The great atheist questionnaire....

[Gman]

So the Christian claim often goes. Scientists do not agree, however.

Scientists do not agree that God is involved in the process?

[hatsoff]

Scientists do not agree that God is involved in the process?

Quite so, but my point is that they do not agree the only alternative to God is random chance.

[Gman]

Scientists do not agree that God is involved in the process?

Quite so, but my point is that they do not agree the only alternative to God is random chance.

Then they are making a theological claim.. If it's not God and it's not random chance then what is it?

[hatsoff]

Then they are making a theological claim..

Oh, not at all. If scientists were attempting to talk about how God interacts with the universe, or positing that he existed to do so, then they'd be making a theological claim. But if they talk about the universe without God, then they make no theological claim at all.

If it's not God and it's not random chance then what is it?

What is what? The origin of species? Natural selection. The origin of life? Abiogenesis. The origin of the universe? The big bang. None of these are identical to "random chance."

[Gman]

Oh, not at all. If scientists were attempting to talk about how God interacts with the universe, or positing that he existed to do so, then they'd be making a theological claim. But if they talk about the universe without God, then they make no theological claim at all.

I disagree.. Then they are saying that God doesn't exist. It's still a theological claim..

What is what? The origin of species? Natural selection. The origin of life? Abiogenesis. The origin of the universe? The big bang. None of these are identical to "random chance."

Again I disagree... If you take God out of the picture then all you have is blind luck chance as your creator.. These views substantially agree with that.

“chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.” - Jacques Lucien Monod

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.” — Richard Dawkins

Evolutionists Brandon Carter, John Barrow, and Frank Tipler (in their quest to determine the likelihood that other intelligent species exist in the universe) determined that for an advanced species as technically capable as humanity to arise from a suite of bacterial species in 10 billion years or less, the probability is 10^24,000,000. Again, the probability for the natural generation of the human species from bacteria or other possible simple life-forms is indistinguishable from zero. In other words, a chance prediction...

[DannyM]

Oh, not at all. If scientists were attempting to talk about how God interacts with the universe, or positing that he existed to do so, then they'd be making a theological claim. But if they talk about the universe without God, then they make no theological claim at all.

I disagree.. Then they are saying that God doesn't exist. It's still a theological claim..

What is what? The origin of species? Natural selection. The origin of life? Abiogenesis. The origin of the universe? The big bang. None of these are identical to "random chance."

Again I disagree... If you take God out of the picture then all you have is blind luck chance as your creator.. These views substantially agree with that.

“chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.” - Jacques Lucien Monod

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.” — Richard Dawkins

Evolutionists Brandon Carter, John Barrow, and Frank Tipler (in their quest to determine the likelihood that other intelligent species exist in the universe) determined that for an advanced species as technically capable as humanity to arise from a suite of bacterial species in 10 billion years or less, the probability is 10^24,000,000. Again, the probability for the natural generation of the human species from bacteria or other possible simple life-forms is indistinguishable from zero. In other words, a chance prediction...

As Quagmire would say, All right! Nice.

[hatsoff]

I disagree.. Then they are saying that God doesn't exist. It's still a theological claim..

Except that's not what they are saying at all. A responsible scientist leaves God out of the picture. His existence versus nonexistence is for philosophers and theologians to handle.

Again I disagree... If you take God out of the picture then all you have is blind luck chance as your creator.. These views substantially agree with that.

Of course they don't. Science is about finding mechanisms, not writing off occurrences as "pure chance."

I suggest that instead of simply repeating creationist quote montages (or, worse yet, creating them yourself). you seek out the original sources and actually read them.

[Canuckster1127]

Scientists do not agree that God is involved in the process?

Quite so, but my point is that they do not agree the only alternative to God is random chance.

I've been observing this somewhat amused from the sidelines.

For my part, philosophically, the use of the term agnostic atheist does not present any conflict to my mind. There are actually very few atheists who go so far as to assert dogmatically the "non-existence" of God. Even Dawkins in his book, (which I have read) The God Delusion, describes his position on a scale of 1 to 7 as a 6 and compares his non-belief in God's existence as comparable to his non-belief in fairy's at the bottom of a well.

To your point, hatsoff above, I'm rather surprised to see you attributing a universal position to scientists in this manner. The scientific community, and it varies greatly by some disciplines, is not uniform in this regard and indeed the issue of whether random chance is an alternative to God (let alone the only alternative) rather goes beyond the scope of science to determine. In terms of natural selection, in the realm of biology, it's clear that there is not anything wholly random as to how dominant traits in a population are "selected for" in terms of how that takes place. In a purely scientific point of view that has been observed and demonstrated repeatedly to a point where that is accepted as almost a given by the scientific community and that includes many Christians.

