Replies

Doubtless you can post examples of "rabid secularists" saying this? It certainly isn't for example what either Dawkins or Dennett say. I am as rabid a secularist as anyone, and I wouldn't dream of saying that the clear fact of evolution proves that God doesn't exist.

In fact, Dawkins is one of those I had in mind. It was Dawkins who wrote that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." He also said, "The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism" (www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk).

Stop and contemplate those statements for a moment. Science is an approach to understanding the natural world that explicitly eschews supernatural explanations.Therefore, natural science cannot be used to "prove" the existence of God; likewise, it cannot be used to "prove" the nonexistence of God. By itself, science cannot push one towards atheism. Science is simply the wrong tool for the job—much like using a telescope as a screw driver.

But Dawkins goes much further. He has publicly attacked religion as being opposed to science and reason. For a sample of his statements, you might check the Positive Atheism web site.

Now, when Dawkins says that evolutionary theory pushes one toward atheism, I realize that he is talking religion or philosophy, not natural science. Unfortunately, the scientific community does not rise up and say so. Scientists have circled the wagons against the Creationists, whom they accuse (with good reason) of misusing science in the service of religion. Yet the same scientists are strangely silent when one of their number misuses science in the service of atheism.

Are you going to post an example of a claim by a "rabid secularist" that "evolution proves that God does not exist", or have you retreated to a different position (one which is entirely tenable that I wouldn't take issue with), that you disagree with Dawkins' and my dislike of certain aspects of religion? So far you haven't backed your original claim up. We are all well aware that Dawkins dislikes religion. That is not the point at issue. You need to back up your claim that secularists say that evolution proves God doesn't exist or withdraw it.

Sorry, I'll elucidate a little further, because I think I was a bit curt in my previous response and you deserve better for your thoughtfulness.

In my opinion I'd agree with you that science can never disprove the general notion of a God Creator of the universe, because as you rightly say such notions lie outside the purview of science. I also don't think that you'd have much difficulty getting Dawkins (for example) to agree with that proposition. But...

In my honest opinion, for what its worth, the general scientific discoveries over the last 200 years, inasmuch as they have revealed the scale of the universe, the age of the universe, and a reasonable secular explanation for the complexity of life on earth, do make the specific claims of most historic religions look false. There may be a God, but He sure doesn't look like the God of the Old Testament, or the God(s) of any of the other major world religions. To that extent science would tend to push one towards atheism, since I dislike the alternative hazy wishful-thinking kind of "There must be something more than this." cod-spiritualism that many people who have drifted away from specific beliefs cling to. Just my 2cents. Not trying to get into a flame war. More trying to elucidate how at least 1 atheist sees it. What really does make me furious is some religious sects pretending to take *scientific* issue with theories such as evolution when their real conflict with it is *religious*, and I think from what you've posted you may be quite close to me on that one.