“A professional scientist can be a theist if they examine religion with an uncritical, unscientific approach.”

Several misconceptions here. Firstly, a theist is no more religious than an atheist; theism is simply a worldview. You also seem to be assuming that a scientist can be a theist only if he has not thoroughly or critically evaluated that worldview. So are you saying that all of the scientists throughout history who were theists of any form were foolish, and suspended their normal practice of thinking critically in the area of their worldview? If so, that’s quite a few assumptions, and, pardon me saying, but seems to me to be extremely arrogant. However, I think you can soothe that feeling by showing me your proof (it would be nice if you could show me individually, for each scientist, how they were uncritical). I think that’s a fair task for such an assumption

“So in this case, they would not be “scientific” as they grovel before supernatural forces.”

Lol, I highly doubt that many worldviews are “scientific” given that almost all of them assume something about the supernatural (even atheists). So, by your standards, everyone (except agnostics) is “unscientific”.

“There is a distinction between scientist as a profession and science as a methodology.”

Methodological naturalism is the mechanism science uses to explain observed phenomenon. Naturalism is a philosophy which seeks to explain all of life through only naturalistic means. So if you’re trying to use methodological naturalism to explain all facets of all things, or if you assume that such is possible, that’s naturalism, lol.

“Religion and faith are diametrically opposed to science.”

LOL! No they aren’t. Faith is a necessary part of life; in fact, pretty much everything you hold to be true relies on faith in some measure. Science itself is a system of tested and critically evaluated belief – it still contains faith. For instance, not 100 years ago Newton’s laws of physics were thought to explain the physical movement of all objects. His laws were not proven to work for all objects or at all speeds of movement, but that’s what was believed by most of the scientific community, and much engineering was done based on that assumption. But then Einstein came along, and showed that very small objects moving at extremely high speeds do not follow Newton’s laws. You can pick out many more examples. Faith has a long history in science, lol (for instance – evolution).

But perhaps I am mistaken; in which case, I implore you to prove to me concretely that religion/faith and science are completely contradictory.

“For this reason I have trouble believing religious “scientists”.”

It seems to me that you would have trouble taking seriously any scientist who matches your comments. You must not believe many scientists then, given that even atheist scientists have made and continue to make faith-based assumptions.

“Please clarify this in regards to evolution.”

Very well. First and foremost, a scientific theory is to be built off of observation of a phenomenon. But the original evolutionary trees, minor variants of which are still in use, were drawn not long after Darwin published The Origin of Life, when the fossil record was very sparse (entire phyla were missing), and they were drawn with extremely minimal (if any) observation of a phenomena (how do you observe something that’s supposed to take millions of years to occur?). This and the fact that for the past 120 or so years that evolution has been the dominant paradigm in science archaeologists who show or assert stasis in species (in other words, viewpoints contrary to the norm) often do not get their findings published or even acknowledged (in other words, much of the scientific community refuses to objectively evaluate any possibly contradictory evidence). Then you have the fact that the process of identifying fossils in terms of separate species and their place in the evolutionary tree is highly subjective (so much so that quite a few times archaeologists have second-guessed each other on where various fossils are supposed to go; this subjectivity alone casts serious doubt on the empirical nature of the observations that have furthered the theory), or have accepted a fossil as legitimate before meticulously examining it, only to find out later that it was fake. The theory was not built on the evidence – the evidence was modified to fit the theory.

Then you have the fact that, as Karl Popper wrote, “the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” But evolution, by all appearances, can never be falsified, because the events happened over a period of millions of years. Furthermore, the criteria for disproving evolution that Darwin laid down (such as symbiotic relationships and the great gaps in the fossil record) have already been fulfilled, but the theory was not falsified; rather, assumptions were made about the nature and history of those criteria (something akin to wishful thinking, really), and the theory was modified slightly. And finally, evolution (in particular, macroevolution) is not readiliy testable: if the changes take millions of years to produce visible alterations, then it will take millions of years to conclude a test. And yet many people in the scientific community take evolution to be fact. That’s not scientific, now is it? And finally, a theory must also be able to precisely predict some event in the future in order for it to be accurate. What events do you believe evolution can predict?

Your on.

I highly doubt that there are atheist bowlers, WWF fans, or cat lovers (well, maybe cat lovers, since cats are the devil’s familiars). How about a list of atheist porn stars instead?

Now if you like, I can go ahead and start pasting in names, but I think the point has been made that there are many theistic scientists (as well as other professions which require intellectual rigor) and the whole stupid/mental patient/gullible argument is false.

Actually, I didn’t. I started my response by calling my remarks “observations.” And to say I am trying to disqualify the entire list based on a “couple” of poor examples is absurd. I listed probably 20 different categories that apply to the list multiple times.

