Balancing Skepticism and Faith

[kellyb]

I wasn't arguing about numbers, but those would be interesting statistics to view. Can you provide those statistics, please? No need to source them if you don't have them close at hand, I'd just be interested in your guess.

There's this:
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power.

 

[GDon]

There's this:
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Thanks, kellyb.

 

[Thor 2]

Thank you!

You're welcome.

Okay. I don't think that I was implying anything about numbers myself, but let's agree to disagree about what was in my own mind.

Let's do that.

I wasn't arguing about numbers, but those would be interesting statistics to view. Can you provide those statistics, please? No need to source them if you don't have them close at hand, I'd just be interested in your guess.

I also extend my thanks to kellyb. I have also seen results of similar surveys. I also will add that other surveys about the negative relationship between higher educated communities and religiosity are also prominent.

This is the same rubbish that David Mo uses, when he makes a claim about history and then says "we don't have evidence to know" when asked to back it up.

Okay, so we can't resort to statistics to determine what the average believer thought back then. Would it be safe to guess that you also believe that most average believers throughout history mindlessly believed what the religious authorities told them?

Steady on there about "rubbish that David Mo uses" GDon - common sense guides us here. Yes I think "mindless believing" of what the religious authorities told them was mainstream. You?

 

[GDon]

I also will add that other surveys about the negative relationship between higher educated communities and religiosity are also prominent.

Yes, I'd be interested in stats on level of education vs religious belief.

Yes I think "mindless believing" of what the religious authorities told them was mainstream. You?

Actually, not really. I think that throughout human history, 90% of people haven't really thought too much about religion, including religious people today, concerned as they are with the daily grind of life. That is, they may believe in God, but they try not to let it interfere with their day.

 

[David Mo]

We can read Philo of Alexandria's views of the Hebrew Scriptures. He wrote around 50 CE. We can read Origen's views of the Bible. He wrote around 220 CE. Were they Fundamentalists?

We can read what Christian writers thought in the 19th C. We can trace the rise of Fundamentalism from the late 18th C, as disquiet grew about the direction of belief within the mainstream churches (Protestant and Catholic). We can see the "line in the sand" -- the declaration of the "5 Fundamentals" in the early 20th C, and the reaction within the mainstream churches to that challenge.

Don't attribute to me the "rubbish" that you invent, please. I didn't say that we have not any method to analysing the raising of fundamentalist or "intellectualist" interpretations of the Bible. I have said that I don't know what means you use to ascertain this subject. And I continue without knowing it.

As Thor2 has said, a simple case (Philo) is not signifiant of the main tendency of anything. About Philo: his theology is the sophisticated outcome of several centuries of Judaism and six centuries of Greek philosophy. It is not representative neither of the past of Judaism nor the mainstream Jewish believers of his time. Attempts of allegorizing religious myths in order to make them acceptable for educated people existed before and after Philo. They were always minoritarian compared with dominant "raw" beliefs and regarded with suspicion by the "true" believers and hierarchies.

Let us aside popular religions, that are more difficult of evaluate. You said that "we can trace the rise of Fundamentalism from the late 18th C". I would like to know what are the sources of this claim. What I know about history is just the opposite. The "liberal" interpretation of the Bible, that was minoritarian in the previous centuries, received a major boost with the Enlightenment. But fundamentalist continued to be the main tendency in religious beliefs. You have a big hint of this dominant position with churches campaign against Darwinism that lasted until the 20th century.

I don't know what means that scientists are less religious that common people. Are scientists representative of masses religious beliefs or an exception?

I neither know what the "5 fundamentals" is or what reaction it provoked. In my country they don't talk about it. They teach catechism and that's it. And the catechism is quite "fundamental".

 

[Cosmic Yak]

McDowell was only a teenager when he hooked up with Campus Crusade for Christ International, so that's a pretty poorly worded bio.

