The God Delusion

[Dr_Dave]

According to a recent paper in Nature, 40% of American physicists, mathematicians and biologists believe in a personal God. Even Stephen Hawkins mentions God:

 

"Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

 

Just thought I would add this to the debate.

 

Got a reference for your 40% figure? The closest I can find is this Nature correspondence from 1998, which suggests the figure is closer to 7%.

 

As for Hawking's belief in a personal god... He hasn't said a great deal on the subject, but I think it's fairly certain that when he refers to "god" in his writings, like Einstein before him, he's referring to a deist or Spinozan god of nature. Indeed, he had this to say about the subject in a New York Times interview:

 

Do you believe in God?

 

I don't believe in a personal God.

 

which looks fairly unambiguous to me.

 

Dave

[ans]

91.8% of the total population believe in a god in America. All your statistic demonstrates is the smarter you are, the less likely you are to believe in one because in population groups that will be of lower average intelligence, the numbers must be higher to balance this out.

 

Basically, religion is generally for dummies.

[VinnieK]

Also, the statistic, even if true, doesn't really add anything to the discussion; all it demonstrates is that some scientists don't find there to be conflict between their faith and their profession.

 

For mathematicians this is a trivial observation since their work and expertise rarely has any involvement with matters theological - saying that a mathematician believes in a God has no greater implication than saying a historian, geographer or music scholar does. Conflicts between a particular faith and profession potentially exist for biologists and physicists, most obviously where scientific observation and theory contradicts the Christian creation myth (although this often relies upon the kind of scientist being asked the question - a solid state physicist for instance might, on an irrational level, find it easier to accept such scripture than a cosmologist) , but in general terms science can say little about the existence or non-existence of some form of Deity (be it that version of the Christian God that dabbles more in allegory and metaphore in his pronouncements than strict literal explanation, or some more generic deity). As such, simply saying that some scientists believe in God ultimately has little bearing on questions regarding faith, reality, and the conflict between religion and science.

[Lurkah]

I'd say a historian might take issue with the whole Earth being a few thousand years old kinda thing.

[VinnieK]

I'd say a historian might take issue with the whole Earth being a few thousand years old kinda thing.

 

Many might, and in all likelyhood do, but that is a personal disagreement no doubt influenced by scientific and pre-historic archaelogical evidence. On a purely professional level a historian can in all probability perform their trade independent of whether a deity created the Earth or not, and the circumstances surrounding this creation.

[DjDan]

I deny God... as it is not a fact. As it is an idea, and nothing more... I deny it.

 

You see how the door swings both ways with that one?

 

aye, but that's not really the point, is it?

 

I gave one example. Evolution. As it stands, the example is correct. Though it is merely an idea, it is taught in schools as fact. As my wife is a Biology teacher, i know that for a fact too.

 

just a quick edit: the 'quotation' above used by ans is not a quotation... just in case some were wondering!! lol

[Slim]

I gave one example. Evolution. As it stands, the example is correct. Though it is merely an idea, it is taught in schools as fact. As my wife is a Biology teacher, i know that for a fact too.

 

Then you'd think you'd understand the nature of science enough to know that nothing is proven. I guess you're happy for kids to be taught about things that dont conflict with religion like Gravity, which is no more proven than evolution?

[Chinahand]

gee.... what about the problem of scientific theory being taught, without clearly defining which is a theory and which is proven?

 

Read what you just said, can you see how stupid it is? What unproven science do you think is daught Dan?

 

 

Evolution.

 

It's clearly taught as a fact... when yet, it's nothing more than an 'idea' or in other words... a theory.

 

Djdan I find it amazing how you can so easily bander about words like idea, fact and theory.

 

Do you know anything about science, about falsification and prediction.

 

The theory of evolution has about as much evidence backing it up as the theory that the earth rotates about the sun. The thing about evolution is its consistency across fields - geology, embryology, genetics, fossils. I'm intrigued by where you believe evolution is being taught as fact when there is evidence to show that it is untrue - science doesn't work like that!