I didn’t count, but my impression is that after you throw out dead people, historians, economists, astronauts, school teachers, and all those who have college degrees in science but are actually car executives or some such thing, and don’t actually practice science (I mean, come on, my wife is a nurse, but they won’t renew her license if she stops being a nurse for more than a year), this list is nowhere near 1600 people. I suspect that a good half the list could be rejected out of hand. I also got the impression there is a high correlation in the list between “belief” and “age.” In other words, the higher the credential, the more likely it was obtained 30 or more years ago. Not so imporant for a practicing scientist, but very relevant to an auto executive claiming scientific credentials based soley on a college degree.

And come on, this list doesn’t purport to be a list of “Phds” and “really smart people” who are Christians; it claims to be a list of “scientists” who are Christians.

To provide a little context here, I provided the link in response to SteveR’s statement, “How can someone claim to be a scientist and still believe this stuff?”. The point in providing the link is to indicate that there are many, many credible scientists who do “believe this stuff”.

I noticed that you employed, in your response, a predictable tactic of trying to disqualify the entire list based on a couple of poor examples. I don’t know why the person who compiled this list chose to include an x-ray technician (maybe she’s noteworthy amongst x-ray technicians?) but that doesn’t negate the various Nobel prize winners, PhD.’s, and generally *really smart* people in the list.

As far as statistics, wasn’t it Mark Twain who said there are “Lies, damn lies and statistics”? What was the representative group polled, what were the actual questions asked? Etc., etc. For example, the number of atheistic scientists in the National Association of Scientists is quite high compared to the number of atheistic scientists at research universities.

For the sake of counter-balance, here is an article in the Washington Times which sites surveys indicating a much higher percentage of scientists are theistic than the figures you provided:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050814-115521-9143r.htm

And another indicating that percentages very by discipline, but concluding that “about two-thirds of scientists believe in God”:
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050811_scientists_god.html

The bottom line is that we can play dueling statistics all day long or we can just acknowledge that there are lots of really, really smart people who are Christians or other forms of theists (as well as atheists) and that trying to paint theists as intellectually deficient (as SteveR did) is a silly approach to take.

As far as your rationalization that “one insane belief doesn’t make a lunatic”, that sounds like an artificial construct to enable you to try to reconcile the fact that there are many extremely intelligent Christians.

“You’ve got to be kidding. Science and religion (especially Christianity) are mortal enemies. Evolution vs Genesis, Global Flood vs local flood, earth 6000 years old vs earth .5 billion years old, virgin births, multiple resurrections, talking snakes, talking donkeys : only a mental patient couldn’t see an incompatibility here. How can someone claim to be a scientist and still believe this stuff?”

The sheer breadth of your misunderstanding is at once captivating and frightening. Since you listed primarily Christian beliefs in contradiction with science, I’ll rebut them in that context.

** “Evolution vs. Genesis”

Where in the Bible does it state the exact mechanism God used to create life? Nowhere. There is no contradiction between evolution and the account of Creation in Genesis.

** “Global flood vs. local flood”

First and foremost, a lot depends on how you read the account of the flood (for instance: is it really a “worldwide flood” as in across the entire earth, or was it a flood that wiped out the known world?). Second, there are *scientific* disputes about this very subject, lol.

** “Earth 6000 years old vs. Earth .5 billion years old”

You know, I’ve looked, and looked, and looked again … but I still can’t manage to find where, in the Bible, it says that the Earth cannot be more than 6,000 years old. Can you help me find it? Lol.

I personally have no problem believing what scienctists suggests the age of the Earth and universe to be.

** “ virgin births, multiple resurrections, talking snakes, talking donkeys”

Science cannot prove even a naturalistic explanation to be true in all circumstances, because we cannot study all circumstances. Therefore, science relies, at least in part, on faith. Since science cannot prove a naturalistic explanation to be true in all circumstances, and since science cannot study or comment on the supernatural, there is no contradiction between the listed miracles and science. The best science could do for your purposes would be to say that the virgin birth is impossible by naturalistic means if current theories are held to be true in every possible permutation of said circumstance (notice that I said “possible”, rather than “conceivable”).

This is in response to comment #35

I knew you were being sarcastic… so was I

(I guess I’ll refrain from being sarcastic using the written word, it doesn’t always come across. Did my response not get through to any others?)

Lily’s comment in 36 was interesting.

How does being an athiest force oneself to reductionism, and why is that anti-human. I also don’t agree with your assertion that the most murderous regimes were driven by atheism, since atheism is ‘without belief in god’ It doesn’t support anything else. Besides, if the early christianity had the weapons available to them, that we have now, I only sudder to think.

I have to go now and won’t be back very soon.

I do think the term “insane” is overused, both for theists on this website, and in general in our society. Insanity suggests a long-term inablity to function in a way that doesn’t cause direct harm to oneself or to others. Still, you can say that someone sane did something insane in the same way that you can say someone intelligent did something stupid. In this sense, one stupid act doesn’t make an idiot, and one insane belief doesn’t make a lunatic.