Former Atheist: Francis Collins: A Scientific Basis for God

[Perky]

Is there a scientific basis for the existence of God? Many believers think so, even as they often dismiss science because they think it's incompatible with their religious beliefs. A recent Gallup Poll, for instance, found that 45 percent of Americans reject evolution, believing that human beings were created more or less in our present form within the past 10,000 years. Despite objections from scientists, many believers argue that there's scientific evidence for such "Young Earth" creationism.

Francis Collins, director of the human genome project, is an atheist turned Christian who sees a scientific basis for God that not only embraces modern science but actually relies on it. Collins has just launched a new website and a foundation called biologos, which "emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with what science has discovered about the origins of the universe and life."

Unless Christians—evangelicals, in particular—learn to integrate modern science with their religious faith, Collins believes, they are either stuck clinging to untruths about scientific ideas like evolution or, once they do accept evolution, are in danger of having to abandon their faith out of the mistaken belief that evolution and Christianity are incompatible.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/07/10/obama-names-an-evangelical-to-lead-the-nih.html

[depakid]

1. I guess people have to deal with their cognitive dissonance and existential insecurities somehow

As long as the guy's a competent administrator- and doesn't let his religious beliefs interfere with cutting edge research, why should anyone care what he yammers on about?

[northernlights]

3. bingo nt

cognitive dissonance...that's the phrase that was eluding me this afternoon.

[Arugula Latte]

10. They want to feel like they are at the center of the universe and a grand plan

when in reality we're all just organisms from a young species on one small planet in one insignificant galaxy amongst untold billions of galaxies in the multi-billion-year-old universe.

But, yeah, Jesus was the magical son of the human-like creator of the entire universe. Riiiiiight. :eyes:

[invictus]

117. LOL! Exactly!

[okieinpain]

137. hey don't sell yourself short, but I will agree that we're not alone and we're

not that special.

[Gator_Matt]

105. My boss is a Christian and it doesn't affect our research one bit

As long as the science is paramount and religious views are sequestered from the work environment, I'm ok with it. I'm a part of a research lab headed by a professor that I know to be heavily involved with a local church. He is able to separate that from the work done in the lab, and everything works out just fine. I'm strictly agnostic, and there has never been an issue in many years of working together. It's all about the science.

[LanternWaste]

118. And I guess people...

And I guess people have to interpret the actions and beliefs of others in such as way as to better validate their own belief systems...

[InvisibleTouch]

130. I once knew a geologist...

...a GEOLOGIST, mind you, who dealt with the slow petrification of sediment into stone over unimaginable eons, who dealt with fossils from the very dawn of the world and could date and place them on the geologic timeline in her sleep - who was a young-earth fundie creationist. Now THERE is some serious compartmentalization for you!

To her credit, none of us students ever knew, because she never let on. Only in retrospect, once we'd learned the news, did we remember how she would subtly emphasize the "theoretical" aspects of evolution and the dating of fossils. But she never let her beliefs interfere with her job. One wonders why she went into that field to begin with, of course - or maybe it was a mid-stream conversion.

[Willo]

2. Science is the study of all God has created - from Astronomy to Geology

and all ologies in between.

[RepublicanElephant]

13. thank you. nt

:)

[jgraz]

28. Or, the exact opposite of that.

Which is what most scientists believe.

But what do they know?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

37. Exactly n/t

[Kalyke]

107. Actually, most scientists believe in God.

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.
The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html

But, what do you know?

[Teaser]

35. God didn't create dick.

The universe does not require a god. And even if a god exists, it would have absolutely no impact on anything. God's, in the end, have no moral authority, and no reason to expect obedience from their creation.

[Arugula Latte]

39. And religion is the study of the gods humans created in their imaginations. nt

[sakabatou]

51. That begs many questions

How do we know they were created?
How do we know they were created by the Biblical god?

It is illogical.

[Deep13]

93. ...except there's no evidence of god.

You are assuming the existence of something that has not been demonstrated to exist. In fact, what is known severely undermines your argument.

[KakistocracyHater]

123. so you DO acknowledge Aquarius!

Because THAT is the one who rules ALL OLOGIES
http://www.zodiacology.com/The_Astrological_Sun_Sign_Aquarius.html
:P

I read that in an astrology book somewhere, that ologies belong to the XI sign.

[saltpoint]

4. I'm no great shakes with numbers, but "10,000" years sounds pretty fishy.

[northernlights]

19. that's the "young creation" nutcases

Collin's explains the real age of the earth and the universe, how they were scientifically arrived at...and then makes the bible fit his interpretations.

I think the article/post titles are a little misleading. From browsing through the q&a portions of the site, it seems more a focus on showing how by using a better translation of the bible, it's not incompatible with what is scientifically known. For the most part, he doesn't seem to twist science to fit his religion. He re-interprets and re-translates the bible to fit science.

[saltpoint]

30. Mm. I wonder what prompted his personal paradigm shift.

The Lascaux cave paintings, for example, are likely 13 to 15 thousand years old, at least. It doesn't seem as if the genesis of the world would be predated by cave paintings, which renders Collins' process suspect.

I think there must have been a deeply personal difficulty that generated his emphasis on Biblical interpretation, and after that, he may have just shoe-horned the facts into his personal perceptions.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. Reading Comrehension!

Collins is not a believer in the young earth theory. He is referring to other people who are.

News flash, most Christians are not fundie nutjobs and have no trouble accepting evolution. When I was in high school in the 1960s, we learned about evolution in biology class, and only the Jehovah's Witnesses objected, and this at a time when most Minnesota towns were a lot like Lake Wobegon, with everyone either Lutheran or Catholic.

[ImOnlySleeping]

99. as per the article

45% of Americans don't believe in evolution. That's going to be a majority of Christians.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

106. All that proves is that 45% of Americans slept through high school

You'll get the same kinds of figures if you ask the average American basic facts about history, geography, or other areas of science.

