Interesting bit of information

"
Leading scientists still reject God

Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].

"In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Yuts,
If you say we're all irrational, then why bother accusing David of being irrational? If we're all essentially irrational, why bother coming here (or going anywhere) to discuss anything at all? Staking your basis in irrationally leaves all discussion futile. I don't know why I bother.

AJ,
Your understanding of theology is lacking. The pot doesn't advise the potter what to make of it. The potter makes whatever he wants of the pot.

God is under no obligation to do anything for anyone. He's under no obligation to reveal himself to you. You say it's 'not fair' if he doesn't. (Though, I suspect he already has.) Yet the pot doesn't tell the potter what's fair. However, I'm guessing God is especially not feeling under obligation to speak to people with their fingers in their ears.

And your theology is also lacking if you think God judges people for not believing in him. As I said earlier, he judges people for their wrong actions. In that sense, to be 'fair', all he need give you is a conscience or a sense of right and wrong. It's as simple as James 4:17 (... it is sin to know what you ought to do and then not do it.)

Jayb,
Both you and David objected to Don Batten saying that Richard Dawkins was modern day hero of God haters. You respond saying you can't hate something that doesn't exist. I'm sure the logic of what you say isn't lost on Don, which is why he said it. I suspect that when Don speaks of hate he's taking a measure of the anger and emotion found in the theological arguments he sees thrust towards God. Why hate what does not exist? Why, indeed?

You say you like to 'get back to the beginning/start of things'. I like that sentiment. That's the reason I like this article from Batten. And it seems to have struck a chord with quite a few, or maybe touched a raw nerve.

Rhian,
Thanks for the link to that page on geology, 'Science Clarified'. But for one small fanciful phrase in interlude, I particularly liked the description of Rainbow Bridge in Utah.

"Covering a distance of 270 feet (82 meters), Rainbow Bridge is the largest and most symmetrical natural bridge in the world. Salmon-pink in color, the bridge is composed entirely of Navajo sandstone. Sandstone is a type of rock made up of grains of sand bonded together by a mineral cement, like calcium carbonate. Water easily dissolves this bond, washing away portions of the sand to form fascinating shapes. ['Million of years ago'?], water flowing off nearby Navajo Mountain washed over the area, cutting a canyon in the soft sandstone. As water continued to course through the canyon, it cut a hole in a curve in the canyon's side, eventually leading to the formation of the Rainbow Bridge. "

The picture is so graphic; I can almost hear the water swirling as I read this.

It seems you are willing to admit that the majority can be wrong on a particular issue, but you're still grappling with the definition of consensus. How many dissenters does it take to challenge a theory? You say, "even if the majority scientific opinion is wrong on a particular issue, it doesn’t mean your alternative hypothesis is correct." Perhaps, but it can't hurt. If there were two major theories in contention, A & B, and I wanted to support A, then finding weaknesses in the argument for B couldn't be such a bad thing.

In that line, I think it legitimate for Batten to point out the problems biology has in explaining the diversity of life via mutations and natural selection. If the evidence for biological evolution is supposedly so one sided towards evolution, how do you account for those 16 high profile evolutionary scientists mentioned in Batten's article meeting to discuss this crisis in evolutionary biology. Batten (an experienced biological scientist himself) says the only consensus arrived at between these 16 was that there is a major problem with the evidence for evolution.
http://creation.com/review-altenberg-16

dsdm: You respond saying you can't hate something that doesn't exist.

Exactly right. Just because I don't believe in something does not mean that I "Hate" something. Yes, I have said it before, "You cannot hate something that doesn't exist."But, neither do I hate people who believe in "A God," that's their choice. I think they're wrong but I can't force them to be right, as one of my T-shirts says, or something similar. I don't hate these people & I expect them to respect my beliefs, fat chance.

I don't think most Religious people Hate Atheists either. I don't think many people bother brooding on the subject all the time. Except the Ultra Religious & Fanatics who have a propensity to kill people. I've not seen that in Atheists, except the maybe Soviets & the Chinese about 80 years ago. The Fanatical Religious use the excuse, "God spoke to me & told me to do it" or "the Devil made me do it." Good excuse, eh. People with Obsessional Mental Problems. There seems to be a lot of that in "People of Religion."

So basically, Dan, your argument boils down to, ‘Something becomes right if God says it’s right.’ Am I right?

<<The pot doesn't advise the potter what to make of it. The potter makes whatever he wants of the pot.>>

The problem with this argument is that God could say that murder is right and you would have to accept that it was. Saying that God wouldn’t say that because it’s not in his nature doesn’t get you around this problem either.

<<God is under no obligation to do anything for anyone. He's under no obligation to reveal himself to you.>>

As I said before, he is if he’s going to send people off to be tortured forever if they don’t believe. Nothing you’re saying is negating this point of mine.

<<However, I'm guessing God is especially not feeling under obligation to speak to people with their fingers in their ears.>>

Like I said earlier, if you think that this is the case, then let’s test it out. Explain to me what you think constitutes good evidence for a god. grateful gave it a good crack but was ultimately unable to provide anything that was not fallacious.

<<And your theology is also lacking if you think God judges people for not believing in him. As I said earlier, he judges people for their wrong actions.>>

I don’t see where you’ve said that, sorry.

So are you of the belief that one doesn’t need to believe in God to go to Heaven, just that they need to be good people, despite John 14:6? That’s very Catholic of you. I could have sworn you were of the Protestant variety. Especially with your talk of a salvation-granting belief being required, and not just a mere belief.

I can assure you that my knowledge of Christian theology is quite good too. I spent a good chunk of my days as a Christian attending my church’s weekly Bible study group.

Dear Dan,

<<If you say we're all irrational, then why bother accusing David of being irrational?>>

This is not an accusation - there is nothing wrong about being irrational.

We all operate essentially out of irrational desires rather than out of reason. Yes, we may apply reason on top in order to calculate how we may best achieve those desires, but without those initial desires we wouldn't be bothered to do anything, to write anything, to say anything or even to think anything.

<<If we're all essentially irrational, why bother coming here (or going anywhere) to discuss anything at all?>>

Everyone who is here has their own reason(s), perhaps you can tell me what are yours. Whatever those reasons are, they either are irrational or are a rational conclusion based on earlier irrational attitudes and desires.

<<Staking your basis in irrationally leaves all discussion futile. I don't know why I bother.>>

You may enjoy discussing things with others who essentially share your own values. You may also come here to learn whether or not you share any of your values with others. Nothing on earth however dictates that one should hold any particular values (if any). The less values you have in common with others, the more futile your discussions with them will be.

If your reason for being interested in God is that He is the creator of this world, then your primary interest is on this world rather than in God, Who for you then becomes a mere agent. As such, you may conduct interesting discussions with atheists who also value the world. Don't say then that I haven't warned you once they lead you astray and rob away your faith in God.

---

Dear Jay,

It is healthy and proper to cry and weep for someone you love who is no longer with you, how more so for someone who has been showing you the light as you are now forced to continue finding the rest of your way in darkness.