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.
No comments:
Post a Comment