The churches that explicitly teach creationism include only the fundamentalists and the more conservative evangelicals. Only about 1/3 of Americans belong to any kind of evangelical/fundamentalist church (not all of which reject evolution). None of the mainstream Protestant churches reject evolution, nor do the Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.

Wherever the 45% are getting their idiocy from, they're not getting it from the mainstream churches. You could say that maybe 33% of Americans at MOST are getting it in from their free-lance fundie churches, but that doesn't account for the remaining 12%.

[bertman]

108. There's some of that "fuzzy math" in there somewhere. I just can't figure out where.

[LanternWaste]

124. Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc...

Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc...

:shrug:

[northernlights]

49. Huh? I have no idea what you're saying...

He believes the earth is 3.5+ billion years old, based on the scientific evidence.

Did you not understand what I wrote? Have you even looked at his biologos site?

Or do you mean he "shoe-horned" the bible's language to fit the science?

[maxsolomon]

5. as long as you don't take the bible literally

this is possible.

i prefer buddhism as a religion compatable with science, myself.

[valerief]

6. Collins is one of those Fellowship C St. clowns, isn't he? nt

[Perky]

7. Not SUre but he is our President choic to lead the Nationa Institutes Of Health

[and-justice-for-all]

60. Fail..nt

[grantcart]

8. No he is a leading genetic researcher

who has argued for strong ethical controls of insurance comapnies so that they don't misuse genetic information.

He is also a darwinist who believes in pure science research and stem cell therapies.


Doesn't seem to fit into a single box.

[Cha]

14. Thanks for the info,

grant.

[valerief]

20. Well, in 2007 he gave the message for The Family's National Breakfast of Prayer.

He's gotta be one of them to do that.

According to Jeffrey Sharlet, they can do anything they want, no matter how evil, because Jesus wills it.

They're evil incarnate.

[jgraz]

27. Do you have a link for that?

I don't doubt your statement, I'd just like to read more about the circumstances. If he's part of The Family, then he's absolutely unacceptable.

[valerief]

33. Do a search on the 2007 National Prayer Breakfast. nt

[jgraz]

26. I'm sure he'd fit right in there.

Of course, they might object to all his fancy talk about evolvin' and stuff.

[sybylla]

9. Whatever helps Christians get through the day.

If this slant on the facts will get them to back off science education, Obama may have just made a pretty brilliant appointment.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Well, the Templeton Prize has been around...

for quite a while, and celebrates scholars who work at a fusion of science and spirituality/

http://www.templetonprize.org/

Of course, it's much easier for the great unwashed to make snide comments about either science or religion when they understand little of either.

[Starry Messenger]

16. Templeton Jr. donated $900,000 to Yes on Prop 8.

They say its totally unrelated of course, of course.

[jgraz]

24. The SourceWatch page on the Templeton Foundation

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Templeton_Foundation

The John Templeton Foundation tries to encourage the integration of religious beliefs and free-market principles into the classroom.

Gee, why would anyone have a problem with that?

[SidDithers]

47. The Templeton prize tries to co-opt science to support religion...

it's not a celebration of anything other than Gawd.

Sid

[ZombieHorde]

12. I wonder what "evidence" made him decide his god is the Christian god? nt

[Cha]

15. Good

question.

[LiberalFighter]

21. Their bible says it is so.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. "So he believes in love! What made him decide he wants to spend his life

with THAT person instead of somebody he never met?"

Same type of question.

[ZombieHorde]

46. I doubt he met any god. I doubt he is unaware of other gods.

I don't see how your question is similar.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. What I was trying to say is that he probably had a religious experience

and picked the most familiar metaphors to describe it, instead of something he didn't know that much about.

[Robeson]

48. Excellent question. I was wondering the same.

[uberllama42]

89. Didn't he see a waterfall in three parts that somehow proved the Holy Trinity?

Or am I thinking of someone else? Either way, it must have been something as staggeringly fatuous as that.

[Deep13]

95. Thor told him. nt

[baldguy]

17. There's a reason belief in God is called "faith".

Faith is a belief that requires no proof - or belief in spite of contrary proof.

If you need proof to validate your faith, then you have no faith at all.

[Deep13]

96. Yeah, and?

You say that like it's a bad thing. The "in spite of contrary proof" thing makes it delusional.

[LanternWaste]

125. Faith is simply trust in that of which we do not have full knowledge...

Faith is simply trust in that of which we do not have full knowledge (A. Schweitzer). If that is the case, I dare say everyone practices faith numerous times throughout one simple day.

[ipaint]

128. I prefer facts and knowledge

My choice and I just can't convince myself to believe in something with no basis in fact. Reality suits me fine.

[LanternWaste]

129. No basis in facts is quite different

No basis in facts is quite different from lack of absolute knowledge.

Reality suits me pretty darn fine, too. :)

[ipaint]

132. Yes

For me knowledge is based in fact. Faith is not.

I can't claim to know something is true without the facts to base that claim on. Then if I am wrong people have the opportunity to show me why. I don't have an argument with faith and beliefs as long as they don't masquerade as fact based knowledge.

Absolute knowledge I will leave to the philosophers, mystics and spiritual deep thinkers. The fact based world is hard enough to navigate. :)

[jefferson_dem]

18. Watch out.

This is the same sort of stuff that's parroted by "Discovery Institute" tools, as they try to leverage creationism into public education under the cloak of "Intelligent Design".

[LiberalFighter]

22. If earth is only about 10,000 years old doesn't that mean God is just a bit older than 10,000?

What would be the purpose of a god creating a life form?

[northernlights]

29. re-read the OP

Collins does NOT propose that the earth is only 10,000 years old.

