A Conversation Among the Four Horsemen

[Guest]

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

True, but.... What do you think this proves really?

Could it be that theists are not inclined to get into a social circle that is dominated by the "other"? We see this all the time. Qualified conservatives are less likely to get jobs in academia because it is so dominated by liberals, so they are less likely to even try it. Mormons aren't likely to seek employment at theological seminaries, so they don't even bother.

Why are atheists less likely to engage in biblical scholarship? Many notable atheists do, actually, but on the whole, they are a tiny minority. It certainly isn't because studying the Bible leads more people to theism. Likewise, there is no reason to believe studying evolution leads to atheism.

Having said that, evolution study could easily result in the rejection of creationism. I suspect that those who are interested enough in the subject, already knew enough about it beforehand. In other words, they knew the Genesis story wasn't science before getting their Ph.D. So the program is attracting atheists, not creating them.

[_dartagnan]

Schmo, I don't think you have ever had a discussion on this forum. I think you feel left out too often, which is why you jump in when people who can argue the arguments you can't. And then you start the cheering section, trying to gain acceptance.

You seem to be upset that people are responding to me.

Sure, we disagree, but they seem willing to agree to disagree. You never were that reasonable. Let me give you an example, in case it has already slipped your mind.

Reasonable people: I believe you're wrong, but that's OK.

Unreasonable people: You are wrong, and since you refuse to agree with me, you're childish and a panda. LOL.. LOL.. LOL...

We've seen it too many times.

[_Chap]

....
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'?

....


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.

The reason I refer to this point is because, as I think is notorious, dartagnan has stated that he "knows" "God" exists. But he has declined to explain to us how he "knows" this.

I am well aware that he has made no statement revealing what, if any, religion he believes in. But since he "knows" that "God" exists it is surely the case that he believes in "God". So how can he object to being asked to explain this belief, given that a good part of his posts nowadays seems to be taken up with patronising abuse of people who publicly contest such belief?

Beats me.

[_guy sajer]

....
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'?

....


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.

The reason I refer to this point is because, as I think is notorious, dartagnan has stated that he "knows" "God" exists. But he has declined to explain to us how he "knows" this.

I am well aware that he has made no statement revealing what, if any, religion he believes in. But since he "knows" that "God" exists it is surely the case that he believes in "God". So how can he object to being asked to explain this belief, given that a good part of his posts nowadays seems to be taken up with patronising abuse of people who publicly contest such belief?

Beats me.

I'd be curious to know more about Dart's belief in God, and why, in his opinion, his type of belief is more reasonable than that of, say, Mormons.

[_Chap]

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

True, but.... What do you think this proves really?

Could it be that theists are not inclined to get into a social circle that is dominated by the "other"? We see this all the time. Qualified conservatives are less likely to get jobs in academia because it is so dominated by liberals, so they are less likely to even try it. Mormons aren't likely to seek employment at theological seminaries, so they don't even bother.

Why are atheists less likely to engage in biblical scholarship? Many notable atheists do, actually, but on the whole, they are a tiny minority. It certainly isn't because studying the Bible leads more people to theism. Likewise, there is no reason to believe studying evolution leads to atheism.

Having said that, evolution study could easily result in the rejection of creationism. I suspect that those who are interested enough in the subject, already knew enough about it beforehand. In other words, they knew the Genesis story wasn't science before getting their Ph.D. So the program is attracting atheists, not creating them.

I am not entirely clear that dartagnan's answer is very relevant to the point I made, in my post, which was that recognised competence in evolutionary biology did not seem to sit very well with strong religious belief. I said in conclusion:

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.

I have taken part in a number of academic appointment procedures. At no stage could we even have become aware what someone's religious beliefs were. And even if we were, it would not have made the slightest difference to our decisions, which were solely based on what someone had achieved by way of research, publication and (where applicable) teaching in their field.

Of course if someone believes in such nonsensical and unscientific propositions as that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that would in itself suggest that that person was unqualified to teach, e.g., geology. But the problem there is not a political one (excluding 'conservatives') - it is simply a matter of scientific competence.

[_dartagnan]

That's odd. I simply responded to this statement: "evolutionary biologists are strikingly less likely to be theists than are other Americans."

