Scientist & Atheist Converts

PROFESSOR František Vyskočil of Charles University, Prague, is internationally known for his research in neurophysiology. Once an atheist, he now firmly believes in God.
Why did he change his mind?

I was raised an atheist, and my father often made fun of the clergy. I graduated from college in 1963 with degrees in biology and chemistry. In my school years, I believed that the theory of evolution explained life’s diversity.

In my postdoctoral work, I studied the chemical and electrical properties of nerve synapses. I also studied neurons, membrane pumps, transplantation, and drug desensitization. Many of the results have been published, and some articles have been selected as classical. In time, I became a member of the Learned Society of the Czech Republic, a community of scientists chosen by their peers. After the December 1989 “Velvet Revolution,” I became a professor at Charles University and was allowed to travel to the West to meet with colleagues, some of whom were Nobel laureates.

My doubts about evolution began when I was studying synapses. I was deeply impressed by the amazing complexity of these supposedly simple connections between nerve cells. ‘How,’ I wondered, ‘could synapses and the genetic programs underlying them be products of mere blind chance?’ It really made no sense. Then, in the early 1970’s, I attended a lecture by a famous Russian scientist and professor. He stated that living organisms cannot be a result of random mutations and natural selection. Someone in the audience then asked where the answer lay. The professor took a small Russian Bible from his jacket, held it up, and said, “Read the Bible—the creation story in Genesis in particular.” Later, in the lobby, I asked the professor if he was serious about the Bible. In essence, he replied: “Simple bacteria can divide about every 20 minutes and have many hundreds of different proteins, each containing 20 types of amino acids arranged in chains that might be several hundred long. For bacteria to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than three or four billion years, the time that many scientists believe life has existed on earth.” The Bible book of Genesis, he felt, made much more sense.

His observations, along with my own nagging doubts, moved me to discuss the subject with several religious colleagues and friends...Two things amazed us. First, traditional “Christianity” actually has little in common with the Bible. Second, the Bible, though not a science book, actually harmonizes with true science...Every good scientist, regardless of his beliefs, must be as objective as possible.

I thought this was very interesting, when a scientist who saw the theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis just doesn't work with what he knows about biology.

Obviously this internationally known scientist has no knowledge of physics. Had he had any, he would have been wise enough not to mention the bible (and genesis) as quote of quote:

["Second, the Bible, though not a science book, actually harmonizes with true science."]

Awesome find!

One of my favorite sites features scientists who embrace creationism. They have geologists, microbiologists, physicists, mathematicians, etc.
Edinburgh Creation Group
There are many articles and lectures available for your perusal. Enjoy!

Timely post, I was just reading some interesting things about Francis Crick (the scientist who unraveled our DNA) & Scientist, Astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle that are germane to this topic. I'll bring some of that to the table here a little later. Until then:

Antony Garrard Newton Flew (11 February 1923 – 8 April 2010[1][2]) was a British philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought, he was notable for his works on the philosophy of religion.

Flew was a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticised the idea of life after death,[3] the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.[4]

However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, stating that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believes in God.[5] He later wrote the book There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind…
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Riiiight, the statements in Genesis that the Earth is flat, and was created before the sun, amongst MANY other idiocies, really "actually harmonizes with true science" as he said. The man should have his PHD revoked for such stupid crap. The guy is a moron.
While there is absolutely nothing unscientific about believing that there is a possibility that the universe was created by an all-powerful, multidimensional being, to make such statements about the bible should remove all credibility from him as a scientist.

Originally posted by bogomil
Obviously this internationally known scientist has no knowledge of physics. Had he had any, he would have been wise enough not to mention the bible (and genesis) as quote of quote:

["Second, the Bible, though not a science book, actually harmonizes with true science."]

Could you, kind bogomil, elucidate and enlighten us with your greater knowledge of physics then? Probably not, ahem.

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776


Where does it state in Genesis that the earth is flat ?

Let me help you. It DOESN'T

www.trueorigin.org...

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by bogomil
Obviously this internationally known scientist has no knowledge of physics. Had he had any, he would have been wise enough not to mention the bible (and genesis) as quote of quote:

["Second, the Bible, though not a science book, actually harmonizes with true science."]