The "young earth creationists" believe that. Collins explains to them, in relatively simple terms, the science the proves the age of earth.

http://biologos.org/questions/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe/

Introduction
There is strong evidence that the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and the universe is roughly 14 billion years old. Here, we will look at the evidence supporting those claims.1

Determining the Age of the Universe
Much reliable evidence from a surprising number of very different sources supports the age of the universe. Consider the distance from the Earth to other objects in the universe. For example, 93 million miles of space separates the Earth and its sun, and because light travels at 186,000 miles per second, it takes light 8.3 minutes to travel that distance. When we look at the sun, we see it as it was just more than 8 minutes prior. Other stars and galaxies have been observed from which light takes — millions and even billions — of years to reach the Earth. If the light has been traveling billions of years to reach us, then the universe must be at least that old.2 For these distant objects to be observed in a universe just a few thousand years old, either the speed of light must have once been much greater, which would have drastic impacts on other factors of the universe, or photons must have been originally created mid-journey.3 This second option is often promoted by those who argue God made the universe with the appearance of age. To do this, however, God would have had to do much more than simply create photons en route: God would have had to set numerous aspects of matter and energy very precisely so that multiple lines of evidence would converge in a way that would mislead us about the universe’s true age. Such deception seems inconsistent with a God who is the author of truth. The clearest and most natural explanation is that the universe is billions of years old, just as it appears.4

(more follows at link)

[LiberalFighter]

36. I still think the key question should be. "Why would God need to create a life form?"

[provis99]

84. I guess its boring for God to talk to himself for eternity. n/t

[ImOnlySleeping]

102. So instead

He was just bored for the first 14 billion years?

[Kalyke]

109. Or God's "years" aren't the same as Man's.

Science, itself, supports gravitational pulls as warping the space-time distortion.

[Odin2005]

136. LOL, crazy rationalization of 3000yo fairly tales.

:rofl:

[dascientist]

23. is subterfuge, and I say this as a "humanist" free thinker

[jgraz]

25. Link to Collins' BioLogos (scientific creationism) site

http://biologos.org

The BioLogos Mission

The BioLogos Foundation promotes the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms seeking harmony between these different perspectives.

Dr. Francis Collins established The BioLogos Foundation to address the escalating culture war between science and faith in the United States. On one end of the spectrum, “new atheists” argue that science removes the need for God. On the other end, religious fundamentalists argue that the Bible requires us to reject much of modern science. Many people — including scientists and believers in God — do not find these extreme options attractive.

BioLogos represents the harmony of science and faith. It addresses the central themes of science and religion and emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life. To communicate this message to the general public and add to the ongoing dialog, The BioLogos Foundation created BioLogos.org.

Funded by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, the Web site is a reliable source of scholarly thought on contemporary issues in science and faith. It highlights the compatibility of modern science with traditional Christian beliefs. BioLogos.org features responses to a myriad of questions received by Collins, author of "The Language of God", Karl Giberson, author of "Saving Darwin", and Darrel Falk, author of "Coming to Peace With Science" since the publication of their books.

[and-justice-for-all]

74. Crap stealth religious infiltration into real Science...nt

[Colobo]

31. Let the man believe whatever he wants as long as he does his job.

He believes in God. So f'n what?

[rustydog]

32. Why couldn't God have created the big bang

billions of years ago? how long was 6 days billions of years ago without a sun to gage a day/ how long was a year?
how long was a year 10,000 years ago?

Why couldn't god have created life on earth and allowed Evolution as his plan?

Remember, the Bible isn't God's words, he didn't write it, Men who wanted to control the masses wrote the "words of God", men decided which gospels went into today's Bible not God almighty!

Why didn't He, She, or It for that matter create dinosaurs and watch over them for a few million years then decide to let mammals have a stab at it through evolution with a Grand Plan of Mankind evolving to the top of the evolutionary chain?

Dammit people! we are talking of a Being or power that is the Alpha and the Omega, an ETERNAL BEING... 10,000 years is a drop in the bucket to one that will exist forever!

No one will know for sure until the day they die and even then it is a crap shoot. You either meet St. Peter or Satan or you are dead forever and do not know you died! Shit, let them believe what they want, just don't shove it down my throat...PLEASE!

[Teaser]

34. 'You either meet St. Peter or Satan or you are dead forever and do not know you died!'

Yes, because there is only one religion in the world...

[cemaphonic]

43. Whenever Pascal's Wager rears its ugly head, just remember these wise words of Homer Simpson

Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder!

[jgraz]

38. Sonia Sotomayor: A Constitutional Basis for God

How many of us would be supporting Obama's Supreme Court nominee if she had written such a book?

[northernlights]

50. back to the chicken vs the egg

one could just as easily argue that the egg that contained the 1st chicken embryo predated the 1st chicken. :evilgrin:

(I've given up on your Collin's thread. My antique pc and dialup can't handle 350 or how ever many replies there are on that. ;))

[and-justice-for-all]

62. I wouldn't support her...nt

[Joe Bacon]

42. Sorry, but I reject the Book of Fractured Fairy Tales

When people tell me that they are bible following Christians, I ask them...

When your children are unruly, do you kill them as required by Deuteronomy 21: 18-21?

Do you kill your whole family when they want you to go to another church as required by Deuteronomy 13: 6-10?

Do you follow the rules for slaves as documented in Exodus 21: 2-21?

Do you marry the woman you raped as commanded in Deuteronomy 22: 23-29?

Do you let the hair grow on the sides of your head, not trin the edges of your beard as commanded by Leviticus 19:27?

Do you abstain from tatoos as commanded by Leviticus 19:28?

Of course there are hundreds of other asinine "laws" in the Bi-bull too that Christians don't follow, but what else is new?

[MellowDem]

44. This thread...

isn't about pushing your beliefs down our throats.

[Moochy]

55. Help Help We're Being Oppressed

[MellowDem]

57. Oh no...

I just don't like someone pushing their beliefs down my throat.

[Moochy]

90. Atheists Positions are not to be taken Orally.

This concludes the test of the Emergency Broadbrush Network, If this had been an actual discussion, more specific points would have been made.

[bertman]

110. Emergency Broadbrush Network.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

that is seriously funny, Moochy.

[MellowDem]

58. dupe

[Starry Messenger]

56. The quotes are from the Bible.

If atheism is a belief, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

12-15% of the world identifies as a non-believer. Your throat is probably safe.

