Agnostic and Athiest Progressives and Elitists

You pointed out that the majority of scientists, all of whom our society reveres as the academic elite, are atheistic or agnostic, and I won't dispute that. I will dispute that Collins' rare position on religion should automatically make his arguments illegitimate.

I did not suggest that Collins' rare postion should automatically render his arguments illegitimate. After all, he is hardly alone in his position. However, that rarity does tend to leave the burden of proof soundly in his court, regarding any supernatural claims that he asserts as as truisms.

I, therefore, bring Collins himself into the discussion. In an interview with John Horgan from National Geographic Magazine (Feb 2007), Collins briefly addresses the lack of religious faith in the scientific community:

H: I'm an agnostic, and I was bothered when in your book you called agnosticism a "cop-out." Agnosticism doesn't mean you're lazy or don't care. It means you aren't satisfied with any answers for what after all are ultimate mysteries.

C: That was a put down that should not apply to earnest agnostics who have considered the evidence and still don't find an answer. I was reacting to the agnosticism I see in the scientific community, which has not been arrived at by a careful examination of the evidence. I went through a phase when I was a casual agnostic... [my emphasis]

Well, if we're going to play the who-said-what-in-an-article game, I will take my turn and offer the following exchange from a debate between Dr. Collins and Dr. Richard Dawkins, in response...

COLLINS: My God is not improbable to me. He has no need of a creation story for himself or to be fine-tuned by something else. God is the answer to all of those "How must it have come to be" questions.

DAWKINS: I think that's the mother and father of all cop-outs. It's an honest scientific quest to discover where this apparent improbability comes from. Now Dr. Collins says, "Well, God did it. And God needs no explanation because God is outside all this." Well, what an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain. Scientists don't do that. Scientists say, "We're working on it. We're struggling to understand."

The point being, agnosticism and atheism have become mainstream in scientific circles, and many (for example, that 72% from the National Academy of Sciences) simply reject religious faith without truly understanding it.

Is your dismissal of the consideration of these matters by the scientists in quetion based on any sort of actual, objective evidence? Or is it simply another example of the basesly conclusory assumptions that unfortunately form the basis of all theistic assertions?

I want to fully avoid any implication here that science and religion are non-miscible. It would appear from a comparison of various faiths and fields of science that the two are intertwined, rather than dichotomous. In the interest of space and time, I will omit my specific examples, though I'll probably eventually write my own blog containing them.

The question of whether or not "science and religion are non-miscible" is easily answered. The basis for all scientific inquiry is (of course) The Scientific Method. The basic model of The Method is quite simple.

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Can you provide any claim of Dr. Collins, regarding his religious beliefs (and specifically his belief in supernatural agencies and forces), that even remotely satisfy this model of The Method? Can you provide ANY claim regarding the existence of "God" or ANY OTHER similarly religious concept regarding supernatural beings or agencies that would satisfy an application of The Method? If the answer is "no," then in fact "science and religion are non-miscible." And here's a hint...Step 4 is the one that's going to stump you.

Further, it seems as if our society accepts everything that academia presents to us without question.

That's rather obviously not true. It it were, then there wouldn't be such a huge disparity betweeh the "90% of the general population [that] has a distinct belief in a personal god," and the "10 % of those who are considered 'eminent' scientists" who utterly reject such superstitions.

Scientists attempt to use their understanding of the world and how it works to bolster their credibility, despite the fact that there are few truly known, truly proven laws (as compared to mere theorems) of nature. Scientific knowledge and beliefs change constantly, even ideas that were previously accepted as true (like old ideas about plate tectonics, evolution, etc.)

Of course scientific knowledge and beliefs change...in fact, that's kind of the whole POINT of scientific inquiry. Science is constantly revising its understanding of the world around us, because that is what The Method requires of scientists. And, I think you mean "theory," not "theorem." In any case, you are attempting the predictable canard of intentionally confusing the common use of the term (as in, "its just a theory") with the scientific use of the term (as in, "Einstein Theory of General Relativity").

"In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity." (LINK)

In other words, scientists do not posses absolute knowledge and total infallibility. To believe so appears arrogant and severely short-sighted. Besides, many scientists demonstrate the same type of "blind faith" in unprovable theorems as the religious do in their God.

Indeed...to believe so DOES appear arrogant and severly short-sighted. However, I think you would be hard pressed to find a scientists (and certainly not an "eminent" one) that claims anything of the sort. As you pointed out yourself, "scientific knowledge and beliefs change constantly," which would not be possible if the scientists you libel were truly as unwavering in their beliefs as you suggest. On the other hand, such claims are the bread and butter of theology, which rests inescapably upon the unproved assertion that "gods" and other supernatural forces exist.

TTFN,
Blackout

-------------------------

Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.