Christopher Hitchens once again broadcasts his failure to understand the basic nature of religion.

People do not feel there is a god because they are told to by the bible or koran. They believe in god because there is a set of human emotions that gives the impression of the divine - love, awe, wonderment etc.

Religions are merely a tool to interpret and accentuate these feelings. Trying to prove the non-existence of god by attacking religious doctrine is like trying to prove the non-existence of Belgium by pointing out factual errors in Tintin.

If religions are merely a tool to interpret and accentuate these feelings, then they're obviously doing it wrong. For awe and wonderment work better when you've got some real understanding rather than the pseudo-understanding of religious myth.

It's not about the non-existence of god but about the failure of creationism to account for these things.

For awe and wonderment work better when you've got some real understanding rather than the pseudo-understanding of religious myth.

No doubt. That's why two-thirds of scientists believe in god.

No doubt you look at data selectively:

<link>

Considering you don't know where they draw the line on what is and isn't a scientist you might want to check the link above.

And even if two thirds of "scientists" did believe, that's a lot less than what the population in general says.

As a scientist in the life sciences with a firm understanding and acceptance of evolution, I can say the following two things:

1) I believe in God, and would tell the MSNBC study cited above such.

2) I have doubts about the existence of God, and would tell the Gould study such.

It's not that I explicitly doubt God, but rather that I have no proof of his existance. I believe he exists, but that is just my belief and to assume my beliefs are correct without any basis in fact seems a bit arrogant.

In short, I have no problem believing the results of both studies cited in this thread.

In my undergrad philosophy course, I was told that knowledge = justified true belief.

I don't think theists claim to have knowledge of god, just belief.

Neuro:

As a scientist in the life sciences with a firm understanding and acceptance of evolution, I can say the following two things:

1) I believe in God, and would tell the MSNBC study cited above such.

2) I have doubts about the existence of God, and would tell the Gould study such.

It's not that I explicitly doubt God, but rather that I have no proof of his existance. I believe he exists, but that is just my belief and to assume my beliefs are correct without any basis in fact seems a bit arrogant.

In short, I have no problem believing the results of both studies cited in this thread.

Whoa there! You seem to have jumped to such an erroneous conclusion about the questions Leuba and Larson asked that I'm doubting that you are a scientist.

Take a look at the table in the article I linked. That table calls it "personal disbelief" and there is a separate category for "doubt or agnosticism." That table and your answer suggests you would not have gotten on the "personal disbelief" or "doubt or agnosticism" categories. You are saying you have a "personal belief" in God -- are you not?

Mr. Doering,

First, without knowing the actual questions asked, which I did not bother to look up, I do not know how precisely I would respond.

Second, I'm saying that I do indeed have a personal belief in God but that I harbor doubts to his existance. A previous poster in this thread said that 'knowledge = justified true belief". If I had proof that God existed then I would have knowledge of His existance and would not need to believe, nor to doubt. But I do not have proof of God's existance and so I am left with only my beliefs and my doubts.

Because of those doubts, based on the phrasing in the article ("58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God,"), I would of course put myself in the 'Doubt or Agnosticism' category.

None-the-less, I see no need for the categories suggested by Lueba to be mutually exclusive. I also doubt I am the only one who thinks there may be some overlap: the percentages in both the 1914 and 1998 study fail to add up to 100%.

Oddly, this failing does not appear in the results from 1933, suggesting that either the instructions or the questions themselves were not held constant across time. This could be very problematic; as I'm sure you know, how you ask a question can cause the answer to change dramatically.

Norman Doering:

For awe and wonderment work better when you've got some real understanding

I would actually argue very strongly against that; a magician's trick is generally boring and pointless when you know how it's done.

Norman Doering:

If religions are merely a tool to interpret and accentuate these feelings, then they're obviously doing it wrong.

Based on my above comment I believe religions do a very good job increasing an individual's sense of awe and wonderment. Interpreting those sensations, I agree, not so much.