He says:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060515112437/http://www.christianstoriesonline.com/josh_mcdowell.html

On December 19, 1959, at 8:30 p.m., during my second year at the university, I became a Christian. That night I prayed. I prayed four things in order to establish a relationship with God ñ a personal relationship with His Son, the personal, resurrected, living Christ. Over a period of time that relationship has turned my life around. First, I prayed, "Lord Jesus, thank You for dying on the cross for me." Second, I said, "I confess those things in my life that aren't pleasing to You and ask You to forgive me and cleanse me." The Bible says, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Third, I said, "Right now, in
the best way I know how, I open the door of my heart and life and trust You as my Savior and Lord. Take control of my life. Change me from the inside out. Make me the type of person You created me to be." The last thing I prayed was, "Thank You for coming into my life by faith."

He's not really a college professor, either.

Were these the "facts" mentioned by GDon that led to McDowell's conversion, because if they are, we must have very different definitions of the word "fact".
Maybe I'm being harsh. Perhaps there were other facts that convinced him, such as the complete lack of historical evidence for Jesus, a complete lack of historical evidence for many of the claimed events in the NT ( the census, killing of the first-born, star of Bethlehem, three day zombie invasion of Jerusalem etc.), or perhaps the fact that Jesus had two completely different family trees and at least two sets of last words. These kinds of facts?
Perhaps, GDon, you would like to present some of these facts. Skeptics are all about the evidence, and I, for one, am perfectly willing to be persuaded by factual evidence.

 

[GDon]

Were these the "facts" mentioned by GDon that led to McDowell's conversion, because if they are, we must have very different definitions of the word "fact".

I'm not sure what comment of mine your comment relates to. Perhaps if you quote me? Thanks.

 

[kellyb]

Were these the "facts" mentioned by GDon that led to McDowell's conversion, because if they are, we must have very different definitions of the word "fact".
Maybe I'm being harsh. Perhaps there were other facts that convinced him, such as the complete lack of historical evidence for Jesus, a complete lack of historical evidence for many of the claimed events in the NT ( the census, killing of the first-born, star of Bethlehem, three day zombie invasion of Jerusalem etc.), or perhaps the fact that Jesus had two completely different family trees and at least two sets of last words. These kinds of facts?
Perhaps, GDon, you would like to present some of these facts. Skeptics are all about the evidence, and I, for one, am perfectly willing to be persuaded by factual evidence.

It was the Amazon bio (that GDon merely quoted) that alluded to "facts".

The "facts" in the book mentioned ("Evidence that Demands a Verdict") are just total crap like this:
https://www.josh.org/wp-content/uploads/evidence_sampler_interior_r4.pdf

4. Jesus’ death was a historical event.

The death of Jesus was not some made-up tale told by his followers in order to start a new religious movement. His death is grounded in history, supported by strong historical evidence (see Acts 2:22, 23; 1 Cor. 15:14, 17; 2 Peter 1:16).

Chapter 10 of Evidence examines this understanding.
Nash’s following statement supports this point:
Jesus’ death was an actual event in history. The death of the god described
in the pagan cults is a mythical drama with no historical ties; its continued
rehearsal celebrates the recurring death and rebirth of nature. The
incontestable fact that the early church believed that its proclamation of
Jesus’ death and resurrection was grounded upon what actually happened
in history makes absurd any attempt to derive this belief from the
mythical, nonhistorical stories of pagan cults. (Nash, GG, 161)

 

[xterra]

Exactly.

The incontestable fact that my church believes

says nothing about the truth or accuracy of the belief.

It is an incontestable fact that my church believes that invisible green leprechauns fly through the woods each autumn, pull the leaves off the trees, and scatter them on the ground.






Edit: In case you were wondering how, given that they are invisible, we know they are green, the answer is "faith."

 

[Thor 2]

Yes, I'd be interested in stats on level of education vs religious belief.

Thanks for asking GDon, I did some googling and came up with the following from the ever reliable Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment


Have a look at all those states at the bottom of the list, that show the lowest rates of high school graduation and low higher academic attainment. I admit to being stunned at the stark illustration of all the Bible Belt states being so strongly represented.

Now before you come crashing back to tell me that education level does not necessarily measure intelligence I would just add it enhances intelligence. The success rate of attainment is also an indication of intelligence.

