Does atheism need better PR?

[harvey1]

There's an interesting study that came out a little over two months ago that suggested that atheists are basically villified in the US. My question is what do atheists need to do to improve their public image, and are atheists willing to change in order to have more in common with the religious folks? Here's the contents of the article:

American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology. From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry. Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher. Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism. Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.” The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts. The study is co-authored by assistant professor Joseph Gerteis and associate professor Doug Hartmann. It’s the first in a series of national studies conducted the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project funded by the Minneapolis-based David Edelstein Family Foundation that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the contemporary United States. The study will appear in the April issue of the American Sociological Review.

[Rob]

Don’t you feel that before we do anything as ambitious as “persuing an understanding of God” it might be wise to establish that God actually exists first?

Indeed Dion, we should first establish the reality of God. Where I see we differ is that you seem to think the only means of finding God are via material science, and therefore you sarcastically or naively (which I don't know) ask for a God-O-meter, and in this narrow materialistic world-view fail to understand the nature of your own mind, or how science is ultimately an experience in the mind of the scientist who discovers the facts of science. The irony of the mechanistic materialists use of their own mind to claim (or whine perhaps) that they don't have a God-O-meter, is that they are oblivious to the very supramaterial mind with which they must use to make such a claim, and with which they are able to recognize facts, evaluate meanings, and recognize spiritual values such as courage, loyalty, integrity, humility, love, and compassion. It is in the domain of mind that all forms of knowledge are discovered, from science to philosophy to personal religious experience.

This claim that we don't have a God-O-meter (conscious mind) reminds me of a child standing on a street corner crying for its mother all the while she is standing right behind him. So the blind materialist whines they have no God-O-meter with the very non-material mind that is a gift of the very God they so vigorously seek to ignore or deny. Truly, "wisdom is justified by her children."

Nobel laureate Sir Peter Medawar said, "Catastrophe apart, I believe it to be science's greatest glory that there is no limit upon the power of science to answer questions of the kind science can answer."

-- Medawar, Peter. The Limits of Science. New York: HarperCollins; 1984: 87.

With can being the operative word. Dion, if God is a transcendent spiritual being that is the source of all energy-matter, mind, and spirit, and is the cause of creative evolution on physical, mindal, and spiritual levels of reality, it stands to reason that science, as conceived by the finite human mind, is limited in its scope to discover the source of mind itself, let alone prove the existence of God.

But if the divine spirit of God lives within the very finite mind that seeks to find God, then this still small voice within would be a far more real and approachable than any philosophic concept or scientific fact. Such possible spiritual communion would be personally experienced, and it is just such a personal experience of the presence of God that religionists of all the religions of the world have claimed to experience.

So, as I said, if you are a mechanistic materialist, as you evidently are, it is only natural that such a narrow view of the world as a material nail will always reach for a hammer.

But I did, quite specifically, take into account of the limitations of science - we do not currently have a God-O-Meter, or any equivalent. See my comment about Napoleon Bonaparte above for my views on placing too much confidence in other types of reality.

The inconsistency of your words above Dion is that you discount the very mind that recognizes, evaluates, discriminates meanings and values in choosing to view material reality as the only valid form of reality. You place supreme confidence in your materialist view of reality, yet many of todays leading scientists are compelled to admit the fact of mind and consciusness as an aspect of reality.

The only type of reality that we know Dion is our own conscious minds. It is though this conscious experience that we explore material reality, that we know and are known by others, and it is by this same conscious mind that we can discover God. But if you have misplaced reality "out there" in the false philosophy of materialism, than as I said, you will always reach for the hammer in every situation, irregardless of whether or not it is the appropriate tool.

I think therefore I am … and you seem to think that I am too. If not, suggest you seek professional help for your talking to non-existent people problem.

So ad hominem is your version of an intelligent argument.

Personally, I find that kind of ‘Philosophy 101’ sophistry meaningless and absurd.

