Have some scientists been too fanatical?

IMO, the problem that some christians have with science is that it has made God superfluous. We simply don't need God to explain how reality works. Even in matters of ultimate origins with respect to our universe, "God did it" simply falls flat. Science has consistently found natural explanations for what was once described as the province of the supernatural. As Stephen Weinberg puts it in a quote I often use:

quote:

---

"One often hears that there is no conflict between science and religion. For instance, in a review of Johnson's book, Stephen Gould remarks that science and religion do not come into conflict, because `science treats factual reality, while religion treats [sic] human morality.' [Gould, S.J. "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge". Book Review of "Darwin on Trial," by Phillip E. Johnson, Regnery Gateway: Washington, D.C., 1991, Scientific American, July 1992, pp.92-95, pp.94] On most things I tend to agree with Gould, but here I think he goes too far; the meaning of religion is defined by what religious people actually believe, and the great majority of the world's religious people would be surprised to learn that religion has nothing to do with factual reality. But Gould's view is widespread today among scientists and religious liberals. This seems to me to represent an important retreat of religion from positions it once occupied. Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree. Even as late as the nineteenth century the design of plants and animals was regarded as visible evidence of a creator. There are still countless things in nature that we cannot explain, but we think we know the principles that govern the way they work. Today for real mystery one has to look to cosmology and elementary particle physics. For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete." (Weinberg, S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," Pantheon: New York NY, 1992, pp.249-250)

---

At one time in history God was an explanation for . . . well, everything. Now it isn't. Scientific explanations have consistently taken the place of supernatural explanations. Supernatural phenomenon after supernatural phenomenon has been shown to be false, all replaced by nautral explanations. Now we are told that the supernatural is, once again, just over the horizon of our current knowledge. The supernatural can be found at the origin of our universe. Why should we go with a method that has failed so miserably in the past?What I think bothers some christians is that reality ticks on as if God just doesn't exist, and science reminds them of that. No scientific theory or branch of study requires the insertion of God into any equation or mechanism. A reality without God is indistinguishable from the reality we live in. God is superfluous and irrelevant to our view of how the universe works. For those who claim that science does not comment on the supernatural, I would say you are flatly wrong, and the history of science bears this out.

Who are the fanatics? Those who use humor to make a point, or those who become violent when humor is used?Time after time I see atheists accused of being uncivil for simply disagreeing with theists. It's as if we can only be civil if we agree that God exists.Also, many scientists think that the truth is more important than feelings. If finding the truth means hurting someone's feelings then the truth wins out. You may complain that someone said something mean, but you may be missing the more important thing, that they are right. We want God taken out of government. If the only justification for a law is "because the Bible says so" then it is a bad law and it is bad morality. All laws should have a secular justification so that people of all beliefs are treated fairly.Atheists are not against people believing as they wish. We may think you are foolish and tell you so, but you are still free to believe as you want. Not when it means sacrificing the truth.

Here is what you said before:"Sometimes I feel like the general population of unbelievers have taken a "south park" stance on christianity. I mean how is it ok to portray what some people view as the almighty god as a dufus comic figure? These are sensitive topics and could carry weighty or even violent consequences if things get too out of hand."So who are the fanatics? Those who parody those they don't agree with, or those who do acts of violence against those who use parody?I just find it fascinating that you would portray atheists as fanatics given the actions of modern christians and the history of the modern church. When was the last time you had an atheist missionary knock on your door? When was the last time atheists ran an Inquisition?Yes, we ardently argue our position. Yes, we think you are wrong. Yes, we think that theists removing science from the classroom in the name of religion is hurting society. Yes, we will stand up for our principles. Does that make us fanatics?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Not so."But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question. "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ," One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him."--Glenn MortonCreationism just doesn't work.