Why Are So Many Scientists Atheists?

[RachelBibleStudent]

Show me the evidence that led you to make this statement.

read this and it should be obvious that what biologos is promoting is not evangelical christianity but textbook liberal theology instead...
http://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/sparks_scholarly_essay.pdf

here is one quotation from that essay that is obviously heretical...

"Though theologians seldom point this out, the fact that Jesus operated mainly within the horizon of his finite human horizon has other implications. If we assume for the sake of discussion that he was a carpenter like his father, did he ever miss the nail with his hammer? Hit his thumb? Did he think that he left his saw on the bench when, because he was distracted, he actually leaned it against the wall? Did Jesus ever look across a crowded town square and think that he saw his brother James only to discover that it was someone else? And did he estimate that the crowd was about 300 when it was really 200? To confess that Jesus was fully human is to admit that the answer to these questions must be yes. And if yes, then this observation surely has implications for how we think about Scripture. If Jesus as a finite human being erred from time to time, there is no reason at all to suppose that Moses, Paul, John wrote Scripture without error. Rather, we are wise to assume that the biblical authors expressed themselves as human beings writing from the perspectives of their own finite, broken horizons."

if jesus is your lord...then you follow him wherever he leads and believe whatever he says... these statements of biologos are not the words of true followers of christ who truly confess that jesus is lord...

biologos has gone far beyond simply being an organization of christians who assert that a christian can believe in evolution...they have become a heretical sect claiming that a 'christian' can reject the authority of jesus...

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Rachel, that is a personal upload from a member of Biologos named Kenton (professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University) expressing his opinion. That is not a formal statement by Biologos.

Kenton is not employed by Biologos, is not on the Board of Directors, the Board of advisors, nor even a team member. He's just a guy that signed up as a member for Biologos and wrote his opinion on his blog there.

The Biologos banner and that format is just one of the basic themes that individual members choose from. It's not official letterhead.

That would be like taking everyone's post that blogs on CC and saying that represent's CC's official position. Of course not!

I disagree with Kenton's position and so do you and so does Biologos in their statement of beliefs. Their number one statement of belief is:

"We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God."

^ That's evangelical Christianity! That's inerrancy.

Here's another member blogging the opposite view of Kenton using a different theme he chose:

The Truthfulness of Scripture: Inerrancy, Part 1 | The BioLogos Forum

The reason they allow opposing viewpoints on their forum has to do with their view that:

"We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church."

Don't extrapolate one member's wrong opinion at the whole organization just because they allow members to blog their views on their forum.

read this and it should be obvious that what biologos is promoting is not evangelical christianity but textbook liberal theology instead...
http://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/sparks_scholarly_essay.pdf

here is one quotation from that essay that is obviously heretical...

"Though theologians seldom point this out, the fact that Jesus operated mainly within the horizon of his finite human horizon has other implications. If we assume for the sake of discussion that he was a carpenter like his father, did he ever miss the nail with his hammer? Hit his thumb? Did he think that he left his saw on the bench when, because he was distracted, he actually leaned it against the wall? Did Jesus ever look across a crowded town square and think that he saw his brother James only to discover that it was someone else? And did he estimate that the crowd was about 300 when it was really 200? To confess that Jesus was fully human is to admit that the answer to these questions must be yes. And if yes, then this observation surely has implications for how we think about Scripture. If Jesus as a finite human being erred from time to time, there is no reason at all to suppose that Moses, Paul, John wrote Scripture without error. Rather, we are wise to assume that the biblical authors expressed themselves as human beings writing from the perspectives of their own finite, broken horizons."

if jesus is your lord...then you follow him wherever he leads and believe whatever he says... these statements of biologos are not the words of true followers of christ who truly confess that jesus is lord...

biologos has gone far beyond simply being an organization of christians who assert that a christian can believe in evolution...they have become a heretical sect claiming that a 'christian' can reject the authority of jesus...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Rachel, that is a personal upload from a member of Biologos named Kenton (professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University) expressing his opinion. That is not a formal statement by Biologos.

Kenton is not employed by Biologos, is not on the Board of Directors, the Board of advisors, nor even a team member. He's just a guy that signed up as a member for Biologos and wrote his opinion on his blog there.

The Biologos banner and that format is just one of the basic themes that individual members choose from. It's not official letterhead.

That would be like taking everyone's post that blogs on CC and saying that represent's CC's official position. Of course not!

I disagree with Kenton's position and so do you and so does Biologos in their statement of beliefs. Their number one statement of belief is:

"We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God."

^ That's evangelical Christianity! That's inerrancy.

Here's another member blogging the opposite view of Kenton using a different theme he chose:

The Truthfulness of Scripture: Inerrancy, Part 1 | The BioLogos Forum

The reason they allow opposing viewpoints on their forum has to do with their view that:

"We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church."

Don't extrapolate one member's wrong opinion at the whole organization just because they allow members to blog their views on their forum.

it isn't just one member...views like kenton's are commonplace within biologos...

for example peter enns wrote this while he was a -senior fellow- at biologos...