True to a mechanistic materialist world view; it certainly doesn't have much use for critical thinking, does it. Hence their clarion call:

I know I am a machine; don't confuse my mind with the facts!

I’m willing to examine any meaningful evidence.

Really Dion? You claim the only valid reality is material. You discount (even scorn and ridicule) the valid philosophical insight recognized by the best scientific minds that mind is a level of reality that does not reduce to material reality. It is part of the fundamental aspect of even knowing via science (i.e., quantum mechanics), and you claim you are open to meaningful "evidence?" Your own words are inconsistent and illogical. Niether is such a view supported by twenty-first century science, let alone philosophy (which of course you have no taste for).

I think the fact that the greatest minds in science have reached the conclusion that science cannot be done without philosophy, and visa versa, and your statements above regarding philosophy, is rather revealing regarding the nature and depth of those who cling to such mechanistic materialism as the only valid reality.

It seems when it is shown that science does not really support such a philosopy (world view), hostility and ad hominem seems to be your response.

I’m even willing to speculate. I’m just not willing to have blind faith in the existence of a God that we have no more reason to believe in than we have to believe in all the other things which might possibly exist but for which we have no evidence.

Linde and other world class scientists have reached the conclusion that mind is not reducible to matter; that it is an aspect of reality which cannot be ignored. You seem to be claiming that that the mere act of recognizing the reality of your own mind requires "blind faith," but in reality, it requires truly "blind faith" to argue mind is not a reality in the univese, which is exactly what mechanistic materialism does. Ironic isn't it?

Mechanistic materialism does not explain conscious mind in the uinverse; it is bankrupt when it repeatedly attempts to explain a higher level of reality by cashing in lower levels of reality as an explanation for mind and consciousness. The mind of the mechanistic materialist is the best proof of the illogical nature of the mechanistic arguments they put forth!

There motto ought to be: "I think! But its only 'apparent.'"

Truly, it is ironic. A conscious materialist uses his mind to discover facts, discriminate meanings, chooses values, and then concludes that the intelligence and mind he observes in the universe is only an epiphenomena of matter. Perhaps they are right in such a case; intelligence and mind is only "apparent" in such evaluations, and is really only an illusion. Or perhaps the mechanistic materialists are right; they are only "apparently" conscious.

A conscious scientist performs an experiment and measures some quantity through the use of the mind-conceived language of mathematics, and thus is able to share this information with another conscious scientist and create a shared experience in that they can both perform the same experiment and more or less attain the same results, thereby creating a scientific uniformity accessible by the whole scientific community of conscious scientists. Yet, in the field of physics when these same conscious scientists via mind pursue the reality of matter to its ultimate analysis, matter vanishes to the material senses but still remains real to mind, for our conceptualizations of particle physics is no more than mathematical representations used to explain indirect observations of realities which we are unable to directly observe with our material senses. And they then learn that even the scientists conscious mind's choice in measurement is inextricably bound up with the outcome in that the choice to measure position excludes knowing the velocity and visa versa. Yet, mechanistic materialists still insist, in spite of the evidence from the queen of science, physics, that matter is the only reality. This seems as about as consistent as creationists rejecting 200 years of scientific discoveries in their insistence the earth is 4,000 years old or organic evolution never happened.

Kurt Gödel in 1931 showed that mathematical systems are not fully self-contained. In a self-consistent logical system (free of internal contradictions), statements can be formulated whose truth is undecidable. When the system is enlarged with additional axioms, the previous statements of uncertain truth can be proved to be true. But the enlarged system contains new undecidable statements that can only be proved to be true by making the system still larger. One conclusion is that the mathematician is inseparable from mathematics, just as the cosmologist is inseparable from cosmology.

-- Harrison, Edward. Cosmology: The Science of the Univese. Second ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000; p. 165.

I suppose you don't have much use for 101 Cosmology either Dion, since it requires 101 philosophy too, and we know how much you disdain that.