[MellowDem]

59. The quotes are from the Bible

They are from the Old Testament, which, if you know anything about Christianity, many Christians believe the Old Testament's laws were made moot by Jesus dying on the cross. So the quotation of the Old Testament laws as a way to bash Christians just comes across as incredibly ignorant of the religion of Christianity.

But yes, atheism is a belief, what else is it? You believe there is no God. That is a belief.

And who cares what the percentages are? A much less percentage of the world is Mormon, but I still don't like them coming to my door. And I don't like atheists telling me what they believe all Christians believe for one thing, and why the Bible is wrong for another. It's just another belief being shoved down someone's throats.

It's no different from a Christian quoting from the Bible and telling you why it's right, or quoting some atheist's writing, attributing it to all atheists, and telling you why it's wrong. It's shoving your belief's about religion down someone's throats.

[and-justice-for-all]

63. Atheism is not a belief...SORRY..

it is the lack of belief.

it takes no faith to not believe in something. Do you know what the definition of faith is? It is believing in something in the absence of evidence. In other words, it's the opposite of coming to a conclusion based on something real and tangible. The non-existence of something is not a belief. It's merely a base or fallback position one naturally comes to in the absence of contrary evidence.

Is there a large pink elephant sitting on the toilet in the bathroom at your home right now"?

No? Why not? So you take it on faith that there isn't a large pink elephant sitting on the toilet in your bathroom at home? Do you think your lack of belief in this concept requires faith, or maybe it's the other way around? You only require faith to believe IN something that defies the laws of logic.

[MellowDem]

65. It is a belief...

I'm not talking about faith here, I'm talking about belief. You don't have to have faith to believe something.

But if you want to get real technical, every belief could take a certain amount of faith. The belief in no God requires faith, because there is no evidence that there is no God either.

But, once again, I'm just talking about belief in the strictest sense of the word, not in the religious sense.

Here's a defnition from Merriam-Webster:
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Based on the examination of evidence, many people believe there is no God. That is a belief.

[and-justice-for-all]

67. No it is not..nt

[MellowDem]

69. Then what is it? nt

[and-justice-for-all]

71. If you read my post you would know..

it takes no faith to not believe in something. Do you know what the definition of faith is? It is believing in something in the absence of evidence. In other words, it's the opposite of coming to a conclusion based on something real and tangible. The non-existence of something is not a belief. It's merely a base or fallback position one naturally comes to in the absence of contrary evidence.

Is there a large pink elephant sitting on the toilet in the bathroom at your home right now"?

No? Why not? So you take it on faith that there isn't a large pink elephant sitting on the toilet in your bathroom at home? Do you think your lack of belief in this concept requires faith, or maybe it's the other way around? You only require faith to believe IN something that defies the laws of logic.

[Starry Messenger]

72. Thank you. eom

[MellowDem]

73. If you believe something doesn't exist...

That is a belief... I don't understand why you are so scared to be labeled with that word. I'm not talking about the "believer" in the evangelical sense.

And even from your explanation, of course it takes faith to believe something is not there. As long as you have limited information, everything takes "faith" you could say. The laws of logic cannot explain everything, humanity cannot explain everything.

But what is this horror with the word "believe"? If you believe there is no God, does that somehow hurt atheism's argument?

[and-justice-for-all]

75. Because your misconstruing context...

Your attempting to define Atheism as a religious belief..I have seen this many times before and it just not going to happen.

it takes no faith to not believe in something. Do you know what the definition of faith is? It is believing in something in the absence of evidence. In other words, it's the opposite of coming to a conclusion based on something real and tangible. The non-existence of something is not a belief. It's merely a base or fallback position one naturally comes to in the absence of contrary evidence.

Is there a large pink elephant sitting on the toilet in the bathroom at your home right now"?

No? Why not? So you take it on faith that there isn't a large pink elephant sitting on the toilet in your bathroom at home? Do you think your lack of belief in this concept requires faith, or maybe it's the other way around? You only require faith to believe IN something that defies the laws of logic.

[MellowDem]

77. No I'm not...

I don't think atheism is a religious belief. I don't think it requires faith in the more generally understood sense either.

The definition of belief is not "faith", though there are some that see it that way. Atheism is a belief according to this definition:

: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

[and-justice-for-all]

78. I am sorry, but your just being argumenitive...I do not have time for this..nt

[MellowDem]

79. Uh-huh

I'm having a discussion, you're restating your opinion like it's fact over and over. Who was being argumentative? Talk about dogmatism.

[and-justice-for-all]

70. There is NO evidence at all to support the idea of god...

with out empirical hard evidence to support the idea, we can conclude that there is not such thing which does not require belief of any kind.

Atheism is the lack of belief.

[MellowDem]

76. Okay...

Atheists believe there is no God. That is a belief. I think that people get it mixed up with the religious understanding of the word believe.

Not believing one way or the other is agnosticism, in other words, believing that there is no way to know for sure. An absence of belief is in and of itself a belief. People think if you "believe" you're religious in some slang, which I guess is where this comes from. I don't think atheism is a religion, if that's your fear. Though I'm beginning to think more and more it is the way some behave on this board.

What is it about the statement that atheists believe there is no God which must undermine atheism? I don't understand the zealous and irrational defense of it otherwise.

[beam me up scottie]

92. No. Stop trying to define atheists and atheism, you suck at it.

In the humble opinion of this implicit/explicit atheist, of course.

But what the fuck do I know, I'm just me.

[GreenArrow]

101. "Atheists believe there is no God"

No, athiests know there is no God. It's a dogmatic certainty.

[beam me up scottie]

114. Wrong, willfully ignorant and a fantastic example of dogmatic certainty.

Do you really believe there is only one kind of atheism/atheist?