Could you, kind bogomil, elucidate and enlighten us with your greater knowledge of physics then? Probably not, ahem.

As my competence, for whatever it's worth, is in the area of physics, this is where I address such issues. I have e.g. two versions of the 'intelligent design' concept, the short and the longer one. If 'intelligent design' as part of a faith vs. science/logic is suitable on this thread, which one of the versions do you prefer?

If we are to stay with genesis, I have participated/am participating on two threads on the subject, where I can link you.

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by Q:1984A:1776

 

Where does it state in Genesis that the earth is flat ?

Let me help you. It DOESN'T

www.trueorigin.org...

You're right on this.

Creationist1: science is a load of rubbish.
Athgeist: whatever.
Creationist2: I've changed to Atheism.
Atheist: whatever.
Creationist1: a scientist now says we're right, isn't science wonderful.

You're triumphalism is actually quite nauseating. It's not about getting the right answers with creationists it's about beating science with a stick till it complies, much like they did with the imposition of religion on the general populous. You are products of societies being held under regimes that would make Stalin, Hitler or Mao blush until you believed what they wanted people to believe.
This nonsense need not carry on much longer, Abiogenesis is the best explanation we have so far, to keep reiterating, if anything is called into question (as scientists do), it's wrong then God must have done it is triumphalisim sans facts at it's worst. Here's some other Scientists, some damn good ones.





Edit to add I would recommend the Sixty symbols youtube channel to everyone.

sixty symbols

reply to post by bogomil

I'll take Intelligent Design for the win, Alex...er, I mean bogomil. Here please. Because that's where I plan to discuss it for now.

When can leave out the "who" for right now, and just focus on is there evidence that suggests an intelligent designer and the oh so major issues that leaves evolution lacking in some very pertinent answers.

reply to post by The GUT


With the risk of this being deleted as off-topic......

The versions of 'intelligent design' I'm familiar with are based on a regression of the positivistic theory of the Big Bang. ('Continuous creation' and zero-point physics thus disregarded for now).

In the Big Bang theory there is an 'event horizon', i.e. what's observable in a cosmic context, but it does imply the conclusion, that matter/energy and space/time are created with the Big Bang. Matter/energy and space/time (as we understand the concepts) being part of the cosmic fabric only.

The transition from the observed to the non-observed (I'm most familiar with) is the quantum entaglement hypothesis resulting from the double-slit experiment. Indicating a trans-cosmic existence-level in a small and specific meaning. But not more.

Scientific considerations don't go further and any claims of them doing so don't come from science itself, but from hijacked 'science'.

At the transition-point from observed to non-observed 'logic' is the only rational tool for a continuation of a reasoning chain, in this case expressed through 'causality'. But as matter/energy and space/time no longer are reference-points (trans-cosmically), the causality-logic based on matter/energy and space/time (the one mankind knows) breaks down in a trans-cosmic context.

As in the standard versions of theist vs. 'rational' positions, what's trans-cosmic is anybody's guess. Here including the validity of trans-cosmic 'causality'. The 'intelligent design' concept being reduced to a be another extension of 'agnostic' ('we don't really know') positions.

Inversely the theist claims from highly structured complexity in cosmos are equally 'agnostic' from a rational perspective. The scientific starting-point is an ackowledgement of a basic observable structured order (already considered non-regressive on rational tems above). No use in returning to that, as I NOW am considering how complexity evolves. Take any initial structured conditions with dynamic qualities of asymmetric polarites and let them combine and recombine into growing complexity. The endresult will be an outcome of those initial conditions, and while our cosmos manifests as it does, other cosmoses with other initial conditions would also manifest similarly complexity according to THEIR initial conditions.

That our cosmos gives rise to the specific astro-physical result we observe and to (at least) carbon-based biology simply means that that is the outcome of 'our' initial conditions. With other initial conditions complexity, such as self-organization, is possible, though again (both ways theist-rational) still another 'agnosticism'.

reply to post by bogomil

Having said all that then: What does science make of consciousness? Matter is one thing, consciousness quite another don't you think?

You should flag this OP, it has promise.

Okay, this one is a "close but no cigar," but I found it interesting as I hadn't heard it before. It's probably one of the stages that Anthony Flew went through were I to surmise.