Actually, not really. I think that throughout human history, 90% of people haven't really thought too much about religion, including religious people today, concerned as they are with the daily grind of life. That is, they may believe in God, but they try not to let it interfere with their day.

"Actually, not really?"

How does the above statement address or contradict what I said?:

"Yes I think "mindless believing" of what the religious authorities told them was mainstream. You?"

 

[Thor 2]

No doubt, but not much different than I've sometimes seen from young graduate students trying to defend their research to an expert (or even lay) audience with unforeseen questions.

There would be some similarity I suppose.

Yes, I can definitely detect (and understand) the incredulity expressed (politely) in your posts. Perhaps because you have strong reasoning and communication skills along with a tendency to critically evaluate the world around you, you expect that of others as well. I think though that "the faithful" once again behave very much like most of the rest of the population, who for the most part, also often give little thought to pretty major things (e.g., political opinions, cultural norms, money and lifestyle habits etc.). I like the idea of encouraging people to self-evaluate in general, but I think it's reasonable that many will only do this to a small degree over their entire lives. I think it's a big part of why many people like the comfort of culture.

Well yes I agree with your assessment although I do find it hard to understand how so many can be so complacent. In my everyday life I am continually astounded at the profound ignorance of many and the complete lack of interest displayed.

The movie "Inherit The Wind" comes to mind where Brady responds "I don't think about things I don't think about." when pressed by Drummond. A lack of interest that is depressing to accept as commonplace.

Yes, I agree that can definitely be true, though as others have mentioned, I have also heard many examples going the other way as well, and by educated and intelligent people, which is interesting.

It is the percentages that tell the story. Sure there will be exceptions but the figures seem to suggest a trend of higher intelligence and education = lower religiosity. Your seemingly lucid state of mind as indicated by your posts, may be the prime reason for your fading lack of conviction about religious stuff.

I expect a lot of Christians would acknowledge that the idea of a soul is an attempt to describe something that is not really comprehensible; a notion by which to contemplate the question of what essence of one's character survives physical death. It's not really a concept that's amenable to literal follow up questions like "where did it come from?" etc. I think in a lot of ways, religion is an attempt to give literal and physical structure to concepts that are often not amenable thereto. I'm not quite ready to dismiss the concepts in their entirety, but I am appreciating more and more the shortfalls of the medium.

It's a difficult one to be sure. The absolute conviction that souls exist coupled with uncertainty about defining the precise nature of same. I think those people who picket abortion clinics don't invest too much thought in trying to detail exactly what they are trying to save.

Thanks Thor 2. Perhaps.

Be interesting to see how it pans out as time progresses. The most important thing is for you to be relatively comfortable. Some discomfort I think is common for folk with enquiring minds. It is only the ignorant who are content to remain so, who feel completely cosy.

Sorry about the tardy response.

 

[GDon]

Thanks for asking GDon, I did some googling and came up with the following from the ever reliable Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

Have a look at all those states at the bottom of the list, that show the lowest rates of high school graduation and low higher academic attainment. I admit to being stunned at the stark illustration of all the Bible Belt states being so strongly represented.

Yes, interesting. If education results in less religion, then the next question is "why?" What is being taught in the education system such that people become less religious? They aren't being directly taught arguments against the existence of God, of course, so something else is going on. I'd be interested to know what that is.

Now before you come crashing back to tell me that education level does not necessarily measure intelligence I would just add it enhances intelligence. The success rate of attainment is also an indication of intelligence.

You're going to have to remind me what my argument is again, Thor 2, such that I would need to come "crashing back".

"Actually, not really?"

How does the above statement address or contradict what I said?:

"Yes I think "mindless believing" of what the religious authorities told them was mainstream. You?"

The difference may be only one of degree. Most people don't "mindlessly believe" what church authorities teach because most people don't know and they don't care, unless it is something that affects their daily life. My view is that most believers throughout history, the farmers, the workers, weren't concerned about the technicalities of what church authorities taught. They were too busy with the daily grind of life to worry whether the earth moved around the sun or vice versa. They didn't care if they knew at all. That's not just religious authorities, to be clear. That's any authorities. The value of skepticism is in questioning the beliefs handed down by authorities.