What has not been "proven" and then becomes a matter of conjecture is whether it is legitimate to extropolate that pattern back beyond what can has been directly observed and it is at this point that the observation becomes more than "science" in a pure sense of the word. It then becomes a matter a conjecture as to if and then how that observed process of natural selection can be extrapolated back and if that is sufficient to explain the diversity we observe today as well as fitting those elements that can be observed in the fossil record.

At this point, there most certainly are scientists who assert that the probabilities involved in this are such that a God (not necessarily the Christian God, but certainly not excluding that wholly) is a legitimate thing to conclude based upon the evidence. Interestingly enough, someone who has been invoked in this discussion Antony Flew is someone who later in his life, after being the champion of many bents of atheism, has modified his position to an effective position of Deism. Based on what I've read of him, arguments similar to what the Intelligent Design movement today put forward were key in Flew making this transition in his thinking.

The point is that an appeal to "scientists" in this regard is an overstatement because there is not universal agreement on these points nor are these points fully scientific in their scope. Science in a narrow sense of how that discipline is described at best can only determine or infer from evidence probability in this realm and proffer a mechanism as to how things may have developed. It cannot determine purpose or intelligence behind the process and remain wholly in the realm of science. It's in that area that I become sympathetic to the cause of many Intelligent Design advocates and why I appreciate the purpose of this board. Evidence for God in Science in many instances is the same evidence as is offered by others against God's existence. The key is the interpretive framework the individual brings to the interpretation of that evidence.

That's as true for scientists as it is for anyone else and therefore to make a claim from authority to them as a group is tenuous at best, when the subject matter is not strictly scientific, and many of the conclusions drawn simply circle back to the assumptions made upon which their interpretive framework rests.

[hatsoff]

To your point, hatsoff above, I'm rather surprised to see you attributing a universal position to scientists in this manner.

But I have attributed no such position to them. On the contrary, I have all along been pointing out that scientists do not agree when it comes to God.

So, please do not think I am "appeal[ing] to 'scientists.'" I am not. As I expressed in my very first post on this forum (and in this thread), my issue with Christianity is the lack of evidence, not some kind of positive argument against it. Science is perfectly compatible with many forms of theism, including a number of Christian varieties. However, just as science does not disprove God, neither does it demonstrate the existence of God, as has been suggested by others on this forum.

I am sorry that I have been so deeply misunderstood. I will endeavor to be clearer in the future.

[Canuckster1127]

To your point, hatsoff above, I'm rather surprised to see you attributing a universal position to scientists in this manner.

But I have attributed no such position to them. On the contrary, I have all along been pointing out that scientists do not agree when it comes to God.

So, please do not think I am "appeal[ing] to 'scientists.'" I am not. As I expressed in my very first post on this forum (and in this thread), my issue with Christianity is the lack of evidence, not some kind of positive argument against it. Science is perfectly compatible with many forms of theism, including a number of Christian varieties. However, just as science does not disprove God, neither does it demonstrate the existence of God, as has been suggested by others on this forum.

I am sorry that I have been so deeply misunderstood. I will endeavor to be clearer in the future.

Understood. However, if you allow that science does not disprove God or prove him, then to be consistent wouldn't you need to recognize that it is as invalid to appeal to physical evidence as proof or non-proof of God's existence? Yet, it appears that there is a frame of reference within our scientific community in general that tends to reduce the universe to that which is physical and can be observed and measured. In many instances, however, what is being concluded is often not from direct observance but rather by inference as determined by the influence or affect something exerts upon something else? Gravity for example would be the classic analogy offered, but more recently, you have the assertion of so-called "dark matter" in the universe, which has not been directly observed but was reasoned as necessary based upon the observance of criteria upon which it exerts influence?

When one begins to exit the realm of direct observation and measurement and begin to speak of things in terms of probability, is it not then as valid to infer from the appearance of deliberate design by direct involvement or even by indirectly providing the elements that would by their nature move toward a teleological end and purpose the existence of a designer?

I'm not particularly a great fan of Intelligent Design as it has been defined as popular movement today, but in terms of the base concept philosophically it seems to me that there are many who, in the name of science, attempt to infer far too much as to the non-existence of God based upon their materialistic framework and point of view and then attempt to claim that the same evidence is then invalid when interpretted through another framework. It seems to me that for some, if not many, it's a case of attempting to have one's cake and eat it too.

