"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil

I thought this was a great interview of a former atheist.

He speaks of believing that God was a human invention, and wondered why educated people, likes some of his Professors, would believe in a God. And he was outraged by the atrocities that were committed by religion. It's interesting that his doubts in evolution came when he began studying synapses. Then hearing another scientist give a lecture, really got him thinking.

Here is the interview.

I thought it can give a different perspective on why someone might believe in a creator.

reply to post by lucidclouds


From a scientific standpoint it is not completely ignorant to believe in a creator, it is one of a trillion possibilities to the origins of everything which makes it possible, but still very unlikely.
But to believe in a specific god without any evidence is not logical because it is just too impossible.
Likewise to follow rules made by men in the name of that god makes no sense at all.

Its obvious that he does not even understand evolution when he says:
"How,’ I wondered, ‘could synapses and the genetic programs underlying them be products of mere blind chance?".
Because they are not the product of chance, they are the product of adaption.

To summarise:
For this man to come to the conclusions he has, he has ignored the basic principles of logic and ignores the obvious lack of probability and common sense.

reply to post by lucidclouds


it is very interesting - a fascinating insite into how a scientist abandoned critical thinking

the following quotes demonstrate this :

I and not a few other scientists ask ourselves, ‘How did God design this?’

so much for scient - he has already concluded that " god designed it " and attempts to explain how

I am now grateful to God for any abilities I may have

again apriori assumption

‘How,’ I wondered, ‘could synapses and the genetic programs underlying them be products of mere blind chance?

a mind boggling misrepresentation of evolutionary science - how can this person evaluate eveolution if he doesnt even know that he is contemplating ??

and finally - a typical example of unscientific dishonesty :

For bacteria to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than three or four billion years,

the study of antibotic resistant strains of bacteria shows clearly that multiple beneficial mutations has occured in the space of decades

I was also raised an atheist.

In a way, I am very grateful to my father for doing this. Religion is often "inherited" from one's parents and once a person is indoctrinated into a specific mode of thinking--it is often very hard to have them think another way.

My father wanted us to think for ourselves---and wherever that thinking took us was fine with him. He took us to different sorts of churches and temples so we could experience different types of religions for ourselves.

He, himself, did not believe in God.

At an early age, I began to research, think and intuit on my own--what the true nature of reality was. I came to believe in a creator early on and have never abandoned this way of thinking. I had some interesting conversations with my father over the years about this.

The way I came to this sort of thinking was not influenced by my parents or members of a church. It is something I came to on my own----and I am proud of that.

First thing's first, this is from the Watchtower society.

I've caught lies, misrepresentations, and piles of quote-mining in their works before. I trust them least out of all creationist sources.

If this guy is following the Watchtower group, he's likely been caught up in the deception.

Here's just a commentary

He's a Physiologist, and Neuroscientist. Neither of those are quite eminent fields of science for the topic of evolution. Biology, yes, so it's close, but still nothing that's affected by it either way. This guy has nothing that'd convince the 99.999% of scientists that are in eminent fields, that believe in evolution, that his creationist ideas are correct. And it's not his field of study or expertise, he's in one that really doesn't make a difference where our physical makeup came from as long as he knows how it is.

~
The real blunder here is that, the Watchtower corporation could never show statistics. A few anecdotes in a world of 7 billion doesn't show the true picture. You'll find piles, and piles, and piles more of anecdotes of people turning away from religion, from the Witnesses, or at least becoming more moderate and accepting scientific ideas.

They would never let you know that. They'll act like a few small stories represent the majority.

~
This man can believe whatever he wants. However, he's not convincing his fellow scientists. He's also not convincing me.

There are TONS of Scientists who BELIEVE in a Creator. Not only that, who is to say what is logical thinking anyway. Billions of people on this Planet and Billions believe.

People "believe" because they have decided for themselves what is right for them by simply choosing to believe or not believing. Plain and simple.

Its funny...Atheism is now considered a Religion. Where is the "logic" in that?

Like minds tend to stick together and then BAM...a cult is formed.

Here is why people begin believing....they QUESTION their existence!! In Dr. Collins own words...he began questioning and from their began a journey.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers. I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?" I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative." But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

articles.cnn.com...:US

It's funny the guy doesn't actually use science to reach his conclusions about god, just his opinions on complexity, and how x could have happened. It's nothing new and I'd be surprised if his story is even real. There's nothing wrong with having faith at all, just don't call it science.