And please stop trying to assume my arguments for me. Thanks.

 

[Thor 2]

Yes, interesting. If education results in less religion, then the next question is "why?" What is being taught in the education system such that people become less religious? They aren't being directly taught arguments against the existence of God, of course, so something else is going on. I'd be interested to know what that is.

Well I think most would agree that the "God of the gaps." has less and smaller gaps to fill as scientific enquiry and observation march on. The educated are the ones aware of science, and have minds trained to enquire with reason, so it's understandable they would be the ones less inclined to believe the woo stuff.

You're going to have to remind me what my argument is again, Thor 2, such that I would need to come "crashing back".

I was assuming you would challenge any figures suggesting higher intelligence and education led to less religiosity. I was wrong it seems and maybe we are progressing toward some common ground.

The difference may be only one of degree. Most people don't "mindlessly believe" what church authorities teach because most people don't know and they don't care, unless it is something that affects their daily life. My view is that most believers throughout history, the farmers, the workers, weren't concerned about the technicalities of what church authorities taught. They were too busy with the daily grind of life to worry whether the earth moved around the sun or vice versa. They didn't care if they knew at all. That's not just religious authorities, to be clear. That's any authorities. The value of skepticism is in questioning the beliefs handed down by authorities.

And please stop trying to assume my arguments for me. Thanks.

You don't think lack of interest about "technicalities" leads to the mindless belief I am talking about? I struggle with that.

 

[attempt5001]

There would be some similarity I suppose.

Well yes I agree with your assessment although I do find it hard to understand how so many can be so complacent. In my everyday life I am continually astounded at the profound ignorance of many and the complete lack of interest displayed.

The movie "Inherit The Wind" comes to mind where Brady responds "I don't think about things I don't think about." when pressed by Drummond. A lack of interest that is depressing to accept as commonplace.

I imagine it's probably most frustrating for you when someone (especially someone you know) is very zealous, but doesn't seem to have given the basis of their faith much thought. I can certainly understand that.

One of the things that gets me the most frustrated is when people are passionate about any side in a debate, but are seemingly unwilling to give reasonable consideration to the opposing view and the reasons others might hold it. It feels like a deliberate state of ignorance to me and I think gives me some useful context to empathize with your feelings on religion.

(Just read that last paragraph back to myself and realized it might come across as a "dig". It's not meant to be. I can tell from your questions and dialogue that you are making an attempt to understand something that is frustrating and seems incomprehensible. I just wanted to express that I have the same strong reaction sometimes as well.)

It is the percentages that tell the story. Sure there will be exceptions but the figures seem to suggest a trend of higher intelligence and education = lower religiosity. Your seemingly lucid state of mind as indicated by your posts, may be the prime reason for your fading lack of conviction about religious stuff.

Right. Examples don't refute the trend, just the inevitability of the outcome.

It's a difficult one to be sure. The absolute conviction that souls exist coupled with uncertainty about defining the precise nature of same. I think those people who picket abortion clinics don't invest too much thought in trying to detail exactly what they are trying to save.

Hmm...I don't know anyone who has ever picketed an abortion clinic so I can't say with any experience, but I've assumed it was more advocating for the potential baby than for the "soul" there within. I'm sure in some cases at least though that you are right. You are certainly right that conviction and uncertainty are essential bedfellows in faith, which can be exasperating

Heb. 11:1 - "Now faith is the assurance that what we hope for will come about and the certainty that what we cannot see exists."

Be interesting to see how it pans out as time progresses. The most important thing is for you to be relatively comfortable. Some discomfort I think is common for folk with enquiring minds. It is only the ignorant who are content to remain so, who feel completely cosy.

Interesting choice of words. One of the leaders at my previous church was a strong advocate of "not getting too comfortable" with our faith. He meant it more as a "God will challenge you to grow and mature" kind of way, but I felt encouraged to start asking some more difficult questions about my faith. Not what he had in mind I don't think, but I am grateful for the encouragement, despite the sometimes uncomfortable path

Sorry about the tardy response.