"Most Christians understand that, even though the Bible assumes a certain way of looking at the cosmos, from a scientific point of view the Bible is wrong. And that is perfectly fine."

the bible is wrong and that is perfectly fine? they may claim in their statement of belief that they regard the bible as the inspired and authoritative word of God...but obviously they have a -very different- idea of what that statement actually means...

they certainly don't believe in inerrancy in anything close to the way evangelical christians or even christian orthodoxy in general does...

to emphasize that point...here is something that was published by biologos in 2010...

"The creation story of BioLogos is compatible with many faith traditions. Muslims, Jews and Christians alike can align their faith with the BioLogos account of our origins, and there is no way to give a scientific proof for one monotheistic faith over another."

so -by their own admission- their particular 'creation story' is not distinctively christian...just vaguely monotheistic...

you showed in the 'mark of the beast is sunday laws' thread that you could tell the difference between a cult and christian orthodoxy...why isn't your discernment as sharp in the case of biologos?

 

[CoooCaw]

this idiot has an incredible amount of blind faith and cannot differentiate between fact and opinion

I thought of this thread based on this popular scientist's video:

[video=youtube;5xvILvxYbFA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvILvxYbFA[/video]

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Yes there certainly are a number of members at this TE Christian organization who have unsound postmodern views. Biologos has a sizable number of new ex-atheists as members. Despite their pedigrees, many of them post a lot of incorrect information and if I were a member there (which I'm not because I hold to creationism not theistic evolution), I would take them to task for it just like I do here.

What I wouldn't do is bash the organization because of what some members say. Speaking of which, plenty of members here do to it too but I don't see you applying your reasoning fairly against CC as an organization because of what some members say. Obviously you shouldn't be doing that with either organization.

Now Peter was let go by Biologos as his views floated away from/came into conflict with their statement of beliefs and was also suspended by Westminster Theological Seminary for the same reason.

You're not portraying a true picture Rachel. Peter came on board evangelical Christian organizations asserting he held their worldview and while with those organizations floated away from them at which point the organizations he worked for had to let him go. Got it?

And you are wrongly painting them as religious relativists. They are stating they believe theistic evolution is compatible with various religious worldviews not that those various religious views are all correct. Two completely different things.

They aren't a cult Rachel. They are an evangelical Christian organization with a wrong interpretation of Biblical creationism that attracts a lot of highly educated riff raff... lol.

The founder and boards have done a good job of weeding it out when it finds it's way into leadership or their payroll.

it isn't just one member...views like kenton's are commonplace within biologos...

for example peter enns wrote this while he was a -senior fellow- at biologos...

"Most Christians understand that, even though the Bible assumes a certain way of looking at the cosmos, from a scientific point of view the Bible is wrong. And that is perfectly fine."

the bible is wrong and that is perfectly fine? they may claim in their statement of belief that they regard the bible as the inspired and authoritative word of God...but obviously they have a -very different- idea of what that statement actually means...

they certainly don't believe in inerrancy in anything close to the way evangelical christians or even christian orthodoxy in general does...

to emphasize that point...here is something that was published by biologos in 2010...

"The creation story of BioLogos is compatible with many faith traditions. Muslims, Jews and Christians alike can align their faith with the BioLogos account of our origins, and there is no way to give a scientific proof for one monotheistic faith over another."

so -by their own admission- their particular 'creation story' is not distinctively christian...just vaguely monotheistic...

you showed in the 'mark of the beast is sunday laws' thread that you could tell the difference between a cult and Christian orthodoxy...why isn't your discernment as sharp in the case of biologos?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

True CooCaw. That video has to be a few years old because Borders went bankrupt in 2011. Click on their website, it redirects to Barnes and Noble now.

That video was chalk full of false assertions, lies, and bias. The tragedy is that idiots like that are being funded with our tax dollars to purvey that nonsense.

For instance, the number of scientists that now believe in God have rebounded from the severe purges over much of the globe in the 20th century conducted by state atheistic Marxist nations to over 33% (See 2009 Pew Research Study) with another 18% of them stating they believe in a universal spirit of some form or higher power and 7% stating they are agnostic and don't know leaving only 42% that claim to be atheists. Newer studies show belief in God has climbed a tad since 2009 in this demographic.

That totally refutes this speaker's false assertion of 6%. He's flat out lying. Then there is what he's leaving out. Atheism is the only view permitted in the domain of science in the public education system with all other domains highly biased for atheism as a result. All other views are repressed and anyone who presents a worldview outside of atheism can be subjected to persecution and job/tenure loss much faster than if they committed a real crime on the job in those tenured positions. That's not secularism. That's not science.

I have a degree in science with an A average and have studied science under some very smart Phd professors from institutions like CalTech. I know what science is but it's after midnight here and I need sleep so I'm not going there right now.

