Let's be honest

[Neo-Scholastic]

@Kingpin, IMHO every demonstration for the existence of God presupposes a philosophical framework. For example the logic of the 5 Ways are impeccable and the premises sound but it only works if you accept the assumptions of classical philosophy regarding infinite regress and honor basic distinctions between potentiality/actuality, etc. What tends to happen is the apologist defends the argument while to atheist goes meta to sidestep the argument, either to nihilism or their substitute god of the multiverse.

[Kingpin]

I find that when most people suggest that science supports the existence of God, a prime mover, etc, it's because they don't know what they're talking about, often from having been misled by theologists like William Lane Craig who is well-known for serially misrepresenting both science and mathematics.  When you listen to motivated reasoners like Craig, you get what you deserve, which is a worldview that rests on bullshit and misinformation.

I'm not a big fan of Craig personally as I find his arguments to be a bit convoluted.  I find no qualms between being a scientist and a theist.  Some very well respected scientists are believers and a great deal of the founders of modern science (Newton, Kepler, Capernicus, Maxwell etc) were as well, but of course the argument there was how little they knew compared to what we know today (which I don't personally agree with).  Newton's Principia Mathematica was written "in hopes that one may believe".  Take Peter Higgs of Scotland and William Phillips of USA.  Both won the Nobel prize for Physics, one an atheist, the other a theist.  Their science doesn't separate them, but their worldview does.

[no one]

You want honest?

You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

Thanks for coming out.

[Kingpin]

You want honest?

You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

Thanks for coming out.

Brutal honesty.  Refreshing

[Simon Moon]

I find that when most people suggest that science supports the existence of God, a prime mover, etc, it's because they don't know what they're talking about, often from having been misled by theologists like William Lane Craig who is well-known for serially misrepresenting both science and mathematics.  When you listen to motivated reasoners like Craig, you get what you deserve, which is a worldview that rests on bullshit and misinformation.

I'm not a big fan of Craig personally as I find his arguments to be a bit convoluted.  I find no qualms between being a scientist and a theist.  Some very well respected scientists are believers and a great deal of the founders of modern science (Newton, Kepler, Capernicus, Maxwell etc) were as well, but of course the argument there was how little they knew compared to what we know today (which I don't personally agree with).  Newton's Principia Mathematica was written "in hopes that one may believe".  Take Peter Higgs of Scotland and William Phillips of USA.  Both won the Nobel prize for Physics, one an atheist, the other a theist.  Their science doesn't separate them, but their worldview does.

The percentage of scientists that believe in a god has continually decreased over time.

As far as Newton, Kepler, Capernicus, Maxwell go, it's not just a matter of increased knowledge over time. It is also the culture they grew up in. In the 16th century, even publicly questioning Christianity, might have got one executed. We all know what happened to Galileo.

Also, I am not sure how much you really want to rely on Newton for credibility on the god question. He believed in Alchemy (in fact, he wrote much more on alchemy than math and science), and some other occult beliefs.

[no one]

I do what I can.

[Angrboda]

I find that when most people suggest that science supports the existence of God, a prime mover, etc, it's because they don't know what they're talking about, often from having been misled by theologists like William Lane Craig who is well-known for serially misrepresenting both science and mathematics.  When you listen to motivated reasoners like Craig, you get what you deserve, which is a worldview that rests on bullshit and misinformation.

I'm not a big fan of Craig personally as I find his arguments to be a bit convoluted.  I find no qualms between being a scientist and a theist.  Some very well respected scientists are believers and a great deal of the founders of modern science (Newton, Kepler, Capernicus, Maxwell etc) were as well, but of course the argument there was how little they knew compared to what we know today (which I don't personally agree with).  Newton's Principia Mathematica was written "in hopes that one may believe".  Take Peter Higgs of Scotland and William Phillips of USA.  Both won the Nobel prize for Physics, one an atheist, the other a theist.  Their science doesn't separate them, but their worldview does.

That some theists are scientists is not at all the same proposition as theism being scientific. Do I mistake an appeal to authority here?

[Anomalocaris]

The fact that science can be practiced proficiently like a craft that demands skill does not mean every skillful practitioner therefore grasp or embraces the fundamental reason why science works.

[Kingpin]

The fact that science can be practiced proficiently like a craft that demands skill does not mean every skillful practitioner therefore grasp or embraces the fundamental reason why science works.

This was actually what caused Einstein to lean towards Deism.  "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible"

[Kingpin]

I'm not a big fan of Craig personally as I find his arguments to be a bit convoluted.  I find no qualms between being a scientist and a theist.  Some very well respected scientists are believers and a great deal of the founders of modern science (Newton, Kepler, Capernicus, Maxwell etc) were as well, but of course the argument there was how little they knew compared to what we know today (which I don't personally agree with).  Newton's Principia Mathematica was written "in hopes that one may believe".  Take Peter Higgs of Scotland and William Phillips of USA.  Both won the Nobel prize for Physics, one an atheist, the other a theist.  Their science doesn't separate them, but their worldview does.

That some theists are scientists is not at all the same proposition as theism being scientific.  Do I mistake an appeal to authority here?

No just that science in and of itself does not lead one to a worldview one way or another.  Some are theists, others atheist, agnostic etc.  Science and theism don't compete unlike Stephen Hawking's view that one must choose between science and God.