Not at all. Busy weekend here too. Cheers!

 

[GDon]

Well I think most would agree that the "God of the gaps." has less and smaller gaps to fill as scientific enquiry and observation march on.

Well, that's exciting! What are three gaps where people said that God was the explanation that have gotten smaller in the last 50 years of scientific enquiry and observation?

The educated are the ones aware of science, and have minds trained to enquire with reason, so it's understandable they would be the ones less inclined to believe the woo stuff.

For woo within their own fields, I agree. For woo stuff outside of their fields of education, I'm not so sure. It would be interesting to see the stats on that as well.

I was assuming you would challenge any figures suggesting higher intelligence and education led to less religiosity. I was wrong it seems and maybe we are progressing toward some common ground.

Two suggestions towards progressing toward common ground:
(1) Please respond to what I claim rather than what you think I am claiming.
(2) Facts are good, opinions about facts are good, opinions and speculation are good. Just make the distinctions clear.

You don't think lack of interest about "technicalities" leads to the mindless belief I am talking about? I struggle with that.

To clarify: you wrote earlier "we cannot refer to stats to determine what the average goat herd thought, about the literal or allegorical nature of scripture", which seems to conflict with the idea that the average believer believed whatever they were told by authorities. That is, with your logic, if we know what the authorities thought and taught, we could make a good guess about what the average believer thought.

My response is that I don't think the average believer really cared about what was taught. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, though I question the idea that they were 'literalists'. For a thousand years the Bible was written in Latin, a language few of the average believers would have been able to read.

Were they taught 'literalism' by the religious authorities? Not in the modern sense. Literalism as a dogma is a MODERN phenomenon. I'm sure in the pulpits they would have heard stories about Noah's Flood, Abraham sacrificing his son, etc; and they would have thought that these were actual events. But the stories weren't being told as history lessons. They were presented as symbolic to some point being made by the preacher about their daily lives. Hopefully that explains where I am coming from.

 

[David Mo]

But the stories weren't being told as history lessons. They were presented as symbolic to some point being made by the preacher about their daily lives.

I still don't know what are the sources of this assert of yours.

Regarding my personal experience, I was educated in an officialy Catholic country. "Sacred History" was obligatory teached in schools till the high school. I never heard that Moses, David, Solomon or Mary of Magdala were "symbols". They were real persons who did real deeds and if you manifested your incredulity you didn't pass the subject. I don't know what your experience is.

 

[IanS]

Yes, interesting. If education results in less religion, then the next question is "why?" What is being taught in the education system such that people become less religious? They aren't being directly taught arguments against the existence of God, of course, so something else is going on. I'd be interested to know what that is.

Scientific education certainly results in less religious belief, e.g., in such things as miracles and the supernatural. And it's really undeniable that the whole basis of religions such as Christianity is dependent on miracles & the supernatural.

Other types education (e.g., music, history, art, … anything else), however useful they may be, are not directly explaining to you how the world around us works. So it's not just any education that reduces religious belief, it's really an understanding of how and why science does accurately explain all the things in the world that were once believed to be deliberate acts of intelligent design from a supernatural heavenly God.

Well, that's exciting! What are three gaps where people said that God was the explanation that have gotten smaller in the last 50 years of scientific enquiry and observation?

Does it have to be 3 gaps in the last 50 years? Because it's absolutely undeniable that over the last 200 years or so (and increasingly over the last century), scientific discoveries have given convincing explanations for ”all” the things that were previously thought to be acts of intelligent design from God. That is “all” except for possibly (1) how the first living things formed on Earth, and (2) exactly what happened to cause the Big Bang. Although even in those two cases there has been a great deal of research since the 1960's, and there are now a number of quite plausible explanations as to how both of those things probably happened …

… and unless people are being deliberately disingenuous, then we have to accept that those two issues are perhaps unusually difficult to solve with anything near to “certainty” (ie reaching the level of a “Theory”), because apart from anything else they both happened billions of years ago (which makes it harder to study exactly what happened).