 

Evolutionary theory has had great predictive value; for example, well before the fossil transitions of whales were found evolution said they would be there (creationists used to ridicule scientists for this - early creationist books had sketches of these transitions claiming how improbable they were - until the actual fossils turned up). The theory predicts the appearance of vestigial legs in mutant whales, it predicts the genetic ancestory of cetaceans etc etc.

 

 

 

I'd really recommend you try reading 29+ evidences of Macroevolution from Talk Origins

 

It'll take you a few hours - why not spread it out over a series of evenings.

 

I'd really like to ask you - what do YOU think is going on here:

 

 

If you do read the article you'll see that it continually discusses what the theory of evolution would predict would occur and provides clear falsifications that would show evolution to be incorrect - ie its showing how science works.

 

And Djdan, you blithly right off the work of thousands of evolutionary biologists, geneticists etc etc who have spent their life's work researching this stuff - do you think they are all lying and making it up - that's quite a conspiracy - just think of all those thousands of research papers published year after year after year - keeping all these independent researchers producing fake results all consistent with the theory of evolution must be quite an achievement.

 

Now of course you are entitled to remain in your little world of ignorance, but I do wonder what you think actually happened. Did God just do it? If so how did he do it, and when and where. Did it all happen in a couple of days in a garden east of eden? Saying God did it is fine and dandy, but if you then investigate the issue what do you then find?

 

DjDan, what makes you so sure evolution is untrue, and whatever theory you have to replace it is true? Do you have any evidence to back up what you believe, or did God just tell you?

[DjDan]

Heh, you guys are always the same. You're trying to bring everything to a pointless debate, and in doing so... try to belittle me as stupid. I am far from stupid, and know exactly how things work here.

 

For your information, I am not going to waste hours discussing the theory of evolution, the strengths, and flaws of the idea. Like I said, my wife is a biology teacher, with significant biology degrees.. yes plural. I hardly think it necessary or even worthwhile to discuss the matter with you. As I remember it, I was asked to name an example of something taught by science as if it were fact. I mentioned evolution as that example, which example, stands firm.

 

Slim, i know very well the logic behind science and all this... 'fact', 'theory' blah blah. Evolution is far far far from fact... (a lot further than other scientific teachings) yet in schools, it is taught as a FACT. That is the point. The complaint was that religion is taught as a fact.... i make the contrast to this scientific idea, which is also taught as fact. You may say religion is not fact, and I agree. But to make complaint there... you also need to accept the complaint that evolution is taught wrongly in our schools. Pupils are taught evolution as if it were proven.. when yet, it is not.

[Charles Flynn]

According to a recent paper in Nature, 40% of American physicists, mathematicians and biologists believe in a personal God. Even Stephen Hawkins mentions God:

 

"Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

 

Just thought I would add this to the debate.

 

Got a reference for your 40% figure? The closest I can find is this Nature correspondence from 1998, which suggests the figure is closer to 7%.

 

As for Hawking's belief in a personal god... He hasn't said a great deal on the subject, but I think it's fairly certain that when he refers to "god" in his writings, like Einstein before him, he's referring to a deist or Spinozan god of nature. Indeed, he had this to say about the subject in a New York Times interview:

 

Do you believe in God?

 

I don't believe in a personal God.

 

which looks fairly unambiguous to me.

 

Dave

 

We are probably putting different interpretations (statistics and lies) on the same source from Nature 1997 - admittedly not too recent!! It seems from this survey American physicists are less likely to believe in God than mathematicians.

 

Also from the Manx Forums debate which has been going on for some time, it is pretty obvious that whatever you believe cannot easily be changed.

 

I do not know any religious people who actually believe the Creation account in Genesis. It is regarded as a myth. The earth is some 4.5 billion years old, not the few thousand that Bishop Ussher spoke about.