Sure, I agree. I am just saying that this fact in and of itself doesn't explain why evolutionary biologists are "less likely to be theists." I responded with several questions that might explain why. It could very well be the case that theists are less likely to be evolutionary biologists.

recognised competence in evolutionary biology did not seem to sit very well with strong religious belief

And I suppose competence in biblical scholarship doesn't seem to sit very well with strong atheists.

There is nothing about the Bible that would drive an atheist towards theism. I just think more theists get into the Bible program to begin with. The program doesn't produce them. Same with why more atheists are likely to study evolutionary biology.

I must say chap, you're about the hardest person to agree with.

[_Moniker]

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.

I think it might be a waste of my time to argue about my use of sarcasm when talking to others that use epithets.

[_Moniker]

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.

I didn't read your statements the same way I read Schmo's. I might have jumped the gun with Schmo -- and if so, I apologize to him.

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo, I don't think you have ever had a discussion on this forum. I think you feel left out too often, which is why you jump in when people who can argue the arguments you can't.

That's an interesting assessment, coming from you. I'm starting to see you in a whole new way.

It matters little to me whether you think I can/can't discuss anything, or ever have here on this board. I never read much of what you wrote prior to our recent interaction either.

And then you start the cheering section, trying to gain acceptance.

Oh yes... my history of posting clearly points to me trying to gain other people's acceptance. Un huh.

You seem to be upset that people are responding to me.

Dude... if you make me laugh, why on Earth would I be upset that others are responding to you? Are you insane? I love that people respond to you. It makes the board go 'round. Why do you think I follow it? It's incredibly entertaining, man.

Sure, we disagree, but they seem willing to agree to disagree. You never were that reasonable. Let me give you an example, in case it has already slipped your mind.

Reasonable people: I believe you're wrong, but that's OK.

Unreasonable people: You are wrong, and since you refuse to agree with me, you're childish and a panda. LOL.. LOL.. LOL...

Strawman. I don't think you're childish because you disagree with me. I can see how it would be attractive to someone like you to project that behavior on me. No, I think you're childish because of the way you interact on the boards. My posts to you are a reflection of how you come across to me. Do you see me talking to everyone the way I talk to you?

I've conceded several points to many reasonable people in the past, and I always will. I don't pretend to be omnicient like you do. I hope to learn till I die.

And it made me truly laugh out loud when I read you say, "I believe you're wrong, but that's OK" as though you think that's the impression you give out when you post. Dude... you can't make crap like that up. Sorry, but to me, that's hilarious.

We've seen it too many times.

No doubt.

[_Chap]

That's odd. I simply responded to this statement: "evolutionary biologists are strikingly less likely to be theists than are other Americans."

Sure, I agree. I am just saying that this fact in and of itself doesn't explain why evolutionary biologists are "less likely to be theists." I responded with several questions that might explain why. It could very well be the case that theists are less likely to be evolutionary biologists.

recognised competence in evolutionary biology did not seem to sit very well with strong religious belief

And I suppose competence in biblical scholarship doesn't seem to sit very well with strong atheists.

There is nothing about the Bible that would drive an atheist towards theism. I just think more theists get into the Bible program to begin with. The program doesn't produce them. Same with why more atheists are likely to study evolutionary biology.

I must say chap, you're about the hardest person to agree with.

I have known quite a few atheists, and indeed I now am one. I agree that relative to the population in general, atheists are (probably, in my view) less likely to find the prospect of studying theology particularly attractive, although I have know non-believers to find that theology was an interesting academic subject, as it is taught in good non-confessional universities.

On the other hand I have known quite a few theists too, and been one for most of my life. I may perhaps have met one whose belief in Biblical inerrancy might have persuaded him against wanting to study evolutionary biology. But as for the others I have known, who were certainly of an intelligence and educational level that meant they might have been able to make such a choice, I cannot think of any who might have refrained from studying evolutionary biology, or found it less attractive, just because they were theists.

So I don't think that people who are theists are likely to avoid evolutionary biology in significant numbers, because they are theists and hence find it uncongenial. I suspect, rather, that those who have the mental abilities and dispositions that help make them good evolutionary biologists will be less likely to remain theists if they were brought up that way, and less likely to become theists as adults.