lesson in molecular biology. I myself am not a molecular biologist, though I have a basic understanding of what takes place, it is very complex. If you would like that information,it might be best to visit your library and check out a recent book on DNA and mutations.
**

you should talk to the quantum mechanics set - they might not take so kindly to being told they’re not worthy scientists…

**Hmm…I’l have to think about that one! Randomness itself might be worthy of study!

cheddar**

 

[cheddarsox]

Chris W:

Sorry to continue your tangent, but what exactly is an evolutionary biologist? I know what a biologist is, but what is an “evolutionary” biologist?

**It is a biologist who focuses on evolution. Some biologists focus on animals, some on plants, others on birds etc. He focuses on evolution.
**
I ask because it seems to me that it would be at odds with scientific objectivity for people to call themselves evolutionary biologists…

**Most scientists specialize in something. They use titles to explain the area they study. They remain objective in their area of study. Just telling people you are a scientist doesn’t give them much information. The title explains what type of science one focuses on.
**

.it gives the impression they are looking at the science through an evolutionary lens.
**
Yes, that is right. He looks at things focusing on whether or not they fit into the evolutionary theory, to test, revise and hone the theory as necessary.

Theories give scientists a direction. They provide a way of attacking an area of study. As one learns more, the theories are adapted to include the new findings, or thrown out and new theories formed if the old one proves utterly false.**

cheddar

 

[john_doran]

They are not entirely random. There are factors, certain stresses in the enviornment that lead to a greater number of mutations taking place.

**While there is an element of randomness there are also clear tendencies due to the way atoms and molecules interact. **

**The very tendancy to mutate is part of the order built in! **

And within the molecule of DNA itself, there are tendencies and limitations to how the mutations occur, and what type of mutations are likely to occur.

sure - natural selection isn’t random, and once the mutations occur, the mutated genes act according to biological and physical laws.

the randomness which is essential to evolution is the occurrence of the mutation in the first place - the ultraviolet photon or cosmic ray or copying error that alters the germ cell occurs randomly.

that certain mutations are more or less likely doesn’t compromise the essntial randomness of genetic variation any more than the statistical distribution of probabilities for my rolling dice at a craps table in any way makes each actual roll any less random.

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

An evolutionary understanding would be that these characteristics exist because when they occured part is they made the organism more successful at meeting its needs and competing in the ecosystem.

For a species that lives in communities, charateristics of behavior that form strong, altruistic bonds can be an asset for survival. /QUOTE]

I understand that these things might make us more successful at meeting our needs in certain ways. In other ways, our reason and conscience does **not ** promote survival of our species. For example, we have spent immeasurable resources on the caring for those with AIDS. Is helping those folks live longer good for survival of the species? I think not. From a naturalistic perspective, devoid of conscience, it would be better to let AIDS die out so that it cannot be spread. Yet we have a conscience, an urging toward goodness, that begs us to care for our fellow man, without regard for the survival of our species.

That aside, your response does not answer the question as to how or why the changes would take place. There are many animals who are gregorious or otherwise live in communities (apes for example). Apes would be more successful if they acquired these things too. And they appear to have very strong family and community bonds on which they depend for survival.

Yet humans have the ability to reason, free will and a conscience while no other animals do . Why?

Theists will say that God designed us with these elevated gifts because we are designed in His image and likeness. The naturalistic explanation would have us believe that these things evolved, which necessarily means that at some point in time humans would not have had these gifts. That theory needs some explanation in my opinion. If any credence should be given to the naturalistic explanation, those supporting it should be able to describe how and why only humans have evolved in such a way.

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

Most scientists specialize in something. They use titles to explain the area they study. They remain objective in their area of study. Just telling people you are a scientist doesn’t give them much information. The title explains what type of science one focuses on…

…He looks at things focusing on whether or not they fit into the evolutionary theory, to test, revise and hone the theory as necessary.

Theories give scientists a direction. They provide a way of attacking an area of study. As one learns more, the theories are adapted to include the new findings, or thrown out and new theories formed if the old one proves utterly false.

So, would a biologist who happens to be a creationist also call himself an evolutionary biologist, if he too studies the theory? Or is there perhaps another recognized field of study called ‘intelligent design biology’, to which you give the same faith in scientific objectivity as you give to evoloutionary biologists?