The best evidence and proof that the atheistic mechanistic materialists mind being at enmity with God, is that evidence above of Dion's scorn for the philosophical truths recognized by some of the greatest scientific minds of the twenty-first century in his words "I find that kind of ‘Philosophy 101’ sophistry meaningless and absurd." What kind of philosophy Dion, the kind tha acknowledges the conclusion and truth-insight that the conscious mind of "the mathematician is inseparable from mathematics, just as the cosmologist is inseparable from cosmology?"

If "God is Truth," and the act of recognizing truth in all its forms (scientific fact, philosophical meaning, and spiritual value) is an aspect of mind which recognizes "reality," how can a mind that is hostile to the simple philosophical truth that follows as a conclusion of Gödel's proof not be at enmity with God?

[Dion]

I hardly know what to say to a statement like that. We obviously live in parallel universes. Unfortunately, in my universe things don't exist merely because I want them to.

Are you saying that in your universe you are an automaton? I don't think that's really the case. I hereby declar you free to believe whatever it is you want to believe. Go now, and live life without feeling like an automaton.

I may be an automaton, I don’t really know. I’m not even completely sure what you mean by that term. But I’ll bear your very kind declaration in mind. Very good of you, especially since I didn’t even know I was enthralled.

God could make His presence known easily and unequivocally if He wanted - it's not my fault He's such a tease!

Of course God does make the divine presence known easily and unequivocally. It's just that people choose to not see God. That choice is such that people can continue on in that choice without having to become delusional in order to maintain it. For example, if the choice to not believe in God were as difficult as believing that I walk on walls, then I would have to be delusional to maintain that belief. So, the only possible to make a spiritual life a matter of choice, the evidence of God's interaction must itself be such that someone could refuse to believe it without becoming out and out delusional. That choice exists for humans, and obviously atheists elect to live by that choice. However, the scientific accessible evidence for God is steadily increasing, and like the frog in the boiling pot of water, the atheist is having to deny more and more evidence in order to remain an evidence.

So, let me see if I’ve got this straight. God makes His presence known easily and unequivocally. But because that would make believing in Him too easy, He simultaneously doesn’t make His presence known easily and unequivocally. Oh, well, no problem for an omnipotent God I suppose!

The evidence is steadily increasing all right, but not, I think in the direction you suggest. God is steadily shrinking to fit the gaps.

The same conceptual scheme also rules out the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and (you'll be delighted to hear) the IPU. Any scheme that rules out these things must obviously be deeply flawed, mustn't it!

And, it ruled out the big bang until it would have been delusional not to accept it. So, in order to survive, the conceptual scheme just modified itself (frog in the boiling pot) in order to maintain the basic conceptual scheme.

When the evidence reaches the same sort of level as for the Big Bang I will look again at the likelihood of the existence of the Tooth Fairy/Santa Claus/ the IPU/God, or anything else of the infinity of things that may possibly exist but for which we have no evidence, as appropriate. But I don’t expect that to happen any sooner for God than for the other things..

In the case of faith, I wasn't referring to the religious faith of Fred Hoyle but rather the certainty that comes from having a conceptual scheme that one thinks is suitable to account for the events happening around them, or had happened in the past.

The sort of certainty that comes with, indeed is demanded by, religious faith? A faith based on infallible authority, as opposed to a scientific ‘faith’ based on evidence.

As for the views of Fred Hoyle: Well, Fred Hoyle knew a lot about the things he knew a lot about, but not so much about the things that he didn't know a lot about. Perhaps, indeed, he knew no more than anyone else about those things. So I'm not really sure why I should credit his views with any special significance. After all, his grasp of evolution by natural selection seemed a little suspect.

But, cosmology was his area of expertise.

And when he spoke about cosmology I would have sat at his feet. But on other subjects ….

[Dion]

Don’t you feel that before we do anything as ambitious as “persuing an understanding of God” it might be wise to establish that God actually exists first?

Indeed Dion, we should first establish the reality of God. Were I see we differ is that you seem to think the only means of finding God are via material science, and therefore you sarcastically or naively (which I don't know) ask for a God-o-meter, and in this narrow materialistic world-view fail to understand the nature of your own mind, or how science is ultimately an experience in the mind of the scientist who discovers the facts of science.

