Why We Believe in Gods

[_Kevin Graham]

ROFL.

Hey now, leave family out of this.

[_Kevin Graham]

You have repeatedly argued that evolution -- not abiogenesis -- couldn't produce this or that characteristic.

More hyperbole? I'm fairly certain that every time I mentioned this, I merely questioned it, I didn't declare definitively that it couldn't b; only that science hasn't shown it to be so. I do question, not evolution, but the idea that unguided natural selection must explain the kind of diversity we see today. And I'm not alone either. Remember that "Dissent from Darwinism" petition, that had 1600 signatures as of last August? Well, say what you want about these scientists, but the fact alone flies in the face of your initial claim that this "is about as well-grounded as science gets."

You don't see hundreds of scientists skeptical of too many "well-grounded" theories of science. Well accepted and well grounded are two different things. I understand Natural Selection, and the orthodox position is that random mutations and NS are unguided purposeless mechanisms of evolution. That's where I have concerns. Why didn't random mutations produce eyes on the back of our heads? Don't they know what random means?

The general idea is that mutations occur randomly and then ecological pressures via natural selection shapes the overall form of the species. I get that. But this is only sufficient when explaining why there exists green beetles as opposed to red beetles. Green beetles survived because they were camoflauged from birds. OK. So what about the rest of species? The same principle must apply.

So likewise, the eyes on the back of our heads would only disappear if their presence threatened the survival of the species. So if mutations were truly random, we have to assume previous forms existed. So is there any fossil evidence to support it? Apparently not. So why is it accepted as scientific fact? Because its just too damn convenient for the already well-accepted model.

You've already admitted that evolutionary psychology isn't science, but it is really no diferent than guessing about the necessary conditions in ancient environments that would make the whole unguided NS model work. The common denominator is that in both instances, naturalism is the assumed premise and thus the evidence is fabricated from thin air to make the predetermined conclusion make sense. All you're worried about is whether it makes a naturalistic "explanation" sound plausible. Since when in the hell did that constitute good science? So, the main difference has nothing to do with what's scientific and what's not, but rather what fits the expected model of naturalistic assumptions.

True science, the "well-grounded" kind, would back it up using some known form of the scientific method. For example, in order to insist NS explains why we don't have eye balls on our feet, then one must show how this feature would prove detrimental to the survival of the species. It isn't enough to just say, "Oh yeah, that feature doesn't exist anymore because it made it difficult for them to survive." Oh really? Is there evidence for this beyond assertion? It used to be that science required more rigorous evidence-based experimentation than today's various spawn of evolution theory. Just last night I was watching a PBS program assert, as a matter of fact, that the reason we have a tendency to over eat is because of evolution. It argued that millions of years ago food was hard to come by, so animals ate whatever they could, as much as they could, because they never knew when they'd get to eat again. So that explains obesity! What the F???

I about fell out of my chair because now my tax dollars are involved in this propagation of pseudoscience.

I happen to remember your insistence that fly wings did not evolve through natural selection.

I happen to remember nobody answering my question on that matter too. Their main response was to attack me for being too much like creationists. Gee, and you're actually trying to argue you guys aren't acting like a religion? Its always "us vs. them" isn't it?

It's a just-so story that is perfectly logical given what we already know about the natural world.

But that isn't enough to call it science, so why is it being presented as such? You think it is enough because it conforms to your perspective of reality, but ID conforms just as well to the perspectives of others. Neither constitute true science.

Imagine that you come home to find that your favorite leather shoes have been mangled. You then remember that you mistakenly left the dog inside the house while you were gone. Would you develop a belief that the dog chewed up your shoes, or would that only be a silly "just-so" story? The fact is, it would be a just-so story, but it would also be pretty absurd to not believe it, given what you know about dogs.

Bad analogy because we can know via scientific methods what happened to the shoe. If science could substantiate the assumptions of evolutionary psychology, then it would do so. What you choose to believe about evolutionary psychology, the extent of NS caused diversity, etc, is not based on science or an analogy about a dog and a shoe. It is based on what you choose to believe based on your asumptions about reality. Again, these are religious conclusions dressed up in science.

suffice it to say that belief in evolutionary psychology is the same kind of belief reasonable people would hold in my "mangled shoe" example.

I just illustrated why it isn't. EP is based on way too many assumptions that science cannot verify. Since when did the scientific method become so superfluous?

Kevin, how many school boards are advocating giving equal time to the "theory" that space aliens planted cells on earth? Answer that question, and you'll answer your own.

