40% Of Scientists Have A Belief In A God? Okay, Which God?

If a believer says that "it is not unreasonable to believe there is intelligence behind our natural laws"
then they should agree that there must be an intelligence behind the intelligence of our natural laws. But isn't that absurd? Its got to stop somewhere, so why don't we stop before we get to Gods.  There is obviously no way to prove which God it is if they are not going to present themselves, so we might as well say, there is no God. If we ask a God to present itself unambiguously to us and it doesn't, isn't that exactly what we would expect if there really wasn't any God? What difference does a God that does not interact make anyway?

Committing to a hasty conclusion does not make one stupid.
I have read that 40% of American Scientists believe in God. It doesn't make them stupid or ignorant, it just means they've come to a hasty conclusion.

Stephen Jay Gould is reported to have said

"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs"

That is a fallacy. It is a false dilemma. Did Gould mention WHICH religious beliefs? The contra to that are that his peers are not stupid and religious cosmogonies are not compatible with evolution. Potentially, Gould has an 80% chance of believing in the wrong god among his peers that believe in a god when you consider the following.

I think the reported 40% is a little high, but I'll go with it. It depends on how the question is asked, and which god it is that they believe in.

I'm sure that some percentage of Hindu scientists believe in a Hindu God, some percentage of Christian scientists believe in a christian god and so on and so on.

So of that 40 percent, break it down by religion, and it must be divided by the number of faiths, so if there are 5 equally distributed competing faiths in that forty percent, then only 8% are right if a god exists.

So how can the remaining 32% of believing scientists be wrong if they are so smart and a god exists?
Potentially, that is 80% of the pool of 40%, and overall 92% of scientists that don't believe in the RIGHT god or any god at all.

The 32% of believing scientists have OBVIOUSLY come to a hasty conclusion haven't they?

Smart people are not immune from social and political pressure or their natural bias to confuse complexity with intelligence.

It just shows that they haven't thought about it critically enough to catch up with their unbelieving peers that make up the majority or they have determined that if it doesn't make a difference, then they are better off lying about their belief, or the survey question or results were misinterpreted.

How Can Anyone Know Anything About A Mysterious God?

Recently in a rejoinder over at Debunking Christianity one of the participants made the following comment challenging a non-believer to

"Account for the information design that every atheist scholar admits that exists but lives in denial explaining away."

If I can reliably predict the outcome of an event 80% of the time because I know how most of it works, is what I think I know "explaining away" the truth that it must be that "god did it"?

To call scientific explanations, which are by their methodology designed to be reliable or repeatable, "explaining away" is to dismiss the accumulation of knowledge as irrelevant in favor of keeping a worldview that favors remaining anchored to reacting to chance.

A course in probability and economics will give a TASTE of how new properties and characteristics "emerge" from the interaction of "elements". They will demonstrate that "cooperation" or even "coopetition" is rationally, logically, and mathematically the best outcome for all participants. A rudimentary type of morality emerges from the self-interested behavior of actors in an iterative series of events.

Its the "golden rule" and it comes from self-interested behavior of participants, not god.

Dismissing knowledge accumulated through the scientific method, or even scientific theories as "explaining away" negates the natural processes of deviation and mistakes in the system being observed. There can be no unintended errors. Its all got to be god or nothing. And in a more liberal viewpoint that will admit that "God set it in motion and then nature took it from there", then there still exists the problem of explaining why information about any particular god (scripture, personal "experience" what have you) is more valid than any other religion.

All these arguments boil down to ancient information and circumstantial evidence.

If it is said that "god did it", its not enough. It must be shown why the other hypothesis fails, and it must be ensured that its repeatable. The hypothesis that produces the more reliable information should be the one that gets the commitment from the observer. For any given religion there are at least two competing hypotheses that must be eliminated, Science and some other religion. It must be shown why a religions hypothesis produces more reliable outcomes than any other, otherwise, it should be admitted that they are all eligible to be probable.

If someone is not willing to do that, then they are at least obligated to say that either hypothesis might be true, and then they become an agnostic. Logically a religious person should be agnostic anyway, especially with what they think about they know about their god. Just when they think they've got a characteristic identified, something happens that is not consistent, and they struggle to account for it somehow.

"gods ways are mysterious" is just another way of saying
"I don't know anything about this".
 

Fraud and Religion

The tragedy at the "Sweatbox" resort highlights several problems with Religion.
'Sweatbox' victims were attending 'Spiritual Warrior' program, CNN, October 10, 2009 -- Updated 2202 GMT (0602 HKT)

"The use of sweat lodges for spiritual and physical cleansing is a part of several Native American tribes' cultures."

Since terms such as "spirit" are not defined, they are ambiguous. They can mean anything. Since they can mean anything, then there is no definition. When there is no definition, there is nothing to compare it to. Since there is nothing to comapare it to, the definition can change as needed to suit whatever purpose its being used for. There is no way to measure it.
So in the case of "spirit cleansing" some simple common sense questions come to mind.

• How does one know it works?
• If it doesn't work, what went wrong?
• What is the "spirit"
• Where does it reside?
• How can I cross-check any of these answers?

Now lets change the word "spirit" in "spiritual cleansing" with "carpet" and see how it plays out.
Acutally when you change "spirit" with "carpet" it makes more sense. All those questions can be answered unambiguously.

Tax Fraud

"The resort is on 70 secluded valley acres 20 minutes from Sedona, surrounded by thousands of acres of national forest, according to the Web site. It has Internal Revenue Service nonprofit status as a religious organization, its Web site says."

Why should religions get immunity from taxes? What is the justification? Can the justification be cross checked, for example, can we check if God exists?

If we can't check if God exists, then we can't tell which God is the real one. Since we can't tell which God is the real one, then we know that at least some of them are perpetrating tax fraud, maybe intentionally.

Third person dies in Arizona 'sweatbox' case, CNN, October 18, 2009 -- Updated 2132 GMT (0532 HKT)

People believe what they are told by friends, authorities and sometimes traditions

There were up to 65 visitors, ages 30 to 60, at the resort attending the "Spiritual Warrior" program by self-help expert James Arthur Ray, according to authorities.

People, by nature or by conditioning, believe authorities and tradition. Since that is the case, it is easy to see how so many people are easily defrauded.

Publicity, perceived authority and a trusted person

Ray is widely known for programs that claim to teach individuals how to create wealth from all aspects of their lives -- financially, mentally, physically and spiritually. He has appeared on various national programs, including CNN's "Larry King Live."

But, in my opinion, individuals like Oprah, and Larry King, before they put these kinds of things on display, thereby adding an element of credibility to them, have an obligation to cross-check and verify them. But they need definitive and measurable standards to do that don't they?

Until people get over the tendency to believe what they see and hear without cross-checking it, even casually, there will be casualties from fraud, mortal and financial.

Afroasiatic and Proto-Indo-European languages

I am confident that ideas are transmitted through language and that ideas follow language. So it follows that as a language spreads across a population, then so will the ideas that are represented by that language. Semitic is of the afroasiatic family of languages, yet Hittite is of the Indo-Eurpopean family, yet it seems that Judaism was developed in Asia Minor/Anatollia/Modern Turkey or "Hittite Land". When did Persia and Greece (which share a common language family) dominate the Levant where Israel and Judah are located? When do we start seeing ideas that are typically contained in the indo-eurpoean language start creeping into Judaism? When did Egypt start to lose its dominance? To be continued...