But it has nothing to do with being scientists. There are theologians who have anti-God agendas, for cryin' out loud, as well as writers, politicians, teachers, homemakers, lawyers, business leaders--you name it.
Well, that's true, but it would seem a little out of place to coment on atheism in any other profession in a thread on Evolution. And I'm not sure if someone with an "anti-God agenda" could rightly be called a theologian (not in the strictest sense, anyway).
So why do you associate anti-God agendas with scientists in some special way?
That's not what I'm TRYING to do... forgive me if that's how it's come across. I'm just saying that some scientists allow their metaphysical beliefs to bias their scientific views. And NOT JUST ATHEISTS. There are probably more Christians guilty of this. But we can't put all the blame on Christians.
It's a common problem because people like Dawkins, Gould, Sagan, Atkins, Provine, Blackmore and some others managed to gain very significant public exposure for their unscientific assertions that science will inexorably drive the 'superstitions' of religion away.
Yes, I was thinking of a couple of those guys, but I don't want to stereotype.
To associate anti-God agendas with scientists in general is as unjustified as the assertions from the small number of aggressively atheist scientists.
Right, and I'm not trying to do that. I highly doubt that the majority of scientists hold anti-God agendas, or are even atheists. My point is not that scientists hold hidden anti-God agendas; there are a few who do, no doubt, but my point is that
our metaphysical beliefs shouldn't affect our scientific beliefs. The problems arise when they do; many Christians are guilty of this, and I should think a fair few atheists are too. That's all I'm trying to say.
I mean, ID has a great deal many problems, but the reaction from the scientific community (at least, the part of it that gets the most publicity) has been hardly commendable; rather than provide us with intelligent critiques, they make gross generalizations are, claiming that IDers are trying to push "religion" on us, and generally mock ID. I don't think this is the way to respond; it just doesn't get us anywhere. And to be sure, not all scientists, probably even most, aren't guilty of this. But those that are get a great deal of publicity, and most of them do seem to be coming from an atheistic perspective, as they choose to target and mock the idea that God can co-exist with science.
ONCE AGAIN, most scientists are probably not guilty of this; I definitely don't want to stereotype. Many scientists opposed to ID are theists, I know, possibly the majority. But those few who are guilty are deserving of reproof; it doesn't do to overlook this simply because the Christians at fault outnumber the atheists at fault. There's plenty of blame to go around.
Edited by Plankton, 26 September 2006 - 07:22 PM.