[I had] an encounter with love sufficiently deep to bring an intimation of the divine"¦ I encountered Gabriele. Someone once said that it is hard to fall in love without thinking of God. Such was my experience. Ours was a wonderful romance that would culminate in marriage two years later. But these romantic feelings pointed me toward something deeper"¦.

They're called endorphins!!!

But seriously, the "embrace of atheism" didn't bring him joy? Mine neither, nor pain, anguish or heartburn. And that's a BIG whoop-te-do. I'm sorry, but I find that statement totally absurd - hence my registration!

But to the OP.

Steve makes it sound like scientists are supposed to be like slicked-up car salesmen (and some ID promoters) and make swamp land in Florida sound like the investment opportunity of a lifetime.
I for one, don't care if I'm in the "in" group and don't particularly care what the popular clique thinks or wants. I never have. Several, lets say, charismatic leaders have shown how easy it is to sell the "public" a bill of goods, getting them to do such things as committing atrocities against ethnicities, to drinking the Kool-Aid.
So a good policy to my thinking is to find out what the "public" wants, and do the opposite. And the heck with what sells in Peoria!!

Darwinism won't sell in Peoria, but I find ID, properly packaged will sell to to the Atheists, for the very reasons implicit in what you wrote.

Patrick Glyn, Harvard PhD, in "God, the Evidence" wrote:

"I had decided on the basis of intensive philosophical study, that there was no God in a personal sense, no afterlife, no soul. I embraced skepticism at an early age when I first learned of Darwin's theory of evolution in, of places, Catholic grade school.

By the time I received my PhD (at Harvard) at the end of the 1970s, I was a convinced atheist.

The embrace of atheism did not bring joy. Somewhere, I had clung to the hope that I might be proven wrong. The day I grasped that the entire tradition of Western philosophy, from ancient to modern times, was essentially a refutation of the idea of God — (the day I grasped this) was not a happy one. But the conclusion seemed inescapable. "

But then he writes of his conversion:

"
[I had] an encounter with love sufficiently deep to bring an intimation of the divine… I encountered Gabriele. Someone once said that it is hard to fall in love without thinking of God. Such was my experience. Ours was a wonderful romance that would culminate in marriage two years later. But these romantic feelings pointed me toward something deeper…. For reasons that I hardly understood, I began to utter from time to time a little prayer of thanksgiving….

I turned to the physical sciences and discovered that the random, materialistic universe had effectively been refuted or overtaken by an entirely new vision. It was clear that the old framework which we proud intellectuals had based all our atheism and anxiety was coming apart at the seems. I broadened my search to psychology and medicine, and found parallel developments there. Gradually, I realized that in the twenty years since I opted for philosophical atheism, a vast, systematic literature had emerged that effectively refuted my atheistic outlook.

The discovery that I had been so dead wrong about the fundamentals of life sent me into a bit of a psychological tailspin. I realized how wrong I had been, how selfish, how arrogant — I will say it — how sinful. It took time, reading, contemplation, reasoning, prayer and a great deal of extremely patient help (and good humor from Gabriele). There were also spiritual experiences along the way"”beckonings, intuitions, and even minor miracles…"

Salvador

Great conversation, and I hope not to ruin it.

Never.

One can be a fallible absolutist, in that we may always be revising our knowledge of truth, without the truth itself changing. We could be wrong, but the very concept of wrongness requires some graded absolutism, the belief that there exists a non-question begging way to arbitrate between rival epistemological claims.

I am in full agreement although I think there will always be question-begging. An aphorism I use to describe a religious stance that affirms the absolute but accepts our fragmentary purchase on it is a faithing fallibilism. The ultimate by definition is infinite and impossible for us to fathom completely. Our grasp will always be fragmentary and ambiquous. However, I believe that we can feel warranted to believe something and act on it if we endeavor to inform our intutitions see here for a fuller treatment of the issue of religious knowledge.

I continue to be fascinated at the diversity of dissent from straightforward naturalism:

I'm not sure why you find this so fascinating. As I see it there are many who find themselves today in a cognitive dissonance. Those so minded wish to honor both the picture of reality that science offers and the picture that religion offers. To do this requires challenging both pictures.

I dissent further from "good old-fashioned" empiricism as a process "“ my personal epistemology follows Schaeffer (who in turn I would argue follows the Bible"¦.!) in that true knowledge is possible not because of confidence in my own perception, but because there is an external absolute, which means that my observations are a true reflection of the universe (though not exhaustive).

