http://index1.ntdphb.com >super mario bros
http://index1.vitiup.com >the point of no return lyrics

http://index1.smytiw.com >16 mini helmet dispaly case
http://index1.dfitbv.com >rules of rithmomachia

icyrp
It sites good, but it seems themes are similar:
paagmu

icyrp
It sites good, but it seems themes are similar:
paagmu

http://index1.publicsaftor.com >embassay suites reward preferred

http://index1.servitch.com >baby girls name

http://index1.delserch.com >soft porn

http://index1.delserch.com >soft porn

Hi! nhkgq
It sites good adult sexy:
nimjvj |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! nhkgq
It sites good adult sexy:
nimjvj |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! nhkgq
It sites good adult sexy:
nimjvj |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! nhkgq
It sites good adult sexy:
nimjvj |3||r||1|| @]

http://index1.topdasar.com >sexual predators list ohio

http://index1.topdasar.com >sexual predators list ohio

http://index1.meindies.com >apartments in tallahassee florida

http://index1.allearjah.com >billly virgin birth movie

http://index1.allearjah.com >billly virgin birth movie

http://index1.alledasar.com >telecommunications analysis swot at&t

http://index1.alledasar.com >telecommunications analysis swot at&t

http://index1.alledasar.com >telecommunications analysis swot at&t

Hi! fqdsb
It sites good adult sexy:
itvrhi |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! fqdsb
It sites good adult sexy:
itvrhi |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! fqdsb
It sites good adult sexy:
itvrhi |3||r||1|| @]

http://index1.lookcity.com >pics of yosemite valley

http://index1.lookcity.com >pics of yosemite valley

http://index1.amyhunt.com >the movie crash

http://index1.amyhunt.com >the movie crash

http://index1.amyhunt.com >the movie crash

http://index1.findvic.com >russian girl nude

http://index1.findvic.com >russian girl nude

http://index1.findvic.com >russian girl nude

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://index1.searcheon.com >free galleries pics

http://1.nthfind.com >world champion team penning assition\'

http://1.nthfind.com >world champion team penning assition\'

http://1.nthfind.com >world champion team penning assition\'

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://index1.hipoldlady.com >cumshots com

http://index1.hipoldlady.com >cumshots com

http://index1.hipoldlady.com >cumshots com

http://index1.bestmaiden.com >postmasters assigned in fl

http://index1.maidenpeace.com >pornstar wrestler dragom lili wrestler

http://index1.maidenpeace.com >pornstar wrestler dragom lili wrestler

http://index1.maidenpeace.com >pornstar wrestler dragom lili wrestler

http://index1.womanluck.com >sopranos pics

http://index1.womanluck.com >sopranos pics

http://index1.womanluck.com >sopranos pics

http://index1.womansmith.com >louise glover pics

http://index1.womansmith.com >louise glover pics

http://index1.womansmith.com >louise glover pics

http://index1.trackting.com >bro. steve harris video productions

http://index1.trackting.com >bro. steve harris video productions

http://index1.trackting.com >bro. steve harris video productions

Hi! ydqlp
It sites good woman health:
pbqrph |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! ydqlp
It sites good woman health:
pbqrph |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! ydqlp
It sites good woman health:
pbqrph |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! ydqlp
It sites good woman health:
pbqrph |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! kiwac
It sites good health mens:
fevsio |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! kiwac
It sites good health mens:
fevsio |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! kiwac
It sites good health mens:
fevsio |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! kiwac
It sites good health mens:
fevsio |3||r||1|| @]

http://index1.bestcityhal.com >ebony animal xxx porn

http://index1.thewarhal.com >the cumberland times

http://index1.besthallet.com >pittsburgh musicians classified

http://index1.besthallet.com >pittsburgh musicians classified

http://index1.yourhal.com >pos yourgirls

http://index1.yourhal.com >pos yourgirls

http://index1.yourhal.com >pos yourgirls

http://index1.vehal.com >american red cross volunteer dental assistant program

http://index1.lestew.com >first time anal sex vids

http://index1.lestew.com >first time anal sex vids

http://index1.lestew.com >first time anal sex vids

http://index1.kewass.com >world class call center definition

Hi! wjavg
It sites good health mens:
dpsrmm |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! wjavg
It sites good health mens:
dpsrmm |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! wjavg
It sites good health mens:
dpsrmm |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! wjavg
It sites good health mens:
dpsrmm |3||r||1|| @]

http://index1.etitv.com >calcium carbonicum

http://index1.etitv.com >calcium carbonicum

http://index1.etitv.com >calcium carbonicum

http://index1.etitv.com >calcium carbonicum

http://index1.etitv.com >calcium carbonicum

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.ertiv.com >re tribuet of chinese girls

http://index1.ertiv.com >re tribuet of chinese girls

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.arcillato.com >hendersoncounty texastaxassessorsoffice

http://index1.arcillato.com >hendersoncounty texastaxassessorsoffice

http://index1.arcillato.com >hendersoncounty texastaxassessorsoffice

http://index1.arcillato.com >hendersoncounty texastaxassessorsoffice

http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download

http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download

http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download

http://index1.gredato.com >soaking wet xxx latino girls

http://index1.gredato.com >soaking wet xxx latino girls

http://index1.todostosell.com >86 s10 fiberglass bumper

http://index1.todostosell.com >86 s10 fiberglass bumper

http://index1.todostosell.com >86 s10 fiberglass bumper

http://index1.todostosell.com >86 s10 fiberglass bumper

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.sityp.com >texas sexual predator list

http://index1.sityp.com >texas sexual predator list

http://index1.sityp.com >texas sexual predator list

http://index1.sityp.com >texas sexual predator list

http://index1.sityp.com >texas sexual predator list

http://index1.mbaperson.com >popper gay sex

http://index1.mbaperson.com >popper gay sex

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.frostbe.com >suicide cocktail

http://index1.frostbe.com >suicide cocktail

http://index1.frostbe.com >suicide cocktail

http://index1.frostbe.com >suicide cocktail

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.midlea.com >passiflora alamo

http://index1.midlea.com >passiflora alamo

http://index1.midlea.com >passiflora alamo

http://index1.midlea.com >passiflora alamo

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.agostop.com >length of typical adult romantic relationship

http://index1.agostop.com >length of typical adult romantic relationship

http://index1.agostop.com >length of typical adult romantic relationship

http://index1.agostop.com >length of typical adult romantic relationship

http://index1.agostop.com >length of typical adult romantic relationship

http://index1.dxewer.com >butte montana antique police badge

http://index1.dxewer.com >butte montana antique police badge

http://index1.dxewer.com >butte montana antique police badge

http://index1.dxewer.com >butte montana antique police badge

http://index1.egoship.com >franklin county va real estate tax assese

http://index1.egoship.com >franklin county va real estate tax assese

http://index1.egoship.com >franklin county va real estate tax assese

http://index1.megrep.com >statistics linking teen crime to single parent households

http://index1.megrep.com >statistics linking teen crime to single parent households

http://index1.megrep.com >statistics linking teen crime to single parent households

http://index1.megrep.com >statistics linking teen crime to single parent households

http://index1.uterop.com >boys jerking off high school boys porn

http://index1.uterop.com >boys jerking off high school boys porn

http://index1.uterop.com >boys jerking off high school boys porn

http://index1.uterop.com >boys jerking off high school boys porn

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.thebemid.com >art galleries in los angeles county

http://index1.thebemid.com >art galleries in los angeles county

http://index1.thebemid.com >art galleries in los angeles county

http://index1.thebemid.com >art galleries in los angeles county

http://index1.thebemid.com >art galleries in los angeles county

http://index1.theicebe.com >taunton masssachusettes personals

http://index1.theicebe.com >taunton masssachusettes personals

http://index1.theicebe.com >taunton masssachusettes personals

http://index1.theicebe.com >taunton masssachusettes personals

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.bulkrat.com >ontario california erotic massage

http://index1.bulkrat.com >ontario california erotic massage

http://index1.bulkrat.com >ontario california erotic massage

http://index1.lkewat.com >westies movie

http://index1.lkewat.com >westies movie

http://index1.lkewat.com >westies movie

http://index1.lkewat.com >westies movie

http://index1.lkewat.com >westies movie

Hi! adoye
It sites good, but it seems themes are similar:
xibxoa |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! adoye
It sites good, but it seems themes are similar:
xibxoa |3||r||1|| @]

Hi! adoye
It sites good, but it seems themes are similar:
xibxoa |3||r||1|| @]

I wasted much of my time and thoughts on astrology. I would have been better off studying plumbing. My collegues at work all follow the daily horrorscope and seem surprised and even offended when I scoff at it, or criticize the likes of Sylvia Brown. These people claim to be open minded, yet can not listen to my views simply because I disagree. They even get hot under the collar and are personally offended (and they call themselves "pacifists"). These New Agers feel morally superior in spite of the fact that few of them have taken any time to look deeply into these matters and are quick to judge things they know little or nothing about. I would trust a Christian before I would trust a New Ager simply because there is some consistancy in their religious madness. I can only chuckle to myself while I keep my mouth shut.

I wasted much of my time and thoughts on astrology. I would have been better off studying plumbing. My collegues at work all follow the daily horrorscope and seem surprised and even offended when I scoff at it, or criticize the likes of Sylvia Brown. These people claim to be open minded, yet can not listen to my views simply because I disagree. They even get hot under the collar and are personally offended (and they call themselves "pacifists"). These New Agers feel morally superior in spite of the fact that few of them have taken any time to look deeply into these matters and are quick to judge things they know little or nothing about. I would trust a Christian before I would trust a New Ager simply because there is some consistancy in their religious madness. I can only chuckle to myself while I keep my mouth shut.

