Absolutely correct and it should be obvious that the answer to the initial question is YES. Gordon - you should take your lithium and lower the volume on the atheistic zealotry (which is just as bad as religious zealotry). The issue isn't whether all of these scientists were "right". The question was whether any prominent scientists had a belief in God. No one can say - and yes Gordon, that absolutely includes YOU - what the "right" answer is. You've got your "belief", but that's ALL it is. However, effectively telling others that they're stupid because they don't see things your way and parading your belief/opinion around as if it was a provable fact is nothing less than ridiculous. You're certainly entitled to your opinion (as are those who have other myriad beliefs), but you can't prove your belief anymore than someone who believes in the existance of a creative intelligence can prove it. As many respected scientists attest, subscription to scientific doctrines does NOT preclude a belief or acknowledgement of a higher creative intelligence/God. REAL bottom line - To suggest that it MUST preclude it, is ignorant and myopic. There are more things in heaven and earth, Gordon, than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Using that "logic" (term used loosely) - cops probably go to Dunkin Doughnuts because they're waiting for someone to rob the joint - couldn't possibly be because they LIKE doughnuts!!
Another opinion no doubt based on your vast knowledge, deep insight, extensive research, and your place as one of the great thinkers of the modern era. All those Nobel Prize winners will be happy to hear that you don't consider them dumb just because they believe in God. They won't have night sweats anymore worrying about it. But when you win your Nobel Prize, you can pull a Michael Moore and set them all straight about the real order of the universe during your acceptance speech.
gekko, you say that i am "inprisioned" by religion. i say that you are "inprisoned" by pop science and pseudo-intellectual banter. open your eyes, dude, there is way more to this life than you are able to see. surfer
just to be clear, my position is definitely NOT that religious people are stupid. there are obviously both intelligent atheists and theists.
ArchAngel, While you did refute my theory, I thank you for doing so in such a detailed and astute manner.
Science has nothing to do with God. It was created to explain the workings of the Universe around us without resorting to supernatural forces including God. The very assumption of God existence is of no consequence for science as science does not need it and does not rely on it and in fact it might only hinder its progress as it did for many centuries when it was necessary to consult one's scientific views with the religious (Christian) authority. Whether a scientist believes in God or not is irrelevant as long as what he is doing as a professional makes sense to his peers. This discussion is as pointless as it gets on ET. However, I believe that this might be more interesting (see 'Bright Rights'): http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/WhosCounting/whoscounting.html
You admit your position is one of BELIEF, of faith not of reason so how could "other great minds" that happen to share your belief give you comfort or make you feel more secure? BELIEF [total Faith] of the kind you mean does not look to or need "other great minds" because by its very definition does not presuppose substantiation or support from anywhere. You either have PERFECT BELIEF or FAITH or you do not. What other "great minds" feel or believe should be of no consequence one way or the other, should neither provide comfort or distress. THIS belief requires nothing but itself
Electron, honestly I'd rather not see the term 'Bright' catch on to represent the non-religious. The word is already 'taken', and should not be hijacked to mean something else- just like liberals were wrong to hijack the word 'progressive'. Come to think of it...liberals hijacked the word 'liberal' too.
I agree that science does not directly deal with the supernatural, but I disagree that it has nothing to do with religion if that is what you are saying. I think every one of us has looked up into the sky as a kid and been blown away and said, "Why are we here?" That's part of what cosmology is all about - they get to look back at the headlines from the present to almost 14 billion years ago. That's part of what made the movie Contact so good: you realized these people loved what they did because it had the potential to make such a fundamental difference. There is not a clear dividing line between religion and science and many of the great cosmologists realize it. Many of the modern ones have loved to play this up, the most famous probably being Neils Bohr and the "Copenhagen school of Quantum Physics". When the COBE background radiation was discovered (or I should say experimentally verified to an extremely high degree of accuracy) in 1992, Hawking declared, "It is the discovery of the century, if not of all time." Michael Turner of Fermilab said, "They have found the Holy Grail of cosmology." And Berkeley astronomer George Smoot stated, "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe. It's like looking at God." Don't take me wrong. None of these men were saying the COBE radiation proved anything. But they all realized the profound nature of what they were discovering and its religious overtones.