oh by the way, I still think the following a fair observation:

Many scientists are atheists or agnostics who want to believe that the natural
world they study is all there is, and being only human, they try to persuade themselves that science gives them grounds for that belief.

It’s an honorable belief. but it isn’t a research finding.
............................................
sort of like that other thing….

Science may be impartial
but science is done by people
and they are not

Had she said only atheists, I would have still questioned the statement to some extent, however, agnostics aren’t really fair game since they say they don’t know, that is, they don’t claim that science gives them grounds for their belief.

I certainly don’t have a statistically significant sample, but the two or three other scientists with whom I discussed the subject in depth seem to base their atheism on logic rather than science.  Occam’s Razor, Popper’s falsifiability principle, and difficulty of proving a negative apply rather than science.  However, scientific information does a pretty good job of wiping out quite a few of the miracles claimed in the bible. 

I do recognize that a moderate number of scientists, while competent in their fields, don’t have any grounding in philosophy or logic separate from the scientific method.  These people might fit her description, but it wouldn’t take a very long discussion for them to see the flaw in their thinking.

Occam

citizenschallenge - 03 January 2009 10:14 AM

faithlessgod - 22 December 2008 06:10 AM

However too many of us are forced to devote time to prevent regressions and diversions from antiquated, archaic religious believers that add more artificial and harmful problems to the mix.

This seems to overlook the visceral need for a religious experience (in whatever form).

I disagree that there is such a - presumably universal - visceral need. Regardless if you allow that this asserted need can take many forms why use the deeply problematic and equivocal notion of “god”? This is hardly likely to help yet your persistence looks a need for you to impose this on others.

citizenschallenge - 03 January 2009 10:14 AM

The search for a higher meaning (science is another expression of this).

What does a search for a “higher meaning” mean? I certainly enjoy knowledge for knowledge’s sake but recognise that others may not be so inclined. I certainly do not want to encourage or endorse futile searches which is what you seem to want.

citizenschallenge - 03 January 2009 10:14 AM

The need to explain personal metaphysical experiences.

Well let anyone allow themselves to explain their own metaphysical experiences. My concern here is only when such a need requires harming others. Again I am against this.

citizenschallenge - 03 January 2009 10:14 AM

Giving voice to the dream of: love ~ compassion ~ tolerance.

What voice is needed? We already have friendships. relationships. family, literature, art, music, dance, theatre and so on. As for tolerance this is simple encourage an aversion to intolerance but nothing you have written covers this.

citizenschallenge - 03 January 2009 10:14 AM

The thing that comes back at me time & again when reading different atheist posts and such is that -  although on a certain level I agree with most of it - I keep hearing this refrain: Thou protest-eth too much.
~~ the fact of the objection gives credence to the object ~~

Rubbish. If you make a statement others regard as controversial do not be surprised that others will query it. That is all that is going on here, after all this is the committee for inquiry forum. Your supposed fact here is a poor rhetorical ploy and casts your overall position into a bad light.

citizenschallenge - 03 January 2009 10:14 AM

Any thoughts regarding what religion does for so many ~ down on the me/myself/I level?

So this is about religion after all? I do not care what religion does for anyone. If it makes them feel good or comforted fine. However if it leads them to harm others then I will condemn that specific aspect and the specific supporters and endorsers of such beliefs and actions and I would recommend that so does everyone else.

Let me regroup

I come from a position of trying to improve my writing & arguments. 
The audience my essays are focused at are family and neighbors and all those I know who are still very much wrapped in the religion fed story of reality. 
(Resulting in a dumbed down mentality that allows unspeakable business/government mischief to continue unchallenged.)

>  I am not trying to convince any of you CFI folks that you need to bring a speck of god (or religion back into your lives).

I am saying the reality of the deep mooring of God and religion in the general populous needs to be acknowledged and worked with.

I’m thinking of the issue like the layered onion.  My goal is trying to develop & present thoughts that may help peel some layers off.

Seems to me, that prying people away from their self-interested political Lord Gods and connecting them with that deeper appreciation of our biosphere (its evolution, its magnificence, its health, our society’s incredible impact*,) would be plenty good.  The rest of the God thing would evolve from there by itself.  (you can’t get to home plate, without touching 2nd and 3rd bases!)
{* and to move from an exploitive/destructive creed, to a nurturing, husbanding creed.}    It does seem a huge impossible task - though it should still be undertaken, even by bumbling nothings.

To totally deny any God impulse, when a good deal of the “God thing” is outside the purview of science seems reaching too far. 
Even considering Dawkins’ persuasive writing.

And to say science is all there is to our human experience - is just kidding yourself in my opinion. 
And yes, various replies I’ve received do led there.

Why do I waste your time with my misguided approach?
  especially if I say I’m not trying to convince you folks of God. 
It’s the only intelligent conversation I got going.  Not too many people interesting in actually delving into this stuff ~ at least not in my little corner of gaia’s good earth

C-C, I’ve found that educating people in science doesn’t seem to do much good for their theological beliefs.  About the only times I’ve seen success is when I encouraged a theist to take a few advanced university courses in the early history of religion.  The more they learn about the various inputs from other cultures into making up the bible, the less they see it as the word of god.

Occam

Occam - 05 January 2009 12:41 AM

C-C, I’ve found that educating people in science doesn’t seem to do much good for their theological beliefs. 

About the only times I’ve seen success is when I encouraged a theist to take a few advanced university courses in the early history of religion.  The more they learn about the various inputs from other cultures into making up the bible, the less they see it as the word of god.

Occam

Excellent point - you put your finger on why I feel the question of god’s ultimate reality is beside (or maybe it’s beyond) the point.

Even more excellent point - I have found that learning about the history of religion does more to undermine religious delusions than anything else. 

What if those in the real fray of the argument, started focusing more attention on that history? 
What if people put the whole sorted human endeavor of religion making & consolidation in the harsh lime light for a change?
Instead of constantly defending “Darwin,” attack religion’s foundation with the actual history of how those holy books were formulated.

ps. I do believe it is possible to attack “organized”’ religion, yet remain true to my greater feeling toward the more foundational questions of the reality god - or what that might even be.