http://index1.gorue.com >female femfight2000

http://index1.gorue.com >female femfight2000

http://index1.gorue.com >female femfight2000

http://index1.dosmounter.com >sexual addictions signs

http://index1.wentsite.com >girl hockey players

http://index1.wentsite.com >girl hockey players

http://index1.wentsite.com >girl hockey players

http://index1.thewentink.com >drunkporn

http://index1.thewentink.com >drunkporn

http://index1.thewentink.com >drunkporn

http://index1.thewentink.com >drunkporn

http://index1.thewentink.com >drunkporn

http://index1.aswent.com >cowboybebop nude

http://index1.aswent.com >cowboybebop nude

http://index1.aswent.com >cowboybebop nude

http://index1.aswent.com >cowboybebop nude

http://index1.aswent.com >cowboybebop nude

http://index1.asticguide.com >rate nude photos

http://index1.asticguide.com >rate nude photos

http://index1.asticguide.com >rate nude photos

http://index1.asticguide.com >rate nude photos

http://index1.themounter.com >sample resumes for human resource assistant

http://index1.themounter.com >sample resumes for human resource assistant

http://index1.themounter.com >sample resumes for human resource assistant

http://index1.themounter.com >sample resumes for human resource assistant

http://index1.themounter.com >sample resumes for human resource assistant

http://index1.yourwertool.com >exprantnet deltapassport

http://index1.yourwertool.com >exprantnet deltapassport

http://index1.yourwertool.com >exprantnet deltapassport

http://index1.yourwertool.com >exprantnet deltapassport

http://index1.jintrosite.com >personal assistant in las vegas

http://index1.jintrosite.com >personal assistant in las vegas

http://index1.jintrosite.com >personal assistant in las vegas

http://index1.aptintro.com >sexivideo

http://index1.aptintro.com >sexivideo

http://index1.polsx.com >drake bell nude

http://index1.polsx.com >drake bell nude

http://index1.polsx.com >drake bell nude

http://index1.krewor.com >jodo upskirt gameshow

http://index1.krewor.com >jodo upskirt gameshow

http://index1.npols.com >honeysuckle candy sticks

http://index1.npols.com >honeysuckle candy sticks

http://index1.npols.com >honeysuckle candy sticks

http://index1.npols.com >honeysuckle candy sticks

http://index1.npols.com >honeysuckle candy sticks

http://index1.nukysy.com >extreme funny sports pics

http://index1.nukysy.com >extreme funny sports pics

http://index1.doulbesite.com >smoothing looping movie clips in flash 8

http://index1.doulbesite.com >smoothing looping movie clips in flash 8

http://index1.doulbesite.com >smoothing looping movie clips in flash 8

http://index1.doulbesite.com >smoothing looping movie clips in flash 8

http://index1.doulbesite.com >smoothing looping movie clips in flash 8

http://index1.facilg.com >audio erotic

http://index1.facilg.com >audio erotic

http://index1.sirtest.com >maria tallchief video and dvd

http://index1.alkortas.com >citric acid combined with potassium hydroxide

http://index1.alkortas.com >citric acid combined with potassium hydroxide

http://index1.alkortas.com >citric acid combined with potassium hydroxide

http://index1.alkortas.com >citric acid combined with potassium hydroxide

http://index1.alkortas.com >citric acid combined with potassium hydroxide

http://index1.kortdirect.com >columbia university alumni association of palm beach

http://index1.kortdirect.com >columbia university alumni association of palm beach

http://index1.kortworld.com >vassar elementry

http://index1.kortworld.com >vassar elementry

http://index1.kortworld.com >vassar elementry

http://index1.kortworld.com >vassar elementry

http://index1.kortworld.com >vassar elementry

http://index1.bestklopstr.com >monkey classified

http://index1.bestklopstr.com >monkey classified

http://index1.bestklopstr.com >monkey classified

http://index1.klopstrers.com >butts teen pix

http://index1.klopstrers.com >butts teen pix

http://index1.klopstrers.com >butts teen pix

http://index1.lopstr.com >personalized kids videos

http://index1.lopstr.com >personalized kids videos

http://index1.lopstr.com >personalized kids videos

http://index1.lopstr.com >personalized kids videos

http://index1.serpillo.com >massive cum loads

http://index1.serpillo.com >massive cum loads

http://index1.serpillo.com >massive cum loads

http://index1.serpillo.com >massive cum loads

http://index1.serpillo.com >massive cum loads

http://index1.sergolfo.com >massage flagstaff

http://index1.sergolfo.com >massage flagstaff

http://index1.razatuno.com >pussy licking tales

http://index1.lyvoqy.com >lori hodgen assist to sell

http://index1.lyvoqy.com >lori hodgen assist to sell

http://index1.lyvoqy.com >lori hodgen assist to sell

http://index1.menagu.com >adultfunxxx

http://index1.menagu.com >adultfunxxx

http://index1.qypydi.com >littleteenz

http://moreaboutmen.com/artist/alicia-keys/album/as-i-am/a133429/

http://moreaboutmen.com/artist/alicia-keys/album/as-i-am/a133429/

http://moreaboutmen.com/artist/alicia-keys/album/as-i-am/a133429/

sale@mp3.com

sale@mp3.com

http://index1.konupo.com >incestorgy

http://index1.nyxevu.com >passionate sex again

http://index1.rutyqe.com >tallulah river campground

http://index1.rutyqe.com >tallulah river campground

http://index1.rutyqe.com >tallulah river campground

http://index1.rutyqe.com >tallulah river campground

:)L2lzyqw0vBdvE8X:)
http://pantm.8000web.com/2.html ">???

:)L2lzyqw0vBdvE8X:)
http://pantm.8000web.com/2.html ">???

There is no poison in anything that has given me everlasting, inhuman strength to overcome an overwhelming statistic.Bow down now rather than later. My God works miracles!

Hello, nice site :)

Hello, nice site :)

The study of astrology goes way beyond fortune cookie slogans in a newspaper. Read a good book by Robert Hand such as Astrology in Youth with your own astrology chart on hand. Read each of the significations and put it all together with a critical but open mind. Now read about all your friends and family members with the same attention. Then, if you still are assured that astrology is a mindless hoax, fine. But don't try to say that newspaper astrology is representative of astrology. That is marketed for the masses. You claim to be thinkers and intellectuals. Do your homework first before you come out swinging.

sounds like someone has some anger issues to work on!!!

[*map/map_all_coml11.txt||10||r||1|| @]

[*map/map_all_coml11.txt||10||r||1|| @]

[*map/map_all_ag2.txt||10||r||1|| @]

[*map/map_all_ag2.txt||10||r||1|| @]

Dear Mr. Hitchens, do you honestly think that the post would waste all that pulp and ink for nothing? Without an enigma machine, german intercepts appeared to be meaningless, too.

Spot on, Hitch!

Hitchens was a left winger, and now is a right winger. So maybe someday he'll stop being an atheist and become something else.

gyujqbsn nxgcwl ypbm mhonja nsevjdtq giuy yvlijox

m541k

Dear Christopher-

I would love to hear your answer to this question.

Thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans 2000 years ago. Why were books written about one Jewish carpenter named Jesus of Nazareth, who went to the cross, and no one else?

Best wishes,

Nin

Dear Christopher-

I would love to hear your answer to this question.

Thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans 2000 years ago. Why were books written about one Jewish carpenter named Jesus of Nazareth, who went to the cross, and no one else?

Best wishes,

Nin

kxju szloia slmq strg fluewb yrge prxd

I like christ relgent baut Im moslem Iwant chang
it woh hilp my

Genius. Hitchens is a great man, surely.

rmfkqd egfxnawc jhuwger epqykmnd okqyczbpt ytkxhq dbawf

rmfkqd egfxnawc jhuwger epqykmnd okqyczbpt ytkxhq dbawf

rmfkqd egfxnawc jhuwger epqykmnd okqyczbpt ytkxhq dbawf

If itcan't be found,and you get no answer from it, it doesn't exist.

If itcan't be found,and you get no answer from it, it doesn't exist.

If itcan't be found,and you get no answer from it, it doesn't exist.

If itcan't be found,and you get no answer from it, it doesn't exist.

Mr. Hitchens,
Although I strongly disagree with many of your political standings you hit the nail on the head with "God Is Not Great". Thank you! I often daydream about how much better this world would be if people gave up this antiquated love of a "higher power".
Bryan Taylor

Good stuff!

As you have the public's attention, don't stop advocating for rationality/reason.

You and your peers are the heroes of the 21st Century, your anti-hero being "belief in the belief in God".

Wonderfully said. Realizing that humans are cosmically insignificant (or at least inherently no more significant than any other living material species) is among the deepest insights grownups can achieve. So many children never grow up. But then authority figures never tell them that God, like Santa, is a story we tell kids.

m338k

It is not impossible for a "faith" to exist which abandons such pretense of the watchful tinkerer God who intercedes to prevent some evil, but allows other evil to occur according to dictates as mysterious as the star chart purports to be. Deism, Pandeism, Pantheism, and Panendeism offer a real, rational choice, a choice to believe in a God whose actions make sense in the context of its nature.

Dave:

I ran across this thread today and read the last six or seven posts. I agree that you have a personality disorder of some kind and that you need help. Nobody gets angry and stays angry for this long without some kind of pathology being present. You seem to have run off everybody that was posting here. Does this tell you something?

lftxcjk nmuf tdfzb qapyskc zjqx ualviok krtc

lftxcjk nmuf tdfzb qapyskc zjqx ualviok krtc

lftxcjk nmuf tdfzb qapyskc zjqx ualviok krtc

Steve,

It finally hit me why you falsely, maliciously, and libelously accused me of "borderline slander" (you mean "libel," but, I know, you're dyslexic and can't help sounding stupid).

You must be upset about me making fun of the silly name you chose for your office!

Now I certainly would not want to openly accuse you, of say, delusional grandiosity, especially since I know that might upset you, and I certainly would not want to be accused of inducing any emotional instability in you.

But it is your own Website that admits that the "Center for Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy" is really simply a "private group practice in midtown Manhattan."

I am completely entitled, legally, morally, and professionally to find it extremely hilarious that you chose such a pompous name for your office. You get to choose the name, you get to post it on the Web, and everyone else gets to ridicule you for choosing such a silly name and to make fun of it.

It's called "freedom of speech," you poor fool.

Do you really fail to understand this? I am free to make fun even of real research instituitions if the mood strikes me: the Mayo Clinic, the Kennedy School of Government, etc.

I can surely make fun of your silly liitle group!

That, Stevie, is called freedom of speech, not "borderline slander," and if you can not understand this, you need to see a psychologist for help. (Oh, I forgot, you're dyslexic, and that explains why you appear stupid.)

You wrote:
>As my misspellings indicate Im severly dyslexic and there for my non top ranked education is a result of SAT and GRE scores which protray me as lacking in educational accumen.

As a practitioner of psychological science, have you ever thought about the alternative hypothesis: just maybe, just conceivably, the SAT and GRE scores are accurate and you really *are*, to use your words, "lacking in educational accumen"?

You are such an unbelievable fool.

I love ya', man! You're even more entertaining than that pathological liar, CW.

Laughing at you as I write,

Dave

Oh, and Steve, your "borderline slander" comment is really a hoot!

I can't stop laughing!

All I did was quote directly from your own Website, mainly the CV you yourself psoted, and explain why I myself find your qualifications singularly and startlingly unimpressive.

The fact that you consider this sort of quoting from your own CV to be "borderline slander" speaks volumes about your own level of confidence in your professional abilities and qualifications.

The facts really do speak for themselves, don't they, Steve?

