''Yes, Scientists believe in God''.

[Purple Rabbit]

Someone like Polkinghorne who is obviously an intelligent man and a man of science, is also an anomaly in that for all his applications of logic, science etc, and all things considered He still believes in a supernatural god. Scientists like him are few and far between it would seem, so what makes them tick? Why do they still 'arrive' at this conclusion, when the majority of scientists don't? This is intriguing and obviously close to my heart. I think a few of you have read a bit too much into what I have said. I'm not saying he is the authority on all things scientific. I'm not valuing the opinions of this one man/scientist more than others, and even if I did as regards supernatural matters (for which I most likely will agree with him) so what? If you meet someone who agrees with something you deem important, then you will value that opinion more than someone who doesn't hold the same belief. If you met an ex priest who was an atheist and as acitve in debates etc as say Dawkins, you would likely be more impressed by their debates etc as you would someone who had never been religious or had a belief in the supernatural. As I've debated and considered many scientific matters here on this forum I can see why science does not seem to marry with belief in the supernatural and indeed the God of the Bible. It will be interesting to find out how Polkinghorne can 'unite' the two and still be true to both.

In my opinion the difference between Polkinghorne the particle physicist and Polinghorne the reverend is that the latter feels no obligation to substantiate his views. The former certainly had that obligation.

Polkinghorne the reverend in the interviews and lectures you can find on YouTube nowhere explains why a god should exist, that this god should be the christian god, that religion provides any answers to existential questions, why that belief has anything to do with knowledge and truth. Still this is what he claims. For instance in 'The God of Hope and the End of the World '. He insists that "the question of truth is central to reason and to science" and his quest is nothing less then to reconcile science and religion for this purpose. Sure, on many occasions he ponders on the problem of evil and he accepts the findings of science. His words are reassuring. There is no hell and in the end all will come together. But meanwhile he disposes of science as only capable in adressing the HOW question and without blinking his eyes he asserts that only religion, his religion is capable of adressing the WHY question, the question about purpose and meaning on existential questions. Has he forgotten about philosophy? Has he forgotten about history? There is an unaccounted bias in his theistic approach on the WHY question.

It seems to me that there is a question that goes before the WHY question and that is: what is the right question to ask? The WHY question as such shows a bias to a celestial meaning kind of an answer. Does a question that is geared for a source of meaning external to man show a philosphical approach even? You judge for yourself, but imo Polkinghorne the reverend, free from scientific scrutiny and philosophical dicipline fails to live up to standard hygiene of reasoning. A gap between the two Polkinghorne's that Simon Blackburn once called "supreme contempt for philosophical reasoning and historical thinking" (see).