Jump to content

An Atheist Scientist Turns To God


Recommended Posts

I found the following article to be pretty interesting, especially with all of the discussion that goes on here. It's a scientist who was an atheist that searched out answers to confirm that there would be compelling arguments to back up his beliefs, but then, in his own words, says that the arguments were "flimsy." He admits to having to take a leap of faith, but is now a scientist as well as a believer. An estimated 40% of scientists are believes which is a much higher percentage then I would have expected.http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.c...tary/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I saw a report on that as well, I can't remember where...but it was pretty interesting. Also saw a show about the finding of the sites that may be Sodom and Gomorrah, its all really interesting to me..

Link to post
Share on other sites

"But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients"Yeah :-\ That'll do it."I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?""Usually, as an atheist, we accept the fact that we don't have scientific answers to some of the gaps of life. Again, this doesn't mean that religion does either. Flimsy educated guesses are about as good as Jesus Christ, Buddha, Mohammad (sp?), etc. What I will say, though, is the trend over the last couple thousand years shows that science is answering more and more of the "big questions" as time progresses. Questions about "what is outside the earth?", "Are there other systems like ours?", "Isn't the earth the center of the universe?", "Isn't the earth flat?", etc."My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible."And it is. It is irrational to claim that you KNOW there isn't something. As an atheist, I just don't see why god MUST exist. I don't believe in god because I see no use for god. I have no good reasons to believe in a higher power. If I had good reasons to believe in a higher power, then I would."Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required."THat is acceptable. Obviously, a person who has a "revelation" will assume themselves to be reasonable as well. For the practical purposes of discussion, I can accept that paragraph. Not as truth, but as explanation for how a religious person thinks of their own beliefs.According to this guy's view of Genesis, Lois would claim him as NOT being a Christian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I thought Daniel had given up on the religion forums...As to the article, there really is no direct conflict between general concepts of God and science. Science is very willing to admit where it lacks evidence and to not discuss realms about which it is uncertain. Physicists have a good idea how the universe looked a few fractions of a second after the big bang, but they admit to having absolutely no knowledge about the big bang itself, what it really was, what caused it, what was around before it, could it have been the work of a God, etc. There are many scientists who view the beauty of the natural universe, be it astronomical images of galaxies, nebulae, and novae, or the complexities of the human genome (as in the case of the article) or even something as esoteric as advanced mathematics, logic, and physical equations. The inherent elegance and beauty of the universe indeed is awe inspiring enough to drive many to seek divine sources of the near perfection of the universe.There's nothing wrong with this at all. As long as the scientist trusts the evidence he finds and his honest and thorough in his work, there is no harm in believing that a divine being could be behind it all.The real conflict between "god" and science comes not between god itself but rather certain specific manifestations of this god. Only when people take a given religion too literally will it conflict with science. There are many versions of god that are fully compatible with all that we know of science today. Even many Christians who do not take the bible too literally can be fully in line with the innovations of modern science. If I were to guess, I would say that the majority of people on Earth today who claim to be religion believe in god (or gods) in a way that does not directly conflict with science. But really I have no idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a scientist who was an atheist that searched out answers to confirm that there would be compelling arguments to back up his beliefs
if you analyze them his arguments are actually all philosophical (not to mention simplistic and easily refuted) and have nothing whatsoever to do with science. it follows that his credentials are pretty much irrelevant. he garners media attention because he is one of a very rare group of credentialed scientists who publish books supporting ID, which the general populous that don't understand the difference between science and philosophy eat up for no other reason than he's telling them (telling YOU) what they want to hear.
An estimated 40% of scientists are believes which is a much higher percentage then I would have expected.
why? why would you expect the percentage of scientists who are "believers" to be radically lower than the percentage of the general populous that are? is it that you expect ignorant/uniformed people to believe in god more than factually informed people?there IS a huge significance to the statistics there, but it's exactly the opposite of what you're implying:A. 90% of the US populous are "believers". B. 90% of scientists must have been raised in an environment of belief.C. if only 40% of working scientists maintain belief obviously a heck of a lotmore of them are believers that became atheist or agnostic than the other way around, and the majority of scientists that do believe do so for culturalreasons and not scientific ones.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And I thought Daniel had given up on the religion forums...As to the article, there really is no direct conflict between general concepts of God and science. Science is very willing to admit where it lacks evidence and to not discuss realms about which it is uncertain. Physicists have a good idea how the universe looked a few fractions of a second after the big bang, but they admit to having absolutely no knowledge about the big bang itself, what it really was, what caused it, what was around before it, could it have been the work of a God, etc. There are many scientists who view the beauty of the natural universe, be it astronomical images of galaxies, nebulae, and novae, or the complexities of the human genome (as in the case of the article) or even something as esoteric as advanced mathematics, logic, and physical equations. The inherent elegance and beauty of the universe indeed is awe inspiring enough to drive many to seek divine sources of the near perfection of the universe.
i take exception to the word "many" in the last sentence. the percentage of modern working scientists that feel "driven" by evidence to seek "divine sources" is pretty small. from 30+ years experience of reading scientific literature i believe most published scientists that seek divine sources do so either because they were already predisposed to belief, or to sell pseudo-science books to the ignorant general public.
The real conflict between "god" and science comes not between god itself but rather certain specific manifestations of this god. Only when people take a given religion too literally will it conflict with science. There are many versions of god that are fully compatible with all that we know of science today.
dunno about that either unless you refer specifically to deism. certainly there are no versions of a concerned/intervening god that are compatible with scientific evidence.
Link to post
Share on other sites