[The Bastard]

I do not know any religious people who actually believe the Creation account in Genesis. It is regarded as a myth. The earth is some 4.5 billion years old, not the few thousand that Bishop Ussher spoke about.

 

So "religious people" can apparently pick and choose which parts of the doctrine applies to them according to personal preference ? Isn't that against the principle of organised religion ? Could you be a Christian without believing in Jesus ?

 

It's all a myth. The sooner the fairy stories are dispensed with, the better.

[Declan]

Dan - Why do you persist in using the vague word idea? You must see it is more than an idea; an idea is the first germ of a thought, that grows into an hypothesis, before becoming a fully fledged theory, of course evolution has gone way beyond being a theory now, but I recognise that you don't see it that way. Heck, even creationism, which really was knocked up on the back of a fag packet, is more than an idea. So why use the term idea? Other than to discredit evolution? But then, you say you don't want to discuss the issue. Strange.

 

Don't expect you to answer the last paragraph, but maybe you could answer why religious types are so antagonistic towards this "idea"? It certainly doesn't disprove the existence of God, only the literal interpretation of Genisis, which must have been viewew as an allogorical tale, for centuaries.If anything it must strengthn someone's faith, since evolution is such a perfect, brilliant solution to ensure the continuance of life, that for any being to come up with it, then create the conditions for it to work, not to mention design the laws of the physical world to ensure it's success, they'd have to be pretty damn supreme.For the believer, why doesn't evolutionary theory reinforce their views of an omnipotent all powerfull God.

[ans]

For your information, I am not going to waste hours discussing the theory of evolution, the strengths, and flaws of the idea. Like I said, my wife is a biology teacher, with significant biology degrees.. yes plural. I hardly think it necessary or even worthwhile to discuss the matter with you.

 

Your wife has the biology degrees, not you. I doubt you could manage a ten minute stuttering waffle on the topic, never mind hours. You're a burger flipper, right?

 

What a shame that you've chosen not to attempt to reply to Chinahand's excellent post, although you probably do recognise that you're a bit out of your depth so you've decided to back out with a few vague claims as usual. You actually lack the intelligence and the life experience to debate anything properly.

[ai_Droid]

Heh, you guys are always the same. You're trying to bring everything to a pointless debate, and in doing so... try to belittle me as stupid. I am far from stupid, and know exactly how things work here.

 

To be frank, you act stupid. Everyone here who's prepared to counter your bullshit does so by asking and challenging you various things, all of which you ignore, you either can't answer them, or are too stupid too.

 

For your information, I am not going to waste hours discussing the theory of evolution, the strengths, and flaws of the idea. Like I said, my wife is a biology teacher, with significant biology degrees.. yes plural. I hardly think it necessary or even worthwhile to discuss the matter with you. As I remember it, I was asked to name an example of something taught by science as if it were fact. I mentioned evolution as that example, which example, stands firm.

 

You brought it up. From the looks of things, we'd be better off discussing it with your wife.

 

Slim, i know very well the logic behind science and all this... 'fact', 'theory' blah blah. Evolution is far far far from fact... (a lot further than other scientific teachings) yet in schools, it is taught as a FACT. That is the point. The complaint was that religion is taught as a fact.... i make the contrast to this scientific idea, which is also taught as fact. You may say religion is not fact, and I agree. But to make complaint there... you also need to accept the complaint that evolution is taught wrongly in our schools. Pupils are taught evolution as if it were proven.. when yet, it is not.

 

As has been said, the same goes for all science, where would you draw the line Dan? Not teach them gravity? Tell me, prove you're not a dimwit.

[DjDan]

For your information, I am not going to waste hours discussing the theory of evolution, the strengths, and flaws of the idea. Like I said, my wife is a biology teacher, with significant biology degrees.. yes plural. I hardly think it necessary or even worthwhile to discuss the matter with you.

 

Your wife has the biology degrees, not you. I doubt you could manage a ten minute stuttering waffle on the topic, never mind hours. You're a burger flipper, right?

 

far from it mate. you are clueless as always.