You're shifting again. You initially said I castigated Dawkins for failing to criticize panspermia. This is the basis of your entire rant about how I misrepresented him. But I pointed out that you have not shown that he has criticized panspermia. Instead of admitting your failure to do this, now you're diverting onto whatever the school boards want to reject. WTF?

The fact is Dawkins considers panspermia a legitimate scientific pursuit. He said very plainly that there might be some kind of "signature of a designer." If he is willing to accept that said evidence COULD be found within biological studies, then it is silly to suggest he doesn't consider it a legitimate scientific pursuit. Is he "skeptical"? Well, sure he is. So what? I said he doesn't attack it. That was my intial statement, so in order for you to establish your charge that I misrepresented him, you have to provide proof that he has "attacked" panspermia as he has ID. This should be easy since you assume he considers them the same. So why haven't you?

It's Ok. We both know why.

Why do you use quotes when Dawkins never said this, Kevin? The fact is that Dawkins has never said this, because he doesn't believe it. He believes that even differences in relatively unimportant things like language can start wars:

So much for "I'm not going to trudge through the mental swamp of your prior posts." I barely remember saying this, but I do remember it was the day after having watched a the video he was in, called "Religion the Root of all Evil." He also goes on record saying,

"Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no Indo/Pakistan partition, no Israel/Palestine wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern Ireland 'troubles'. Imagine no Taliban blowing up ancient statues, lashing women for showing an inch of skin, or publicly beheading blasphemers and apostates. Imagine no persecutions of the Jews - no Jews to persecute indeed, for without religion they would long ago have intermarried with the surrounding populations."

What is he expecting us to imagine without religion if not a world without war? Are we really supposed to believe he was arguing that without religion, we'd have a world with secular wars and non-religious atrocities? Of course not. He wants us to imagine, or as he is doing, fantasizing a world in peace. Though he doesn't say this explicitly, he clearly implies it. He does at the very least state that the world would be free of a "major force for evil in the world." If I had said this about atheism you'd be all up in arms accusing me of hate speech and bigotry. But we're not dealing with single standards are we?

Yours is a blatant misrepresentation, but I'm not going to be surprised when you fail to acknowledge it as such. Incidentally, we've been over this before, and you papered over that like it never happened, too.

Irony anyone? Talk about misrepresentation. Why would you say this and then provide the link that refutes your accusation? I acknolwedged what you said and responded, "And about Dawkins on language, I'll look up the reference later, but suffice it to say Dawkins frequently corrects himself in subsequent publications." I never did find the reference and it is possible that I confused him with Harris or Hitchens, but I have never argued the point since. This flies in the face of your claim that I "papered over it like it never happened." If I continued to argue the point, then you might have a case.

Dawkins has nowhere argued for this position.

And nowhere did I say he did. You can't be serious. I said, and I quote, "Dawkins apparently has done a great job in deluding so many people into thinking no real scientists believes in God, and therefore no intelligent people do either."

Dawkins has gone on record attacking Gould for his argument that there is no conflict between science and religion, he has stated emphatically that ID proponents are "not genuine scientists," he has bent over backwards, even to the point of flat out lying, trying to prove Einsten was an atheist. He has alluded to the NAS survey where 90% of the "elite" scientists were atheists. And the result of all this? It is exactly as I said it was. He did a great job deluding people into thinking atheists are smarter than theists. This is the undercurrent of New Atheist bigotry.

They were Christian governments, Kevin. Remember all that stuff about "the divine right of kings"?

And you think this somehow justifies your uneducated claim that "Christianity" had an army? If that was so, then shouldn't they have been serving the Pope and defending Rome?

I've backed off of that claim somewhat.

That's a good first step. Now you need to back off entirely.

You're dodging the question. Whether or not a war is practical is immaterial to whether it would be just.

Why would it be considered just?

Okay, you can start by "dismantling" the academic sources listed in this Wikipedia article. Have fun.

Well, is there something in that article that makes you think Christianity didn't give us modern science?

Um, you don't get to simply assert this. You have to give evidence for it.

Unless of course I were to say, "Jews were forced to convert to Christianity." We could simply assert that, right?

So the Muslims were not the barbarians that you painted them as being.

This discussion has nothing to do with barbarian Muslims. It has to do with Christian basis for modern science. Stay focused. You're all over the place.

The Muslims translated and were influenced by Aristotle, too

Of course they were. But that wasn't your point.

Nor is there anything in Islam.