[trekbiker]

135. you're taking the word "believe" and trying to compare

religious "belief" with an athiest's lack of "belief" in gods or dieties. Semantics. Lets say for the sake of arguement that athiests do "believe" that there are no gods. In this context the athiets "belief" and the religious persons "belief" are apples and oranges, nowhere near the same thing. The religious persons belief requires "faith" and a significant amount of cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics when smacked in the face with observable evidence that questions or challenges this "faith/belief". The athiests "belief" requires no such effort, in fact, an athiest can change his/her "belief" in an instant if the evidence supports such a change. That is a key difference and the reason you dont have a dozen different groups of athiests slaughtering each other over what some primitive numbskull may have written down in a delusional state a thousand years or more ago.

[jgraz]

91. And homosexuality is a choice

Both are statements of ignorance intended to justify attacks against a group of people.

THAT's why atheists don't like it when you misrepresent us.

[trekbiker]

134. nice......

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Is_Atheism_a_%22belief%22%3F

[Starry Messenger]

64. Many Christians don't.

Yes, I know plenty about religion. I was born and raised Catholic. I disbelieve in God. You can chop semantics all you like, but it is a non-belief.

[MellowDem]

68. Whatever...

Being raised Catholic doesn't mean you know everything about all forms of Christianity, much less all religion in general.

I'm not chopping semantics. You believe there is no God. Correct? That is a belief.

[damonm]

142. Nor did he attempt to.

He merely stated his.

I think LITERAL interpretation of the Bible is in fact bogus, as well as arrogant in the extreme.
Most Christians poorly understand their own faith.

[jefferson_dem]

80. Oh please.

Get over it. Based on this post, you're just as closed-minded and narrow as the fundies you criticize.

[LanternWaste]

126. The book of Leviticus was written by (and for) the tribe of Levite

The book of Leviticus was written by (and for) the tribe of Levite, one of the twelve tribes of Isreal. The vast majority of the rules and strictures were meant only for the priest cast-- not even for the tribe of Israel en tot, let alone the late-coming gentiles.

If one actually reads the Books of Law, it becomes rather obvious when each specific group, sub-group, tribe, or all of humanity has a law directed at it. :shrug:

[Orsino]

45. Using apples to prove oranges.

Invisible apples.

[Odin2005]

54. LOL!

[sarcasmo]

82. Can invisible apples send you to an invisible apple hell?

[Odin2005]

53. There is nothing scientific about primitive belief systems.

[and-justice-for-all]

61. Is there a Scientific basis for the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?

"found that 45 percent of Americans reject evolution, believing that human beings were created more or less in our present form within the past 10,000 years. Despite objections from scientists, many believers argue that there's scientific evidence for such "Young Earth" creationism."

And Mr. Collins is in that boat, He should NOT be the head of any Government agency.

[killbotfactory]

112. I'm agnostic about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus

Just because they were almost certainly made up by human imagination, doesn't mean that they don't exist! It's arrogant to think they aren't real, and people who claim they don't exist are just as bad as those who claim they do exist!

[and-justice-for-all]

66. "evolution and Christianity are incompatible."

so is Science in general and religion.

[jefferson_dem]

81. Debatable.

The two domains can be perfectly complimentary.

I would encourage you to check out "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra.

[and-justice-for-all]

83. there is no debate...nt

[jefferson_dem]

85. So says the fundamentalist.

n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

87. I prefer Anti-theist...nt

[Deep13]

100. I'm not going to pretend there is a legitimate debate...

...when one side has all the evidence and the other is build on logical fallacy. Throwing out the fundamentalist label is a way of avoiding the argument, which I take as an admission that your position is indefensible.

[jefferson_dem]

138. You're being obtuse.

What exactly is "my position"? Please check out my post #18 above before you react.

The poster said that religion and science incompatible. There is no debate about it. That is a patently false statement and one only a fundamentalist (who is either tethered to religious dogmatism or closed-minded scientism) would present.

[provis99]

86. science and religion are as compatible as facts and lies.

and Tao philosophy is as goofy as it gets.

[jefferson_dem]

88. Ah...the simple-minded bigotry of dogmatic scientism.

Yawn.

EDIT: It's "Taoist philosophy", by the way. Rule of thumb: "Don't criticize what you can't spell."

[Deep13]

98. Apparently "dogmatic scientism" = unwilling to consider lies.

And your edit is ad hominim and therefore irrelevant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=196408

[Arugula Latte]

103. Don't you love how facts and fairy tales are put on false equal footing

and then those rejecting fairy tales in the absence of facts supporting them are called "just as bigoted" as the fairy-tale believing crowd?

"Faith" is not equal to science. It is vastly inferior to science. And that is what they don't want to admit.

[Deep13]

97. History tells a different story.

Religious authority has always resisted scientific or even philosophical inquiry, often violently. It still does so now.

[Deep13]

94. Maybe someone can explain how evolution and Christianity are compatible.

One the one hand, the whole need for salvations comes from humanities' "fallen" state. The predicate event for this was Adam and Eve's unauthorized appetite for fruit. Since there was no original couple and since we evolved from other primates, there can be no original sin and, therefore, no need for redemption.

On the other hand, Christianity teaches that life on earth was divinely created. It wasn't. Even if we were to reject a literal reading of Genesis, the way evolution works precludes divine intervention. Random changes (and they really are random) selected by blind, environmental conditions yields change over time.

[frogmarch]

104. They aren't compatible, but some Christians

work hard to make them seem compatible. I found a Collins interview on the internets that sheds light on his view of evolution. (The interviewer first asks Collins his take on miracles.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/collins.html

Excerpt:

COLLINS: If God is who God claims to be, and who I believe he is, then he is not explainable in natural terms. He is outside the natural world; outside of space and time. So if God chose to intervene from time to time in the natural world by allowing the occurrence of miraculous events, I don't see why that is an illogical possibility. Once one accepts that idea that there could be something outside the natural, then miracles also become possible. Lewis writes about this extremely well in his little book called Miracles.