The appeal to evidence (often even the same evidence from both sides) for the existence or non-existence of God should then be seen as equally valid or invalid in terms of approach. Of course I have my own bias, but given that there are those who appeal to evidence for the non-existence of God, it makes sense to demonstrate how the evidence supports the case for God as well, doesn't it?

[hatsoff]

Understood. However, if you allow that science does not disprove God or prove him, then to be consistent wouldn't you need to recognize that it is as invalid to appeal to physical evidence as proof or non-proof of God's existence?

Sure, I regard it as a useless exercise to look to science to justify some kind of religious faith, just as it is hopeless to try and demonstrate that all such faiths are incompatible with science.

When one begins to exit the realm of direct observation and measurement and begin to speak of things in terms of probability, is it not then as valid to infer from the appearance of deliberate design by direct involvement or even by indirectly providing the elements that would by their nature move toward a teleological end and purpose the existence of a designer?

In principle I suppose it's possible, but I've never seen a sound argument to that effect, given the absence of sufficient evidence.

Of course I have my own bias, but given that there are those who appeal to evidence for the non-existence of God, it makes sense to demonstrate how the evidence supports the case for God as well, doesn't it?

Oh, yes, I think it's great when theists try to gather evidence; that's what they should be doing, in my opinion. But that evidence needs to be weighty enough to support their claims, which of course is no easy criterion. To date, I have never seen it met.

[Gman]

Except that's not what they are saying at all. A responsible scientist leaves God out of the picture. His existence versus nonexistence is for philosophers and theologians to handle.

We are talking about origins right? Origin of life, origin of the universe? You stated earlier that scientists' were ignorant regarding the earliest conditions of our universe. If true then there is no solid science on the subject. Then the question is actually philosophical. So even if you leave God out of the picture and don't mention Him at at, it's still philosophical stance. Science does not take philosophical stances, people do. If a position takes a positive philosophical stance on a matter such as God's existence or non-existence then surely it can be guaranteed someone is mixing their science with their philosophical opinions. Belief and science must conflict. Science and belief deal with the same thing. Human life. But they try to understand it under different types of considerations.

Of course they don't. Science is about finding mechanisms, not writing off occurrences as "pure chance."

I suggest that instead of simply repeating creationist quote montages (or, worse yet, creating them yourself). you seek out the original sources and actually read them.

Like Jacques Lucien Monod? Those quotes came from renowned evolutionary scientists.

The significance of Darwin's theory was that it eliminated design from nature, leaving only chance and necessity (what might happen and what must happen). In other words, organisms just happened (chance), and those that were best adapted to a given environment survived (necessity). There need not be a design or a designer. Natural selection, if it worked at all, could only work on a living organism that could produce offspring. By its very definition it could not work on non-living chemicals.

Pure chance? According to biologists, chance events (blind luck chance) can be described in genetic drift, gene flow, and even mutation in microevolution. Natural selection (a blend of chance and sorting), however, is the only mechanism that consistently leads to adaptive evolution.

“Genetic drift, gene flow, and even mutation can cause microevolution. But these are chance events, and only blind luck could result in their improving a population's fit to its environment. Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, is a blend of chance and "sorting": chance in the random collection of genetic variation packaged in gametes and combined in offspring and sorting in that some alleles are favored over others. Because of this sorting effect, only natural selection consistently leads to adaptive evolution-evolution that results in a better fit between organisms and their environment.” Biology : Concepts and connections — Ch. 13.12, pg 269, 2008

[Canuckster1127]

Sure, I regard it as a useless exercise to look to science to justify some kind of religious faith, just as it is hopeless to try and demonstrate that all such faiths are incompatible with science.

.......

Oh, yes, I think it's great when theists try to gather evidence; that's what they should be doing, in my opinion. But that evidence needs to be weighty enough to support their claims, which of course is no easy criterion. To date, I have never seen it met.

You don't see the contradiction between these two sentences of yours? Perhaps the issue is not so much with the evidence as the approach being taken to it?

[hatsoff]

You don't see the contradiction between these two sentences of yours? Perhaps the issue is not so much with the evidence as the approach being taken to it?

I see no contradiction. In the second quote I tell you that I think evidence is a potentially valid means of supporting a religious position. In the first quote I let you know that I don't think such a goal will ever be realized.

In other words, if you want to hit the ball out of the park, you need to swing the bat. But even if you swing, you still may not be strong enough to get it over the fence.

[hatsoff]

Like Jacques Lucien Monod? Those quotes came from renowned evolutionary scientists.

Hence my suggestion to actually read what they have to say, as opposed to cherry-picking quotations which sound vaguely favorable to your religious position.