Yes there was, I just told you. There is a reason why you see no anthropomorphic icons or art in the Muslim world. It was strictly prohibited then as it is now. Any depiction of man, even that of Muhammed, is considered a sin of idolatry. This is such common knowledge I find it amazing that you could sit there with a straight face and question whether Muslim text books were forbidden to depict the human anatomy.

Otherwise, why would there by so many Muslim doctors?

This is a non sequitur.

I never said there were no Muslim doctors. There were doctors before there were books. There is no reason to insist doctors could only exist if they had books with diagrams of the human anatomy.

Da Vinci had to dissect cadavers surreptitiously, Kevin. He was able to do it in spite of Christian objections.

But he was able to do it. He wasn't killed for it. He wasn't even arrested for it. Sure, Christians thought he was being disrespectful of the dead, but he was still successful in doing what he needed to do, despite having pissed off some Christians (probably relatives of the deceased). On the other hand, Medical Science in Islam existed in a straight-jacket. It doesn't mean there wasn't progress. It just means progress was much slower because of the theological stipulations the Muslims doctors had to abide by.

God, you are dumb. That some of the ancient Greeks believed in natural rights does not imply that those natural rights would be the ones we recognize today, so pointing out that we have a different standard than the ancient Greeks does not constitute evidence against the idea that some of them believed in natural rights.

So they believed in natural rights. Is that really more significant than the fact that these rights were far different than those in we consider worth having? If the cavemen assumed everyone had the natural right to be raped, does that mean we have nothing to be thankful for with Christianity since technically, natural rights pre-existed it? Good grief.

Call for references.

You can't be serious. Islamic law continues to uphold the doctrine that atheists are worthy of death, as are apostates from the faith.

Why what did he say? I'm not going to roll over at every appeal to authority you make, Kevin.

Then do your own homework for Gods sake. I told you a week ago I wouldn't be back in Brazil until July but you keep trying to drag me into discussions that require me to reference books I own, but have no access to. You're fond of wiki, so go hit up Christianity and then Christendom. Tell me if you can make out any differences between the two.

I already said what I meant by liberal, dimwit. Or do you not know what "classical liberalism" means?

I do know what it means, but I assumed you didn't otherwise there was no way you could have made such an outrageous claim.

So how do you explain the fact that only Jews and Christians were required to be "tolerated" under Islamic law. Atheists, pagans and polytheists were to be killed unless they converted to Islam. This was the norm. How do you explain the fact that Jews and Christians were not permitted to express any religious symbols in public, nor were they allowed to recognize or celebrate religious holidays. Their "rights" amounted to the right to be constantly humiliated in public so they would know they had been subdued by the true religion. The idea was that through time, people would convert to relieve themselves of this sociological and economical burden that was placed upon them. In what sense does this jive with classical liberalism?

Grizzly Adams did have a beard, Kevin.

I guess this is your way of backing away from your ludicrous statement, "Christians in Spain forced Jews to convert to their religion." The inquisition only pertained to people who were already Christian. It had no authority over non-Christians, nor did it seek to force conversion or punish non-Christians for blasphemy, etc. Again, this is the refuted myth that sadly exists in the minds of those who refuse to educate themselves on the cutting edge of history.

This is so hysterically hypocritical that I'm not even going to bother. Literally everything that you accuse the Caliphate of doing has been done by Christians at one time or another, whether by the Church in the Old World or the conquistadores in the New.

This is a mere assertion that is not backed up with requisite evidence. Many false statements are made in this manner. I see this as no accident.

You're completely ignoring my quote, so I'll complete ignore your completely ignorant response to it.

You say the Muslims generally left minorities alone. As if minorities included just "any" minorities. Again, only Jews and Christians were required to receive the options of converstion, dhimmitude or death. Only ignorance could drive these kinds of statements anyway, because they depend on an absence of testimony from those who were oppressed. Why ignore what the oppressed had to say about the matter? The famous Jewish philosopher Maimonides said of the Islamic persecution of the Jews:

“You know, my brethren, that on account of our sins God has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael, who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase us.…No nation has ever done more harm to Israel. None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us. None has been able to reduce us as they have.…We have borne their imposed degradation, their lies, and absurdities, which are beyond human power to bear.”

Classical liberalism, eh?

Maybe Maimonides knows more about this subject than Josef Meri's politically correct textbook. What do you think?