I also feel that children should never be indoctrinated into a religion. That's the reason most people still believe it to this day. Because their parents force it on them as the only possibility, and simply put, people are too weak minded to seek out anything else. I plan to let my kids decide for themselves. I'll tell them what I believe and why I do it, but they are welcome to choose whichever worldview they like once they get older. If god was real, you shouldn't have to indoctrinate your kids. He will make himself known in their lives.

first of all I am not religious and I despise all religions that indoctrinate people...

but...

I laugh when I see proud arrogant atheists making firm statements about what does and does not exist... to be proud of being close minded is not much different than being religious extremist, or is it?

...what atheists are proposing is something like a tornado could blow through a junkyard and assemble a perfectly functional 747, or something like Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide planet of casinos entirely created by rain erosion to the last chip...



the nature is more clever than all scientists together and nature creates multitude of life every nanosecond, while scientists are having a big difficulty creating even a simple self evolving one-cell organism from scratch...

so we could say that nature is an intelligent higher force, it did create scientist after all, eh?

... and, when you create life in laboratory, isn't that creationism? it sure looks like that to me...



so I can conclude that both sides of this ridiculous fight are the same, you are both too close minded to gasp the truth (that we are a part of an elaborate experiment of the evolution of self conscious energy - but that story is for another thread)

For bacteria to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than three or four billion years

People who say this no no conception of numbers- 4 billion is unimaginably vast.
Not to mention that single celled organisms have short lifespans and so can have many generations in a very short span of time.

Ah the Watchtower Society...the same guys who simply ignore all those failed prophecies, and a society who is against free speech. And of course just like the Catholic church they try to cover up sexual abuse cases.

Seems like a trustworthy source

reply to post by MamaJ

who is to say what is logical thinking anyway.

Probability is.
Waiting for evidence or knowledge of the origins of life before making a decision based on absolutely nothing is the logical choice.
Believing in a creator is normal because it is a possibility, still very unlikely tho.
Believing in a specific creator with specific rules is completely insane because it is so unlikely it is virtually impossible.

People "believe" because they have decided for themselves what is right for them by simply choosing to believe or not believing. Plain and simple.

And this is where logic goes completely out the door. Your opinions are not sufficient evidence to make an informed and logical decision as to the origins of the entire universe. This is like getting a plumber to do your brain surgery.

Its funny...Atheism is now considered a Religion. Where is the "logic" in that?

Says who? I agree that its wrong to say that a creator does not 100% exist because it is always possible even in the slightest degree being one of an infinite number of possibilities. But it makes more sense not to believe in a god then to believe in one.

...what atheists are proposing is something like a tornado could blow through a junkyard and assemble a perfectly functional 747, or something like Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide planet of casinos entirely created by rain erosion to the last chip...

This one always kills me! Clearly this guy is an expert in evolutionary biology and mathematical probability. He's got evolution nailed to a T. "Dude, I'm not religious, but evolution is extremely improbable and scientists are using creationism" Right buddy. I believe you.

But why do some evolutionary biologists still believe in god? It's because evolution has absolutely nothing to do with choosing to believe in a god or not. That choice is up to the individual. I don't see why evolution doesn't strengthen people's faith in god, if anything. So please stop it already with the nonsense that anybody who agrees with the science behind evolution is automatically an absolute atheist. Just because they reject the literal interpretation of a holy book, doesn't mean they reject god completely.

There aren't 2 "sides" to this. There's millions of people with millions of different opinions on the unknown, many belief systems are atheistic, many are not. Separate from that there is science, which is intelligent humans beings learning how things work and how it can benefit us.

The trouble is that when you mention a 'creator' people immediately think of fundamentalist Creationism and immediately start think of Dr. Dino etc. I don’t understand why people think one has to be either a hardcore religious adherent or some ‘deny everything that can’t be measured’ atheist. There is no black and white, only differing shades of grey. I do believe there is some merit in the Bible but more on a metaphorical and historical level, and I simply believe all belief systems (atheism included) are merely different facets on the ultimate gemstone of Truth.

I myself work within a scientific field, I believe firmly in evolution, and am very logically grounded; but I am also deeply spiritual and believe there is purpose to in all things.

reply to post by 1littlewolf

I don’t understand why people think one has to be either a hardcore religious adherent or some ‘deny everything that can’t be measured’ atheist.

Nobody thinks that. Everybody over the age of about fifteen knows there is a spectrum of belief between pure atheism and unquestioning religious faith.

