Intelligent Design News

Bill Gates on design in nature

Spread the love
File:Dts news bill gates wikipedia.JPG
Bill Gates/DTS News

In Rolling Stone,

Do you believe in God?

I agree with people like Richard Dawkins that mankind felt the need for creation myths. Before we really began to understand disease and the weather and things like that, we sought false explanations for them. Now science has filled in some of the realm – not all – that religion used to fill. But the mystery and the beauty of the world is overwhelmingly amazing, and there’s no scientific explanation of how it came about. To say that it was generated by random numbers, that does seem, you know, sort of an uncharitable view [laughs]. I think it makes sense to believe in God, but exactly what decision in your life you make differently because of it, I don’t know.

An uncharitable view? Unreasonable would be more like it. But then there would be apparent consequences.

6 Replies to “Bill Gates on design in nature

  1. 1
    johnp says:

    From the OP: “I think it makes sense to believe in God, but exactly what decision in your life you make differently because of it, I don’t know.”

    It seems to me that if you did actually come to a belief in God, in the way that Mr. Gates describesb(“the mystery and the beauty of the world is overwhelmingly amazing”), you would be curious to know more about him.

    no?

  2. 2
    johnp says:

    Note to self: always proof before submitting.

    The second paragraph in my previous comment should read:

    It seems to me that if you did actually come to a belief in God, in the way that Mr. Gates describes(“the mystery and the beauty of the world is overwhelmingly amazing”), you would be curious to know more about him.

    Thanks.

  3. 3
    Paul Giem says:

    The problem with Bill Gates is that he Just Doesn’t Understand Evolution 😉 .

    However, it always nice to have a God Who doesn’t make any difference in what we do. Who would want a God Who knew better than we what we should do? Who actually had expectations of us? 😉

  4. 4
    Barb says:

    To say that it was generated by random numbers, that does seem, you know, sort of an uncharitable view [laughs].

    Yes, because now you have the origin problem of discovering where the random numbers came from.

    I think it makes sense to believe in God, but exactly what decision in your life you make differently because of it, I don’t know.

    Most people, atheists included, can quote John 3:16 verbatim. The point of that scripture is the part about “exercising faith” in God and Christ.

  5. 5
    Axel says:

    ‘However, it always nice to have a God Who doesn’t make any difference in what we do. Who would want a God Who knew better than we what we should do? Who actually had expectations of us?’

    Atheists, Paul, seem curiously ambivalent in their strictures concerning theism and question of theodicy. I say, ‘question’ of theodicy, as it seems there is no complete answer to the ‘matter’ of theodicy, for us, on this side of eternity, beyond the nevertheless crucial, insofar, as as it goes, necessity to view all suffering and death ‘sub specie aeternitatis’.

    Yet, if they feel so much more sensitive about innocent suffering caused by whatever means than Christians and theists, generally, as they implicitly claim, why is it that they do not welcome the continuing discoveries of physics of matter’s, indeed, light’s subjective/inter-subjective relationship with the Observer, and, indeed, the fine-tuning of the universe – both indicating a God who could not take a closer interest in the individual human being?

    It ought to reassure them, but instead, they react eristically, as if they would prefer that ‘putative’ God of the Christians, who makes moral demands of them, to ‘continue'(!) not to be concerned with their life and welfare, as they claim.

    It seems to be the usual muddle-headed thinking, arising from their ‘backing the wrong horse’, wishing to believe the opposite to that of the ‘wishful thinking’ of Christians. It used to be the case that the truth was too abstruse and arcane for our most basic assumptions to do other than rest on what, in the end, we wished to be the truth.

    Christians felt no need to hold that the truth needed to be hard and unforgiving, not to be wished for, not to be hoped for, and anything but beautiful. It was and remains our belief that such a faith is a gift of God, supernatural grace. Indeed, why would he not have made the world in such fashion as to correspond with the insights granted by such grace to his children? Contrary to the atheists’ belief, our faith is and never has been entirely blind, but is rather confirmed by our experiences undergone in our daily lives.

    Of course, it can never be as simple as that, since good people can be temporarily overwhelmed by a personal tragedy or tragedies, in their life, although often these can be major, positive turning points in their life, the occasion of a radical conversion, and the beginning of an undreamt-of intimacy with their Christ, their Creator.

    In recent decades, however, unassailable evidence has been relentlessly mounting that, not only is theism a scientifically-confirmed truth, but that the Christian religion, itself is the fulness of truth. But the more hope and light they are faced with, the more frantically they shun it. Very strange.

  6. 6
    Limbo says:

    I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Mr. Gates saying in an interview with Barbara Walter (years ago) that he didn’t believe in God but raised his kids as if he did. It would seem that he has evolved on the topic quite a bit. The reference to Dawkins is obviously just a bone thrown to secularists to keep them from growling and snapping at him too much.

    I think it would be fair to call him a computer scientist even though he dropped out of college to start Microsoft. Computer scientists know better than anyone the limited power of randomness as a creative force, or that it’s usefulness for solving complex problems is minimal.

Leave a Reply