Then your initial assertion that "The only reason his preservation was considered to be at risk in the first place is because the Arabs ransacked Alexandria" was incorrect, by your own admission. Hoisted, petard... you can fill in the blanks.

Yes, you're right of course. How dumb of me. I should have said they were at risk from fire and the Muslims. Gosh you're so smart.

During Islam's Golden Age? Call for reference.

I already told you. The Pope declared that the Jews were to be left alone in ways the Muslims couldn't accept. They were allowed to practice their religion in public, which was a huge contrast with how they were restricted in Islamic societies. In fact, only in Rome were the Jews able to survive through the centuries as a protected minority. Why? Because the hand of the Church could reach anyone who would dare persecute them. Persecution of Jews was not tolerated by the Church, whereas in Islam, a Muslim could kill a Jew if he didn't abide by the strict prohibitions placed upon him as a dhimmi.

Throughout the rest of Europe, the papal hand was limited in its reach, and the Kings trumped the Pope in authority every time. For instance, when the King of Spain was abusing the inquisition for his own purposes, the Pope told him to cut it out. The King said screw you Pope.

The Church was only a symbol until it became a nuisance.

Further, the Popes declared that Christians could not testify against Jews in court because of the obvious bias. By contrast, and this remains true today in Islamic law, Jews were not allowed to testify against Muslims! Now which comes closer to classical liberalism?

Yes, Christianity existed as a very small Jewish cult until Constantine spread it around.

No, Constantine didn't "spread it around" at all.

If he hadn't, Christianity would probably be as widespread as the Druze are today.

Christianity was already widespread. And it wasn't spread by the sword. Ever. Christianity was a religion of martyrs from day one. Islam was a religion of violence from day one. One of the first things Muhammed did was develop an army, initiate raids of piracy, increase his wealth via booty, and then eventually, when he had the resources to do so, took vengence on the community that rejected him.

He also ordered the assassinations of Jews who had mocked him, and then later oversaw the slaughter of 600-900 Jews while their wives and sons stood by waiting to be taken as slaves and/or wives. All of this within Islam's first decade, as directed by their founding prophet. The doctrine was developed within this context, whereas Christianity's doctrine was developed within the context of martyrdom, turning the other cheek, loving the neighbors, etc. They were the easiest religion to attack because they never put up a fight. That is of course, until the religion was hijacked by the Roman Empire and turned into a symbol. But the "Church" never engaged in war. Not until a thousand years later when the Crusades were called, comprising mainly volunteers.

That's because they didn't hold any power.

What an ignorant comment. They didn't hold power because they didn't seek power. Ever. You're despertaely trying to equate all religions as one in the same. Islam is not Christianity. The differences and the reasons why they both took different paths, are not merely matters of circumstances. There are fundamental theological differences you refuse to acknowledge.

Again, Christians were originally a religion of martyrs. They believed the second coming was probably going to occur in their own lifetime, and they had no interest in trying to conquer nations by the sword. It was the antithesis of what Christianity stood for.

The vision of conquering the world by force was the aspiration of Muhammed who declared the world was divided into two realms, the land ruled by Islam, and the land that would eventually be ruled by Islam. The latter was always considered the abode of war, and Muslims were always obligated to fight the Jews and Christians, as commanded by the Quran. There is a reason why Islam conquered two thirds of Christian territory before the Crusades were called in as a last line of defense.

Brazenly false. You ignore here the modern history of an entire hemisphere.

Actually I don't. You're out of your depth dude.

[_JAK]

The best source of science comes from atheists, since they aren't given to fanciful wishful thinking, and actually rely on evidence.

Some Schmo,

The argument that scientists have been theists follows from the fact that the growth in numbers of agnostics or atheists who are willing to come forward is a relatively recent development considering a hundred thousand years (more, likely) of human evolution. While a case can be made that religious groups supported education, they did so prior to the challenge of their own dogmas by those whom it educated. That is, education was about language, reading, writing, and with that storytelling (prose, poetry, theatre, music).

Prior to scientific discoveries which directly challenged religious dogma, religion likely felt unthreatened by education. However, intellectual, evidence-based theories of evolution did and do challenge religious dogma directly. That many scientists are/were theists is bogus. Early scientists who saw other scientists tortured and imprisoned for their outspoken clarity may well have elected to keep their skepticism (agnosticism) to themselves. In order to do their work and remain free to do it, it was in their best interest not to challenge directly religious dogma. It was also not required.