You say you dissent from empiricism but in the same voice you claim that your "observations are a true reflection of the universe" because there is an external absolute. I concur but not because of some scriptural authority but because as Tillich says, I am grasped and shaken by that ultimate reality. Religious conviction emerges not because of some carte blanche authority given to scripture or some other human artifact but because such artifacts are transparent to the divine. It is the epiphany within the divine life that compels us to believe. Empiricism is just one data point in the effort to understand and embrace that depth.

I dissent further from "good old-fashioned" empiricism as a process - my personal epistemology follows Schaeffer (who in turn I would argue follows the Bible….!) in that true knowledge is possible not because of confidence in my own perception, but because there is an external absolute, which means that my observations are a true reflection of the universe (though not exhaustive). In the same way, it is possible to come to a true (though not exhaustive) knowledge of the external absolute, if it has chosen to make itself known.

(PS For the record, it's GROGGS, BTW - the reason why is buried in my blogsite in about October 2004 ….)

This is all very good and democratic, but doesn't it miss the point that whether something is true or not isn't connected with how many people believe it? Most of medieval Europe might have thought the world was flat, but that didn't change the fact it was a sphere.

I don't believe the issue in my post was truth. It was really about how non-compelling the Darwinian worldview is. It just won't market beyond it's limited group.

However, the issue of truth is an important one. Since I don't subscribe to the absolute truth of any tradition (or scripture) my take on religious knowledge is a quite a bit more uncertain and fallibilistic than most would like. It is my feeling that human beings are inherently able to detect the truth about things but not infallibly. Since they participate in reality in its depth they also have some purchase on it. However fragmentary or imperfect that knowledge is, it still constitutes the truth of things. It may not be as clean a processes as going to scripture (which really isn't all that clean either) but, in my opinion, it's all we have. Accordingly I do think that "the masses" to have some purchase on the truth. It may go very wrong on some aspects (a flat earth) but that does not invalidate the body of knowledge in the gestalt or the fallibilistic process of discovering the truth. After all, most people today are not animists or polytheists.

In NW Europe, although people haven't thought out the implications of an atheistic worldview, it is largely accepted without question now. Young people are perhaps the fastest to understand the implications "“ and they go out and party "“ "drink to forget the coming storm" "“ because "“ well, why not? What difference does it make? They are perhaps the people who are acting consistently with what they believe.

Yes, aren't young people smart! They get it. They see the implications of a non-teleological view and act on it. However, the nontelelogists better be trembling in their boots when this group finally realizes that worldview is neither true, compelling, nor benign.

According to Francis Schaeffer "“ probably the first Christian to start thinking through issues of worldviews "“ the key thing was to bring people to the point of tension "“ to show people how their worldview was inconsistent with reality. This isn't a "nice" process "“ people cherish their worldviews, and it can be an intellectual/emotional crisis when you discover that one doesn't work. It certainly isn't politically correct, and it may require as a starting point very introductory lessons in logic "“ you are implying that two contradictory things can't both be true! But that is the nature of truth, and its pursuit, which ought to be the ultimate human pursuit.

Yes, creating a cognitive dissonance is a key to changing a worldview whether that dissonance comes from within or outside one's self. Although I'm not sure where I suggested two contradictory things can't be true, that is my sentiment. I believe that reality is inherently rational (while also transcending it). I therefore accept "the law of non-contradiction" as an important rule for truth seeking. However, I do agree with you, if what you mean is that there are apparent contradictions in an idea or concept that are really only contradictory fragments in the whole that can be flushed out with some sort of Hegelian dialectic or Goodmanian reflective equilibrium. Seems to me a combination of both coupled with some good old fashioned empiricism is the path to warranted belief.

In NW Europe, although people haven't thought out the implications of an atheistic worldview, it is largely accepted without question now. Young people are perhaps the fastest to understand the implications - and they go out and party - "drink to forget the coming storm" - because - well, why not? What difference does it make? They are perhaps the people who are acting consistently with what they believe.

According to Francis Schaeffer - probably the first Christian to start thinking through issues of worldviews - the key thing was to bring people to the point of tension - to show people how their worldview was inconsistent with reality. This isn't a "nice" process - people cherish their worldviews, and it can be an intellectual/emotional crisis when you discover that one doesn't work. It certainly isn't politically correct, and it may require as a starting point very introductory lessons in logic - you are implying that two contradictory things can't both be true! But that is the nature of truth, and its pursuit, which ought to be the ultimate human pursuit.