 

[cheddarsox]

I understand that these things might make us more successful at meeting our needs in certain ways. In other ways, our reason and conscience does **not ** promote survival of our species. For example, we have spent immeasurable resources on the caring for those with AIDS. Is helping those folks live longer good for survival of the species? I think not. From a naturalistic perspective, devoid of conscience, it would be better to let AIDS die out so that it cannot be spread. Yet we have a conscience, an urging toward goodness, that begs us to care for our fellow man, without regard for the survival of our species.

**Yes,you are correct. Mutations occur that are NOT good for the species survival, that is part of the process as well. Or sometimes a mutation serves the species for awhile, or at a certain level, but situations change that make the mutation no longer useful. That is all part of the process.

Altruism, even to the point of death is not unique to humans. I have had numerous chickens over the years, both hens and roosters that behaved altruistically to the point of death. They will sit eggs and starve themselves, or the roosters will give all the food to hens and chicks and die of malnutrition.

In no way do I believe the chickens had an awareness of what they were doing, they do not appear to be capable of analyzing their behavior. Yet they did it. Perhaps some humans are hardwired to be altruistic, and others to be selfish. It certainly appears that way. I have often heard people say they don’t know why they are doing something, or they know they are “crazy” for continuing a behavior, or that they can’t seem to stop a behavior. Awareness of what we are doing, does not always allow us to change our behavior.

**
That aside, your response does not answer the question as to how or why the changes would take place. There are many animals who are gregorious or otherwise live in communities (apes for example).
Yet humans have the ability to reason, free will and a conscience while no other animals do . Why?

**I don’t control evolution, nor do I claim to know the “ultimate answer” why all things occur. I do not know why those mutations have not occured, or if they did occur, why they have not been maintained. **

Theists will say that God designed us with these elevated gifts because we are designed in His image and likeness. The naturalistic explanation would have us believe that these things evolved, which necessarily means that at some point in time humans would not have had these gifts.

**Since many people define “human” by these gifts, then I guess if there was a time some creature like us existed without these gifts, they would not be defined as human.

These definitions are made by people, for the use of people to organize ideas. There is no yardstick that exists independant of us to define what makes up a species, or when one merges into another. We choose certain existing characteristics to go by, but there are many exceptions to the rule.**

That theory needs some explanation in my opinion. If any credence should be given to the naturalistic explanation, those supporting it should be able to describe how and why only humans have evolved in such a way.

**The fact that I cannot give you and explanation. The fact that perhaps even a scientist cannot give you and explanation does not mean there is not an explanation.

The fact that humans don’t understand a thing, doesn’t mean there is not a reason or purpose for things.

Theists will often use a deity as a default for what they cannot explain. Different cultures have used different deities as their default.But, as you know, they can’t all be right**.
**
Atheists use something other than a deity as their** default.

**Chris, you are challenging me with the ultimate questions of the universe. And I cannot answer them. For you, I think they are answered by your faith, as they are for me. But I am also a scientist, and I know that there are natural explanations for things as well. I do not find science and my faith to contradict one another. In fact, I find it all much more amazing that the universe operates in these fantastic complex ways, rather than by some sort of supernatural magic. That order is what saved my faith,not the other way around.

I am not here arguing the cause of atheism. But I will argue the cause of truth.

I come across many people who feel that science can or is trying to explain away their god. Science is just about finding out how the universe works. If god is behind it, then there is nothing to fear. If god has chosen these complex ways of making things occur, so be it. I am not sure I understand the conflict. I have never come across a single scientific discovery that explains away an ultimate cause.

But neither have I come across a scientific discovery that points to a specific deity as being the cause.

I don’t think there is a reason to fear the truth.

cheddar
**

 

[cheddarsox]

john doran:

sure - natural selection isn’t random, and once the mutations occur, the mutated genes act according to biological and physical laws.

the randomness which is essential to evolution is the occurrence of the mutation in the first place - the ultraviolet photon or cosmic ray or copying error that alters the germ cell occurs randomly.