Some religious groups today have elected to acknowledge evolution and go on to characterize that evolution may have been God’s method for creation. None has relinquished God. Other more fundamentalist groups, reject evolution and dismiss all the massive quantity of evidence which supports it. (The Bible is right: science is wrong.) While those two positions may seem polar, there are religious groups which ride the fence or simply don’t confront the science which demonstrates that its ancient creation myths are fundamentally wrong.

Recent poling of scientists suggests that the percentage of scientists which claim commitment to some religious dogma is diminished greatly in the past two centuries. How long have we had the evidence on evolution? Compared with human language, we have not had it long. Without question, we know that accumulating information changes our understanding and our knowledge. The rise of information and understanding has been expositional in the last century.

Scientists who spoke favorably regarding God came from a long history of unquestioning belief. However, the research and evidence they accumulated did not support gods (earlier) or God in their own time. They don’t base their conclusions upon underlying God assumptions. Such assumptions are irrelevant. Scientists today tell us about that for which they have evidence. They tend not to mention God unless pressed by some challenger. Then, their answers may be more diplomatic than candid.

Religious dogma tends to be self-destructive. Its inconsistencies and contradictions are a threat to religious dogma. It’s difficult/impossible for religious dogma to defend against modern science. It must rely on truth by assertion. Such dogma is irrelevant to science. Generally, modern science does not directly address religious dogma. However, it does address it indirectly. Science explains with evidence and factual support what it tentatively concludes. It is open to modification as new evidence is persuasive. Truth by assertion is not open to modification in this way. Thus, religious dogma is threatened by scientific discovery. Science is not threatened by religion.

“We believe in Gods” in part because it’s a continuation of our heritage, in part because it’s comfortable or comforting, in part because being openly agnostic/atheist is certain to offend and anger those with whom we are closest.

Absent evidence for a conclusion, scientists tend to reject an asserted conclusion today.

Consider this: In part it states: “In the early 20th century, studies showed that scientists were less likely than the general population to believe in the existence of God. A survey conducted in 1969 showed that 35% of scientists did not believe that God existed.”

That statistic is different than the general population. We should expect that it would be. The general population is not comprised primarily of scientists. And since scientists live among the general population, it is not in their interest to present loud, public stands on their skepticism of religious dogma.

Hence, we may not know exactly what scientists believe short of a study which allows scientists to remain anonymous. The study I linked for you is dated to 1969. It is likely that the percentages have changed since then to widen the gap of those who do not subscribe to a particular God myth.

I addressed you, Some Schmo, rather than others since it was you who posed the original question. Acrimonious attacks which appear in some posts under your topic are counter-productive to analytical discussion.

JAK

[_Kevin Graham]

JAK weighs in, pretening to have the faintest clue what it is he is talking about:

The argument that scientists have been theists follows from the fact that the growth in numbers of agnostics or atheists who are willing to come forward is a relatively recent development considering a hundred thousand years (more, likely) of human evolution. While a case can be made that religious groups supported education, they did so prior to the challenge of their own dogmas by those whom it educated. That is, education was about language, reading, writing, and with that storytelling (prose, poetry, theatre, music).

Could there be a more ignorant statement made? JAK has a habit of recreating history and reality to suit his bigoted assumptions, but this one takes the cake. You see, JAK follows the myth that science undermines religion, therefore religion doesn't promote science because it senses the so-called "threat." What unbridled hogwash. Notice that in the list above, JAK nowhere includes science as "education" supported by religious groups. He can't possibly be this daft, can he? He seems completely oblivious to the overwhelming influence religious theists have had on modern science. This they did while being criticized by their respective Churches? Is BYU not teaching science, or maybe Notre Dame? Have the sciences been expunged from the curriculum of the hundreds of religious institutions throughout the world? Can he name a single example to back up his "truth by assertion"?

With all his blather about religion being strictly based on "truth by assertion," he becomes a self-described religious nut. Nothing he says is backed up with evidence of any kind.

Prior to scientific discoveries which directly challenged religious dogma, religion likely felt unthreatened by education. However, intellectual, evidence-based theories of evolution did and do challenge religious dogma directly.

Which is why the Pope embraced it? What planet is JAK typing from?

That many scientists are/were theists is bogus.

Bogus!?!?! This should be fun. Let's see if JAK can prove there aren't "many scientists who are theists."

Early scientists who saw other scientists tortured and imprisoned for their outspoken clarity may well have elected to keep their skepticism (agnosticism) to themselves.

Call for references. I'm betting JAK will pull another "irony" by referring us to some website written by a Muslim.