There are many things that I fail to understand, not the least of which is my own mind. But now I find that I grow a little weary of your trying to prove that it is absolutely true that we cannot discern absolute truth - without apparently seeing the irony. I understand the point and consider it trivial.

Nobel laureate Sir Peter Medawar said, "Catastrophe apart, I believe it to be science's greatest glory that there is no limit upon the power of science to answer questions of the kind science can answer."

-- Medawar, Peter. The Limits of Science. New York: HarperCollins; 1984: 87.

With can being the operative word. Dion, if God is a transcendent spiritual being that is the source of all energy-matter, mind, and spirit, and is the cause of creative evolution on physical, mindal, and spiritual levels of reality, it stands to reason that science, as conceived by the finite human mind, is limited in its scope to discover the source of mind itself, let alone prove the existence of God.

With “if” being the operative word.

But if the divine spirit of God lives within the very finite mind that seeks to find God, then this still small voice within would be a far more real and approachable than any philosophic concept or scientific fact. Such possible spiritual communion would be personally experienced, and it is just such a personal experience of the presence of God that religionists of all the religions of the world have claimed to experience.

So, as I said, if you are a mechanistic materialist, as you evidently are, it is only natural that such a narrow view of the world as a material nail will always reach for a hammer.

With “if” being the operative word.

I suggest once again that you concentrate on establishing that God actually exists before wasting any more time trying to work out what it all might mean.

But I did, quite specifically, take into account of the limitations of science - we do not currently have a God-O-Meter, or any equivalent. See my comment about Napoleon Bonaparte above for my views on placing too much confidence in other types of reality.

The inconsistency of your words above Dion is that you discount the very mind that recognizes, evaluates, discriminates meanings and values in choosing to view material reality as the only valid form of reality. You place supreme confidence in your materialist view of reality, yet many of todays leading scientists are compelled to admit the fact of mind and consciusness as an aspect of reality.

The only type of reality that we know Dion is our own conscious minds. It is though this conscious experience that we explore material reality, that we know and are known by others, and it is by this same conscious mind that we can discover God. But if you have misplaced reality "out there" in the false philosophy of materialism, than as I said, you will always reach for the hammer in every situation, irregardless of whether or not it is the appropriate tool.

I don’t discount anything, least of all my own mind. It seems, however, that you, somewhat contemptuously, do.

I think therefore I am … and you seem to think that I am too. If not, suggest you seek professional help for your talking to non-existent people problem.

So ad hominem is your version of an intelligent argument.

Note the smiley. I was trying to make a serious point with a little humour. You may have heard the whooshing noise as both went clean over your head.

Personally, I find that kind of ‘Philosophy 101’ sophistry meaningless and absurd.

True to a mechanistic materialist world view; it certainly doesn't have much use for critical thinking, does it. I know I am a machine; don't confuse me with the facts!

Facts? What facts? You’ve spent so much time trying to convince me that we cannot know absolute truth and we therefore cannot know what is or isn‘t a fact, now you tell me that you know some facts. Well I’m certainly confused now. Which is it?


The rest of your tirade contains a great deal of assertion and a lot of argument from authority but not much in the way of argument other than that. Since I have only limited time to spend I don’t intend to answer it in detail.

But since I notice that you are fond of including many and lengthy quotations in your posts, here’s one for you:-

“And never thought of thinking for himself at all.”

Gilbert & Sullivan, HMS Pinafore, When I was a lad … .

[Rob]

I grow a little weary of your trying to prove that it is absolutely true that we cannot discern absolute truth - without apparently seeing the irony. I understand the point and consider it trivial.

That is not the point I was making, which apparently you missed entirely. Indeed, that would be a trivial point. But it is not trivial to prove that consciousness is non-material and non-algorithmical, but is a creative reality in the universe, which is exactly what the best scientific minds of the twenty-first century are saying. But then, that point apparently eludes you.