However, I don't think miracles happen frequently. It seems to me reading the Bible there were times when miracles were occurring at greater frequency, such as in the time of Moses or Elijah or the time of Christ. I have not personally witnessed a spiritual miracle. And I reject the comments that people make sometimes like the fact that a flower is blooming is a miracle. I don't think so. That's a matter that science can actually explain. How did you go from that seed to that blooming flower? I can answer that. Now, why did the seed exist in the first place? That, perhaps, is a miracle. We don't really know how the universe got here.

Actually, I don't see that any of the issues that people raise as points of contention between science and faith are all that difficult to resolve. Many people get hung up on the whole evolution versus creation argument — one of the great tragedies of the last 100 years is the way in which this has been polarized. On the one hand, we have scientists who basically adopt evolution as their faith, and think there's no need for God to explain why life exists. On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings. It's unnecessary. I think God gave us an opportunity through the use of science to understand the natural world. The idea that some are asking people to disbelieve our scientific data in order to prove that they believe in God is so unnecessary.

If God chose to create you and me as natural and spiritual beings, and decided to use the mechanism of evolution to accomplish that goal, I think that's incredibly elegant. And because God is outside of space and time, He knew what the outcome was going to be right at the beginning. It's not as if there was a chance it wouldn't work. So where, then, is the discordancy that causes so many people to see these views of science and of spirit as being incompatible? In me, they both exist. They both exist at the same moment in the day. They're not compartmentalized. They are entirely compatible. And they're part of who I am.

~~

According to Collins, a book by C.S. Lewis had a big impact on his becoming one of the Christian faithful.

[cemaphonic]

140. I bet if you pinned them down on their beliefs...

you'd find that a lot of nominal (non-fundie) Christians are probably closer to Deists than anything else. Belief in a Creator, and probably an afterlife, but that much of the stuff in the Bible is metaphor.

[supernova]

111. I'm a Christian and i don't see incompatibility between science and xtianity

:shrug:

Sure, science and religion (in this case xtianity) are trying to answer similar questions, among them:

Who are we?

Where did we come from?

Where might we be headed in the future?

What is this place and of what is it made?

But, for me, they are coming at those question from different areas.

Science is interested in answering "how" and "why?"

Religion offers a "who" with an overlapping "why," as in "why am *I* here?"

Anyway, I don't see science and xtianity as incompatible at all. I accept with wonder all that human science as to offer and I equally am fascinated with and enjoy a relationship with God. They are like two sides of the same coin to me, going after the same goal but with differing methods. There is no reason I can't enjoy the benefits of both.

The Universe is, near as we can tell 14 billion years old. The sun is roughly 13 billion years old (middle-aged for similar stars apparently) The earth is 6.5 billion years old. Life happens on this planet through evolution. We humans evolved through millions of years and Homo Sapiens, our current species, is about 100,00 years old.

To me the Bible is a record of the Jewish People (the OT), and of other ordinary human beings in the Jewish and wider classical world trying to explain, what they believed to be encounters with the Divine (NT). I never believed the bible was literally true and was never taught that in the first place. As with other great writing, the authors in the Bible use all rhetorical devices to get their meaning across: fables, metaphors, allegory, symbolism, and so on. Do I believe a person called Jesus was divine. No. I think he somehow made a humongous leap in his thinking about what makes communities work and what makes a great life, and how to protest living under occupation and wanted to share that with everyone. This message was so clearly dangerously effective, he was put down by the state (the Roman Empire) for it. As for miracles, I believe that the people who wrote them believed in them.

edit: Now, I am not an evangelical, and haven't read the whole thing, but it appears Francis Collins is of a similar mindset to me. And I don't think of myself as unusual at all. If he's an effective top scientist in his field, my beef isn't with him.

[beam me up scottie]

113. If you "never believed the bible was literally true" why do you believe in its god?

Where's the cutoff point? What makes one fairy tale believable and the others "fables, metaphors, allegory, symbolism"?

[supernova]

115. Because to me, God is more than the book

While I enjoy learning about science and reading the results of clinical trials and other experiments, and the latest pics from the Hubble telescope, I also enjoy using the part of my brain that perceives the metaphysical and the mystical. It's very gratifying to realize we are all connected and are all one.

:-) :loveya:

[beam me up scottie]

116. I'm not being obtuse but can you explain how you came to the conclusion that God exists?

Were you always a believer? Does the idea of no creator intimidate you?

As a natural born atheist I have found nothing in my world view that is comparable to religious belief.



Sorry, edited to add that I appreciate your sincere attempt to communicate and I promise not to bite. :)

[supernova]

120. Hard to describe

(standard disclaimer: I subscribe to all the thinking about separation of church and state. What I talk about is always within the realm of the personal and has no business inserting itself into laws or public policy. And I'll argue to I'm blue in the face to those who think otherwise. It does however, provide me with my passions in life and reasons for getting up in the morning. )

You know when someone has died, lovers and family members will sometimes describe the feeling that they "just know" that the deceased person is still there, in some form? They feel that person's presence even if they can no longer see them.

For me, it's a little like that, except that it isn't a sad feeling at all, more loving and spiritually generous. And sometimes startling, in that it isn't always an abstract feeling. It could be a certain encounter I have with a perfect stranger that resonates with me. Could be the way the light plays on the leaves in the woods. The way Yo Yo Ma plays cello or my cat stalks the toy mouse on the floor and then comes up to rub noses with me. :-) . These experience leaves with with a feeling of otherworldliness and being out of time in the presence of something much more than just the present reality. I don't seek out these feelings, they just happen. Is there a more pedantic explanation for these instances? Synapses misfiring in the wrong place? Perhaps.


Were you always a believer? Does the idea of no creator intimidate you?

I don't remember not believing if that's what you mean. No, it doesn't intimidate me, but it does sadden me. It makes the world/universe more grey and colorless to me.

I also appreciate the attempts to communicate. :-)

[beam me up scottie]

131. No need for the disclaimer, I know most liberal believers support secular government

Thank you for the description, I think I get the same feeling when I listen to beautiful or passionate music, when I sleep late on a winter Sunday snuggled in bed with bf and critters, and when I'm photographing or experiencing nature, I just never attributed it to anything supernatural.
I enjoy all of those things and many more because I believe my time here is limited, I've just got the one shot.