The classic case of Galileo resulted in house arrest, and it was a political matter more than anything else. Galileo wasn't punished for doing science, he was punished for mocking the Pope publicly.

In order to do their work and remain free to do it, it was in their best interest not to challenge directly religious dogma. It was also not required.

We can only guess the latest conspiratorial whack-job book JAK has chosen to read this time. Let's see if he ponies up and provides evidence for his "asserted truth."

Some religious groups today have elected to acknowledge evolution and go on to characterize that evolution may have been God’s method for creation.

The only people who have issues with it are those who maintain a literal account of Genesis. That's it. It doesn't attack the existence of God even the most radical of atheistic scientists will admit. For the rest of them evolution creates no problem. This upset's JAK's applecart.

Other more fundamentalist groups, reject evolution and dismiss all the massive quantity of evidence which supports it.

A ridiculous caricature one would only expect from bigots. As I demonstrated to JSM a while ago, religions change according to science. They are enemies. There are fundamentalist theists the same as their are fundemantalists in science. Gould rightly described a particular group for being Darwinian fundemantalists because they have no problems whatsoever accepting "truth by assertion." They offer "just-so stories" from a history they invent from thin air, to fill in the gaps where evidence would generally be required.

Scientists who spoke favorably regarding God came from a long history of unquestioning belief.

There goes JAK again with these scary qualifiers. The belief has to be "unquestioning", bringing about images of torture if one dares to do so. Again, what planet is he typing from? The fact is many scientists who believe in God find plenty of evidence in the atural world. JAK can't tolerate these opinions, bringing a sense of irony to his use of the word "unquestioning."

However, the research and evidence they accumulated did not support gods (earlier) or God in their own time. They don’t base their conclusions upon underlying God assumptions. Such assumptions are irrelevant. Scientists today tell us about that for which they have evidence.

Oh really? Then how about you go ahead and tell us the direct evidence for evolutionary psychological claims, such as that humans become obese today because our ancient ancestors had to eat as much as they could because they never knew when they'd get to eat again. JSM has the integrity to admit this isn't science, let's see if you do too.

Religious dogma tends to be self-destructive.

There is plenty of religious dogma going on within the academy of sciences. When the universe was discovered to have had a beginning, atheists in science freaked out and rejected it immediately. Why? Because it strongly suggested a creator. They were explicit in their reasons for rejecting it, and it wasn't for a love of science. It was due to their assumptions of naturalism.

Its inconsistencies and contradictions are a threat to religious dogma. It’s difficult/impossible for religious dogma to defend against modern science. It must rely on truth by assertion.

Everything you've said in this post is truth by assertion.

Such dogma is irrelevant to science.

Unless it is a dogma with the word "evolutionary" somehow attached to it (i.e. evolutionary sociology, evolutionary psychology, etc).

“We believe in Gods” in part because it’s a continuation of our heritage, in part because it’s comfortable or comforting, in part because being openly agnostic/atheist is certain to offend and anger those with whom we are closest.

And you know this because.....? Oh yeah, truth by assertion.

Absent evidence for a conclusion, scientists tend to reject an asserted conclusion today.

Unless it is based on the conclusion of materialism, which is a dogma science has not proved to be true, but merely "asserted as truth."

Consider this: In part it states: “In the early 20th century, studies showed that scientists were less likely than the general population to believe in the existence of God. A survey conducted in 1969 showed that 35% of scientists did not believe that God existed.”

That statistic is different than the general population. We should expect that it would be. The general population is not comprised primarily of scientists. And since scientists live among the general population, it is not in their interest to present loud, public stands on their skepticism of religious dogma.

This is a famous faux pas by atheists today who think that this somehow proves something in their favor. The reason scientists have less of a tendency to belong to religious institutions could have more to do with the fact that they are generally more devoted to a very different, less social lifestyle. Religion is a social construct, and Noam Chomsy once said something that I think makes perfect sense:

"On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world."

This makes perfect sense actually. So, one might also find a similar ratio of religious and non-religious among, oh let's say Lawyers or Stock Brokers. Their lack of religious affiliation probably has more to do with their social styles, the time and interests they have. Introverted scientists who are out of touch with the real world generally won't be concerned with getting involed in a religion. But this doesn't mean they reject theism.

Hence, we may not know exactly what scientists believe short of a study which allows scientists to remain anonymous.

It doesn't matter if they say they are theists because people like you and Dawkins will suggest they are actually lying, because you need to believe no real scientists could believe in God.

