Atheist/Agnostics..you'r e in good company (page 5)

rem

"[Dr. Miller] takes issue with those scientists who claim that modern science has disproved God."

Does Dr. Miller often take issue with Strawmen?

rem

logansrun

edge,

Why did you not address my point about your bias?

My bias against what? Religion? My point is that most modern scientists are not religious or theists in any traditional sense of the word. There are exceptions to that rule as there are to almost all rules.

The way you answer (or don't answer) you would do well in politics. If you actually read the book and failed to see it was critical of both creationist and atheist camps, which was the whole point of the book, then it is useless to have a discussion with you.

I highly doubt Miller views atheists as akin to creationists.

From the back cover:
"[Dr. Miller] takes issue with those scientists who claim that modern science has disproved God."
"Finding Darwin's God is an artfully constructed argument against both those who deny evolution and those using science to justify a materialist worldview."
Those comments about the book were made by the president of the National Academy of Science and a Biology Prof at U of California. I guess in your world they just have poor reading comprehension.

First off, I know of no scientist who claims that modern science has disproved God. Not even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins would make such a statement. Modern science has shown that many of the workings of the universe, including the origin of life itself, does not need a creator. The leap into faith, therefore, is much greater, for the gaps for God to fill are much smaller. Last I checked, the president of the National Academy of Science was Eugenie Scott. She's also an atheist. Bradley

ThiChi

Logan (watch him) run:

I never stated you used the term "Post Darwin" I used the term, it is the same difference to your inference as to why pre-Darwin Christians were at some sort of disadvantage to the Post Darwin Christians. Your disingenuous discourse of your insinuation is once more very telling....

edge3

rem,

Calling that quote a strawman argument is is way over simplifing the issue. You know as well as I do you can neither prove or disprove the existance of God. I assume that is your point. However from a practical standpoint some folks, often very vocal atheists, act as though science has done that very thing. It can't but that's the way they act. That is obviously what Bruce Alberts is saying in his quote that you refer to. If you have a problem with the quote discuss it with him. Perhaps he's wrong. Perhaps the National Academy of Science picked a guy who makes or supports strawman arguments as it's President.

As an example of people acting this way look at what logansrun is saying earlier in this thread, that as people gain more knowledge it becomes harder to put faith in a God. What knowledge is he refering to? Knitting? :O) Obvoiusly knowledge about the material world. The point of Miller's book is both sides, the creationists who think evolution threatens theism and atheists who attempt to use evolution to bolster their position, have it wrong. You may or may not agree with that but the book looks at boths sides a gives a fresh view of evolution as good science that actually supports a theistic view of the world. The reason I raised the issue of logan being biased is that when he mentioned the book he only brought up half of what the book is about. At any rate if you haven't read the book I highly recommend it. If you do read it would you please explain it to logansrun? You may have more patience than I do. ;-)

rem

>>You may or may not agree with that but the book looks at boths sides a gives a fresh view of evolution as good science that actually supports a theistic view of the world

Now it sounds like special pleading. It's ok to use Evolution to support a theistic view of the world, but not an atheistic one? In practice, no scientist who studies Evolution I've heard of proposes that Evolution disproves god, but surely there is no problem showing how Evolution is consistent with an atheistic world view (and vice versa). I've read a lot of books about Evolution written by atheists and that seems to be par for the course.

There is a difference between showing how the facts are consistent with your belief (or non belief) and setting out to prove a positive assertion with those same facts. I believe atheist scientists are guilty of the former rather than the latter.

I may actually read the book as some favorable quotes were taken from it in a book I'm currently reading: Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennet.

rem

XQsThaiPoes

Don't forget Charlie T Russell.

dan

Hey, what are the chances of shuffling a random deck of cards once and having all the cards fall into perfect order? This'll help prove the existence of God.

rem

God plays solitare?

rem

SixofNine

Hey, what are the chances of shuffling a random deck of cards once and having all the cards fall into perfect order? This'll help prove the existence of God.

How so?

dan

What would you conclude if you came upon a used deck of cards that were in perfect order? Would you assume they were shuffled once into order, or that someone put the that way? You wouldn't have to assume; of course someone put them that way. To assume otherwise would be ridiculous. The chances of the shuffle falling into perfect order is 1/8 to the sixty-seventh power. That's a big number. Now, we all know about the second law of thermodynamics, right? Entropy. The natural progression of all energy is from an organized state to one of disorganization. In order for order to happen something has to act upon the energy, or chance has to play a role. Some scientists don't like the idea of "God," so they assume chance is what organized matter, the universe, this planet, life, intelligence. Those are the only two options: God or chance. Wanna know what the odds are of chance having created and sustained (and continued to sustain) life on this planet? I do to; and so does the rest of the scientific comunity, but the numbers are too high. The fact is, science hasn't arrived at a number high enough to calculate those odds. You could shuffle a deck of cards into perfect order a million times in a row before a universe could be created out of chance, and yet, so many jump at that as the only solution. Why? Because they just don't want to believe in God. If you say God doesn't exist it's just because you just don't want Him to exist. God means responsibility, and most people don't like responsibility. William James says our "passional" nature has the most to do with our beliefs and conclusions in this life. Critical thinkers put aside their emotional and anecdotal reasoning to figure things out, but atheists often just go by their gut. If you were a gambler you would put every dime you had on God existing, and you'd be giggling to yourself all the way to the bookie because you would know that your odds were unbeatable. So, you'll obviously disagree with me, but that's all right. Believers are always racked by the burden of proof, but since atheism is the newest brand of idolatry on the block, I throw the burden to you. Show me conclusive proof that God does not exist or I will have no choice but to call this argument forever concluded. By the way, lack of evidence that He does exist is not considered evidence at all. It is a lack of evidence, and only proves the need for further research. Show me conclusive proof, if you think it actually exists; and if it doesn't then your conclusion is just preposterous assumption.

Atheist/Agnostics..you'r e in good company

Share this