It is much more complex than that. Certain genes are more prone to mutations than others. Certain types of mutations are more likely to be caused by certain enviornmental occurences.
The mutations themselves, are for the most part, not merely random. Ther is an element of randomness, but it is not what most unstudied people believe it to be.

that certain mutations are more or less likely doesn’t compromise the essntial randomness of genetic variation any more than the statistical distribution of probabilities for my rolling dice at a craps table in any way makes each actual roll any less random.

Actually it does compromise some of the randomness. Because it is not merely a statistical randomness, it is an interactive dynamic system.

But, having spent many hours rolling die, I also know that even that is a complex interactive and dynamic system. Total randomness it a theory. I can’t conceive of any place in the universe where things could behave in completely random ways. They ALWAYS are interacting with other things in complex systems.

You are equating mathematical randomness to living organisms, and that just is not reality. Even your non living dice are responding to conditions within and around them. If you don’t believe it, get yourself some dice and roll them several thousand times and chart your results. NOT RANDOM! believe me, I’ve done it.

cheddar

 

[cheddarsox]

Chris W:

So, would a biologist who happens to be a creationist also call himself an evolutionary biologist, if he too studies the theory?**
Yes, what a person believes about ultimate cause is their own business. As long as when they put on their scientist coat, they practice objective science, they can use whatever religious understanding they want to.**

Or is there perhaps another recognized field of study called ‘intelligent design biology’, to which you give the same faith in scientific objectivity as you give to evoloutionary biologists?

I know I am starting to sound like a broken record, but, it is not a case of either/or. There are not two completely opposing options
God, or evolution.

Science studies how things occur. It is outside the realm of science to say “oh, this must be where god stepped in and did supernatural stuff” when they don’t understand how something happened. That is not science. They study the physical evidence and the natural way things occur. That is what we expect of scientists and what we pay them to do.

We don’t pay a doctor $120 a visit so she can tell us “I think god is making you sick”

Nothing a scientist discovers necessarily explains away god. God could very well be the ultimate cause of evolution. Science studies how things occur, the observable cause and effect. It is not the role of science to prove or disprove god or the role of god.

There are evolutionary biologists that believe in god. But when they are doing science, they cannot just decide to stop observing and coming up with theories and say “no use studying anymore, let’s just chalk it up to god.”

If god is the cause fine, but how did it happen anyway? There is no harm in studying how it happened, no matter what the ultimate cause.

The field that studies intelligent design, outside of the realm of natural cause is relgion. That is what theologians do, their job is to find out how god did it supernaturally. Scientists study how it happened naturally.

Some people assume there must be a conflict. Since I see the divine at work all the time, all around me, in the natural world, I see no conflict.

Some people don’t accept that the divine works through the natural world.

Real scientists, no matter what they believe, are objective. They do science based on obervations, theories and tests of theories, and they change their theory when necessary.If a person is not doing that, they are not doing good science.

If they allow their pet theory to become more important than objectivity, than they are doing bad science.

There are plenty of people out there who do bad science.

I have heard of people who call themselves creation scientists, I have not heard of anyone who has refered to themselves as an Intelligent Design scientist, but there may well be.

Evolution is a theory that is accepted by most scientists, because the majority of evidence supports it over a vast aray of scientific fields.

Evolution does not exclude a creator, creation science does exclude evolution (6 day creation)

cheddar

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

Altruism, even to the point of death is not unique to humans.

It depends on what you mean by altruism. Altruism can be defined as selflessness out of concern for others (a behavior of humans who can reason) or it can be defined as an instictive behavior which results is the detriment of one but promoting the survival of all. I guess I do not agree with your statement because altruism for humans is not the same a altruism for non-rational creatures. Altruism as a selflessness, is indeed limited to humans because only humans have the ability to reason.

cheddarsox:

Perhaps some humans are hardwired to be altruistic, and others to be selfish…Awareness of what we are doing, does not always allow us to change our behavior.

I disagree, but for the context of this thread, I will leave that without rebuttal, as I would attribute our disagreement to phylosophical and theological differences that result from our world view.

cheddarsox:

I don’t control evolution, nor do I claim to know the “ultimate answer” why all things occur. I do not know why those mutations have not occured, or if they did occur, why they have not been maintained…The fact that I cannot give you and explanation. The fact that perhaps even a scientist cannot give you and explanation does not mean there is not an explanation.