this paragraph demonstrates more than anything collins' simplistic unscientific approach that contradicts his credentials - obviously most if not all of these questions are at least in principal answerable by science:"I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?" clearly collins is just dumbing down everything to appeal to the general public presumably to sell his books. i can't imagine a serious scientist being dumb enough to try to turn scientific questions into philsophical dogma for any other reason.anyway, individually:"What is the meaning of life?"it's a baseless assumption that life has any intrinsic meaning. there is no evidence that it does. certainly we can and do give life our own meaning, but that's a scientifically explainable issue that does not require invoking god. scientific question."Why am I here?"essentially the same question as "what is meaning of life". see above. scientific question."Why does mathematics work, anyway?"most likely because there are underlying structures to the universe that we haven't discovered yet due to limits on our physical perceptions and ability to test. obviously a scientific question."If the universe had a beginning, who created it?"science is absolutely equipped in principal to answer questions about the origins of the universe (or if it actually had an origin at all). we are only limited in our understanding by what we can physically test, and those limits are being pushed and expanded all the time. obviously a scientific question."Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?"absolutely answerable by science - possible answers include undiscovered underlying structure and or the anthropic principal combined with an infinite universe. scientific question."Why do humans have a moral sense?"natural selection. scientific question."What happens after we die?" all evidence indicates we most likely cease to exist. scientific question.also note that invoking god does not actually explain any of the above questions. invoking god as an answer to what we don't understand is just a cop out for the lazy minded. collins seems to be extremely lazy minded - although again, i think it's actually just a front to sell books.