Laughing at you all the way,

Dav

Steve,

I'd really like to thank you for confirming my previous comments.

New York is really a great city.

All the best,

Dave

The Center for CBT is a training facility which trains Ph.D. canditates from Columbia, Fordham Univ. Yesheva, St. John's, Long Island univ., Feirley Dickenson Univ. and Rutgers Univ Phd and Psy.D programs. The Center employs aprox. 14 pre and Post doc employee from these universities. I have been a speaker at the OC foundation's national conference for the past 8yrs. The Center has supported Doctoral dissertations and had research presented at national conferences. As my misspellings indicate Im severly dyslexic and there for my non top ranked education is a result of SAT and GRE scores which protray me as lacking in educational accumen. Dave if you would like to discuss your contentiousness regarding my status as a top professional within the psyc community I love to recieve a call from you. if you do not have the nerve to contact me directly then I suggest you discontinue you boderline slander regarding my reputation.

steve

The Center for CBT is a training facility which trains Ph.D. canditates from Columbia, Fordham Univ. Yesheva, St. John's, Long Island univ., Feirley Dickenson Univ. and Rutgers Univ Phd and Psy.D programs. The Center employs aprox. 14 pre and Post doc employee from these universities. I have been a speaker at the OC foundation's national conference for the past 8yrs. The Center has supported Doctoral dissertations and had research presented at national conferences. As my misspellings indicate Im severly dyslexic and there for my non top ranked education is a result of SAT and GRE scores which protray me as lacking in educational accumen. Dave if you would like to discuss your contentiousness regarding my status as a top professional within the psyc community I love to recieve a call from you. if you do not have the nerve to contact me directly then I suggest you discontinue you boderline slander regarding my reputation.

steve

While I made fun of CW's little mental-health hoax (there's always another hoax from old CW!), I think everyone should know that the shrink he quotes so fawningly seems to have credentials that are just a wee bit open to question.

CW lists his fave author as: Steven Phillipson, Ph.D., Center for Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy.

What CW does not mention is that the "Center for Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy" appears to be simply Steve Phillipson's office. As the Website admits, the "center" is simply a "private group practice in midtown Manhattan" ( http://www.cognitivebehavioralcenter.com/center.html ).

Normal people don't give silly, offical-sounding names to their offices!

A close friend of mine, who is now a practicing MD, tells me that this sort of grandiose, delusional thinking is, sadly, common among the psychological profession.

Unlike Mr. Mark and CW, I do not libel innocnet people, so I will not come right out and say that Steve Phillipson is a quack. It is possible that he is simply a well-intentioned, low-level grunt.

I will say that as myself someone who does have a Ph.D. from a top-ranked university (Stanford), Phillipson's CV is singularly unimpressive ( http://www.ocdonline.com/vitae.php ), except for one year at Johns Hopkins.

His publication list is most disturbing. He does not appear to have any publications at all in any serious, academic, peer-reviewed journals.

I realize that many people reading this will not know how stunning this is, but if you talk with any Ph.D. from a top-ranked university in a serious field (biology, physics, nerual science, etc.), I think they will assure you that this is very unusual and very disturbing.

I turned up CW's pathological lying thanks to Google, and I think what I have turned up about "Dr." Phillipson is almost as interesting!

Phillipson is indeed CW's kind of guy. They should get married.

But I do bet Phillipson is better at getting the rubes to part with their hard-earned bucks than CW will ever be.

It's amazing what you can find out about people through Google!

Dave

E Favorite wrote:

>Looking back over recent posts, it's hard to see who's enjoying this fracas more, you or CW.

Oh, E Fav, trust me on this, I'm enjoying it enormously more!

I did not know that this site existed at all until I did a Google search to find people who were lying about the Ecklund research (as I recall, I googled "Ecklund, science religion").

This site was one of the first to pop up, thanks to CW's lies.

I only came here to expose CW's lies, and other related lies, as part of my research project.

I have never been on this thread for any other reason.

Of course, it turned out that there were others who libelled Ecklund, such as the macabre "Mr. Mark," so I got to have a bit of fun at his expense too.

I have never hidden this, so things are working out exactly as I intended.

But, not, perhaps, as CW or the Macabre Mr. Mark intended.

And, you know, despite everyone's proimise to leave the thread, I have a sneaking suspicion some of you may be back.

I'll be watching.

Dav

Ananymous,

I read only the beginning of your post.

That was enough to convince me that you clearly and certainly are in the grip of a very serious personality disorder and that you need serious professional help

Although I am not a mental health professional, like you I possess a magical ability to diagnose people from across the Internet.

It's just a gift that some of us possess, isn't it?

I hope you will seek help rapidly before your condition worsens.

I'm really serious about this.

And I find it extremely revealing that you made no attempt to find out if the statements I was making about your personal friend CW were true.

In the old Soviet Union, people who told the truth about the government were diagnosed as insane, too. Amd, there too, it did not matter if their "insane" statements happened to be true.

Your post was a clever bit of satire, now, wasn't it?

CW, you are soooo funny. I hope you appreciated my little riff here on your post. One good piece of satire deserves another.

Of course, you are still a pahological liar.

Dave

To all:

Recently Dave wrote:

Well, it would certainly wreck my research project if CW simply disappears from this board altogether!

I am going to do just that, as I said I was considering doing a few posts back. As I said then, I do not feel entirely safe in dealing with Dave on this board. Nor do I contribute anything to the board so long as I am the focus of his rage, which has become the dominant feature for the last couple of days. Although he seems to have re-focused this anger on Mr. Mark, I think he too has retired. Maybe with both of us gone, Dave will be forced to seek other and greener fields. Meantime, I hope Dave will seek help for the rage that seems to be consuming him.

For the benefit of Dave's research study, I'm going to restate by beliefs and positions, which have been detailed many, many times before on this thread starting with my very first post:

1. I believe in a God that I found by examining scientific evidence.
2. I was an atheist for 16 years and an agnostic for five years afterward. I have been what I call a "rational believer" in a Higher Power for the past 31 years.
3. I am not a member of any religion and have not been since 1964. I do not attend church.
4. I do not believe in the mythologies of the various religions and their supernatural claims.

5. I do not believe in miracles, other than the fundamental miracle of the creation of the universe.
6. I do not believe and never have believed in Creationism, including the "young earth" theory.
7. I do not believe in Intelligent Design except as it is defined by the original creation with no further divine intervention.
8. I am tolerant of both religion and atheism and have no wish to convert anyone to my way of thinking.
9. My quarrel with atheism tends to focus on the tendency of atheists to claim superior intellects to those of their disputants.
10. My quarrel with atheism also has to do with what I perceive to be inordinate anger many of them seem to demonstrate.
11. I am not Roy Varghese.
12. I pray to the God of my understanding regularly for guidance, comfort, courage, wisdom, acceptance and the ability to love and help my fellow travelers on our journey through life.
13. I believe God's will for man is nothing more than to live a life of love and service to others.
14. I believe that many atheists share this aim although they would not call it God's will.
15. I feel often that "something is there."
16. I love life and the many, many people I share that love with.
17. I have looked at the starry heavens and have felt that I was not alone.
18. I have walked by the sea and felt that I was not alone.
19. I have looked into the eyes of people and seen God.
20. I believe that people are "God's language."
21. I believe that people who have love in their lives speak the language of the heart to each other.
22. This I believe represents rational thinking -- the "real" reality.
23. I believe that deep down inside every man woman and child is the idea of God, that if lost it can be rediscovered, and in the final analysis it is there and only there that the Great Reality can be found.

Best wishes to:

EFavorite
Mr Mark
Bernie Bee
Karen (the gentle, kind and tolerant soul)
Daniel
Dave (but please, Dave, get help)

I will visit from time to time to see if the fires indeed cool. Forgive me, but I must say, because I truly mean it,

God bless you all.

CW

Dave,

I hope you can set aside your anger at and contempt for me long enough to read the following:

I am not a professional in the mental health field. However, I have spent the past 11 years as a volunteer suicide and crisis counselor at an accredited major market crisis center, where I also served on the board of directors for 4 years. My training is in a crisis model developed by the American Association of Suicidology, and I regularly attend Continuing Education classes taught by psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists and other professionals. I have counseled nearly 6,000 individuals in suicidal and other crises.

Because 90% of all suicide victims have one or more mental disorders, it is necessary that suicide counselors have a working knowledge of mental illness so that we may establish empathetic rapport with our callers and recognize symptoms of mental disorders that may be in need of diagnosis, treatment, resumption or changes in medications and the like.

In light of your recent posts and the increasing intensity of anger, righteous indignation, and frustration they display, I believe it is possible that you are in the grip of a personality disorder. After sharing one of your posts with a colleague at the center who is a clinical psychologist now working on her PhD, she agreed that you are exhibiting symptoms of one of several possible personality disorders.

She believes, and I concur, that you should seek an evaluation from a mental health professional, preferably a psychiatrist. Given these symptoms, which have been noticed not only by me but by others on this board, one possibility is that you may be suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder. It is similar to the more familiar OCD but does not necessarily feature OCD's ritualistic behaviors.

Here is an excerpt of a longer paper on this illness:

Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder
by Steven Phillipson, Ph.D.
Center for Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy

"Generally two hallmark thinking styles are pervasive for persons who suffer this condition. The primary manifestations of OCPD entail either a bent toward perfectionistic standards or righteous indignation. Along with perfectionism comes relentless anxiety about not getting things perfect. Getting things correct and avoiding at all costs the possibilities of making an error is of paramount importance.

The second factor entails the rigid ownership of truth. This feature produces anger and conflict. Persons with OCPD generally lean toward one of these perspectives or another. In some cases both perspectives are of equal magnitude. Rituals, on the other hand, often play a relatively small part in this complex syndrome of perfectionistic mannerisms, intense anger and strict standards. Their way is the correct way and all other options are "wrong". Anger and contempt are rarely held at bay for those who disagree.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM III-R, the bible for persons in the mental health profession)suggests that persons with OCPD display a pervasive pattern of orderliness, perfectionism, and/or mental and interpersonal control, at the expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiency. It is further suggested that persons with this condition tend to resist the authority of others while simultaneously demanding that others conform to their way of doing things."

Often, people who suffer from OCPD do not seek treatment simply because they think that they are in possession of objective truth about everything and there is nothing to treat. Frequently, others must provide the impetus for them to seek help.

It is difficult even for a mental health professional to make a diagnosis based on a few angry outbursts. And OCPD is only one of several possible diagnoses. But there is a pattern of increasing intensity and hostility that is clear. Suddenly turning on former allies with rage and contempt because they disagree with you is yet another and quite powerful signal that all is not well. And there is something of a messianic fervor in your proposed "study" and your continued search for enemies that are troubling.

