Hi James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 14-Jun-06 11:26:03 PM >>> As long as I'm being portrayed as the rebellious tipster monk, I'll add one: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220484,00.html Let me say up front, I find for personal and professional reasons transformations from atheist to believer interesting. And I also find the opposite process interesting (though clearly not personally appealing). If anyone wishes to provide insight into the process of conversion and "un-conversion," go for it. There will be no collection plate at the end of the service. JC: I hope that Jim is as keen to find flaws in any conclusions based on such anecdotes as he is to find flaws in actual studies. That one or a dozen or hundreds of scientists or quasi-scientists convert from atheism to religion, or support creationism, or believe in miracles, or whatever is a deeply flawed basis for any well-founded belief about the relationship between science and religion, except perhaps for the conclusion that they are not completely mutual exclusive. The reality is that degree of belief in a personal god has a very strong negative association with scientific training. The Cornell Project on Evolution, for example, found that 84% of evolutionary biologists who responded to a questionnaire answered "No" to the question "Do you consider yourself a religious person?" A similarly high percentage indicated they did not believe in god, and 70% thought there was no grounds (i.e., evidence) for a belief in god. 72% thought that religion is a social adaptation, a part of evolution. These values are all very much higher than the corresponding values for the general population (i.e., mostly non-scientists). See these and other results at: http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/report.html Any number of studies will confirm this strong negative relationship. The presence of some scientists who are religious no more invalidates this association than the presence of heavy smokers who live to 100 invalidates the deadly effects of cigarette smoking. The article also repeats the false assertion that Einstein believed in a personal god, which is not true, although Einstein was certainly vague in a number of his assertions about religion. See: http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/personal.html Einstein appears to be a common source of misrepresentation, for example, that he believed in a personal god or that he had a learning disability. Perhaps people hope that his extremely high status will offset the majority of scientists who turn out to be non-religious? As for Collins himself, we can only speculate. He is a medical doctor as well as a biochemist, and attributes some of his apparent transformation from atheist to religion to a period as a doctor in missionary hospital (although a skeptic might wonder how an atheist ended up in a missionary hospital to begin with). He has also written previously about the genome project and religion, presumably on the basis of his faith. See Collins FS. The Human Genome Project: tool of atheistic reductionism or embodiment of the Christian mandate to heal? Science & Christian Belief 1999; 11:99-111. Collins FS. Human Genetics. In: Cutting-Edge Bioethics: A Christian Exploration of Technologies and Trends. Kilner, Hook, & Uustal (eds), Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2002, Chptr. 1, 3-17. My prediction is that Collins will be up for the Templeton award next year. Take care Jim --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