I flipped it off at the 25% mark as a result. I'm tired so forgive me if this sounds profane or something but the first 25% was about as asinine and false of a presentation as I've ever seen and I've seen a lot of them.

this idiot has an incredible amount of blind faith and cannot differentiate between fact and opinion

 

[Nautilus]

this idiot has an incredible amount of blind faith and cannot differentiate between fact and opinion

That 'idiot' has probably forgotten more things than you will ever know.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

In your dreams Nautilus. I know exactly who Neil is and studied under a better astronomer/astrophysicist than him. How could such an "intelligent" man as Neil completely omit the sweeping purges over much of the world of religious people from the domains of science into prison labor camps in my lifetime before flat out lying about the number of scientists today that believe in God since the great repopulating of religious people (especially Christians) back into the domain of science since the fall of the Soviet Union while deliberately omitting the institutional bias given to atheism and wielded against Christianity that continues in the West to this day which adversely affects the field for Christians (e.g. take a class in economic theory Nautilus and learn why).

Lick his boots and believe his lies if you like. Me, I am looking at an "emperor" with no clothes on. I'm much too intelligent for that. You aren't, but I am.

That 'idiot' has probably forgotten more things than you will ever know.

 

[zone]

The scientific community as a whole are by and large non-believers and depend on their own thinking of how and why the universe exists. Why is this so?

hi Radius
if your questioned was broadened to say academia, i would answer because: the deck is stacked against christians by design - it was only a few short years ago you had to be a radical darwinian and/or (hopefully 'and') a radical marxist to receive tenure, grants, and be published.

now that darwinism has been revealed for embarrassment it is, it's not (openly) a prerequisite.

keeping in mind though, that there are no true atheists - there is a disproportionate number of notable exceptions to "atheism in academia".

(my late husband was a nationally known professor at Canada's 'premier' university. we entertained often. the professors were all...all professing atheists. what a bore to listen to them at times)



All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

 

[zone]

[video=youtube;7KMQ_7OFtiY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KMQ_7OFtiY[/video]

Atheists Don't Have No Songs

*warning - humor*

 

[Nautilus]

In your dreams Nautilus. I know exactly who Neil is and studied under a better astronomer/astrophysicist than him. How could such an "intelligent" man as Neil completely omit the sweeping purges over much of the world of religious people from the domains of science into prison labor camps in my lifetime before flat out lying about the number of scientists today that believe in God since the great repopulating of religious people (especially Christians) back into the domain of science since the fall of the Soviet Union while deliberately omitting the institutional bias given to atheism and wielded against Christianity that continues in the West to this day which adversely affects the field for Christians (e.g. take a class in economic theory Nautilus and learn why).

Lick his boots and believe his lies if you like. Me, I am looking at an "emperor" with no clothes on. I'm much too intelligent for that. You aren't, but I am.

Yes AoK, I'm sure you are.

 

[Kerry]

To the OP. I Have never heard a metal song, That lead me into worship. It does not bring praise or glory to God. Most of it is inspired by secular socalled music. Most secular socalled music is inspired by demonic impression. No I am not a Jesus freak. I am a child of the most High God and not a freak. The rest are freaks and will prove by tattoos and promiscuousness. It invites Gays and invites those who can't tell the difference between a night club and a church.

My bible say's come out from among them and be you separate. Jesus said If I be lifted up. How can you do that while banging your head and grinding on some chick?

Just because they put Jesus in the song don't mean it was geared to worship Him.

 

[Antiks72]

Creationists don't know anything about biology, geology, or genetics either. With that said, neither do I.

 

[Ascension]

To me this is a pretty easy one to answer , a Scientist can not think beyond the boundary on science it self .
They are just like religions , cults or groups who are confined into a box .

 

[Nautilus]

To the OP. I Have never heard a metal song, That lead me into worship. It does not bring praise or glory to God. Most of it is inspired by secular socalled music. Most secular socalled music is inspired by demonic impression. No I am not a Jesus freak. I am a child of the most High God and not a freak. The rest are freaks and will prove by tattoos and promiscuousness. It invites Gays and invites those who can't tell the difference between a night club and a church.

My bible say's come out from among them and be you separate. Jesus said If I be lifted up. How can you do that while banging your head and grinding on some chick?

Just because they put Jesus in the song don't mean it was geared to worship Him.

Guess you haven't been listening to the right metal.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

What about all the Phd scientists, professors and post doctorate researchers at prestigious universities, etc... that are creationists? How do you square your false assertion with their reality?

Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge

Creationists don't know anything about biology, geology, or genetics either. With that said, neither do I.

 

[DannyC]

What about all the Phd scientists, professors and post doctorate researchers at prestigious universities, etc... that are creationists? How do you square your false assertion with their reality?

Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge

Regardless the scientific consensus rejects creationism as religion not science with IE as a failed attempt at being scientific This does not mean creationism is false, it just means creationists should stop referring to their ideas as science.

 

[CoooCaw]

When is a scientist not a scientist?.....................

Regardless the scientific consensus rejects creationism as religion not science with IE as a failed attempt at being scientific This does not mean creationism is false, it just means creationists should stop referring to their ideas as science.

 

[DannyC]

When is a scientist not a scientist?.....................

I didn't say a single thing about their credentials did I?

 

[T_Laurich]

Creationists don't know anything about biology, geology, or genetics either. With that said, neither do I.

This man is more intellectual in biology then both of us combined...

[video=youtube;s91-ABJ49ho]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s91-ABJ49ho[/video]