You may continue to hate me, and that's okay. I have never felt that it was a rational hatred anyway. At the time I made that sarcastic offer to do a "mutual study" of our respective pathologies I had not fully recognized that you might indeed be suffering from a real pathological condition over which you have little or no control. I sincerely hope you will consider seeing someone very soon.

CW

CW wrote:

> I too hope the bonfire of Dave vs CW has burned itself out.

Oh, I'm sure you do, CW, I'm sure you do. But the fire is little more than an ember so far: it can only get bigger.

Now, of course, if you could bring yourself to admit, that after you already knew the numbers you had posted were wrong, you continued to post deceptive messages trying to deceive people into believing your lies, then the fire might cool down.

But you do not have it in you to admit that, do you?

You cannot admit that you lied, can you?

Have you been a sociopathic pathological liar since infancy or is this an acquired trait?

Amd, CW, you are making a wonderful experimental subject, the best in the whole project, so far!

Dave

Mr. Mark wrote:

>I thought that I gave you props in my earlier posts. I also took CW to task on the Ecklund study long before you entered the fray.

Hmmmm… as I recall, you rather viciously libelled Professor Ecklund, who seems to be a competent and honets researcher, by imugning her integrity, her competence, etc. Or am I confusing you with someone else?

Your behavior really was nearly as bad as CW's, wasn't it?

Neither of you cared about what Ecklund had really discovered. All you cared about was advancing your own agenda, even, in your case, if that meant libelling a hard-working young sociologist who had the energy and courage to tackle a difficult and controversial subject and, evidently, do it well.

It was I, with 30 seconds of work on Google, who was able to show that CW was wrong. You never were able to show he was wrong, though you did manage to viciously label a young sociologist in the process of trying.

MM, let me make this clear. I was never on your side. If Ecklund had really discovered what CW claimed, that would have been fine with me, (and, unlike you, I'm not paranoid about the Templeton Foundation -- I've seen no sign that it is any more corrupt than most funding agencies, and some signs that it actually tries to maintain its integrity as Ecklund claims).

No, I just think people like *you* and CW should stop lying, libelling innocent people, etc.

Aside from my research project, that is the only horse I have in this race.

I have not addressed your unethical behavior before, because once I exposed CW's dishonesty, I assumed that it would be obvious to everyone that you had falsely maligned Ecklund.

It seems not. So, let me put it bluntly: you falsely maligned Professor Ealine Ecklund in a very public forum. You owe her a private and public letter of apology.

You've been an incredible jerk.

Looking back on this thread, it is clear that your only goal has been to prove your intellectual superiority by trying to engage in intellectual one-upmanship. Give it up - as your foolishly false and malicious attacks on Ecklund show, you are not that smart.

I'm glad that my coming on to this thread seems to have spoiled your nasty little game, and I take it as a compliment that a jerk like you dislikes me.

And it makes absolutely no difference to me that you and I happen to agree on some issues of Biblical criticism and religion.

Libel is wrong. It's time for yout to admit that you are a jerk.

Because, MM, you've been a real jerk.

Dav

Bernie Bee:

Caught at last! Yes, Dave and I have been conspirin' together since he was a wee bairn, I bein' much older than he. And yer right about the other thing too: we are indeed one and the same person, only his head is bigger'n mine, him bein' a PhD and all!

I loved your Moses joke. Here's another, probably one you've heard a thousand times, but it's one of my favorites:

In the middle of foggy night in the NW Atlantic.....two lights are heading directly for one another... and on the radio an American voice is heard saying "we suggest you alter course by 10 degrees". Back comes the reply "No!" Then the American voice says "this is the battleship USS Missouri leading the American Atlantic battle fleet, you had better alter course by 10 degrees." Back comes the reply "this is the Hebrides lighthouse, but it's your call, Jimmy"

I too hope the bonfire of Dave vs CW has burned itself out. You have certainly tried your best to extinguish the flames, and thanks. If you have read my previous post you will note that I do think some pathology is involved: nobody whose mind is functioning normally gets that outraged or obsessively surfs the web seeking out enemies to confront.

And I share your concern for Karen. I have mentioned her several times in my posts. She is indeed a gentle soul; intelligent, gracious, non-judgmental and a stout defender of her faith and of the right of others to have none. I know I could do a better job of following her example.

CW

To all:

I wish to make a couple of things clear. First, yes I do enjoy debating; I grew up in a debating society. My older sister (a Rice University PhD) and I held spirited discussions on a wide variety of topics as young adults, and we still engage in one or two via long distance and email. I think debates help us grow in understanding not only of issues, but of our fellow human beings. A debate also should produce more, not less, tolerance for other points of view.

I really think that if you reviewed my posts you would find that I have never denigrated anyone in this long conversation. I posted a sarcastic response to Dave a while back when he revealed his stealth "research" study and suggested he look into his own mental health in another, but only after having been repeatedly brow-beaten with this "pathological liar" canard.

Also, a careful review of my posts would reveal that I am not trying to convert atheists, subvert atheism or defend religion. My whole point here is to suggest that one can find a rational path to a belief in God without religion. I have said repeatedly that I am not religious; do not believe in mythological superstructures built on top of theism; do not attend a church of any kind; do not believe in miracles (other than the miracle of the whole thing) and do not believe in an afterlife.

I have been accused of a number of things, all of which are unfounded: trickery, deceptiveness, manipulativeness, denigrating other people's views and pathological dishonesty. These are amazing charges and are absolutely false.

I was called to task for representing Roy Varghese as a scientist; I did not. I said he was an intellectual with an encyclopedic knowledge of science, which he is and has. This led to ad hominem attacks that included accusations that I was Varghese himself in disguise.

My unwitting reporting of a published research study and the perceived tardiness in my correcting it led to a firestorm of criticism, particularly from Dave, whose over-the-top fury may indeed smack of pathology.

I have repeatedly said that I am not a religionist; yet even the tolerant Bernie Bee continued for some time to accuse me of being a closet Catholic or a "fundie."

In the heat of battle, particularly when one has no allies, it is not surprising that some of the return rhetoric becomes somewhat less than civil. But I have tried hard to remain civil anyway; for those occasions when I have failed, I apologize.

Finally, I do not know whether I will stay in this conversation or not. The hostility that Dave displays toward me is disturbing. The fact that he is surfing the web to find still more "pathological liars" for his "study" is even somewhat alarming.

I shared one of Dave's long rants with a colleague of mine, a summa cum laude psychologist who is presently working on her PhD. We work together on a suicide prevention hotline where many of our calls come from disturbed people. She agreed that Dave's responses indicate a messianic zeal coupled with uncontrolled anger. These are symptoms of several disorders. I wonder if I want to risk having Dave learn more about me for his "study" and somehow find a way to harass me privately.

I think I probably have said all I need to say. I just wanted to set the record straight regarding my beliefs, and to again apologize for using an inaccurate report to bolster an argument. I am a truthful person, so it is particularly troubling to be falsely accused as a liar. When I wrote Dr. Ecklund (some people doubt that I even did that), I told her that I prided myself on the accuracy of research I do (I have been a writer for more than 35 years)and that this error had damaged my credibility.

Of course, I understand fully that, as part of a debate, discrediting the other fellow is a fair tactic. I left myself open for it. You all had your day with it. Dave seems to have built his whole life on it.

CW

Oh Mr Mark! Ye HAVE been taken in and how! So have the rest of us!
David 'Hoax' Miller and CW are either one and the same person or in cahoots to set us all up!
Aye! That's the underhand 'game' that's been going on with the intention to continue for as long as we fell for it.

I wondered at an educated person, let alone a scientist, being so obnoxiously insulting as our fly wee Davie has been all the way!

I bet gentle folk such as Karen must have been sickened by that non-stop and apparently atheistic invective laid on so thick she'd never listen to a non-believer again!

We'll have to watch out now for any further attempts in a new guise if we're to prevent similar duplicitous 'games'.

Here's hoping that's it finally over now.

Mr Mark - It's on sincerity, not methods, that I think you've been hoodwinked. Just my theory - can't be challenged with internet links, so will remain my theory. I also think CW likes getting this kind of attention, so I won't be providing any more of it.

Dear Dave -

You really take things personally and to extremes, don't you?

I thought that I gave you props in my earlier posts. I also took CW to task on the Ecklund study long before you entered the fray. You seem put off by the fact that I acknowledged his apology on posting phony info. Does that make me an "enabler" of the religious on this board?

E Fav thinks that maybe CW hoodwinked me. On the contrary, I haven't been taken in by his message or methods as they're pretty standard fare for people of any stripe when their unassailable info comes crashing down to earth (I've been there before - haven't you?). But I do believe in giving credit where credit is due, and CW's apology seemed sincere enough to me. In the large scheme of things, he won a battle but not the war. I'm not looking for total victory in these discussion boards, I'm looking for a discussion. Compared to Canyon Shearer and some of the other wackos who have posted here, CW is quite moderate in his views.

As far as my youth and inexperience, Dave - I'm the same age as you, 52.

Dave Miller, Like you, I’m interested in studying people’s reactions here, however, I have no interest in participating in whatever “games” are being played at this point.

Looking back over recent posts, it’s hard to see who’s enjoying this fracas more, you or CW.

Although I think you represent a worthy cause in exposing religious fraud, you seem just as gleeful as CW at denigrating people who do not see things exactly your way. This attitude is foreign to any legitimate research process that I know of.

It’s my opinion that Mr Mark and Bernie Bee have been hoodwinked by CW in this discussion, influenced by a combination CW’s manipulative skills and their own sense of decency and fair play. I’m just as repulsed by your treatment and characterization of them as I am by CWs trickery.

You too duke it out if you want too. Analyzing the interaction could be useful in some future study of the extremes of religious thinking.

Davie, d'ye know ye've all but chased me into the arms of Pope Benny himself with all that unrelentin' monotonous,rantin' ye go in for!
But wait a minit, is that yer intention! I'm beginnin' tae detest your posts now as much as any the daft fundies go in for! Ye gie atheism a bad name so ye dae!
I would worry about my ain mental health if I wiz you!
It really is a bit extreme the way ye'er hounding and persecuting CW, way beyond the limit, so that's it's now a wee bit...shall we say pathological!
And aye, ye dae seem tae be obsessed with that word 'pathological'!

You say: Well, you Scottish people have always been known for your easygoing happy-go-lucky ways, right?
Wrang!
For starters just you google John Knox for a more suitable opponent than poor CW!

D'ye know, I think I'll set off now for the nearst church tae say a wee prayer ye!

God bless!