True, but in the context of this thread (main reaosn for atheism) I would argue that it is the naturlistic arguments like un-guided evolution, which claim to be impartial, that are in fact not impartial. The fact that there may be an inability among evolutionists to answer how or why humans developed reason, free will and a conscience is significant for the following reason:

They claim evolution is true and that this claim is based purely on empirical scientific evidence and observations, insisting scientific objectivity exits. Yet a question as basic as “okay, if what you say is true, how and why did it happen?” cannot be answered. On the surface you can say “we cannot have all the answers”, but the point is, the fact that evolutionists (including many athiests) claim that evolution can account for the evolution of human beings (the alternative to God) without being able to answer these questions proves in my mind that it is not objective at all.

cheddarsox:

Atheists use something other than a deity as their

default.
Agreed. But here’s a key difference: Theists can answer the questions posed to them, atheists cannot. Instead the answer seems to be "well, we cannot know everything, while continuing to insist there is no God.

I have to admit I am frustrated by that. They say “I find no evidence to prove God’s existence and that’s why I don’t believe” So, the theist poses arguments or questions to challenge that statement, and the response we get is “well, I may not have all the answers but I still see no evidence for God”.

There is evidence for God. Our own nature is evidence of God, because the only alternative man has been able to come up with so far (evolution) cannot even attempt to answer the question of why we are the way we are.

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

Chris, you are challenging me with the ultimate questions of the universe. And I cannot answer them. For you, I think they are answered by your faith, as they are for me.

Of course. How can we discuss the Creator of the universe without discussing His methods and/or reasons?

cheddarsox:

But I am also a scientist, and I know that there are natural explanations for things as well. .

Now that is an interesting statement, Cheddar. Of course there are natural explanations for much of what we see. But why would a person believe there must be natural explanations for all of it? You said …“I know that there natural explanations for things as well.”

…as well as what?

cheddarsox:

I do not find science and my faith to contradict one another. .

I feel the same way. So if there is a contradiction, one or the other must be wrong.

cheddarsox:

I am not here arguing the cause of atheism. But I will argue the cause of truth.

Didn’t you just say you don’t know the truth? You cannot answer my question, yet you say you know there are natural explanations. That is an argument from faith, not an argument for the cause of truth. The truth is, you don’t know…if I’ve understood you correctly.

cheddarsox:

I have never come across a single scientific discovery that explains away an ultimate cause.

And you never will

cheddarsox:

But neither have I come across a scientific discovery that points to a specific deity as being the cause…

Is that a play on words? We aren’t discussing a specific deity. I would say that science only points to God by way of the inadequacy of science to answer important questions. Science says “we cannot answer that question” so athiests say “there is no evidence for God”. One is not a logical conslusion from the other.

cheddarsox:

I don’t think there is a reason to fear the truth…

I agree

cheddar

 

[Chris_W]

Hey Cheddar,

Just wanted to say that I am enjoying our dialogue. Please don’t take my posts any other way than friendly discussions, k?

Peace,
Chris W

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

cheddarsox

*Nothing a scientist discovers necessarily explains away god. God could very well be the ultimate cause of evolution. Science studies how things occur, the observable cause and effect. It is not the role of science to prove or disprove god or the role of god.
*
Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Yet the odd thing is that about 60% of scientists worldwide consider themselves atheists or agnostics. This is roughly inverse proportion to the population at large.

How do you account for the fact that most scientists are decidedly more prone to atheism than most people, especially if they are supposed to be so bright you would think they could come to the same conclusion you have just drawn?

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

I know I am starting to sound like a broken record, but, it is not a case of either/or. There are not two completely opposing options
God, or evolution.

Oh I agree. Really. I happen to oppose the theory, but for theological reasons only, which I believe do disprove evolution as it is presented by the majority of evolutionists…but that is another thread topic I think.