Natural selection of algorithms?

If we suppose that the action of the human brain, conscious or otherwise, is merely the acting out of some very complicated algorithm, then we must ask how such an extraordinary effective algorithm actually came about. The standard answer, of course, would be 'natural selection'. as creatures with brains evolved, those with more effective algorithms would have a better tendency to survive and therefore, on the whole, had more progeny. These progeny also tended to carry more effective algorithms than their cousins, since they inherited teh ingredients of these better algorithms from their parents; so gradually the algorithms improved -- not necessarily steadily, since there could have been considerable fits and starts in their evolution -- until they reached teh remarkable status that we (would apparently) find in the human brain. (Compare Dawkins 1986). (Penrose 1990: 414)

Even according to my own viewpoint, there would have to be some truth in this picture, since I envisage that much of hte brain's action is indeed algorithmic, and -- as the reader will have inferred from the above discussion -- I am a strong believer in the power of natural selection. But I do not see how natural selection, in itself, can evolve algorithms which could have the kind of conscious judgements of the validity of other algorithms that we seem to have. (Penrose 1990: 414)

Imagine an ordinary computer program. How would it have come into being? Clearly not (directly) by natural selection! Some human computer programmer would have conceived of it and would have ascertained that it correctly carries out the actions that it is supposed to. (Actually, most complicated computer programs contain errors -- usually minor, but often subtle ones that do not come to light except under unusual circumstances. The presence of such errors does not substantially affect my argument.) Sometimes a computer program might itself have been 'written' by another, say a 'master' computer program, but then the master program itself would have been the product of human ingenuity and insight; or the program itself might well be pieced together from ingredients some of which were the products of other computer programs. But in all cases the validity and the very conception of the program would have ultimately been the responsibility of (at least) one human consciousness. (Penrose 1990: 414)

One can imagine, of course, that this need not have been the case, and that, given enough time, the computer programs might somehow have evolved spontaneously by some process of natural selection. If one believes that the actions of the computer programmers' consciousness are themselves simply algorithms, then one must, in effect, believe algorithms have evolved in just this way. However, what worries me about this is that the decision as to the validity of an algorithm is not itself an algorithmic process! ... (The question of whether or not a Turing machine will actually stop is not something that can be decided algorithmically.) In order to decide whether or not an algorithm will actually work, one needs insights, not just another algorithm. (Penrose 414-415)

Nevertheless, one still might imagine some kind of natural selection process being effective for producing approximately valid algorithms. Personally, I find this very difficult to believe, however. Any selection process of this kind could act only on the output of the algorithms and not directly on the ideas underlying the actions of the algorithms. This is not simply extremely inefficient; I believe that it would be totally unworkable. In the first place, it is not easy to ascertain what an algorithm actually is, simply by examing its output. (It would be an easy matter to construct two quite different simple Turing machine actions for which the output tapes did not differ unti, say, the 2^65536th place -- and this difference could never be spotted in the entire history of the universe!) Moreover, the slightest 'mutation' of an algorithm (say a slight change in a Turing machine specification, or in its input tape) would tend to render it totally useless, and it is hard to see how actual improvements in algorithms could ever arise in this random way. (Even deliberate improvements are difficult without 'meanings' being available. This inadequately documented and complicated computer program needs to be altered or corrected; and the original programmer has departed or perhaps died. Rather than try to disentagle all the various meanings and intentions that the program implicitly depended upon, it is probably easier just to scrap it and start all over again!) (Penrose 1990: 415)

Perhaps some much more 'robust' way of specifying algorithms could be devised, which would not be subject to the above criticisms. In a way, this is what I am saying myself. The 'robust' specifications are the ideas that underlie the algorithms. But ideas are things that, as far as we know, need conscious minds for their manifestation. We are back with the problem of what consciousness actually is, and what it can actually do that unconscious objects are incapable of -- and how on earth natural selection has been clever enough to evolve that most remarkable of qualities. (Penrose 1990: 415)