Bernie Bee wrote:

>I'm sorry to have to say so Dave but CW is on the side of the angels with regard to the intensity you feel apropos 'absolute truth'.

Well, you Scottish people have always been known for your easygoing happy-go-lucky ways, right? Must be that wonderful Mediterranean climate you enjoy! And I can't deny that CW is certainly a fun guy to have at a party, at least if you don't mind pathological liars.

Seriously, I gotta admit that I am much more serious about, as you put it, the "absolute truth" thing than CW is about his god-faker thing. He seems to be lying just for the fun of it; frankly, I think it is all a parlor game to him. I, on the other hand, intend to do what I can to assist in the eradication of religion from the face of the earth.

As I have explained, I'm here to observe how the personal and inter-personal psycho-sociological dynamics change when someone comes in and tells the blunt unvarnished truth about religion without weasel words or showing false respect for people who are lying.

No need in the world for you to share my perspective: I can learn just as much if you and I have diametrically opposite perspecitves. Trust me, I'm good at avoiding weasel words or avoiding false respect for psychopaths: I don't need you to do it too.

I'm already tickled pink to see Mr. Mark shocked, shocked (!) that someone, me, who is posting on a discussion of Hitchens' essay would actually have a perspective similar to Hitchens' on religion.

And I deeply loved CW's shock in finding out that I really am going around the Web seeking out people like him to expose and study wherever I can find them. Obviously, a pathological liar like CW cannot understand the concept of someone actually telling the truth!

So, as the man said, let the games begin!

Dave

E Favorite wrote:
>It's imperative to study it [religious behavior], but it won't be easy, breaking through those barriers.

Yes, if you followed the recent exchange between Mr. Mark and me, he is very annoyed that I see the main utility of threads such as this as studying people like CW. It seems obvious to me that reasoning with CW is a waste of time, at least until one understands his psychopathology fully. How can one reason with people who intentionally and pathologically lie?

To me that pathological lying is the heart of religion. Mr. Mark evidently disagrees and is not happy with a diversity of opinions on that issue. (Perhaps it is his relative youth showing through.)

Of course, Mark's attitude is part of the overall psycho-social dynamics. His insistence on treating people like CW as deserving of respect even when they are proven pathological liars is a big part of enabling the religious con game in the first place. There are now enough people in America who know the truth about religion that, if we all were outspoken in defense of truth, the rotten structure could be brought down. But Mr. Mark is an enabler for the con artists and helps prop them up.

You said you'd read "The Dishonest Church." Do you recommend any other good books on the psychology/sociology of religion (in the broad sense of those terms)? I've been looking at some of the evolutionary psych books about religion but have not settled on which ones to read. I've read Dawkins of course, but have not seen Hitchens' yet. Sam Harris' book seems to me, somehow, a bit like a grade-school primer: somehow I feel he is talking down to the reader a bit.

All the best,

Dave

Mr Mark wrote:

>I'll thank you both for directly addressing my earlier posts and take this opportunity to exit the fray with as much dignity as I can muster.

Not gonna happen, MM. I don't take orders from people younger than me.

I've already addressed everything in your posts that interests me -- you're a boring guy.

Now, CW's psychopathology, that interests me.

Not to be flippant for a moment, I honestly think that the only interesting thing about religious believers such as CW is their psychopathology: there is no other interesting intellectual issue there.

Theology is not an intellectual discipline: it is a technique used by con artists, indeed by the overwhelmingly most successful con artists in the history of the human race.

But their day is ending.

Dav

To Dave & CW -

I'm afraid your arguing has reached the point where I no longer wish to participate. It's a bit like a Wagnerian opera. If you know Wagner, you know that part of his magic is the ability to develop scenes wherein the audience's loyalties keep getting shifted from one arguing character back to the other. Wotan says something that makes perfect sense...until Fricka shows the lie behind his statement...which leads Wotan to provide the prejudice behind Fricka's statement...which leads Fricka to throw Wotan's promises to her back in his face...which leads to Wotan saying those promises were made under false pretenses...

You get the idea.

I'll thank you both for directly addressing my earlier posts and take this opportunity to exit the fray with as much dignity as I can muster.

I'm sorry to have to say so Dave but CW is on the side of the angels with regard to the intensity you feel apropos 'absolute truth'.
I say that rather guiltily due to my own propensity to add the BA (Calcutta failed)that I got for a fiver back in '97.

And although it might be shown by some spoilsports to be apocryphal I go along with CW in believing things like when Moses came down from the mountain he was mobbed by multitudes anxious to know how he got on and he told them there was good news and bad news. "The good news" sez Moses, "is that I managed tae get Him down tae ten!" (Cheers all round!) "The bad news is...adultery is in!" (boos all round!)

And Davie lad, I still think Monica is a really lovely, gentle lass...aye Bill, like our own dear bard Rabbie B, was lucky with the lassies!

E Favorite

You wrote: Sorry, CW, it's not worth it to me to converse with you any more. I will probably check back here, but I won't respond to a post from you.

Gosh, what a loss! I've so enjoyed your civility and your open-mindedness. I'll certainly miss them.

CW

Bernie Bee:

Shhh! Dave says you're not to tell me that you're willing to hold out the hand of friendship to me or I might leave the blog and wreck his study! So don't tell me!

Well, maybe stealthily. . .shhh. . .we don't want Dave to see this. . .I'm happy to hold out mine in return.

CW

Dear Dave,

Hey, I'm honored to be a subject of a micro-study by the younger Richard Dawkins! Where do I sign up? I do wish you had told me I was being secretly scrutinized sooner, but then, I understand how people sometimes fail to 'fess up right away, and I'm perfectly okay with it!

But now that you revealed all to the others on this blog the truth that I am not just a liar, but a pathological liar, and worse, a religious pathological liar, I am surprised that you really trust me to help you prove how rotten I and religion are and all. Just for your sake, how could you possibly depend on any response I make to have a shred of truth in it? What credibility would your study have?

You see, a pathological liar lies about everything. So, remembering the old riddle about the natives sitting on a log, you could never be sure of anything I said. If you said "are you telling the truth?" and I said "no," you would have to assume I was telling the truth! And vice versa. So it would be a bookkeeping exercise at best, tracking all those confusing answers. Maybe you could used sodium pentathol or torture to get the straight dope.

But I'm willing. I don't need any money, just a quid pro quo. I'm doing a stealth study myself on narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). So I'll let you study me while I'm studying you! Sound fair? But you have to assure me that I am still beneath your contempt, or it's no deal!

CW

Dave Miller - I just read your Amazon review of "The Dishonest Church" - a book I recenly read.

Agree with all you said and would add that the community that good churches offer is a major reason why people stay, putting blinders on that prevent them from looking at their "faith" in the eye.

Dave Miller - I'm quite fascinated with this statement of yours: "Most people on this planet know that all of the other religions are quite bonkers and only con games to keep the money rolling in.

But they agree not to say so, in exchange for everyone else doing the same."

I've seen many examples of it and some quite recently. And I think there's more to it than that - in some, perhaps most cases, it's unconscious or otherwise quite hidden or suppressed. People don't know they're doing it. It's quite ingrained and insidious. It's imperative to study it, but it won't be easy, breaking through those barriers.

CW, you old pathological liar, you, you're learning to Google.

Yes, I'm going around the Web tracking down you pathological liars, that's how my research project works, as I've explained.

You're not the only one, CW, but you are much, much worse than Steve.

Dave

To all:

Sometimes when one is repeatedly accused of something (in this case, lying, still lying, an orgy of lying, pathological lying, continued lying, etc.,) one begins to wonder: My God, where did I go wrong? Well, in my case, I offended David H. Miller. But then I found, quite by accident, that David H. Miller apparently has a habit of calling people liars (and even worse). Some other poor fool on another blog quoted that infamous study and here's what David said:

"Now that it turns out that I'm right and you're lying, I have some questions for you, Steve.

Did you ever actually go to college, Steve? Did they have a campus or just a PO Box? Did they explain to you the irresponsibility of relying on secondary sources alone instead of trying to check primary sources (which in this case would have taken you about 30 seconds on the Net) to see if your secondary sources lied???

You accuse me of being irresponsible. You're not just a liar, Steve, you're a lazy liar.

Yes, I am not ashamed of having a Ph.D. from an elite university in a difficult subject or of having the intellectual ability to have earned that Ph.D. You have just proven that you lack such ability.

I was talking about an issue, the attitude of scientists towards religion, for which my having a Ph.D. from Stanford was clearly relevant. I will not apologize to morally and intellectually inferior human beings such as yourself for my having that Ph.D. or for my mentioning it when it is relevant.

I earned it through hard work.

You, on the other hand, have so little knowledge of science, or so little honesty, that you did not care to check out the obvious lie in the MSNBC report (MSNBC, by the way, did not even do the story themselves: if you had looked carefully, you would see that they acknowledged that they cribbed it from the site livescience.com ).

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for libelling your betters.

You are beneath contempt.

You also lied about Einstein, but I won't bother to respond to those lies. I think your dishonesty is now obvious to everyone.

Dave"

I particularly liked the line about Steve being "morally and intellectually inferior" followed by "you ought to be ashamed of yourself for libelling your betters." (Your betters, no less!).

Well, Steve, I guess I must join you in being beneath David H. Miller's contempt, and who could ever get much lower than that?

I did notice that at least he didn't accuse Steve of pathological lying. Maybe he hadn't yet run across the word. Maybe at the time he had not yet seen his shrink who told him, "Dave, I think there something pathological about your anger."

CW

Bernie Bee wrote of CW:

>I'm still willin' tae extend the hand o' friendship tae CW sae lang as he's prepared tae meet me half way.

Well, it would certainly wreck my research project if CW simply disappears from this board altogether!

Let me reveal a few things I have not mentioned yet. I really do have a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford. But my current academic pursuits are slightly different (call me a younger, little-known Richard Dawkins, if you wish).

You know the famous quote from Mencken:
>We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

The thesis of my research is that, in his inimitable way, Mencken has captured the social and psychological process that keeps religion going. Most people on this planet know that all of the other religions are quite bonkers and only con games to keep the money rolling in.

But they agree not to say so, in exchange for everyone else doing the same.

The one group who does not benefit from this little mutual con game is us atheists.

So what if we atheists stop playing the game?

What if we tell the truth about the constant and provable lies of people like CW in the same way we would if he had lied about issues of money or law?

The thesis of my research is that the whole rotten game of religion will then collapse.

Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris, Colbert, et al. are testing this theory at a "macro" level. I'm testing it at a "micro" level.

What happens if I come along and start telling the simple, unvarnished provable truth about a religiously pathological liar such as CW?