On Tuesday evening I attended the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at Oxford’s Natural History Museum. This was the second public encounter between the two men, but it turned out to be very different from the first. Lennox is the Oxford mathematics professor whose book, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? is to my mind an excoriating demolition of Dawkins’s overreach from biology into religion as expressed in his book The God Delusion -- all the more devastating because Lennox attacks him on the basis of science itself. In the first debate, which can be seen on video on this website, Dawkins was badly caught off-balance by Lennox’s argument precisely because, possibly for the first time, he was being challenged on his own chosen scientific ground.

This week’s debate, however, was different because from the off Dawkins moved it onto safer territory– and at the very beginning made a most startling admission. He said:
A serious case could be made for a deistic God.
This was surely remarkable. Here was the arch-apostle of atheism, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, saying that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force. A creator.

True, he was not saying he was now a deist; on the contrary, he still didn't believe in such a purposeful founding intelligence, and he was certainly still saying that belief in the personal God of the Bible was just like believing in fairies. Nevertheless, to acknowledge that ‘a serious case could be made for a deistic god’ is to undermine his previous categorical assertion that
...all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection...Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.
www.spectator.co.uk...

reply to post by goldentorch

That was a good vid, goldentorch. What I got out of it was them basically scratching their head and saying 'I don't know,' for the most part.

I would ask you the same question I posed, bogomil: Does abiogenesis account for consciousness?

It's a scientific concept, is it not, to proffer a thesis if we have prior knowledge of a 'model' when exploring that which we don't know?

For example: We possess a consciousness that is able through our facility for abstract thought to be 'aware' of itself. We also create.

Thusly we have a model to build a thesis on. One that is inclusive of 'consciousness' whereas the 'materialistic' based sciences can't.

Originally posted by The GUT
reply to post by bogomil

 

Having said all that then: What does science make of consciousness? Matter is one thing, consciousness quite another don't you think?

You should flag this OP, it has promise.

Do you here refer to concepts like 'spirit' or 'soul' or just 'consciousness', which we don't even can define precisely. Does my cat have a 'consciousness'? He definitely has a personality, make choices and is an individual.

But it's to late here for me to ruminate on that presently, so if you'll excuse me, there will be an effort towards an answer tomorrow.

PS I find the OP to propagandistic for my taste. It's not like as if the pope became an atheist.

reply to post by The GUT


Depends how you link consciousness to free will. Your God offers free will but then denies it by saying you have to obey him in order to reap some rather ridiculous promises. Effects consciousness as it automatically cuts down on consciousness.

Originally posted by goldentorch
reply to post by The GUT

 

Depends how you link consciousness to free will. Your God offers free will but then denies it by saying you have to obey him in order to reap some rather ridiculous promises. Effects consciousness as it automatically cuts down on consciousness.

I can see why you might think that, but God doesn't generally legislate morality. He might wipe out some wickedness (or maybe it's certain bloodlines i.e. nephilim) from time to time but we are free to immerse in debauchery as much as we want to. But that's not a response to my point.

It is a pretty good stumper that consciousness issue, eh? It throws a legitimate bump in the road for materialists.

bogomil: Have a good night, I look forward to your reply.

Not necessarily scientist conversions, but an interesting list of former atheists and agnostics:

List of Former Atheists and Agnostics

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by Q:1984A:1776

 

Where does it state in Genesis that the earth is flat ?

Let me help you. It DOESN'T

www.trueorigin.org...

Actually, there are SEVERAL places throughout the entire bible that refer to a stationary, immovable, flat Earth. This is only if you don't try to stretch reason beyond the confines of logic to try to interpret a stone-aged collection of documents to be scientific. I could go to the effort of giving you books, chapters and verses, but you are so blinded by your belief in your fairy tales, that your eyes would just gloss over and you wouldn't accept anything that I said because that would undermine the foundation of your world. Pardon the pun.
Also, would you care to address the fact that Genesis says that the sun was created after the Earth... As well as the stars being created last, almost as an afterthought?

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776


I commented earlier on the flat-earth point, but that was only in the context of genesis, so please don't take my attitude as a general backstabbing if your position.

As I am very interested in the bible - scientific cosmogony/cosmology perspective, I would be grateful, if you could point to the direct flat earth bible-references. I have always wondered where the medieval popularity of it came from.