(....) To my way of thinking, there is still something mysterious about evolution, with its apparent 'groping' towards some future purpose. Things at least seem to organize themselves somewhat better than they 'ought' to, just on the basis of blind-chance evolution and natural selection.... There seems to be something about the way that the laws of physics work, which allows natural selection to be much more effective process than it would be with just arbitrary laws. The resulting apparently 'intelligent groping' is an interesting issue. (Penrose 1990: 416)

The non-algorithmic nature of mathematical insight

... [A] good part of the reason for believing that consciousness is able to influence truth-judgements in a non-algorithmic way stems from consideration of Godel's theorem. If we can see that the role of consciousness is non-algorithmic when forming mathematical judgements, where calculation and rigorous proof constitute such an important factor, then surely we may be persuaded that such a non-algorithmic ingredient could be crucial also for the role of consciousness in more general (non-mathematical) circumstances. (Penrose 1990: 416)

... Godel's theorem and its relation to computability ... [has] shown that whatever (sufficiently extensive) algorithm a mathematician might use to establish mathematical truth -- or, what amounts to the same thing, whatever formal system he might adopt as providing his criterion of truth -- there will always be mathematical propositions, such as the explicit Godel proposition P(K) of the system ..., that his algorithm cannot provide an answer for. If the workings of the mathematician's mind are entirely algorithmic, then the algorithm (or formal system) that he actually uses to form his judgements is not capable of dealing with the proposition P(K) constructed from his personal algorithm. Nevertheless, we can (in principle) see that P(K) is actually true! This would seem to provide him with a contradiction, since he ought to be able to see that also. Perhaps this indicates that the mathematician was not using an algorithm at all! (Penrose 1990: 416-417)

(....) The message should be clear. Mathematical truth is not something that we ascertain merely by use of an algorithm. I believe, also, that our consciousness is a crucial ingredient in our comprehension of mathematical truth. We must 'see' the truth of a mathematical argument to be convinced of its validity. This 'seeing' is the very essence of consciousness. It must be present whenever we directly perceive mathematical truth. When we conceive ourselves of the validity of Godel's theorem we not only 'see' it, but by so doing we reveal the very non-algorithmic nature of the 'seeing' process itself. (Penrose 1990: 418)

-- Penrose, Roger (1990) The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 414.

Penrose's point is the same as Harrison's, and seems simple to grasp. Why then, does the point of their argument elude you Dion? I suppose you will claim they are trying to "prove that it is absolutely true that we cannot discern absolute truth," which of course has nothing to do with their real point, nor mine, at all.

Is it so hard to grasp that conscious mind is the arena in which we human personalities live, are self-conscious, make decisions, and choose truth, beauty, and goodness, or reject such values? Mortal mind is about all that we really have in this material reality that is subject to our will. And if this very conscious mind is supra-material and non-algorithmic (i.e, not a machine), which there is logical and reasonable evidence leading one to believe, why are you so hostile to such a notion or possibility?

With “if” being the operative word.

Yes, I agree, there is room for honest doubts. But that is different than active and hostile resistence to acknowledging even the truth being made plain by great scientific minds, like Penrose above. From what I can see, your hostile reaction falls into the later category.

I don’t discount anything, least of all my own mind.

I suppose that is a start. All I am saying Dion, is that conscious mind as a reality in the universe which is non-material and non-algorithmic (i.e., not a machine algorithm) does have philosophical implications that ought to cause us to at least pause before discount the possibility of conscious mind as having an origin in a higher level of reality which for lack of a better term and to avoid the use of the word "God," perhaps might be called Cosmic Mind. If conscious mind does not have its origin in matter, then whence its origin?

If one cannot entertain even this hypothesis, certainly if one is honest they can see that based upon scieince alone the best that can be logically concluded given Godel's theorem is that science can only remain agnostic regarding the question of the origin of conscious mind.

Facts? What facts?

Godel's Theorem is one fact. Linde, Woese, et al. are others. But you seem to ignore the implications of these scientists statements.