Anyway, I'm now at the point in the protocol where I have to reveal the experiment to the subject: this often produces some of the most interesting responses. (CW is of course not my first experimental subject.)

Let me make clear that everything I have said about CW (and myself) to date is true: that's the point of the experiment - how do those entrapped in religious belief systems respond when faced not with polite weasel-wording but with the unvarnished truth.

Science is fun.

(If anyone wants to know more about this line of research, look up Harold Garfinkel and ethnomethodology in the library or via Google.)

Da

What always perplexed me the most about l'affaire Lewinsky, given that Clinton was a sleazeball, was that of all the women in the world that the President of the United States could have fooled around with, he chose a fat, ugly, obnoxiouos slob.

Clearly, I lack an emotional understanding of the urge to adultery!

But, of course, I also can't understand why CW, when he found out his much beloved numbers were wrong, didn't just post the truth and move on. Why continue to engage in lying?

Clearly, I also lack an emotional understanding of the urge to "lie for God"!

Dave

But wait a minit Davie, are ye no' bein' a wee bit too shrill?
I mean a married man that you're so quick tae condemn, sich as Bill Clinton, lyin' through his teeth tae preserve his family, is in my book a plus, since I know I wooda done the same in the circs! Well I mean tae say Wow! Monica is sicha lovely gal! I know for sure I couldnae have resistit her!
Cood you?

I'm still willin' tae extend the hand o' friendship tae CW sae lang as he's prepared tae meet me half way.

But, CW, now that you've been proven beyond any possible rational doubt to be a patholigically disturbed liar, no sane person is going to believe anything you say.

Dear Bernie Bee:

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner regarding your last message to me. Let me respond to this most recent observation; i.e., that I am a Creationist and therefore a Christian fundamentalist. I am none of these.

My post regarding theistic evolution carried the warning that this idea is often also expressed as theistic creation. Here is that warning:

(A warning: the term "evolutionary creationist" has nothing to do with the pseudo-science of Creationism. It is otherwise known as evolutionary theism. "Creationist" in this frame of reference means a God who set evolution in motion but did not tinker with it.

Here is a further explanation:

In evolutionary creation, also called theistic evolution, natural evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve.

Theistic evolution does not believe that God has interfered with his creation (as Intelligent Design would have it), but that "instructions" were included in the creation itself. I then included a list of scientists who have this view.

I do not believe in either Creationism (which often includes the "young earth" theory) or Intelligent Design (God tinkering with his creation to help move it along) and I have never hinted that I have this belief. Where you got this notion, Bernie, that you continue to confront me with, I have absolutely no idea.

As I have stated many times before, I believe in God. It is not a God of religion. I do not believe in special creation or in miracles (other than the miracle of the Universe itself). I am puzzled by these insinuations that I am a closet fundamentalist. In my youth, I was a Methodist. I became an atheist in my early 20s. I remained one for 16 years. I then became an agnostic and remained one for 5 years, moving gradually toward belief. I have been a believer in a Higher Power for 25 years.

Does it get any simpler than this? Is there anything else I need to say? I can't tell you how tired I am of these suspicions -- this time echoed by E Favorite -- that I am something other than what I say. You can be sure that if I were a "fundie," I would be heaping fire and brimstone on yer heathen head, laddie.

CW

( Part IV cont. from above)

At the time of his two earlier posts that I have quoted, CW knew, by his own admission, that his original post on this matter was false. Yet, he not only did not choose to 'fess up in either of those two posts, he actively continued to defend the original post that he knew was false until I posted the links that made it impossible for him to continue all of the lies .

The case is conclusive.

It is obvious that he did not voluntarily reveal the truth but only grudgingly conceded it (he continued to lie about various peripheral matters) **only** when he had no choice - i.e., when the links I offered proved that he had been posting false information.

And he is still lying.

For example, after all of this, in a post on June 7, 2007 11:13 AM, in a copy of a letter he wrote to Dr. Ecklund after I exposed his lies, CW claimed:
> Upon reading the tables in your study, I discovered [the fraud]
{snip}
>I immediately posted a response that gave the correct figures

Reading that letter in full (please do!), I think it is clear that he intended both Prof. Ecklund and all of us to believe that he promptly and willingly posted the truth after finding the error. This of course is a lie: as I have proven above from his own words, CW continued to defend his initial post with the initial figures in it, after he knew those figures were false, until I revealed his lies.

CW is a skilled, practiced, and clearly unrepentant liar. I am confident that he will engage in ad hominem attacks against me for laying out these facts clearly, candidly, and unambiguously, even though I am simply laying out his own words. No doubt, he will follow his role model, Slick Willie, in arguing about the meaning of the word "is" or some such nonsense.

But everything I have posted above can be easily checked by anyone who wishes to do so.

CW's own words prove his lies.

My real concern here is not of course CW. I have seen this sort of "lying for God" again and again and again in my fifty-two years of life. This is what Christianity is. Strip away the lies and there is literally nothing left except some mildly entertaining fiction ("shepherds abiding in their fields…", etc.).

And yes, everyone, I did, decades ago, seriously consider law school, but decided I did not wish to spend my entire life refuting unscrupulous, evil, pathologically-disturbed, unrepentant liars such as CW.

Does anyone think that CW will *ever* admit the obvious truth about his very serious, indeed pathological, problem with lying?

All the best,

Dave

( Part III cont. from above)

In a post at June 7, 2007 12:57 AM, when CW already, by his own later admission, knew that his initial figures were fraudulent, he nonetheless continued to dishonestly defend those initial figures and pretended to be perplexed by my claim that they were fraudulent:

>When I first posted this study, it came under furious attack by several atheists for being spurious, simply because its results challenged a dearly held belief. A recent poster has even said it was an "internet hoax." I was surprised at the results. Even the researcher was surprised at the results.

On June 7, 2007 at 12:44 AM and 12:48 AM, I posted the links that enabled everyone to find out that CW was lying. The jig was up. CW could no longer hide from everyone the facts that he had already known.

CW's following post in response to mine is the key post, for it is here that he admitted, probably without realizing that he was admitting it, that he had indeed known that the figures were false before I informed everyone of that fact, and that, indeed, he had known of that fact when he had posted previous messages in which he still defended the fraudulent numbers and pretended not to know that they came from an Internet hoax.

Mr. Mark, this is the key point. It is here that CW admitted that he knew information at the time of his 6:49 PM and 12:57 AM posts that proved that the original numbers were false -- although he chose to reveal none of this in either of those posts and, indeed, continued to defend his original post, even though he knew by then that it was false.

In CW's post on June 7, 2007 02:00, (after I had publicly and indisputably exposed the fraud on this thread) CW admitted that:

>I discovered only this afternoon that responses to the question "do you believe in God" included a 31% agnostic response, and in my next post on this issue I reported, that 38% and 32% of the two disciplines reported that they did not believe in God.

This of course means that his original post, claiming that 62 % of natural scientists believe in God was wrong.

Note, however, that CW confesses that he knew the truth "this afternoon" (i.e., the afternoon of June 6) - which shows that he must have known by the time of his June 6 6:49 PM posting and that he obviously knew the truth at the time of his June 7, 2007 12:57 AM post.

Yet, in both of those posts he chose not to reveal the truth which he then knew and, indeed, continued to defend his original post which he then knew was false.

(Note also that he did explicitly refer to his "next" post (i.e., next after finding out the truth): this was the June 6 6:49 post, as he indicates by relating what he mentioned in that post. This proves that he did know the truth before the 6:49 PM post, in which he nevertheless did not admit that the original figures were false.)

This is the smoking gun, Mr. Mark.
(cont. below)

( Part II cont. from above)

I have outlined above the case that proves, that over the past few days, CW has intentionally engaged in an orgy of lies. I will here present his own words with the relevant time-stamps that conclusively prove his eagerness to lie and to deceive everyone on this thread for as long as he thought he could get away with it.

As everyone knows, on June 2, 2007 12:09 CW claimed, based on a study by Professor Ecklund that:
>62% of natural scientists (physicists, astronomers, etc.) and 68% of social scientists(anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, etc.) believe in God

This is false and easily shown to be false, but in his eagerness to attack scientists, CW may have believed it at the time.

On the evening of June 6, 2007 at 6:49 PM CW posted a message in which he claimed of Ecklund's study:
>It was found that only 38% of natural scientists -- physicists, chemists, astronomers, etc. -- did not believe in God. Many practiced a traditional religious belief and regularly attended services. A slightly smaller percentage, 32% of social scientists -- psychologists, sociologists, etc. -- did not believe in God.

These later figures would of course reassure any reader that CW stood by his earlier figures (62 + 38 = 100; 68 + 32 = 100).

In fact, this attempt at reassurance by CW was fraudulent: he later admitted that he knew by this time that his initial figures were false.

In a post on June 6, 2007 11:59 PM, I announced that I knew his figures came from "a long-known Internet fraud" and I knew they were false (as he also did by this time, although he refused to say so) and that I would post the details as soon as I could deal with some technical difficulties. I had been dealing with these technical details for more than a day (the server's restriction on length of posts, it turned out).

(cont. below)

Mr. Mark,

You wrote:
>IN CW's case, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this first offense of citing erroneous data (though your outrage is well placed), especially as he has made a full apology at this point.

CW has not made an apology of any sort for his recent and ongoing lies.

CW's initial use of the false information was indeed careless and reckless: I first saw the false claims in another forum -- it literally took me 30 seconds on Google to find out that it was fraud (when I came to this forum, I therefore already knew about the fraud). The first expose I found went way back to early '06, so it has indeed been known to be a fraud for a good while. Had CW cared at all about the truth, he could easily have checked it as I did. And, of course, his use of the data was extraordinarily arrogant, obnoxious, and ad hominem, which I think would justify a sharp reproach.

However, that is not the real problem. The real problem is that CW has created a complicated skein of brand new lies on this issue in the last several days. That is why I am denouncing him as a pathologically disturbed liar.

The heart of this new net of lies is his attempt to convince people, such as yourself, that he willingly admitted his original error when he realized that he had been wrong. I take it from your words that it is for this reason that you are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

This is demonstrably and unequivocally false, given information CW has provided himself. CW did not reveal his errors when he found out about them, according to his own testimony, and, indeed, continued to post comments that would lead everyone to believe that the original figures were correct although he definitely knew otherwise.

He did not post the truth about this matter when he found out the truth; he attempted to continue to deceive people, even when I announced that the figures he had used were fraudulent and that I would expose them on this thread (he must have thought I was bluffing).

Only when I actually provided links that anyone could follow to see that CW was lying did he finally post a message acknowledging that the figures were false and that he had known prior to my posting that the figures were false.