But also, in both cases (the origin of life & the Big Bang), science has already discovered what is unarguably 99.9% of the explanation. For example, we know know very accurately what happened right back 13.8 billion years to within about 1 second after the “Bang” … so religious people and others are really left arguing about exactly what happened in that first single second, whilst trying to ignore the vast in-depth explanation that we now have for the rest of that 13.8 billion years.

And similarly with life on Earth, where evolution can now account very accurately for the existence of every known species that ever lived on Earth, right back to the first single-celled organisms about 3.5 billion years ago. So that creationists are now left arguing about the last tiny “gap” where aggregates of chemicals passed from what we define as “non-living” to “living”, but where, as we get to that transition point, it may well be the case that there really is no clear dividing line between what we should properly regard as chemical aggregates that are living vs those that are not quite living.

 

[Thor 2]

Well, that's exciting! What are three gaps where people said that God was the explanation that have gotten smaller in the last 50 years of scientific enquiry and observation?

I can't improve on the answer IanS gave to this. ^

For woo within their own fields, I agree. For woo stuff outside of their fields of education, I'm not so sure. It would be interesting to see the stats on that as well.

You will have to give me examples of woo stuff that cannot be impacted by learning and a factually driven mind.

Two suggestions towards progressing toward common ground:
(1) Please respond to what I claim rather than what you think I am claiming.
(2) Facts are good, opinions about facts are good, opinions and speculation are good. Just make the distinctions clear.

A little less aggression might help as well.

To clarify: you wrote earlier "we cannot refer to stats to determine what the average goat herd thought, about the literal or allegorical nature of scripture", which seems to conflict with the idea that the average believer believed whatever they were told by authorities. That is, with your logic, if we know what the authorities thought and taught, we could make a good guess about what the average believer thought.

My response is that I don't think the average believer really cared about what was taught. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, though I question the idea that they were 'literalists'. For a thousand years the Bible was written in Latin, a language few of the average believers would have been able to read.

Were they taught 'literalism' by the religious authorities? Not in the modern sense. Literalism as a dogma is a MODERN phenomenon. I'm sure in the pulpits they would have heard stories about Noah's Flood, Abraham sacrificing his son, etc; and they would have thought that these were actual events. But the stories weren't being told as history lessons. They were presented as symbolic to some point being made by the preacher about their daily lives. Hopefully that explains where I am coming from.

Not really with you about this but I get the impression you think the average believer didn't believe in the literal interpretation because he/she couldn't read it. How you can so confidently claim the preacher was presenting the stories as symbolic is beyond my comprehension. As David Mo said above:

I never heard that Moses, David, Solomon or Mary of Magdala were "symbols". They were real persons who did real deeds and if you manifested your incredulity you didn't pass the subject. I don't know what your experience is.

Now I suspect David is not hundreds of years old so his experiences are relatively recent, but being Catholic he was instructed regarding the details by a teacher or priest I expect. As I understand it Catholics were never encouraged to read the Bible themselves.

 

[GDon]

I can't improve on the answer IanS gave to this. ^

IanS is on my ignore list, so I'll have to take your word for that. Did he really show 3 situations where people have been claiming "this suggests that God exists" in the last 50 years but scientific enquiry has affected that claim? If so, I'll take him off my ignore list to have a look.

You will have to give me examples of woo stuff that cannot be impacted by learning and a factually driven mind.

That wasn't my claim. My claim is that a person with knowledge in a field might tend to not fall for woo stuff within that field, but the same person may fall for woo stuff outside that field.

Education levels and their effect on religious belief is interesting to me. IIRC scientists in the soft sciences (e.g. humanities) tend to be more likely to believe in God than scientists in the hard sciences. Both presumably get the same training for how to evaluate a subject. So why the difference?

If the hard sciences addressed arguments regarding the existence of God, then that might explain it. But they don't. So something else is going on.