The study I linked for you is dated to 1969. It is likely that the percentages have changed since then to widen the gap of those who do not subscribe to a particular God myth.

What exactly do you think this study proves? Belief in God among scientists has barely changed over the last thirty years.

[_Some Schmo]

“We believe in Gods” in part because it’s a continuation of our heritage, in part because it’s comfortable or comforting, in part because being openly agnostic/atheist is certain to offend and anger those with whom we are closest.

I’ve enjoyed your posts on this topic Jak.

I don't doubt any of those factors (I have long been of the opinion that comfort was at the very root, and the largest and most pervasive reason for god and religious belief), but I think there's even more to it than that.

From an evolutionary perspective, it stands to reason that there have been reproductive and survival advantages for it. People who are going through tough/crisis moments in their lives are likely to cope better if they think their some supernatural forces at play that have brought them to the place they are at. When they lose a loved one, or are hungry, or whatever, it's easier (takes less fortitude and self-discipline) to believe there's a cosmic reason for it. I think that the god myth is the grand master placebo.

But also, there are the kinds of cognitive processes our brains have evolved that actually contribute to a successful/cogent self-dialog that supports supernatural belief (this is the jist of what Thomson talks about in the video I linked). It's one thing to find comfort in a god, but you have to convince yourself that it's real in the first place (and actually, from Thomson's perspective, it comes naturally - it's more difficult to talk yourself out of the god idea and take the rational position because of these evolved, encoded brain processes).

But I have no doubt that scientists, much like politicians, have felt they had to say what's popular rather than what they really think. It's hard to get funding if nobody likes you, for one thing, and a couple centuries or more ago, your life likely depended on it.

I think it's kind of funny and a little sad that religious people want to claim scientists are believers as though their scientific research has led them to that conclusion, because let's face it; they do it to help justify their own belief. However, it seems rather obvious that good theistic scientists don't believe because of science, but rather, in spite of it. In other words, the fact that there are scientists who believe in god isn't a good reason to find comfort in your own god belief.

[_Kevin Graham]

Ah, the ole "believing in God is a survival mechanism which is explained by evolution" gambit.

More truth by assertion, right?

I mean lets face it. None of this is established by science, it is merely asserted. Unless of course one of you would like to outline the scientific methodology used to determine this. Not JSM, since he already admitted it isn't science.

One could just as easily make the case that belief in God makes it more difficult for us to survive.

The funny thing about all of this is that these atheists have no idea just how arrogant and bigoted they come across. Sure, people believe in God you say, but with the caveat, "because they can't help themselves. Evolution made them do it." This goes back to what I said before. Atheists of this stripe really do believe they are special in the sense that they are smarter and that they've managed to overcome some kind of evolutionary barrier.

As for the rest of us? Well, people become obese because evolution made them do it. People have God belief because evolution made them do it. Humans procreate because evolution made them do it. Pretty soon humanity won't be held accountable for anything it does, since it will be established dogma that we're all just a bunch of blind robots who operate according to the blind forces of nature.

[_Some Schmo]

Ah, the ole "believing in God is a survival mechanism which is explained by evolution" gambit.

More truth by assertion, right?

Yeah... I got this far and quit reading. I've decided to limit my consumption of stupid to a couple lines a day.

[_Kevin Graham]

We all know that if you thought, just for a second, that you could respond to the point, then you would have. Calling me stupid is just a dodge. Nobody can demonstrate how this isn't truth by assertion, and I find that downright hilarious given these are generally the same people who attack religious people for "believing" along the same lines. At least they aren't trying to pass off their beliefs as science.

[_Some Schmo]

We all know that if you thought, just for a second, that you could respond to the point, then you would have. Calling me stupid is just a dodge. Nobody can demonstrate how this isn't truth by assertion, and I find that downright hilarious given these are generally the same people who attack religious people for "believing" along the same lines. At least they aren't trying to pass off their beliefs as science.

LOL

Just keep telling yourself that. (Actually, I know you will).

Oh crap... I just realized I went above my daily consumption of stupid, reading your last post.

[_JAK]

Some Schmo,

It is an interesting post title which you set forward. Thank you for your observations.

Your post to which I respond.

Some Schmo stated:
I don't doubt any of those factors (I have long been of the opinion that comfort was at the very root, and the largest and most pervasive reason for god and religious belief), but I think there's even more to it than that.

