Interview with Francis Collins...

Ekancone

Dades wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again (as you keep using the label) - which is more arrogant:

Believing the entire cosmos was made for you by a God whose chosen people you belong to, and you will live on in a magical afterlife while the non-believers burn eternally for not being chosen.

Or believing we are carbon-based lifeforms on one of billions of planets, whose entire history will blink in and out of existence leaving no trace.

Class.

2Scoops

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Obsessed, eh? You seem to be fond of hyperbole.

Well, admittedly, I'm thinking more along the lines of creationists than 'regular' Christians. Too much time spent in that thread.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It is glaringly obvious that atheist are also guilty guilty of presenting their own adherents as a type of proof.
...
Your criticism is a non-objective generalisation.

Nice self-awareness there. :pac:

2Scoops

kelly1 wrote: »

His belief in God is no more special than the belief of someone who's poor and ignorant. What I like about Collins is his argument that there isn't necessarily a conflict between science and religion as you would hear from Mr. Dawkins who calls faith a virus and the root of all evil. He also brings rationality to the debate, something you don't hear very much of from creationists.

I agree. I would just draw a distinction between science and religion not being in conflict with science actually supporting religion. The two are often conflated (at least in teh creationism thread! :pac:) but are quite different.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

...It's quite understandable that someone could become an atheist when they see the kinds of things that are done in the name of religion and God. Extremism and fundamentalism only drives people away from God.

Generalisation. Blind faith and piss poor explanations for existence is why I'm an atheist.

Fanny Cradock

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

What disappoints me is the banal manner of this conversion to Christianity. If this was the case that he saw a three branched waterfall and decided Christianity is true bacause of it seems to me to be bizaare reasoning. Why did he not decide that this was a sign that the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Siva and Vishnu was true? Why not the three stages of Ra? Maybe the trinity of Osiris, Isis and Horus? Perhaps it was the Babylonian trinity of Anu, Bel and Ea who decided to freeze the waterfall.

It strikes me as a man who was desperate to believe and inevitably found a reason, albiet a very weak one, to justify to himself why he should believe.

Out of curiosity, have you read the book, DM? It's quite good but nothing earth shattering. Anyway, it wasn't as simple as him walking through a park, seeing a waterfall and then deciding there was a God. Prior to his epiphany and subsequent acceptance of Jesus he had been been wrestling with the notion for a number of years, and as unremarkable that moment in front of the waterfall may seem to anybody else, it turn out to be life altering for him.

I do find it incredibly rich that you devalue his personal experience based on your own expectations. Something tells me you would not scoff at someone who told you, 'At that moment I looked into her eyes and I knew I loved her'. A simple, perhaps trivial act can clarify your thought and feelings. I really don't know what you expect, a burning bush perhaps? I wonder if something like this would this lead you to respect his belief any more?

Fanny Cradock

2Scoops wrote: »

Well, admittedly, I'm thinking more along the lines of creationists than 'regular' Christians. Too much time spent in that thread.

Yes, I do tend to give that thread a wide berth.

2Scoops

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, I do tend to give that thread a wide berth.

I wish I had half your sense. And probably you do as well! :pac::)

kelly1

daithifleming wrote: »

Define 'faith in science' and contrast this faith with your faith in God.

Of course they're different but atheists believe there is no God and that science will eventually find and explanation for everything that we see in the universe. I don't think many scientists think there is a limit to scientific knowledge. That's faith in the human ability to understand the ultimate origin of the universe. Do particle physicists really think they'll find the ultimate nature of matter? I don't think they ever will because it depends on the energies involved and there is a practical limit to how big and powerful we can make particle accelerators. I also believe that God by His will alone keeps everything in existence.

Ekancone

kelly1 wrote: »

Of course they're different but atheists believe there is no God and that science will eventually find and explanation for everything that we see in the universe. I don't think many scientists think there is a limit to scientific knowledge. That's faith in the human ability to understand the ultimate origin of the universe. Do particle physicists really think they'll find the ultimate nature of matter? I don't think they ever will because it depends on the energies involved and there is a practical limit to how big and powerful we can make particle accelerators. I also believe that God by His will alone keeps everything in existence.

I agree, science cannot possibly know everything. Whoever said this was spot on:

'Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.'

That doesn't mean there is a god though. Can you imagine a eleven dimensional universe?

I can't...

Tim_Murphy

Hi Kelly1,

He also makes the point that atheism is arrogant because it assumes that God can't exist just because He can't be detected as though the atheist had sufficent information to come to this conclusion.

Atheism doesn’t assume this, although of course some atheists themselves might.

I think it fair to say that there is a certain fear among atheists when it comes to asking the big questions such as what is the meaning of life and what happens when we die and does God exist?

Gross generalisation I’m afraid. Many of the atheists I’ve come across have given quite a bit of thought to these subjects, a lot more than many nominally religious people. Most atheists probably wouldn’t come to think of themselves as such without given these subjects some serious thought. Most non-religious people I know aren’t really interested in the subject and as such I doubt they’d call themselves atheists if asked.

Atheist don't seriously debate these matters an instead choose rather conveniently to file these questions away under religion i.e. are not worthy of further consideration.

Not true at all in my experience. I think the mistake you are making is that you seem to think as atheists as a singular group of people, who have similar opinions on all these matters, this isn’t really the case.

Scientists are prepared to spend billions and billions on space travel and particle accelerators but don't want to face questions such as could God have caused the big bang.

Probably because there isn’t really any way to come to this question scientifically (or am I wrong?). Lets not forget from a scientific stand point saying the good old ‘God did it’ line doesn’t actually add anything to the discussion.

If you really understood Christianity, you would have to be evil to reject it.

Nonsense again I’m afraid. But it’s a nice way of using some twisted logic to show yourself that anyone who is critical of Christianity or who rejects it doesn’t actually understand it. I would actually know more about Christianity than many of the supposedly religious people I know.