A Conversation Among the Four Horsemen

[_Chap]

"God did it" doesn't explain anything at all. On the contrary, "God did it, God is a mystery, and we will simply never know exactly how God did it until after we die and he tells us" essentially shuts down further inquiry into how things happened.

True. It's a childish explanation that could only satisfy a childish mind.

Saying "god did it" is like, when asked where a shipment of foreign goods came from, saying, "a boat..." as though that's supposed to be an adequate explanation. God is just this magical black box that's supposed to explain all manner of unknowns... right up untilthose unknowns are knocked off, one by one, by rational scientific explanations. God's power and necessity just keep getting smaller and smaller in direct proportion to known reality getting larger and larger.

Might want to explain to the evolutionary biologists that are theists how their minds are childish.

http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/

I'd rather not considering they far outweigh my childish mind in matters of science.

Please look more carefully at this material.

The list of evolutionary biologists given there:

http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/ ... nists.html

is the list of those who were sent a questionnaire, NOT a list of evolutionary biologists who professed themselves to be theists. You need to look at the results summarised in a pdf you can download at

http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/report.html

There you will see, for instance, that only 55.7% sent any answer at all to the questionnaire. Of those who did, 83.9% said they were 'not religious' (figure 5) and 41.6% reported themselves as straight atheists, with 16.78% agnostics and 3.36% 'other', 16.11% 'no answer' (fig 7).

On the direct relationship between evolution and religious belief, see:

Responses to question 17:

“What kind of a belief system would you advocate, if pressed, as being the most
consonant with a lifelong practice of evolution?

A. One of the traditional religions (i.e. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism
etc.); 5.37%
B. A naturalistic one that is based on materialism, and incorporates advances in scientific knowledge; 68.46%
C. One that incorporates some aspects of traditional religion and some aspects of modern science; 15.44%
D. Other; 8.05%
E. Questionnaires returned empty on this question. 5.37%

Most clearly think that evolution has nothing to gain from being associated with religion.

[_Moniker]

I have looked at the results as well as gotten the book copies. The man in charge of it is Greg Graffin and he's been my favorite punk for years -- Bad Religion is the band he formed. I've been interested in this for a while now.

http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/results.pdf


There are about 12% of the evolutionary biologists that participated said they believe in a deity. 14% label themselves religious. 15% said they don't consider evidence when determining their beliefs in a deity. 4% said they believe in a deity "regardless of evidence". That 12% are full members of the National Academies of Science and are well versed in science and still believe in a deity does not lead me to conclude that these men have "childish minds" because they compartmentalize a belief or accept it for other reasons.

Why should I conclude they have childish minds? 'Cause they believe in something I reject?

[_Chap]

I have looked at the results as well as gotten the book copies. The man in charge of it is Greg Graffin and he's been my favorite punk for years -- Bad Religion is the band he formed. I've been interested in this for a while now.

http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/results.pdf

There are about 15% of the evolutionary biologists that replied that said they keep their belief in a deity separate from "evidence for God". There is another 4% that believe in a deity "regardless of evidence". That is just shy of 20% of the participants stating they are theists. That 20% are full members of the National Academies of Science and are well versed in science and still believe in a deity does not lead me to conclude that these men have "childish minds" because they compartmentalize a belief or accept it for other reasons.

So what? Provided you pick your religion carefully (Episcopalian, not Bible-belt Baptists for instance) you can still be a perfectly good scientist and still believe in a religion. I did it myself for years, and even people who disagree with me don't think I am 'childish' or ignorant of science. In a society like ours, it is not surprising to find at least 15% of theists in a bunch of evolutionary biologists.

But ask yourself this - why is the proportion of theists in this group so much less that that of theists in the general US population? There the figures for theism vary between 70% and 90%, depending on the survey.

Could there be a message here about the effect of rigorous scientific training on the likelihood of the individual still finding the concept of 'God' useful or interesting? I rather think there is.

[_Moniker]

I edited my reply to be clearer and not read into the data.

So what? Provided you pick your religion carefully (Episcopalian, not Bible-belt Baptists for instance) you can still be a perfectly good scientist and still believe in a religion. I did it myself for years, and even people who disagree with me don't think I am 'childish' or ignorant of science. In a society like ours, it is not surprising to find at least 15% of theists in a bunch of evolutionary biologists.

But ask yourself this - why is the proportion of theists in this group so much less that that of theists in the general US population? There the figures for theism vary between 70% and 90%, depending on the survey.

Could there be a message here about the effect of rigorous scientific training on the likelihood of the individual still finding the concept of 'God' useful or interesting? I rather think there is.

So what? My point is that I don't think that it is appropriate to call men that are well versed in scientific matters as having "childish minds" for a belief in something that you and I reject. I agree that it's telling that the variance between evolutionary biologists (that participated in the poll) is STUNNINGLY different from the general population to support the notion that most in the field reject theism. Yet, that there are those that don't suggests to me that there is an ability to compartmentalize this belief and still be a "good scientist" as you state.

I'm not the one suggesting that anyone is childish for their belief in a deity so I don't know why your reply to me mentions that...

[_Some Schmo]

Please read what I said more carefully, Mon. I said the god explanation could only satisfy a childish mind. There is no indication that guys who say they believe in a deity are satisfied with it as an explanation for many of the scientific community's unknowns. And if some are satisfied by it, then yes, quite frankly, that's childish avoidance of a real explanation, and it doesn't do their careers any favors. I'm not going to apologize for saying it. Credentials mean little if they don't lead a person to thinking rationally about the world around them.