Without disagreement, religion has also been a power over others to manipulate and control. The appeal to fear is also “pervasive.” However, it’s a disconnect with reason in this sense. Since fear is an emotion, it can be played upon from a wide variety of angles (not religious exclusively). When people are often persuaded by fear, they are intimidated to act or believe irrationally. Adults frequently use fear as a motivator on their children. If it’s a bluff, children learn quickly and the parent looses respect. However, when fear threatens with death or God will punish you, it’s often difficult for people (or young people) to keep their rational faculties fully engaged. They tend to scum. They are afraid not to accept (believe) the threat (the religious dogma).

That’s more likely when such fears are reinforced on a regular basis. Being threatened by God is all the more fearful in that it’s an unseen, undocumented threat. Who is God? Well, God is real and HE will kill you if you don’t do as I say! That kind of rhetoric is threatening and fearful.

Some Schmo stated:
From an evolutionary perspective, it stands to reason that there have been reproductive and survival advantages for it. People who are going through tough/crisis moments in their lives are likely to cope better if they think their some supernatural forces at play that have brought them to the place they are at. When they lose a loved one, or are hungry, or whatever, it's easier (takes less fortitude and self-discipline) to believe there's a cosmic reason for it. I think that the god myth is the grand master placebo.

Yes. Since everyone who comes from a religious background living today has some religious dogma in their environment, they like to believe a good event, a surprise of great importance to the good was micromanaged by “some supernatural force(s).” The man or woman who must missed a flight that crashed may well revert to religion and declare: Thank God. Of course that’s no comfort to the loved ones left behind whose close relative or multiple relatives were on the flight that went down. And, of course dead people don’t say anything. So we only have the Thank God people from whom to hear a story.

We know an Amish lady who is fond of the sentence: “God makes no mistakes”. She uses it in adversity as well as good fortune. But it’s always God in control. Yet in her writing, she is always attempting to manipulate events herself. (She writes a piece periodically in a local paper about Amish life.)

“Placebo” may be a good coinage. Most religious pundits tend to Praise God for any significant good fortune. They also tend to default in adversity: We may not understand now, but we know God’s purpose is at work and must find our strength in Him. These generic “placebo(s)” are used by many religious individuals as well as religious organizations. It’s an address to your post: “Why We Believe in Gods.” It’s also a marketing tool of religious groups.

Some Schmo stated:
But also, there are the kinds of cognitive processes our brains have evolved that actually contribute to a successful/cogent self-dialog that supports supernatural belief (this is the jist of what Thomson talks about in the video I linked). It's one thing to find comfort in a god, but you have to convince yourself that it's real in the first place (and actually, from Thomson's perspective, it comes naturally - it's more difficult to talk yourself out of the god idea and take the rational position because of these evolved, encoded brain processes).

Yes. However, the “convince” process for those indoctrinated from childhood begins long before they have the slightest idea that they are being convinced. Mom and dad are just taking them to religion. They are taught to mind mom and dad, to respect mom and dad and to believe mom and dad. Depending upon the degree to which one is indoctrinated from cradle up, education beyond secondary school may be a challenge. That’s particularly the case if one goes into some field of science. Doctors and nurses are scientists but different from those who pear at images from the Hubble Space Telescope. Chemical engineers are scientists, etc. We have an enormous amount of applied science today (for which God myths are irrelevant).

Some Schmo stated:
But I have no doubt that scientists, much like politicians, have felt they had to say what's popular rather than what they really think. It's hard to get funding if nobody likes you, for one thing, and a couple centuries or more ago, your life likely depended on it.

Yes. While it would be difficult to establish, there are likely many politicians who are very careful with their words regarding religion. Nearly anything they say can and will be used against them by someone. They are too religious. They are not religious enough. They are of the wrong religion, etc.

Some Schmo stated:
I think it's kind of funny and a little sad that religious people want to claim scientists are believers as though their scientific research has led them to that conclusion, because let's face it; they do it to help justify their own belief. However, it seems rather obvious that good theistic scientists don't believe because of science, but rather, in spite of it. In other words, the fact that there are scientists who believe in god isn't a good reason to find comfort in your own god belief.

Yes, well stated. In addition, the “scientists who believe in god” (as you state) may have a very different perception or belief than is generally known to their family and/or friends. If politicians genuinely believed in freedom of religion, they would not make religion and specific religious dogma a cornerstone of their litmus test for those with whom they disagree. If they genuinely respected the religious views of others, they would focus on points of agreement for the greater benefit of the people whom they represent.

You have thoughtful comments, Some Schmo.

JAK