Link to post
Share on other sites
no, busy fighting ID nonsense on the off chance anyone on the fence is reading.
I'm certainly not on the fence, but I still enjoy reading it. Don't let them discourage you :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
"But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients"Yeah :-\ That'll do it."I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?""Usually, as an atheist, we accept the fact that we don't have scientific answers to some of the gaps of life. Again, this doesn't mean that religion does either. Flimsy educated guesses are about as good as Jesus Christ, Buddha, Mohammad (sp?), etc. What I will say, though, is the trend over the last couple thousand years shows that science is answering more and more of the "big questions" as time progresses. Questions about "what is outside the earth?", "Are there other systems like ours?", "Isn't the earth the center of the universe?", "Isn't the earth flat?", etc."My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible."And it is. It is irrational to claim that you KNOW there isn't something. As an atheist, I just don't see why god MUST exist. I don't believe in god because I see no use for god. I have no good reasons to believe in a higher power. If I had good reasons to believe in a higher power, then I would."Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required."THat is acceptable. Obviously, a person who has a "revelation" will assume themselves to be reasonable as well. For the practical purposes of discussion, I can accept that paragraph. Not as truth, but as explanation for how a religious person thinks of their own beliefs.According to this guy's view of Genesis, Lois would claim him as NOT being a Christian.why do you push hate all the time. if you stopped trying to listen with your mouth and used your ears like most humans you might get a little futher?? the bible helps with this problem it's a great book for guiding dead soles!
Link to post
Share on other sites
"Why do humans have a moral sense?"natural selection. scientific question.
I know I'm going off topic, but a question on this one. Why if human have a moral sense due to natural selection is our moral senses different. Part of that could be to enviorment or genetics, but obviously there are morals issues that one will differ one even in the same enviorment and same gentics?Or am I missing that it just a question about human having morality and not so much that it doesn't have to be the same moral center.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I know I'm going off topic, but a question on this one. Why if human have a moral sense due to natural selection is our moral senses different. Part of that could be to enviorment or genetics, but obviously there are morals issues that one will differ one even in the same enviorment and same gentics?Or am I missing that it just a question about human having morality and not so much that it doesn't have to be the same moral center.
since he doesn't define what he means specifically by "moral sense" i'm assuming collins is generalizing - referring to general empathetic tendencies in humans and not a moral code specific to any one group or theology (since as you point out they can be very different). there is no reason (i'm aware of) to believe that general empathetic tendencies in humans aren't selectively evolved - they exist throughout the higher end of the animal kingdom at various levels, with the levels roughly corresponding to intelligence level of the species. empathetic behavior is typically strongest towards and strengthens the family or group unit, but there are instances where animals have showed such behavior species-wide (example: a group of jays observed trying to free a trapped individual of their species with no relation to the group). there is no reason to believe empathetic tendencies in humans aren't just a more advanced version of what we see in the animal kingdom, made more complex by evolution of self-aware human culture - with a higher percentage of humans displaying empathetic behavior for all members of their species, or even for other species.if collins IS referring to the specific christian moral code taught by jesus, it should be pointed out that most humans throughout history including in almost the entire bible have NOT tended to follow it (stating the obvious), so it would be a non-question.
Link to post
Share on other sites
since he doesn't define what he means specifically by "moral sense" i'm assuming collins is generalizing - referring to general empathetic tendencies in humans and not a moral code specific to any one group or theology (since as you point out they can be very different). there is no reason (i'm aware of) to believe that general empathetic tendencies in humans aren't selectively evolved - they exist throughout the higher end of the animal kingdom at various levels, with the levels roughly corresponding to intelligence level of the species. empathetic behavior is typically strongest towards the family or group unit, but there are instances where animals have showed such behavior species-wide (example: a group of jays observed trying to free a trapped individual of their species with no relation to the group). there is no reason to believe empathetic tendencies in humans aren't just a more advanced version of what we see in the animal kingdom, made more complex by evolution of self-aware human culture - with a higher percentage of humans displaying empathetic behavior for all members of their species, or even for other species.if collins IS referring to the specific christian moral code taught by jesus, it should be pointed out that most humans throughout history including in almost the entire bible have NOT tended to follow it (stating the obvious), so it would be a non-question.
Most humans go to hell. And, I think God created everything slightly simialar just to mess with you, personally. It makes him laugh a little. Not alot, just a little.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists that turn to god are always interesting and noteworthy. Especially since they become the frontrunners for religious people who want to "prove" that god exists. In my mind, being very empirical in my beliefs, there is no way we can prove that god exist. But there is no way we can prove that he/she/it doesn't exist. That's why it's called faith.Furthermore I strongly feel that if there is such a thing as a god (or gods), none of the big religions could have gotten it right. There are so many things in each of the holy book that just contradicts the world we live in that they can't be completely true.The thing that disturbs me though is so called scientists turned believers that directly contradict scientific knowledge. I lived in Canada for 11 months in 98/99. The family I lived with were Christians. They wanted me to come to church each Sunday, I didn't want to, but to show courtesy, I did. Once, the church showed a video as a part of their Sunday school activity to me and a bunch of kids around my age (some parents watched it too). In this video, a proclaimed scientist, now turned believer, tried to disprove that the earth was millions of years old with ONE piece of evidence.His evidence was: A fossil had been found in a vertical position so that it, by the look of it, had been standing in a vertical position for hundreds of thousand of years. So that was conclusive evidence that the earth weren't old, at least according to this "scientist". After the video was over I was horrified (and I was only 16 at the time) at the glaring lack of scientific thinking behind this "proof". I was even more scared when many of the watchers, including some adults, complimented the guy that had brought the video since they felt it was a "very good video". That single incident turned me away from religion forever and frankly, the only thing that could make me a believer would if a miracle, unexplainable by science or logic, were to happen that I was an eye witness to. Back to the video, the so called proof was ridiculous, do you see why? © SklanskyI don't mind scientists being theists as long as the work they perform is of good quality. The guy in the video clearly wasn't utilizing good scientific methods when drawing his conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
