Ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere?

[ThomasSoerensen]

It's entirely possible that they did, but chose not to announce it to a world that tended to make people who questioned the Church into outcasts.

Being a social pariah tends to cock up your scientific credibility (and funding).

Until fairly recently having the temerity to question the Christian Church's view of the world was a sure fire route to at the least being ostracised and sidelined professionally and slightly further back to being tortured and brutally murdered.

I wonder just how many people have been slaughtered over the years in the name of Christ let alone in the names of all of the other gods that people believe in........

I agree with you 100%. But this means that the did not believe in religion they only said so for social reasons.
Unfortunately the religious claim them as their trophies.

[NotAllThere]

Believer in what though? Einstein used the word "God" many times but not in the way a Christian or Muslim would, more in the sense of "the way the world works".

Maxwell was believer in Evangelical Christianity. This is well attested to: E.g. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF9-04McNatt.pdf

Einstein it appears, although he used the word "God" (2God does not play dice with the universe") was by most accounts, an atheist.

[NotAllThere]

Religion fulfils a need within the human psyche to remain a child. To be provided for, to be guided, to be overseen and protected, even to be forgiven when we do wrong, but most of all to be unconditionally loved by that provider.

That sounds like an argument for it!

[ThomasSoerensen]

That sounds like an argument for it!

shouldn't the argument for religion be that it is real? Not that it is convenient if you are not ready to leave mummy's titties.

[NotAllThere]

Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says of Newton, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But like Nicodemus, the secret disciple of Jesus, he never made a public declaration of his private faith - which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs."

Maybe Maxwell was better at hiding it than Newton, or was an out and out liar when he said he believed.

The argument that religious people are ignorant, impressionable and simple doesn't hold water.

The argument that intelligent men who were religious, were merely a product of their environment - "protective colouration" - also doesn't hold water. John Houghton and John Barrow are Christians in this age of tolerance, or even antagonism to religious belief.

[TimberWolf]

Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says of Newton, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But like Nicodemus, the secret disciple of Jesus, he never made a public declaration of his private faith - which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs."

Maybe Maxwell was better at hiding it than Newton, or was an out and out liar when he said he believed.

The argument that religious people are ignorant, impressionable and simple doesn't hold water.

The argument that intelligent men who were religious, were merely a product of their environment - "protective colouration" - also doesn't hold water. John Houghton and John Barrow are Christians in this age of tolerance, or even antagonism to religious belief.

I believe Maxwell was a believer, as was Newton.

While we may be born with religeous predilections, we aren't born Christians, therefore it must be a 'product of the environment'.

[NotAllThere]

shouldn't the argument for religion be that it is real? Not that it is convenient if you are not ready to leave mummy's titties.

You said that religion fulfils a need. That would imply that, whether a religion is true or false, it is generally good for people. Which counters Dawkins argument that religion is evil and bad for people.

Or did you mean to say that it fulfils some peoples needs?

[NotAllThere]

I believe Maxwell was a believer, as was Newton.

While we may be born with religeous predilections, we aren't born Christians, therefore it must be a 'product of the environment'.

So Dawkins atheism is a product of his environment, and should therefore not be taken seriously?

In fact, his work on evolutionary biology and genetics is also a product of his environment.

What is your point? I don't get it.

[sasguru]

Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says of Newton, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But like Nicodemus, the secret disciple of Jesus, he never made a public declaration of his private faith - which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs."

Maybe Maxwell was better at hiding it than Newton, or was an out and out liar when he said he believed.

The argument that religious people are ignorant, impressionable and simple doesn't hold water.

The argument that intelligent men who were religious, were merely a product of their environment - "protective colouration" - also doesn't hold water. John Houghton and John Barrow are Christians in this age of tolerance, or even antagonism to religious belief.

The "big guns" argument is neither here nor there. As flawed human beings (designed imperfectly by evolution obviously), the ability of people to hold contradictory systems of belief does not surprise me at all and says absoulutely nothing about the vailidity or otherwise of those beliefs.

[ThomasSoerensen]

You said that religion fulfils a need. That would imply that, whether a religion is true or false, it is generally good for people. Which counters Dawkins argument that religion is evil and bad for people.

Or did you mean to say that it fulfils some peoples needs?

a BigMac hamburger fullfills a need, that does not make it good for me.