However, my intent is not to debate evolution, though it might sound otherwise. My point in discussing it all is that it seems to be the answer provided when atheists or agnostics are questioned about life, whether it be moral law, free will, the value of human life (as was questioned earlier in this thread), etc. It is the only non-God answer that I am aware of. Therefore, when discussing athiesm as this thread was intended to do, it is in fact a case of either or. Among theists it may not be either or, but between theists and atheists it is either or, because the attempt is to rebut thiestic arguments with evolutionary theories.

cheddarsox:

Science studies how things occur. It is outside the realm of science to say “oh, this must be where god stepped in and did supernatural stuff” when they don’t understand how something happened…It is not the role of science to prove or disprove god or the role of god.

Agreed.

cheddarsox:

If god is the cause fine, but how did it happen anyway? There is no harm in studying how it happened, no matter what the ultimate cause…Evolution does not exclude a creator, creation science does exclude evolution (6 day creation)

I disagree with you Cheddar. That is the line used by evolutionists to calm the fears of ignorant creationists. Have you heard of abiogenesis by chance? Many evolutionists argue it is not part of the study of evolution, but that is a fallacious argument. The theory of abiogenesis is the theory of evolution applied and extended to non-living matter.

I years past, evolution may have limited itself to the study of living organisms but that is changing quickly. “neutral” scientists are now innocently pursuing any possible way to thoerize how live came about naturally from non-living matter.

Tell me that science is not anti-God, Cheddar. Naturalism in all its forms, whether it be evolution or abiogenesis or whatever, is not neutral on the existence of God. But for now, naturalists pat creationists on the head saying “don’t worry, this is just innocent theorizing”.

You say we have nothing to fear from science. I agree, but we do need to fear the scientists, those who pretend to be neutral while furthering their godless agenda. Evolution is not fact, yet it is taught in schools as though it was. Soon, I suspect, abiogenesis, although equally impossible to verify, will be taught as well (if it is not already). And society will continue on its trend of thinking the existence of God is a belief left to the unlearned of the world, where the light of science has not yet shown.

You think there is no agenda? The Law of Biogenesis (Pasteur’s Law refuting spontaneous generation) remains officially unchallenged by modern scientists. However, because some scientists cannot accept that there is no answer other than creation, “A revised theory of spontaneous generation now has great favor…our earth, as it was formed, was certainly lifeless – yet life appeared. Consequently, the present theory is that life did appear from non-living matter, over a period of perhaps a billion years.” (World Book Encyclopedia, 2002, Vol 25, Pg. 528).

In essense, scientists are now saying “I believe, contrary to the Laws of science, that the evolution of life somehow occurred.”

The Theory of Evolution is not neutral on the existence of God.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

*The Theory of Evolution is not neutral on the existence of God.*It certainly isn’t. I’ve read somewhere that even Darwin lost his faith after developing his theory. But I’ve never been able to understand why. What is there in evolution that “excuses” God as Creator?

 

[cheddarsox]

Chris,

I will respond in one post to save time and space.

Altruism, sometimes the response of reasoning,no doubt, but often I have heard people who did heroic things say “You don’t think at a time like that, you just do it.” and clearly there are various levels of altruism in people, sometimes in complete contrast to their professed belief system. I really do think a great deal of that is hard wiring. I understand and accept that you disagree.

The fact that science does not have an answer for your questions and keeps searching for natural causes supports your belief in god. That is fine. but scientists cannot stop searching for natural causes, because that is what they do. They cannot stop and say “this is where god did something supernatural” they can say “we don’t know how this happened at the time” and keep searching.

The fact that some scientists are rabidly atheist, and refuse to consider, in their own lives that divine exists is not something I can control. That is not science, that is their own issue. I already pointed out that science is impartial, and that scientists that are not impartial are doing bad science. And there are scientists doing bad science.

In that way it is like Catholicism. Catholicism is a thing, a set of beliefs and practices. There are people who practice catholicism badly and reflect badly on the church,but that doesn’t change the reality of the set of beliefs and practices and make them bad.

The fact that some evolutionists are doing bad or impartial science, or feel the need to spout off about religion as if they were an authority on it, doesn’t change what is truthful about evolution, or about the scientific process.

Yes, theists can answer the question and science cannot, but that does not make the theists right. A wrong answer is not better than no answer at all.

I am not claiming theists are wrong, but then again, not all of them can be right either. Some people say aliens brought life to this planet. Are those people more objective than scientists, because they have an answer and scientists don’t?