[QED]

Imagine an ordinary computer program. How would it have come into being? Clearly not (directly) by natural selection

Rob, this is not beyond question and I happen to disagree with quite a lot of the material you quoted to Dion. This isn't the place for that debate, however I don't think it's fair to hold this up as a 'given' on which your argument can be based.

[harvey1]

So, let me see if I’ve got this straight. God makes His presence known easily and unequivocally. But because that would make believing in Him too easy, He simultaneously doesn’t make His presence known easily and unequivocally.

Let me give you an example. I think it is really the case in the world that there are electrons. I think the evidence is easily and unequivocal that electrons exist. However, there are some who do not believe that electrons actually exist because they deny scientific realism with respect to theoretical objects. It's not that they are denying the scientific evidence for electrons, rather they are denying that scientific process yields actual truth about the world. The world is such that one can do that. There's a choice on how one wishes to interpret the evidence, and although that interpretation leads to a great deal of particle physics being meaningless outside of its pragmatic benefits, those anti-realists can take that option without being delusional. Does all of that mean that electrons can't be easily and unequivocally shown to exist? No. I think they are. It's just that their philosophy prevents them from seeing this obvious fact of matter.

The evidence is steadily increasing all right, but not, I think in the direction you suggest. God is steadily shrinking to fit the gaps.

Huh? The big bang alone should have put atheism on the shelf, but the human mind is very persistent in its desire to resist God.

When the evidence reaches the same sort of level as for the Big Bang I will look again at the likelihood of the existence of the Tooth Fairy/Santa Claus/ the IPU/God, or anything else of the infinity of things that may possibly exist but for which we have no evidence, as appropriate. But I don’t expect that to happen any sooner for God than for the other things..

You know I understand that Fred Hoyle never did accept the big bang. His resistance to the idea of God perhaps was the reason. When we have evidence of a beginning, and of the very unique values of the physical constants, and numerous other facts, you would think that the atheist would at least be agnostic about God's existence. But, not only is that not the case, they act as if the evidence is only for God's non-existence! What can account for this? I say it is the conceptual scheme is such that they will not entertain a certain belief because it would destroy that conceptual scheme.

In the case of faith, I wasn't referring to the religious faith of Fred Hoyle but rather the certainty that comes from having a conceptual scheme that one thinks is suitable to account for the events happening around them, or had happened in the past.

The sort of certainty that comes with, indeed is demanded by, religious faith? A faith based on infallible authority, as opposed to a scientific ‘faith’ based on evidence.

Science is not philosophy, Dion. Philosophy has a whole branch dedicated to the way the Universe actually is (i.e., the philosophy of metaphysics). Science is not metaphysics. Science is an epistemology. It tells us what kinds of models that we ought to use to obtain some epistemic goal (e.g., prediction), but it doesn't provide us with the tools to tell us if reality is like those models, or if there is one particular interpretation of those models which is identical to reality. So, scientific certainty does not produce the correct metaphysical understanding of the world, and therefore certainty of a metaphysical understanding comes from philosophy--not science. Any certainty that you perceive about the way the world is, is ultimately based on your philosophical reasoning. Therefore, your certainty is based on the conceptual scheme that you hold to be true.

[Rob]

Imagine an ordinary computer program. How would it have come into being? Clearly not (directly) by natural selection.

Rob, this is not beyond question and I happen to disagree with quite a lot of the material you quoted to Dion. This isn't the place for that debate, however I don't think it's fair to hold this up as a 'given' on which your argument can be based.

Did you miss QED that Penrose put in parentheses the term "directly"? Do you think that natural selection acts "directly" to bring into existence the variation (phenotypes) it acts upon? Do you think this is what the science of biology (evolutionary theory) claims?

Have you read either of Penrose's books QED?

[Cmass]

Too bad this thread died. I think I found the answer to the OP - within the quoted article:

The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.

Yep.
And there 'taint nothin' an atheist can do on the PR front if ejumacation and exposure to other cultures are not in place first.
- C