Does Modern Science Owe Its Existence to Religion?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I did. I was an atheist by the time I was 15 yet I never even picked up a book on it until I was 31. Hell, I didn't even know who Richard Dawkins was until South Park did an episode on him.

As far as original research, one only needs to look at human nature and see the need for control over its environment. This means explaining the cosmos any way possible, regardless of its basis in reality. This doesn't explain lack of a deistic type god, a concept which I claim agnosticism towards, but to me, it is good enough to dismiss any specific god humans have claimed to exist.

My point is that one need not study the cosmos to become an atheist. One only needs to understand how finite the human mind is and how strong the urge to explain the unknown with anything to maintain some sort of illusion of control over it. Any concept of god that lays claim to his/her/its attributes is flawed from the ground up.

---

Well I believe you, but I believe you because you don't act like the other atheists on here. So it makes sense that you didn't get your atheism from the “New Atheism”, or else I don't think you'd act the way you do now.

However, I feel that human nature is strong evidence to support scripture. Jesus described the human condition perfectly. If he had said that humans were naturally good creatures who just wanted to get along and do things for others I may be a bit skeptical.

---

---

I read every post from the beginning of this thread, just to be sure.

You dropped a grand total of seven(7) names (add more to the list if I missed one). This is what constitutes a majority to you? It would appear that the more appropriate way for you to have phrased your statement, would be

"The majority of sources I consulted"

Now you'll have to explain why those few sources were compelling enough that you described them as the "majority opinion". Because we obviously aren't talking a majority of numbers. Actually, if you tallied up every word in your post, I would be willing to bet that there are still more scientists in the world than there are words in your post. If every word in your post was a source from a credible scientist, I do not believe that you would be able to call that group a majority. You've already been questioned with regards to your sources, and since you had nothing meaningful to add, I assume there is nothing meaningful about them.

---

This is absurd and you know it. When someone says, "the majority of historians believe that slavery played an important role in the American Civil War" do you ask them, "Please provide me with a quote saying this exact thing from a majority of the historians alive today?” Of course not! You would take quotes from notable historians with different areas of expertise and use these as evidence. Perhaps you could even take some quotes from important players in the Civil War who spoke of slavery and the role it played. This is exactly what I have done here; I certainly wouldn't provide a chart showing how slavery played a vital role in the Civil War lol.

Do you believe the majority of scientists today believe in Natural Selection? Uh oh! Be careful :-P