I could accuse you of the same dumbing-down oversimplification of which you are accusing others, simply for having made that statement. The relationship between knowledge and belief is far richer and more complex than the caricature you are trying to draw.

Besides, you are confusing atheism and empiricism. Empiricism arises from the belief that the only reality worth troubling oneself about is that which is palpable and measurable. It is the basis of all practical human inquiry, and especially of science. But it is not atheism. Atheism is simply disbelief in gods. That disbelief may be founded in empirical inquiry, but empiricism is not the only foundation from which atheism can spring. Many Buddhists, especially the most thoughtful ones, are atheists; but Buddhism mostly denies what empiricism asserts.

I believe that any sufficiently intelligent and courageous person must eventually become an atheist. This is a personal opinion with which anyone is welcome to disagree. It has nothing to do with hardcore empiricism and everything to do with the fact that the concept of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity is both logically and morally contradictory; God is, quite simply, an absurd concept.

reply to post by TheCommentator

Believing in a creator is normal because it is a possibility.

I believe that the Queen of England is a snake-eyed alien. After all, it's a possibility...

Stupidity is normal. Believing that something exists, just because it is possible for it to exist, is pretty stupid, no?

There is no logical space for belief in what cannot be demonstrated. Such beliefs exist, by definition, beyond logic.

Intelligent people don't have beliefs. They only have working hypotheses.

reply to post by MamaJ

Atheism is now considered a Religion.

Who considers it so? Religious people?

You have faith? Great. You believe in a Creator? Fine. You think reason, logic and science are blind to the greatest truths? Wonderful. Stay with those beliefs and don't argue them.

In an argument with religious unbelievers, the faithful must always lose. Every single time. It doesn't matter whether we unbelievers are right or wrong, you see; rational discourse does not recognize unsupported belief, so anyone arguing from premises of faith is bound to lose. You're trying to best us on our own ground.

Take my advice: for the good of your faith, don't put it to the test. It will only fail, and that will only make you angry and unhappy. Your faith, ultimately, will be destroyed. You may not lose it, but its quality will grow more wilful, extreme and neurotic, and you will no longer be able to draw strength or comfort from it. Instead, it will become a source of disappointment, frustration and hatred of others.

You seem like a decent person. I don't want you to throw yourself, unknowing, into the abyss. Please stop now.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by TheCommentator

 

Believing in a creator is normal because it is a possibility.

It is possible that the Queen of England is a snake-eyed alien. After all, it's a possibility...

Stupidity is normal. Believing that something exists, just because it is possible for it to exist, is pretty stupid, no?

There is no logical space for belief in what cannot be demonstrated. Such beliefs exist, by definition, beyond logic.

Intelligent people don't have beliefs. They only have working hypotheses.

Did you even read my whole post.
Normal wasnt the best word to use but it is a hell lot more normal then believing in a specific god..

reply to post by donhuangenaro

To be proud of being close minded is not much different than being religious extremist, or is it?

Nobody admits to having a closed mind, least of all a religious extremist whose mind really is closed.

That atheists are proposing is something like a tornado could blow through a junkyard and assemble a perfectly functional 747.

You're fond of that little analogy, aren't you? A lot of creationists are. It was originally concocted by Sir Fred Hoyle, who was once Astronomer Royal to Her Majesty the Queen of England (posh, eh?) Sir Fred didn't like Darwinism because he thought it was in conflict with his own pet theories of panspermia. He was a cranky old codger and had a talent for being wrong; for example, he stuck with the steady-state model of the Universe long after it was obvious to everybody else that we live in a Big Bang Universe...

The analogy, incidentally, is stupid and false. It suggests that evolution is a random process. Evolution is not random. Mutation, which provides the raw material for natural selection, is random, but evolution is not. Sir Fred was talking through his hat.

Nature is more clever than all scientists together and nature creates multitude of life every nanosecond, while scientists are having a big difficulty creating even a simple self evolving one-cell organism from scratch...

1. Nature had 4.5 billion years to do it. Scientists have been trying for about fifty. What do you expect?
   
   
2. What you are really trying to say here is 'I am more clever than all scientists together.' Well, you're not, so boo to that.

we could say that nature is an intelligent higher force, it did create scientist after all, eh?

Nature is not a force. Nature is just another word for the universe and its laws.

when you create life in laboratory, isn't that creationism?

No, that is creation.