CW's own statements, placed on a timeline, make quite clear that, even though he knew the figures were false before I publicly exposed the fact, he went out of his way to conceal this knowledge until I posted the truth.

He did not voluntarily inform anyone of the truth, although he knew it himself, and clearly had no intention of ever doing so, until I forced his hand.

Since there still seems to be some real doubt on this, I will post his own statements, with the relevant time-stamps in my following post (the server limits the length of posts, so I cannot include it here).

(cont. below)

Mr Mark:

Thanks for being so kind as to reserve your judgment about my honesty until you have observed my future "behavior." But I disagree with your excusing David Miller for what you call his justifiable outrage. I found it to be (and still do) utterly inappropriate, and, for a man of science mystifying. I note that while I apologized for my reporting of a false research result (I was duped along with many others, including you), David has continued to call me a pathological liar.

I recall you were pretty outraged yourself over the Ecklund study, but you were equally outraged that I had tried to pass off Roy Varghese as a scientist when I had done nothing of the kind. It has been a pleasure to read the measured and quite lovely posts of the estimable Karen and the quiet remarks of Daniel, neither of whom rants.

My own writings, when compared to some of the vitriolic responses I have received, have been quite mild. I have used words such as preposterous and absurd a couple of times, but I have never attacked anyone who blogs here as dishonest, deceptive, in the pay of someone else, masquerading as someone else, hiding their true beliefs, etc. I have been described as a charlatan, a "god-faker," (whatever that means), a Creationist, an IDer, a rabid Catholic, a braggart. None of these (with the exception of "braggart," which is in the eye of the beholder) is true. Your posts, Mr. Mark, with the occasional lapse, have been reasonable and one even included an offer of friendship which I greatly appreciate.

These posts are not really attempts to persuade but to state and expand upon positions already deeply held. I have no illusions that you or David or the clever Bernie Bee will accept my version of reality; nor, I am sure, do you believe that I will suddenly return to atheism in a blog-induced epiphany. I have pointed out that my return to belief in a super-intelligence was reached by much reading of science books written principally by atheists or agnostics. My conclusions, to me, devoid of the trappings of religion (which I think often, but not always, get in the way of belief) are perfectly rational.

I admire people like Karen who can accept their Christianity in its entirety with some doubt but with even greater faith. She made perhaps the most telling point of anyone in this seemingly endless conversation when she said that if her belief turned out to be false, what has she lost? But the fact that she looks to the cosmos for further affirmation of a creator is important too. I know that rational belief (not an oxymoron as some would have it) is available; I have found it, first in the agency behind the inexplicable wonder of the cosmos, and then experientially by turning to and relying upon that creator personally for guidance, inspiration, intuition, courage, acceptance, assurance, hope and love. If all that is illusion, I ask, with Karen, not only "what have I lost?" but "how much have I gained?"

Some say that science has eliminated a "need" for God; that he has "nothing left to do." But with the discoveries regarding cosmic expansion that David referred to come even deeper questions about God's role in an eternally expanding series of universes that may (or may not) have an even more distant beginning than we can imagine. The wonder increases, not decreases, with each new finding. God may in fact have a lot to do.

And in the last analysis, no matter how much explanation science may provide -- and I stand in awe of the brilliance of its practitioners (if not the manners of some) -- no matter how much is revealed about the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy, branes and strings and the Higgs boson and wave-function and the multiverse, the ontological question will remain in one form or another for so long as intelligent beings exist: "why is there something rather than nothing?"

To those who say that an endless infinity of universes eliminates the "nothing" from the equation, I would reply that it simply revises it to ask "why is there anything at all?" This unanswerable question that only a rational mind could conceive is the beginning of all faith. It was this wonder that led the Neanderthal man to create his myths about nature and life, and above all, death.

The myths which became the structures of theism all began by dealing with the mystery of death by imagining immortality. Science told us some time ago that our immortality is assured by the laws of conservation of matter and energy. The only question that remains for us is, can consciousness survive? Only death itself will provide that answer for all of us.

In the meantime, it is comforting and almost exhilarating to understand that the matter and energy of which I am made are as old as the stars.

CW

I've had some excellent, civil conversations here with devoutly religious people -- and I think they would agree.

However, it's hard and ultimately a waste of time to converse with someone who seems untrustworthy at a very basic level.

I noticed right after CW's very first post, despite the denials of being a fundamentalist, that was plainly how he came across and I guessed out loud he was a rampant Catholic.

However, CW was truthful enough in admitting to being an evolutionary creationist. As mentioned in my immediate previous post this is within the purlieu of no less than the creationism held by the 'more conservative evangelical christians).

So it would appear CW is indeed a fundie!

Dear E Fav -

I can understand your reluctance to give religionists like CW the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I try my best to keep an open mind for as long as possible, even if 99% of the time it turns out that I was dealing with yet another uniformed apologist who wasn't interested in engaging in a dialogue as much as offering a diatribe.

I've had no success speaking with members of my own family - college-educated siblings who are professionals in their fields. Inevitably, they fall back on the same myths and questionable/discredited/illogical "proofs" that one sees regurgitated on a daily basis on this very blog.

Attempting dialogue comes with the territory of this blog, and I feel that I need to give people a lot of room if I wish to really engage in this blog the way it's intended.

Mr Mark - I'm not so willing to give CW the benefit of the doubt. I don't trust his supposed coorespondence with Prof Ecklund. I wouldn't be surprised if he made all or most of it up. Just a theory, of course, but he's lost a lot of credibility with me and it seems like just the sort of story he'd spin to prop himself up.

Sorry, CW, it's not worth it to me to converse with you any more. I will probably check back here, but I won't respond to a post from you.

We may give scientists some credibility in their relgious beliefs, becasuse they are, for the most part, intelligent. But so are alot of other people, who are not scientists.

I have known alot of scientists who go to church. Since I have not engaged most of them as to the true nature of their beliefs, I cannot say anothing about that. Most scientists that I have known, who go to church, are Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian. I have also known a number of practicing Jewish scientists. Islamic scientists tend to be bitter and confused over their religion.

I would imagine that many, if not most, scientists who go to church have quite sophisticated and creative Christian beliefs, and you probably wouldn't want to use them as examples to prove literalist or fundamentalst Christian dogma.

Dear David H Miller -

Thank you for your comments in this thread. It is good to have an actual scientist commenting here.

You asked why Xians care what scientists believe. I think we all know the answer(s) to that: religionists love science when they believe it lends support to their fairy tales, but they discount science when it puts the lie (or even an alternative) to their beliefs. Scientific discovery continues to reduce the gap in which their god exists, so all of the vehemence which with they used to spout their defense (belief?) in god over a wide range of human thought gets squeezed into an ever-narrowing confine.

Thus, we get religionists who say they believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution, religionists who say evolution is "only a theory," religionists who believe the science that built their cars and computers but discount science when it comes to biology and cosmology (or not - earlier this year, a Xian on this board argued with me over how gasoline is produced. When I pointed out that science learned how to crack carbons to produce gas and other petro-based products from crude oil, he opined that carbon cracking may not actually take place, that we only THINK that's what's happening, and that tomorrow, science could revise its belief on how gas is produced from crude oil - his point, apparently, was that you can't trust the absoutes of science because, unlike religion, there are no absolutes in science).

As far as religionists misrepresenting your words on this board - I'm afraid that's an experience all of we anti-theists have had more than once at On Faith. One poster was fond of quoting me by lopping off the beginning of sentences I had penned to give them the opposite meaning of what I intended. Others used the ever-handy ellipse to cut-n-paste my writings into a position supporting their Biblical nonsense. I called them on this dishonest practice and it seems to have stopped...but I would really like Dr Ecklund to do a study on why religionists stoop to such practices, especially in this internet age where their writings live forever and fact checking their statements takes only a matter of seconds (perhaps they're counting on divine intervention to make it all good?)

IN CW's case, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this first offense of citing erroneous data (though your outrage is well placed), especially as he has made a full apology at this point. The proof will be in CW's subsequent behaviour - we'll know in short order if he was duped by livescience.com or if he's an active and willing participant in spreading misinformation (sorry, CW, but I need to reserve final judgement on you at this time).

Again, thanks for the comments.

I urge everyone following this thread to get a copy of a 2003 book by a retired pastor who served for decades in the United Church of Christ, Jack Good's "The Dishonest Church." Rev. Good explains in that book that any pastor who has graduated from a serious, reputable, mainstream seminary knows that the central teachings of Christianity (traditional doctrines such as the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Virgin Birth) are lies.

He also explains that most of the pastors he knew personally in mainstream American denominations intentionally deceived their congregations, hiding this truth from the people in the pews.

He further explains that a central reason for the deception is that his fellow pastors fear losing their income if ordinary Americans find out the truth.

It's about money, folks.

I have checked this out myself through various sources. Rev. Good appears to be telling the truth.

This is why I am so angry and dismayed by the intricate pattern of lies recently displayed on this thread by "CW."

This is what Christianity now is: a tissue of lies. Tear away the lies so eloquently revealed by Rev. Good and so tawdrily practiced by CW and there is nothing left. If the American people knew the truth, Christianity would blow away like the morning mist before a good clean wind.

It's all lies. There is nothing left in Christianity except lies and some pathetic little men who fear that they will lose their paltry income if they tell the truth.

That is why I am so angry about CW's lying.

Dave

Mr. Hitchens is a british ZIONIST IMPLANETED SHILL

CW wrote:

>I think David Miller sort of lost it there for a bit and hurled considerable invective my way. It was embarrassing for me, but after all was said and done it must have been even more embarrassing for him to re-read his post.

Oh no, CW, I think I was probably a bit soft on you, to tell the truth.

You are a pathological liar. You have admitted that you knew that the figures you had posted were false at the time that you posted another post that not only failed to acknowledge the falsity of the earlier post but that was also carefully worded to make any reader think you still stood by the earlier post.

You never intended to tell anyone on this thread the truth.

You did not breathe even a whisper on this thread to anyone letting them know that your original post was false until I posted links that would allow everyone to find out the truth. Then when you had no choice, you finally half admitted the truth (although you continued to lie even in that post, claiming, "As you know, agnosticism is not an expression of unbelief..").

You have yet to retract your misrepresentation of me, pretending that I had said that no scientists were Christians, which I have never said here or anywhere else.

Oh, no, CW, I was too polite to you earlier.

All of this can easily and rapidly be checked by scrolling through this thread. But I doubt anyone cares anymore.

You are now a proven, documented pathological liar, and nothing you can ever do can change that.

Da

Karen,

You wrote:
>I agree with many posters on these threads that say that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, at least not in the current level of knowledge.

I, and almost all scientists I know of, agree with you.