Religion and science are answering different questions. Again, a scientist cannot use the supernatural (until it is proven natural) as an “excuse” for what they cannot explain. That is not science.

There are many things science can’t answer. 150 yrs ago, there were even more. But if scientists defaulted to the supernatural for all they could not answer at any given time, we would not enjoy many of the health and technological advantages that we do.

The overwhelming evidence is that there are natural causes for things. And if we keep searching, we find them.

In certain areas, some theists seem to want scientists to stop searching, and chalk it up to god. Is this because theists want science to “prove” god, or because they will feel justified if the scientists “accept” god as a cause? I do not know.

Since science can never prove there is no god, I don’t see the problem. Why would you not want science to discover yet more awesome truths about this wonderful universe?

Is the problem that some people lose their faith in the supernatural due to the fact that there are natural causes for things?

I find the intricate natural patterns to strengthen my faith in the divine, but I can see how they challenge many belief systems which are built on certain types of theology. I think that is the real issue. When discovered empiracle truth challenges religious belief, then what is there to do?

Some religions have a certain amount of flexibility built in for this type of thing, but others do not. I think that is where the real issues arise.

Most people can believe completely contrasting things at the same time. They can hold them both to be true, and act on each belief when it is convenient. If the issue is not forced, most people could accept natural causes when it suited, and supernatural when that seems more appropriate.People have been doing that for a long time.

If they are forced to choose, or have a personality that does not deal well with inconsistency, then problems arise.

In the USA currently, some christian groups are forcing the issue, making their members choose between god and science. Personally, I think that is an unecessary choice.
Forcing the issue, also makes the folks on the other side dig their feet in and take sides. Things get ugly.

I remember, there was a time when pain meds were considered sinful for women in labor because it was unbiblical. The pain of labor was women’s punishment for Eve’s sin.

Culture’s will wage this struggle over and over and over again, in new ways over new issues. It is part of being human and being able to reason.

cheddar

 

[cheddarsox]

Gilbert Keith:

cheddarsox

*Nothing a scientist discovers necessarily explains away god. God could very well be the ultimate cause of evolution. Science studies how things occur, the observable cause and effect. It is not the role of science to prove or disprove god or the role of god.
*
Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Yet the odd thing is that about 60% of scientists worldwide consider themselves atheists or agnostics. This is roughly inverse proportion to the population at large.

How do you account for the fact that most scientists are decidedly more prone to atheism than most people, especially if they are supposed to be so bright you would think they could come to the same conclusion you have just drawn?

I have some ideas about why it might be so, but they are just ideas.

I think that the type of personality that goes into science, may be the type that has a hard time holding contrasting beliefs at the same time. Rather than shuffle beliefs to fit the situation, they choose the one that they feel has concrete evidence for it.

Some religions force the members to “choose” between deity as the explanation or natural cause as an explanation. If a scientist belonged to such a religion, their experiences and findings in their work may be so compelling that when forced to choose, they choose natural causes.

I can’t account for what others believe or don’t believe. I do know that my scientific investigations have deepened my faith in the divine, but they have also led me away from certain concepts of divinity that I was taught were true.

cheddar

 

[Monarchy]

Gilbert Keith:

How do you account for the fact that most scientists are decidedly more prone to atheism than most people, especially if they are supposed to be so bright you would think they could come to the same conclusion you have just drawn?

Scientists are much more prone to being skeptics. In religion you are supposed to accept things on faith, so it tends to draw less skeptical people.

 

[Monarchy]

Chris W:

You say we have nothing to fear from science. I agree, but we do need to fear the scientists, those who pretend to be neutral while furthering their godless agenda. Evolution is not fact, yet it is taught in schools as though it was.

It’s taught in school like it’s a scientific theory, which creationism is not.

In essense, scientists are now saying “I believe, contrary to the Laws of science, that the evolution of life somehow occurred.”

The law of biogenisis was talking about the belief that flies form spontaniously from meat, or mice from piles of clothes, etc…

The Theory of Evolution is not neutral on the existence of God.

Yes it is, it says abosulutly nothing about the existance of god. And given a choice between religion and science, I’ll take science. Without it we would still be in the dark ages.