[_Moniker]

Please read what I said more carefully, Mon. I said the god explanation could only satisfy a childish mind. There is no indication that guys who say they believe in a deity are satisfied with it as an explanation for many of the scientific community's unknowns. And if some are satisfied by it, then yes, quite frankly, that's childish avoidance of a real explanation, and it doesn't do their careers any favors. I'm not going to apologize for saying it. Credentials mean little if they don't lead a person to thinking rationally about the world around them.

Ack! You're pulling a JAK on me.. Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!! :)

I read your comment:

True. It's a childish explanation that could only satisfy a childish mind.

And immediately thought of intelligent, well educated individuals that compartmentalize this belief in a deity while they still strive to unlock the mysteries of the world. Some may believe their departed loved ones are in heaven, or tell themselves that it was God's will (whatever the hell that is) to deal with catastrophe, or some may believe that God put the mysteries of science (that they're seeking to unlock) in motion -- there are all manners of beliefs that can be locked away while they still are rational scientists.

Thanks for saying what you did above. I agree.

[Anonymous]

Moniker, with all due respect, you're completely misreading us here. We're not saying that a belief in God is childish. We're saying that the "God did it" answer is childish. By definition, the evolutionary biologists who are also theists aren't taking "God did it" seriously as an answer to the questions of how life developed, and are in fact pursuing the naturalistic explanation, and therefor that comment would not apply to them.

[_Chap]

I'm not the one suggesting that anyone is childish for their belief in a deity so I don't know why your reply to me mentions that...

I mentioned the 'childish' point because you brought it up when you first referred to this survey:

Might want to explain to the evolutionary biologists that are theists how their minds are childish.

But of course it is a waste of time to argue about epithets.

The most obvious implication of the survey seems to be that expert evolutionary biologists are strikingly less likely to be theists than are other Americans. Most are atheists or agnostics.

[_dartagnan]

I'm going to start a thread in the celestial discussing memes, and using my response to sethbag as the opening post.

I can tell this thread is already getting out of control the same as the other 30 pager. I don't have the time to try keeping up with another thread run amuck, so I think the best thing to do is to start a new one in the celestial forum and invite those who are serious about discussion. We have better luck with cordial and informative discussion there.

Schmo, please do us all a favor and just shut up. Even you have to admit you don't discuss anything. You don't understand much at all so you can add nothing of substance. All you do is jump in like a clown with a blowhorn, and try to drag the discussion down to your circus evel, by taunting and using every puerile tactic in the book. I know I'm not the only one who thinks your presence isn't helping the discussion.

chap said,

If dartagnan does not enjoy being asked to give reasons to support the proposition that the entity he labels 'God' exists, would it not be a good idea to stop stating that proposition on an internet board whose name includes the word 'discussions'?

Sigh...

Since chap has chosen to talk around me instead of to me, let me explain why chap is still misreading what I have said. I said "I'm tired of being expected to defend a particular religion." A membership to a religion is not the same thing as a knowledge that God exists. Chap apparently doesn't want to understand the difference because like Dawkins, it avoids treating a complex issue with finesse and precision. Isn't it important to properly define what it is you think is dangerous? If not, you're reckless.

My point is that you're not going to discredit the argument against God's existence by attacking religions. The two are not synonymous. I carefyully explained how Dawkins avoids this problem by evading it, and coming up with a personal definition that suits his "Universal Darwinism" assumption. In so doing, he has rigged the game from the start, and everyone has to play by his rules or else he isn't going to be "interested in that." And to be sure, only his choir is dancing to his tune.

He refuses to talk about pertinent issues he can't address, because he's "not interested in that." Nobody accepts this except his choir. Some theism apologists understand that he is not equipped to deal with the philosophical implications of his positions. He refuses to allow theologians to define theological terms like religion, faith, existence, etc. He presumes to do all of that for us, and we're just supposed to accept it without argument. Well, sorry, but that's not going to happen. If Dawkins cannot even accurately explain the meaning of basic terms like faith and religion, then he has no business analyzing something he doesn't understand.

This challenge (prove to me God exists!) is thrown up in my face in the middle of several discussions that deal with other points entirely unrelated to this question. This is like LDS apologists stuck in a quagmire about Joseph's lying, or the Book of Abraham, and to ease their frustration, start bringing up the silliness about Evangelical Christainity, or Catholicism, or whatever it is their opponent adheres to as a way to change the subject (Are we discussing whether or not I can prove God? I think not). I only wish chap would at least admit he has no earthly clue what religion I adhere to, and stop trying to get me to defend and explain things I don't necessarily believe.

I have been illustrating why Dawkins' argument attacking religion relies, at least in part, on unscientific and even bigoted assumptions. So far nobody has been able to refute this.

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo, please do us all a favor and just shut up. Even you have to admit you don't discuss anything. You don't understand much at all so you can add nothing of substance. All you do is jump in like a clown with a blowhorn, and try to drag the discussion down to your circus evel, by taunting and using every puerile tactic in the book. I know I'm not the only one who thinks your presence isn't helping the discussion.

LOL... you just can't get enough of that foaming at the mouth, can you? You have to be one of the whiniest people I've ever encountered on a message board.

I thought you were critical of people pretending to speak for others on the board, and now you do it yourself? You don't tire of hypocrisy either, do ya?

I'm willing to discuss just about anything with sensible, mature people. That obviously counts you out.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and shut up? You actually think the rubbish you write counts as discussion? LMAO... ok, then.