Slaverz_Bay wrote:What a great deal of theists who trot out their old "its not true that 90% of scientists are atheist" do not know is that the "god" that the odd scientist might remark about is ALWAYS (90% or more of the time) a DEIST and not a THEIST got. The man of science is speaking of something far far more along the lines of a "Universal Intelligence" or "Impersonal Order of Things" than he is a personal, theist, caring, bible god.
I am a liberal Christian. I am also very conversant with science. I know a number of professional scientists who are Christian - they go to my church and work at CERN. In general they tend to conceptualize God as a universal spirit, in the language Ant posted from the Pew survey. That version works well for me, as well.
Slaverz_Bay wrote:I do a LOT of science reading. And also reading of books from both sides of the "god" question. Things like Dawkins' "God Delusion" as well as "The Dawkins Delusion." And the ONLY professional scientist of the 20th or 21st century I have EVER read who believed in a personal, bible sort of god was Francis Collins' "The Language of Life." (lookie there, theists! I just gave you a freebie to use for your fodder next time. LOL).
I am not sure what a "Bible sort of God" would mean. Feet and hands? Talking to people out loud in their language? Riding a chariot through the skies when the thunder is rolling? The first epistle of John declares "God is love". In general it's a good idea to separate imagery from declarative content from which guidelines for behavior follow.
Unfortunately fundamentalists (which, admittedly, included most Christians up to about 1890) tend to think in terms of "belief" as some sort of criterion for being a Christian. Assent to specific propositions is a matter of creeds, which were ways of excluding heretical teachings. Creeds have very little basis in original, New Testament Christianity as the basis of salvation or judgement, despite what 1500 years of church teaching said. Gradually over time Christianity morphed from a religion mainly about practice to a religion mainly about belief. That is not really a very insightful, or Christian, way to conceptualize it.
"Belief" or "faith" in the Biblical usage should be thought of as trust. The word used in Greek corresponds to believing a witness in a trial, but also to trusting a leader or contractual partner.
Slaverz_Bay wrote:Admittedly, Dr. Collins is a brilliant scientist, and was indeed a co-founder of the Human Genome Project, where he and Crick unraveled the entire DNA genome over almost a decade.
BUT...it appears that Dr. Collins was RAISED a Christian...then left the faith when he got involved in science--as do so many--and then, when he admittedly was looking for something larger than material science to believe in, in order to fill his depression and a personal emotional void--re-embraced his childhood faith. Yeah..the one he grew out of years before.
This is a very old and predictable dynamic, and it reminds me of criminals who "find god" when they get locked away. Or when a formerly wealthy person loses everything and finds god.
You make it sound like there is some problem here. Something larger than materialism seems like an obvious thing to seek - even materialists may seek meaning that doesn't emerge from their materialism. When people realize that the rat race they have been so invested in is really just a sham, it makes sense to ask what values are not just a sham - what really matters.
Slaverz_Bay wrote: LOL.... There IS a reason here: god and the attendant belief system like an afterlife and answered prayers serve as excellent emotional placebos for the downtrodden.
Nobody hangs around Christianity for long without realizing that it does not function as a way to grant wishes. Similarly, talk about an afterlife functions much more as a way of feeling connected to those who have died than as a way of reassuring us that we will be judged "acceptable." (There are churches, indeed whole denominations, in which this is not true. They tend to alienate normal people, but to gain adherents among the deeply insecure.)
In practice commitment to Christianity is usually a mix of values, beliefs (perception of what is true, e.g. nothing exists without a creator), emotional reinforcement from other people, and internal "emotional confirmation" that the practices are trustworthy. It evolves over time and self-perception is probably the main driver: people want to think of themselves as good people.
In short, like Dawkins you tend to buy into the mistake of literal-minded Christians who think that what they are doing is agreeing to some propositions about the nature of things. I would urge you to talk to some Christians about why their Christianity is meaningful to them - what makes it seem like a good choice. You will usually find that Christians with at least a college education can give lots of factors that have nothing to do with the intellectual issues favored by Dawkins, Hitchens and their ilk.