Atheism Evolution Intelligent Design

Steven Weinberg on atheism, evolution, and such

Spread the love

Readers may recall that Nobelist Steven Weinberg, an outspoken atheist, died recently. A reader sends this interseting clip from 2004 in which he spells out his views on “evolution, George Bush, religion in America versus Europe, the utility of belief irrespective of whether it’s true or not, the response to science within Muslim countries, and whether or not Stephen liked God and religion in a personal sense. There is also a discussion of evolution and it’s implications for humanity.” He is discussing matters with British writer and director Jonathan Miller (1934–2019).

Steven Weinberg 1933–2021 Weinberg: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

12 Replies to “Steven Weinberg on atheism, evolution, and such

  1. 1

    Weinberg, like all the rest, was utterly clueless on the intellectual level about subjectivity, and making choices. Another stereotype atheist, who lacked a stately personal judgement, facillated by the intellect. Who had instead a smarmy personal judgement, because of only having intuitive understanding of subjectivity, and no intellectual understanding of it.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    It seems to me that what drives scientists is curiosity. There are profound mysteries out there and they want find the answer although, there’s an irony there in that they would be disappointed if there were no puzzles out there to solve.

    Believers, on the other hand, seem to prefer answers. Christians don’t want the question of what happens after death, for example, to be a mystery. They want the reassurance and hope of life ever after with their God in heaven. That is something they rarely question. I sometimes wonder if the real purpose of the story of the Fall in Genesis was actually to discourage curiosity about such matters because that was actually Adam and Eve’s “sin”. They were inquisitive and for that they were punished, as were their descendants in perpetuity. How many think that was fair and just?

  3. 3
    AnimatedDust says:

    Could be that the fall is just what it is claimed to be. A more perfect description of man’s nature exists nowhere else. It plays out nightly on the news.

    Their sin was not knowledge, or curiosity. They were the first taxonomists. It was the knowledge of good and evil.

    This short video nails the issue:

    https://youtu.be/l0x9MPdhXtY

    You’ll have your answer, just like Weinberg now does. I pray you’ll see the light before then.

  4. 4
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    What drives scientists is curiosity?
    That’s silly. And false.

    Well, okay, curiosity may drive them, as long as the curiosity leads to a result that supports their agenda.
    But when that doesn’t happen, what drives scientists, at least the top ones?
    Here’s what:
    Lies, to prop up the agenda.

    Look at the Miller Urey experiment. A fraud for 70 years.
    Perpetrated on all of us. And continuing today with hundreds of millions of our children.
    By the world’s top gurus, science educators, and publishers.

    Our text books, they told us that Miller and Urey made “amino acids, the building blocks of life.”
    But that’s a lie. They didn’t make building blocks of life.

    Amino acids, they’re like gloves, they can be right and left handed..
    That was known long before Miller and Urey.
    And Miller and Urey, their amino acids were mixed up, both left and right handed.
    But uh oh. Living things they got only left handed.
    And Atheist Biologists, they don’t got a way to make only left handed ones.
    So Miller and Urey, they didn’t show that living things can come from common chemicals.
    They showed they cant.

    But that gave ammo to the Creationists.
    It was further proof of Pasteur’s Creationist Law of Biogenesis:
    “Absent Divine Intervention, life comes only from life.”
    And our top Atheist Scientists, they hate Creationism.
    So they lied.

    Today, it’s 2021. The cat’s out of the bag.
    Which is why us Creationists are sitting in the catbird seat.
    And really, after 70 years of lying, what rational person would trust these guys, on anything?

  5. 5

    Sev @2: Believers, scientist or not, are also curious. But we look at something in nature and wonder – how did He do that? How did He make that? What are the design and engineering principles here? Then we go on to study the design to seek the answer.
    So of course believers prefer answers. But we seek out those answers because of our curiosity of how the creator might have done something.
    Sev – you separate out scientists from believers as if they are separate groups. They can be, and are, one and the same. Study the history of science and modern day science, and you will see the error of your segregation.

  6. 6
    jerry says:

    what drives scientists is curiosity

    No, like anyone else they are interested in self preservation and will accommodate the powers in charge as necessary. Some will start curious and remain so. But most are hardly curious at all. And as the last year has shown, they are an obsequious lot.

    Scott Adams wrote a book on God which I do not recommend. It is meant for the unthinking masses which includes most college graduates. And they are easily persuaded.

    But the book has some interesting insights. For example,

    He told me that scientists often see things they don’t understand, so they invent words to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. These words then take a life of their own when people forget that they were placeholders.

    Evolution is a useless theory, and people believe it because of the quantity and variety, and not because of the quality, of the evidence in support of it. Meanwhile, every scientist with enough time and money can find a way to convince himself and others that the theory is sound.

    Few people believed in God; they only say they believe in him. They do not act the part. Their devotion is too weak to be believed, and it does not extend beyond its utility. They say that they believe because they must say that in order to get the benefits of their religion’s social institutions. They act so that they will be seen acting. If they believed that a truck was driving toward them, then they would jump out of its way; yet they pretend believe that hellfire is in front of them while they go about sinning.

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Ayearningforpublius/5

    Sev @2: Believers, scientist or not, are also curious. But we look at something in nature and wonder – how did He do that? How did He make that? What are the design and engineering principles here? Then we go on to study the design to seek the answer.

    I agree that there are some that do but I think that there are a lot more that couldn’t care less as long as they can look forward to a wonderful afterlife. And, in my experience, the church doesn’t try to prevent it, it exactly encourage curiosity about such matters either.

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    Jerry/6

    No, like anyone else they are interested in self preservation and will accommodate the powers in charge as necessary. Some will start curious and remain so. But most are hardly curious at all. And as the last year has shown, they are an obsequious lot.

    Oh, well, if we’re going to be insulting I’d say that the scientific community, for all its faults, is by and large positively saintly compared to the Trumpicans who are still fawning over their Dear Leader.

  9. 9
    jerry says:

    for all its faults, is by and large positively saintly

    Well, who has been responsible for the virus, lack of treatment, and lies about the science of vaccines and other interventions. They are hardly saintly.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    According to seversky evolutionists are believers. Nice own goal.

  11. 11
    chuckdarwin says:

    Seversky #7 and 8
    As the great Bertrand Russell once said: “Most people would rather die than think.” 😉

  12. 12
    EDTA says:

    >”As the great Bertrand Russell”

    You mean the Bertrand Russell who went through 4 wives, and whose “Why I am not a Christian” is riddled with errors of logic? That Bertrand Russell? Learned, yes. Wise, no.

Leave a Reply