Well, the good thing about being liberals is that we can agree to disagree about beliefs or the lack of them as long as we all have the right to have them or not.

[LanternWaste]

127. If that's a serious question...

If that's a serious question, might I suggest C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity".

Complex answers usually require more time to answer than a mere message board allows. Indeed, if it is a serious and sincere question, PM me-- I can give you a host of classics on that one topic alone, illustrating that the answer may not be as simply as you appear to believe....

[beam me up scottie]

133. Yes, it is.

It's also not the first time I've asked it. I've come to believe that I am just hardwired differently than most people and that I don't need to understand everything. Acknowledging what we have in common helps put religion in perspective.

[The Wizard]

119. Flat Earth Alert

Thank Zeus I'm a Democratic atheist.

[Fire Walk With Me]

121. Natural law and a creation event are not mutually excluding.

Faith that the Universe is 4,000 years old, is however, excluded by scientific fact. :shrug:

The coming age is upon us. The next few years will bring remarkable changes in America's perception of the spiritual and its source and meaning.

[ipaint]

122. Collins gets panned almost everywhere

Collins gets panned almost everywhere
Category: Politics
Posted on: July 11, 2009 12:57 PM, by PZ Myers

I've been wrestling with how to respond to the imminent appointment of Francis Collins to the NIH, and it's tough. The problem is that he has excellent qualifications for the position of chief paper-pusher and technician-wrangler, but that his position on religion is just plain weird. He's a lovable dufus with great organizational skills whose grasp of the principles of science is superficial. But you can't just reject the guy because he's religious — we're in big trouble when we start using a religious litmus test for high political positions. Oh, wait…we already do that. You know if someone with equivalent prestige and administrative credentials was even half as vocal about atheism as Collins is about Christianity, there's no way she would even be considered for this appointment.


...He's a big-science guy, who headed the National Human Genome Research Institute. I have some concern that he has a mindset that may not promote the diversity of scientific research — he represents a very narrow, gene-jockey style of research, which is valuable and does churn out lots of data, but I've often found exhibits a worrisome lack of understanding of the big picture of biology. I'd have liked to have seen a leader with more breadth: someone with an appreciation of systems biology, or environmental biology, and a little less shackled to the purely biomedical side.

He doesn't understand evolution. He has said that he thinks humans are no longer evolving, that junk DNA is functional, and he can't understand how altruism could have evolved. RPM summarized these deficiencies well. I know he argues well against the specifics of intelligent design, but ultimately, he's following the same gods-of-the-gaps formula that the Discovery Institute does,



...This is a big one for me: he will use his position to act as a propagandist for Christianity, entirely inappropriately. We already saw this in the announcement of the completion of the draft of the human genome project, where he actually brags about getting Clinton to include religious language in his speech, and where he himself made claims about the DNA sequence being "the language of god". The head of the NIH isn't just an administrative position; it's a political position, and the appointment of a loudly evangelical Christian to that spot is sending a political message. There are enough of us even louder atheists out here who will make a stink over any attempt on his part to use the accomplishments of science under the NIH to proselytize, that he's going to have to be very cautious in his statements from now on.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/collins_gets_panned_almost_eve.php

[crimsonblue]

139. what a terribly written article...

the logical fallacies are so pathetic that I'm not even going to bother not having one of my own.

[damonm]

141. An Astrophysicist tends to agree with him...

My friend, Dr. Bernard Haisch has written a book entitled The God Theory, in which he comes to some similar conclusions:
http://www.thegodtheory.com/

Is there an intelligence behind the origin of the Universe? Bestsellers by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have denounced the evils of religion and proclaimed that science has shown that there is no God. Their angry accusations are partially correct. Religions have been used to justify crimes against humanity: witness the Inquisition of centuries past or the sectarian slaughter in the Mideast today. But the human misuse of religions and the existence of God are very different matters.

A remarkable discovery has emerged in astrophysics: that key properties of the Universe have just the right values to make life possible. Most scientists prefer to explain away this uniqueness, insisting that a huge, perhaps infinite, number of unseen universes must therefore exist, each randomly different from the other. That way ours only appears special because we could not exist in any of the other hypothetical universes.

I propose the alternative that the special properties of our universe reflect an underlying intelligence, one that is consistent with the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution. Both views are equally logical and beyond proof. However exceptional human experiences and accounts of mystics throughout the ages do suggest that we live in a purposeful universe. In The God Theory I speculate on what that purpose might be… what that purpose means for our lives… how it might explain the riddle of evil.

[S_E_Fudd]

148. Tautology...

Life exists therefore it was created that way on purpose...

Not scientific

[damonm]

150. I know the guy, and know how smart he is...

so forgive me if I find him more credible.

[JayMusgrove]

143. One question from me.... I have always wondered....

How many people who believe in the young Earth bull, are also believers in the the Obama birther stuff, or the no man ever on the moon stuff, or the 9/11 was a government run conspiracy stuff.

And how many young Earth people voted for Sarah Palin.

[AlecBGreen]

144. Boy oh boy

I feel the need to jump in here.

Im a southern, white male.

I teach Earth Science and Biology.

Evolution is the most beautiful natural process I can possibly imagine.

The earth IS 4.5 billion years old, give or take.

I believe in God.

Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, is my salvation. He was/is fully human and fully Divine. How? Talk to the buddhists about duality and non-duality.

I have no problem reconciling faith and science. You think Im deluding myself? Fine.

[DavidDvorkin]

145. If I said the earth is 20 billion years old,

you'd scoff and ask me for proof. You'd point to the evidence for the age you quoted.

Why don't apply the same standards to your religious beliefs?

That's not reconciliation. That's contradiction.

