Atheistic Scientists Deny Cosmological Evidence for Religious Belief, Author Says

Astronomers and physicists who feel motivated to rationalize their way out of the religious implications ofA the "Big Bang," typically conjure up unsubstantiated theories divorced from the scientific rigor they claim to champion.

[The Dude]

Oh, but ID isn't anything to do with religion, nope!

[MikeF]

"Kevin Mooney is a freelance investigative reporter whose work has appeared in the Washington Examiner and the Cybercast News Service."

"He specializes in national security issues, border security concerns and environmentalism."

He is also an idiot.

"Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence?"

Too stupid to even address.

"Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?"

In spite of the fact that the vast majority of the universe is completely inhospitable.

How about that Earth orbit there, Kevin. Pretty amazing, huh?

[Darwins Stepchild]

Berlinski makes the statement that the Big Bang points toward the possibility that God exists. To me, this just points out that Berlinski is applying his own bias to the interpretation of the data, and is making a God-of-the-Gaps argument.

I see nothing in the Big Bang that is definitive one way or the other concerning the existence of gods. As such, Berlinski is asking for unwarranted conclusions.

[MikeF]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

I see nothing in the Big Bang that is definitive one way or the other concerning the existence of gods.

Agreed.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

As such, Berlinski is asking for unwarranted conclusions.

Or, it could be said, that Berlinski is simply full of crap.

[LowellGuy]

Berlinski poses readers with a series of questions in “The Devil’s Delusion” that expose the limits and pretensions of contemporary science and the “New Atheists” who sit in insulated academic settings.

Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence?

(There is no such thing as evidence, much less proof, AGAINST the existence of something)

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?

(The fine-tuned universe? Come on. And, the universe is far more fine-tuned for black holes, which are responsible for the complete annihilation of galaxies. And this all presupposes the notion that the universe gives two flying shits about whether life exists or not. Anthropomorphizing the universe isn't proof of God's existence; it's proof of the anthropomorphist's biases.)

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?

(The vast majority of scientists ARE religious. The claim that scientists of any stripe are, by virtue of their use of the scientific method, atheists is propagandist bullshit.)

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?

(Yes. Religious beliefs are based upon stories, not evidence. In fact, religious beliefs frequently contradict observable reality. If there's any way that can be construed as rational, I'd love to hear it.)