Not really with you about this but I get the impression you think the average believer didn't believe in the literal interpretation because he/she couldn't read it. How you can so confidently claim the preacher was presenting the stories as symbolic is beyond my comprehension. As David Mo said above:

David Mo is now on my ignore list as well. But to be clear: I wasn't saying that the stories told from the pulpit weren't presented as non-literal, but that they weren't told as part of a history or science lesson. They were told to highlight whatever theological, philosophical or moral point that the pastor was wanting to point out.

For example, a pastor wouldn't say "Today we will learn about whales. According to the Bible, people can live in whales for 3 days." Instead, it would be something like "A whale swallowed Jonah for 3 days, symbolizing Jesus being in Hades for 3 days after death." Your average believer throughout history would then go home and promptly not worry about it.

 

[Thor 2]

IanS is on my ignore list, so I'll have to take your word for that. Did he really show 3 situations where people have been claiming "this suggests that God exists" in the last 50 years but scientific enquiry has affected that claim? If so, I'll take him off my ignore list to have a look.

Here is what IanS said:

Does it have to be 3 gaps in the last 50 years? Because it's absolutely undeniable that over the last 200 years or so (and increasingly over the last century), scientific discoveries have given convincing explanations for ”all” the things that were previously thought to be acts of intelligent design from God. That is “all” except for possibly (1) how the first living things formed on Earth, and (2) exactly what happened to cause the Big Bang. Although even in those two cases there has been a great deal of research since the 1960's, and there are now a number of quite plausible explanations as to how both of those things probably happened …

… and unless people are being deliberately disingenuous, then we have to accept that those two issues are perhaps unusually difficult to solve with anything near to “certainty” (ie reaching the level of a “Theory”), because apart from anything else they both happened billions of years ago (which makes it harder to study exactly what happened).

But also, in both cases (the origin of life & the Big Bang), science has already discovered what is unarguably 99.9% of the explanation. For example, we know know very accurately what happened right back 13.8 billion years to within about 1 second after the “Bang” … so religious people and others are really left arguing about exactly what happened in that first single second, whilst trying to ignore the vast in-depth explanation that we now have for the rest of that 13.8 billion years.

And similarly with life on Earth, where evolution can now account very accurately for the existence of every known species that ever lived on Earth, right back to the first single-celled organisms about 3.5 billion years ago. So that creationists are now left arguing about the last tiny “gap” where aggregates of chemicals passed from what we define as “non-living” to “living”, but where, as we get to that transition point, it may well be the case that there really is no clear dividing line between what we should properly regard as chemical aggregates that are living vs those that are not quite living.

You miss all kinds of good stuff when you put people on your sh** ignore list.

That wasn't my claim. My claim is that a person with knowledge in a field might tend to not fall for woo stuff within that field, but the same person may fall for woo stuff outside that field.

Education levels and their effect on religious belief is interesting to me. IIRC scientists in the soft sciences (e.g. humanities) tend to be more likely to believe in God than scientists in the hard sciences. Both presumably get the same training for how to evaluate a subject. So why the difference?

If the hard sciences addressed arguments regarding the existence of God, then that might explain it. But they don't. So something else is going on.

Have to take your word on the differences here. Generally though I think it can be accepted as proven that higher education generally means lesser religiosity.

David Mo is now on my ignore list as well. But to be clear: I wasn't saying that the stories told from the pulpit weren't presented as non-literal, but that they weren't told as part of a history or science lesson. They were told to highlight whatever theological, philosophical or moral point that the pastor was wanting to point out.

For example, a pastor wouldn't say "Today we will learn about whales. According to the Bible, people can live in whales for 3 days." Instead, it would be something like "A whale swallowed Jonah for 3 days, symbolizing Jesus being in Hades for 3 days after death." Your average believer throughout history would then go home and promptly not worry about it.

David Mo on the sh** list as well? You won't have any posts at all to view soon!

As you probably guessed I am a bit dubious about the symbolic stories from the Bible. Camels and needles, fig trees and Hebrew tribes, lost sheep and wayward sons, ect. Can't recall see how these stories clarify anything to be honest.

I think you are drawing a long bow in suggesting those preachers way back then, were doing this sort of thing rather than telling literal stories. No way to prove it one way or the other though I suppose.