[AlecBGreen]

146. there are some things that cant be proven

how can i prove to you that green is my favorite color? that I hate the taste of olives? that I love my wife more than anyone else? I can offer evidence such as the fact that I NEVER EVER EVER eat olives, but really, is that enough proof for you? At some point you have to take it on faith that Im telling you the truth.

how can I share with you the experiences Ive had that lead me to believe in God? They dont translate well. Furthermore, some people will deny it and explain it away, no matter what I say. There are some people who have DECIDED to believe that there is no God and no amount of testimony from believers will sway them. I find that very sad. I hope you're not one of them :)

[DavidDvorkin]

147. I'm an atheist

Becoming an atheist was liberating. I liberated myself from accepting fairy tales for which there was no evidence.

Those examples you offered - your favorite color, how much you love your wife - are fundamentally different from asserting the existence of a supernatural being. Of course I'll take your word that you have those feelings. Why shouldn't I? But when you assert the existence of this creature you call God, something external to you and with profound effects on the physical world, then more is required. Evidence is required, not just subjective feelings.

What do you say to someone who worships four rocks sitting in his back yard and insists that they created the Universe?

[AlecBGreen]

151. some thoughts

I think a large part of the problem stems from miscommunication of what we as people really believe. When I say I believe in God, some people assume I believe in a "supernatural being" or a "creature." This is not my view at all! I see God as the very fabric of reality, that which upholds existance. It is ominopetent, omnipresent, both fully involved in our realm of existence and yet so very far above and below it.

The Bible states that we are made in His likeness yet God is beyond our comprehension. When it says likeness, I dont take that to mean physically but rather cognitively. God is self-aware, as are we. We are able to contemplate our place in the universe. Likewise, yet much more so, God is able to know Himself fully. Yet even this description is inadequate. Its like trying to explain advanced calculus with a first-grade vocabulary. Try as we might, we cannot give an accurate description of our beliefs. This happens for two reasons.

First, it is impossible to fully and accurately describe ANYTHING, especially something that is (apparently) intangible. How can you describe color to someone who cannot see? It IS a real perception yet how can you enunciate its characteristics? How can you describe the concept of "up" without using the word "down"? Second, some things are simply beyond us. Humans can contemplate the vastness of space but our brains are just not hardwired to entertain the reality of it. It is beyond us. We can make comparisons (its 100 trillion times bigger than our galaxy, etc) but that is what we try to do with God, and like space, our attempts to fully comprehend are inadequate. To go one step further, you can take the worlds smartest chimpanzee and teach it sign language, painting, circus tricks, but no matter how hard you try, you will NEVER EVER be able to get it to understand the beauty of Mendelian genetics or the composition of Shakespearian sonnets. It is just not built for such a task.

What do I say to someone who worships four rocks and insists they created the Universe? Id say tell me more :)

[DavidDvorkin]

152. You haven't really improved matters

First you say that God is really just everything that exists. But then you say that God is self-aware. So everything that exists becomes equivalent to the supernatural being or creature I referred to earlier. And once again, proof is required - in this case, not proof of existence, because that's circular, but rather proof of self-awareness.

[AlecBGreen]

153. You haven't really improved matters

OK, ill try harder this time ;)

"First you say that God is really just everything that exists." Kind of... God is the foundation of reality, the existence of which makes the existence of everything else possible.

"But then you say that God is self-aware." Yes. Omnipotent, omnipresent. From the vibrations of the tiniest quarks to the location and trajectory of every photon to the size, location and composition of every star & galaxy (and all those other parallel universes which might be "out there" somewhere) I believe God is fully cognisant of every part of His being.

"So everything that exists becomes equivalent to the supernatural being or creature I referred to earlier." An object or person (or God himself in this case) is more than the sum of its parts.

"And once again, proof is required." Why? Not a joke, but seriously, why must you have proof to believe something? On the first day of a college philosophy class Prof. asked us "Prove to me that you and the whole universe weren't just created 10 minutes ago with all memories intact etc." No proof, I just choose to believe I wasnt. I cant prove to myself we arent in some kind of "Matrix" scenario. There is no proof one way or the other, I just choose to believe we arent.

"...in this case, not proof of existence, because that's circular, but rather proof of self-awareness." This one could take a while ;) I have to clean up the house so Ill tackle it if you think it will help.

[DavidDvorkin]

154. Certainly we have to make some basic assumptions

I exist. The universe is external to me, not something I'm dreaming. Etc.

But we keep them to a minimum. Assuming that the universe is self-aware, just like assuming that a bunch of rocks in some guy's garden created the universe, is silly, unnecessary, and pointless. Like LaPlace, we have no need of those assumptions.

[AlecBGreen]

156. yes!

Thats a point that is lost on many people and Im glad you made it. We DO have to make some basic assumptions, not because we have proof, but just because we cant go chasing every "what if" ...

"Assuming that the universe is self-aware, just like assuming that a bunch of rocks in some guy's garden created the universe, is silly, unnecessary, and pointless."

A human body is an amazing thing, not least of which because it is self-aware. Yet what part is self-aware? Just the brain? Yet the brain is inseperable from the rest. It is a PART of us yet that one part gives life to the whole. I would argue that humans, in the same way, give life to the entire universe. Because one part of the universe is conscious, the entire universe can be said to possess consciousness. Am I saying that a rock on Mars is aware of us here on Earth? No, of course not. Yet because a part contains some intrinsic ability, that property belongs to the whole. Perhaps we are just arguing semantics and that is not my intention. What I want to emphasize is the idea that we all frame our own existence, we decide what is important and what to cast aside.

Thanks for the converstaion. Writing things down helps one clarify their thoughts & beliefs.

[TrogL]

149. It's the usual tired logical fallacies

It's just another rehash of "God is in the cracks" where science has no current explanation.

I especially love The precise tuning of the physical constants in the universe. If gravity was a little weaker, things would all start flying a part. You can see a creator in these constants.

No, I can see that if those constants weren't there, I wouldn't be sitting here typing this, I'd be off in space somewhere gasping for breath or an atom inside a star.

[Better Believe It]

155. I have an image of Jesus on my saltine cracker! What more proof do you skeptics need?