I can conclude that both sides of this ridiculous fight are the same, you are both too close minded to gasp the truth (that we are a part of an elaborate experiment of the evolution of self conscious energy - but that story is for another thread)

Yes, I'm sure we're all too stupid to understand the Theory of Everything you found floating in the bong water.

reply to post by TheCommentator

Of course I read your whole post, but the point I'm making here is that believing in stuff is not a very smart thing to do.

Originally posted by Astyanax

I don’t understand why people think one has to be either a hardcore religious adherent or some ‘deny everything that can’t be measured’ atheist.

Nobody thinks that. Everybody over the age of about fifteen knows there is a spectrum of belief between pure atheism and unquestioning religious faith.

I could accuse you of the same dumbing-down oversimplification of which you are accusing others, simply for having made that statement. The relationship between knowledge and belief is far richer and more complex than the caricature you are trying to draw.

Hey Astyanax,

Yes you are quite right. I did make a simplification here though if I realized that my post by someone of your methodical critiquing skills were to be the next poster I would probably have been a little more careful. But it is not totally without cause. You see your very response belies what you and the large majority of people who share your point of view seem to believe. That Religion, or at the very least a belief in a God which sits totally outside of creation is the only belief system available.

Now you’re obviously quite intelligent, and I’m sure if we were to sit down and discuss these matters over a nice cold beer you would concede that yes there are many belief systems which sit outside the major religious spectrum. But even your statement in the last paragraph about an ‘omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity’ implies that this is how you believe I think, and that is simply not the case. I would if pressed classify myself as a spiritual pantheist, and I would hazard a guess that the majority of people here on ATS who are not atheists (outside of course the regulars in the ‘Origins’ and ‘Conspiracies in Religion‘ Forums) would also classify themselves as spiritual, not religious. And with that spirituality comes a general acceptance of mainstream science, but also a belief that ‘God’ is not separate being and exists independently from the universe. It’s just that we believe there is likely something ‘more’ out there.

Yes this is very vague, but the realms of spirituality are just as individual as it’s adherents. I know you will say this only proves that it cannot be true for ultimately there can only be one truth, but we feel that we are simply do not have enough knowledge to judge fully what is true. Therefore many a spiritualist’s beliefs, for better or worse, are often a mishmash of age old mysticism and New Age thinking.

So getting back to your original point, anyone over the age of 15 may well believe that there are many religions, but realizing there are many belief systems is an entirely different thing. I am quite confident in saying that most people do not posses anything more than a slight inkling that there are beliefs which lie outside those which the major religions expound.

This is why I made that fairly simplistic statement. For there are very few atheists who would actually go to the trouble of posting (apart from maybe the Buddhists) who will not immediately jump down your throat about Creationism or Intelligent Design the moment the concept of a belief system which is not atheism is raised. Most people simply do not seem to think about such things deeply enough to find out what other beliefs are out there, and it is for this reason I felt such a statement would be adequate.

Being ATS though, I probably should have known better….

Besides, you are confusing atheism and empiricism. Empiricism arises from the belief that the only reality worth troubling oneself about is that which is palpable and measurable. It is the basis of all practical human inquiry, and especially of science. But it is not atheism. Atheism is simply disbelief in gods. That disbelief may be founded in empirical inquiry, but empiricism is not the only foundation from which atheism can spring. Many Buddhists, especially the most thoughtful ones, are atheists; but Buddhism mostly denies what empiricism asserts.

I do realize this, but you must admit that there would be very few atheists who are not empiricists. Also people who practice Buddhism as merely an everyday world view may well be atheists, but those who take it up a few notches will surely leave the realms of atheism behind and enter into a world that is spiritual. It’s just they do not place any importance on any spiritual realm which sits outside of themselves

I believe that any sufficiently intelligent and courageous person must eventually become an atheist. This is a personal opinion with which anyone is welcome to disagree. It has nothing to do with hardcore empiricism and everything to do with the fact that the concept of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity is both logically and morally contradictory; God is, quite simply, an absurd concept.

I believe I’ve answered most of this above already, but in light of what I’ve already said above could you please qualify the statement

I believe that any sufficiently intelligent and courageous person must eventually become an atheist

Because this makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, even though I do realize this is merely your opinion….
-----------------------------------------
EDIT:

Though I may completely disagree with your premise, I just can't help laughing this statement

I can conclude that both sides of this ridiculous fight are the same, you are both too close minded to gasp the truth (that we are a part of an elaborate experiment of the evolution of self conscious energy - but that story is for another thread)

Yes, I'm sure we're all too stupid to understand the Theory of Everything you found floating in the bong water.