His evidence was: A fossil had been found in a vertical position so that it, by the look of it, had been standing in a vertical position for hundreds of thousand of years. So that was conclusive evidence that the earth weren't old, at least according to this "scientist".
A fossil had been found in a vertical position. How can the earth be more than hundred of years old if fossils could be in vertical positions?Man this is more stunning then the info that disproved the theory of aerodynamics.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I'd like to hear that theory, might be a good laugh.Back to OP: I must say that it's refreshing to see a theist that don't refute the obvious scientific and empirical facts that humans have evolved. The Intelligent Design theory just doesn't cut it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Most humans go to hell. And, I think God created everything slightly simialar just to mess with you, personally. It makes him laugh a little. Not alot, just a little.
yeah god finds humor in vindictive sadism. we already know that. maybe god should read more about jesus, he might learn something.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm certainly not on the fence, but I still enjoy reading it. Don't let them discourage you :club:
Wrong thread for this, but is your new avatar in honor of Kurt Vonnegut?To reply to the thread.....what Yorke said. There is no particular conflict between religion and science, because they are not about the same thing. Scientists will argue with religious folk when believers try to demonstrate the "truth" of ideas that are clearly faith-based, and start passing religion off as fact. But God is a non-falsifiable concept, and therefore has nothing to do with science.
Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe god should read more about jesus, he might learn something.
Now that's the funniest thing I've heard all day (granted it's only 10:38 in the morning).
Link to post
Share on other sites
To reply to the thread.....what Yorke said. There is no particular conflict between religion and science, because they are not about the same thing.
the trouble is when you say things like that without defining what you mean specifically, "religion" generally will be taken by the religiously-inclined reader to include fundamentalism. all religious fundemantalism is at least in part based in one way or another on empirical evidence. in actuality science and fundamentalism ARE about the same thing. your statement implies a connection between belief in a generic undefined version of god and belief in a fundamentalist version of god. that connection does not exist.
But God is a non-falsifiable concept, and therefore has nothing to do with science.
again, a generic non-intervening or deistic concept of god may be non-falsifiable, but any specific version of god that is purported to directly affect the physical world in any way enters the realm of science and IS falsifiable by science. that distinction is critical.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm certainly not on the fence, but I still enjoy reading it. Don't let them discourage you :club:
ditto. i like reading that of someone who's read a lot of things i'd like to read, and writes as i'd like to write.
guiding deceased fish is an underrated skill
jesus could do it
Link to post
Share on other sites
the trouble is when you say things like that without defining what you mean specifically, "religion" generally will be taken by the religiously-inclined reader to include fundamentalism. all religious fundemantalism is at least in part based in one way or another on empirical evidence. in actuality science and fundamentalism ARE about the same thing. your statement implies a connection between belief in a generic undefined version of god and belief in a fundamentalist version of god. that connection does not exist.again, a generic non-intervening or deistic concept of god may be non-falsifiable, but any specific version of god that is purported to directly affect the physical world in any way enters the realm of science and IS falsifiable by science. that distinction is critical.
If there is some specific fact that can be tested and verified, then it is science. It is irrelevant whether it proves the word of god or verifies an atheists views. There can never be proof of an intervention by god, because, again, it is not falsifiable. The ID debate is a case in point. If ID claims "the eye is too complex to have developed by chance, therefore it is proof of god", that is a non-falsifiable claim. We can show evidence that such a claim is false, such as an increasingly complex list of photo-sensitive cells, but then the ID people just say "yeah, man, but the EYE! Look at the beauty and complexity! Only god could have put nature on that path!" Non-falsifiable, therefore not science.
Link to post
Share on other sites
the trouble is when you say things like that without defining what you mean specifically, "religion" generally will be taken by the religiously-inclined reader to include fundamentalism. all religious fundemantalism is at least in part based in one way or another on empirical evidence. in actuality science and fundamentalism ARE about the same thing. your statement implies a connection between belief in a generic undefined version of god and belief in a fundamentalist version of god. that connection does not exist.again, a generic non-intervening or deistic concept of god may be non-falsifiable, but any specific version of god that is purported to directly affect the physical world in any way enters the realm of science and IS falsifiable by science. that distinction is critical.
Crow has hit it on the head. Many keep their beliefs very open ended and loose, wisely. But the Big 3 religions are anything but in their doctrines. The argument from Biblical non-literalism and metaphor is a fairly recent development, and certainly wouldn't have happened for most had science started focusing the picture of our reality.Virgin births, geocentrism, resurrection, ascendance to Heaven, these are all scientific claims to knowledge, and should be treated as such.As far as Dr. Collins claims, he's clearly in a minority of elite scientists that believe in God. 40% of "working" scientists may very well believe in God, but of the upper echelon of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences only 10% are believers in a Supreme Being.And the terms which he uses to explain his belief are anything but scientific.It is truly amazing that some of the most gifted and reasonable men around will put themselves through incredible mental gymnastics to bring harmony between two conflicting and competing worldviews. The original poster included.Collins speaks of reconciling geology and biology with the Genesis creation account, because science has obviously precluded including the Genesis account as a literal truth, yet indicates he has no problem believing in the story of Jesus and his resurrection as a literal fact. It's this time of picking and choosing that not only devalues the book that is purported to be the inspired word of God, but also the credibility of this man. But of course he's certainly not alone in that. Just check out Daniel's thread here "Does God really hate homosexuals?" where he attempts to reconcile two competing worldviews. One is that he has seen and known good homosexuals that are most obviously not evil folks by their sexual acts alone, and the other is his religion, which explicitly states that "two men lying together as with a woman are an abomination". So he twists and contorts not only himself, but his holy book, until he comes to a position which feels comfortable enough to display to the world.Throw off the shackles, and the duplicity, Daniel. Stop appealing to authority. There are some very smart men who believe in the Christian God, obviously. But is in spite of their mental faculties, not because of them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...