Science very clearly can disprove stories about some particular gods: even Christian fundamentalists agree that some religious tales from ancient cultures are disproved by modern science. And if you disprove enough stories about a particular god, you have, in effect, proved that the god described in those stories is fictional.

However, it is hard to see how science can disprove the existence of some sort of spiritual being in the most general sense of the word.

That is one of the reasons that I am so annoyed with people like CW who constantly lie trying to convince people that scientists support their religious views when few scientists think that science is of much relevance to the question of the existence of god at all.

In fact, I myself was surprised that so many scientists in the Ecklund survey, which CW lied about, chose the "atheist" answer. I would have expected many more to choose the "agnostic" answer (even I might have) rather than the "atheist" answer. I suppose hard-core atheism is even more widespread among scientists than I had thought!

I suppose as a scientist I should feel complimented by the eagerness of Christians to falsely claim that scientists are really believers. After all, no one bothers to lie to try to convince people that lawyers or used-car dealers are more religious than they really are!

Why do people like CW care whether or not scientists believe in God?

Dave

Karen,

Actually what you wrote was that there were "many reputable scientists" of this sort.

And I responded with real doubt that there were many.

I still doubt that there are many, but thank you for listing at least one.

One of the many reasons I have the highest level of contempt for CW is that he kept lying, saying that I claimed there were no scientists who believed in God, when I have never claimed that in my life. I have myself known scientists who believed in God, although not many, since believers in God are a tiny, tiny minority among top scientists (as we have now established, despite CW's lies to the contrary), and most of my experience has been among top scientists.

Yes, I am an angry atheist, but, no, I am not primarily angry at fundamentalists: I acutally have liked almost every single fundamentalist I have known in real life (I was raised attending a Southern Baptist church - I knew a lot of them!).

What does make me angry is lying - whether by CW, Bill Clinton (Monica), Dubya (almost everything), or anyone else. I am a non-partisan, non-denominational hater of lies.

I also have absolutely zero-tolerance for the current American norm that says we should not call a lie "a lie" even when it most assuredly is.

D

David Miller: Sandage made this statement in the mid 80s, I believe.
Look, I was not necessarily trying to say that I agreed with all what he said, considering the fact that I am not that well versed in comsmolofy for one thing! I was just trying to support my point that some scientists have come to faith in God/a Creator based on their scientific work as it was available at the time. The mid 80s was a quarter century ago but it was not the middle ages either.

I agree with many posters on these threads that say that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, at least not in the current level of knowledge.

Finally, I would somewhat agree with CW that there are a lot of pretty angry atheists on this thread. My guess is that their anger is directed at fundamentalists of any religion that try to shove their beliefs down people's throats and impose their views on everybody else. Well, I can get pretty angry at those people too. We have to separate the harm that people do in the name of religion from the religion itself. There are hundreds of millions of christians around the world that live their faith in a personal, reflective way and are spurred onto good works by their faith. The problem is, they do not usually make the news. So I would encourage fellow christians on these blogs to let God's love shine through their posts and to bring honor to the name of Christ, rather then adding to the anger and contention that many on both sides seem to relish.

Karen,

Thank you for finally actually responding to my original post, unlike that pathological liar CW, who keeps lying that I claimed that no scientist believes in God.

If Sandage still believes that "the sudden emergence of matter, space, time and energy pointed to the need for some kind of transcendence" then he is scientifically out of date, about a quarter century out of date, in fact. Competent cosmologists no longer believe that everything came out of nothing at the Big Bang.

If you google "cosmic inflation" or check it out in the Wikipedia, you will find that the dominant theory now is that there was a larger universe out of which the Big Bang exploded - that larger universe may have existed forever, so that there may be no need for solving the problem of origins.

Sandage is a very old man (is he dead yet?), perhaps he is senile now and can't follow current work.

I incidentally was a doctoral student at Stanford when the inflationary model was originated by Alan Guth, then a post-doc at Stanford, so I have followed this from the beginning.

Dave

CW, do you know that Bertrand Russel was an agnostic? Don't you think he would disapprove of being lumped as anything other than a non-believer?

Even Richard Dawkins aknowledges the possibility that the birth of the universe could have been a supernatural event but so far there is no evidence for that or ever likely to be.

So where are we?

You say you are an evolutionary creationist which you claim is not to be confused with creationism.
Yet the definition of EC is that the differences between EC and Theistic evolution lie not in science, but in theology, with EC being held by more conservative (evangelical) Christians.

Just for the record, do you agree with that definition?

Moreover, it was you that gratuitously made use of hostile and derogotary terms soon after you showed up in here for which E Fav rebuked you. So it is hardly to be expected that you should complain if David was a little impatient in dealing with your perceived attempts at subterfuge.

Mr. Mark:

I must confess it is a relief to get a message like yours. I think David Miller sort of lost it there for a bit and hurled considerable invective my way. It was embarrassing for me, but after all was said and done it must have been even more embarrassing for him to re-read his post.

Yes, I was disturbed that I had passed on erroneous information supplied by LiveScience, but I must tell you that the same information was played back in several online publications, at least one being a seemingly legit science web site. The difference was that LiveScience added agnostics to the believers total to reach a false conclusion, while the other articles simply included the numbers for nonbelief, leaving the impression that the rest were believers. Innocent mistake by several publications? Sloppy journalism? Or something wrong with the press release from Rice? I don't want to start another witch hunt. (A Snopes search revealed no evidence that LiveScience is a source of internet hoaxes).

Ecklund was quite forthcoming with me and I found her paper at another site in which she mentions the 37.8% belief number and says that it comports with other studies. And she also emailed me the complete study which was released just recently.

In my opinion (and as an atheist for 16 years and an agnostic for 5 years) agnostics should be placed in a separate category from believers and non-believers. Those who don't know should not be lumped together with one or the other.

I am not quite willing to accept that my entire argument has been undermined. The corrected results of the survey as to belief were: 37.8% were believers; 31.2% were non-believers; and 30.1% said they did not know (and could not know)if there was a God. I know that it is fairly common (but not always) to lump agnosticism together with nonbelief. I don't think this assumption is valid.

My agnosticism changed over the years from agnostic tending toward atheism to agnosticism tending toward belief, and at last, to belief itself; so agnosticism can indeed be a transitory state. I have often seen these qualifiers used with regard to agnosticism. I frankly would have been happier with Ecklund had she framed her questions differently to discover what the agnostic tendency is. The binary choice forced a yes or no answer instead of a more nuanced response.

In the question about nonbelief in God, qualifiers such as "strongly disbelieve" and "somewhat disbelieve" would also have yielded a more interesting result.

Finally, just a note about the Larson study at the University of Georgia: its result was somewhat similar to Ecklund's, with 40% of scientists believing and 45% disbelieving. No mention of agnosticisim was made in the article I read, although I suppose we might assume the remaining 15% included the agnostics. Also, I believe the National Academy of Sciences study cannot really be relied upon. It's "belief" number is so low and the sample size so small that it doesn't look too plausible. And there are other studies, including a Gallup poll that come in pretty close to the Ecklund and Larson studies.

If you will bear with me, I have a couple of observations about the Ecklund study. Ecklund says that in subsequent interviews she conducted many of the scientists who professed unbelief considered themselves to be "spiritual" or to feel that there is "something outside themselves" (mirroring Einstein, perhaps?). Another surprising result: 73.5% of scientists said "there are basic truths in many religions."

There is a bit more, but I will save it for later. Again, thank you for your kind and measured post. It is greatly appreciated. Debate can be heated and also civil, and I am not claiming I have been entirely civil in these contentious exchanges where I have been one against many. I think we could all learn from the wonderful online video debates between Peter Beinart of New Republic Magazine and Jonah Goldberg of National Review. They are models of good natured disagreement, but boy, do they disagree.

CW

Dear CW -

Hey, I'm back (I was off solidifying the terms on a new job that I'm taking, so my time to spend here was severly limited). I never "fled the field" as you asserted, I just ran short of free time to spend on this blog.

OK - I've caught up on the firestorm over the Ecklund study. Let me say a few things:

• I believe you when you say that you unwittingly posted erroneous numbers based on a third-party report, and that you have qualified and revised your numbers and apologized for the mistake. I certainly accept your apology and looked with interest at the new figures.

• I would point out that my original challenge to your posting of those erroneous numbers stemmed from the huge disparity between the Ecklund (incorrect) numbers, and the Nat Acad of Science numbers. The new, corrected Ecklund numbers seem to be quite within the realm of possibilities, and they do show that the majority of scientists don't believe in god (which has been the basic discussion in this thread).

• I admit that I never considered that the article you cited got Ecklund's numbers so wrong, and that I jumped the gun in assigned the questioning of those figures to Ecklund's poor research methods and the intentions of her funders, and not to an error-ridden report by some online magazine. All I can say in my defense is that the obvious disparity in the numbers between Ecklund and Nat Acad led me to look for a mistake in the first place I always look - the researcher and the methodology employed. This huge disparity in results smacked of books being cooked, and when I looked at the players involved, my prejudices fed the conspiracy fires. In truth, it would appear the the conspiracy was limited to the book cooking done by livescience.com. Next time. I'll be more circumspect in reaching early conclusions.

• I commend you for going to the source (Ecklund) to get answers, and I also commend you for having the guts to report what you found on this blog, because what you found out has totally undermined your original statement of fact. Perhaps you can now also investigate that 1997 study that you cited that seemed to agree with the erroneous Ecklund findings.

• David H Miller points out that the livescience.com lies are a well-known internet hoax. I have no reason to doubt him, though it was certainly news to me. Scientists and doctors would have more knowledge of such hoaxes being hoaxes, so maybe the rest of us can be forgiven for being duped at this late date. Why, just yesterday, I had to correct a poster on this blog who was recycling the long-disproven lie that Al Gore ever said he invented the internet!

• My original point has now been proven true (ie: most scientists don't believe in god), even if there's a question about the percentage that do believe in god (is it closer to 7%, or 30%?). Perhaps we could restart the discussion based on this reality, rather than the false assumptions prsented in livescience.com's hackjob report on Ecklund's research?

Thanks for the research and the dialogue.

I really do not want to get involved in the debate currently raging on this thread. Angry point and counter point just are not my thing. Just quick response to David Miller though. In the midst of all the back and forth with CW, you still have not responded to the extensive lists of highly regarded scientists that are either devout believers, somewhat casual believers or deista. Don't you think that this effectively answers your question to me?

I'll add one more scientist that I spoke about in an earlier post:
In the words of the great cosmologist Allan Rex Sandage: " It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated that can be explained by science. It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence". Sandage also said that the Big Bang was a supernatural event that cannot be explained within the realm of science as we know it. He said that science had taken us to the First Event but it cannot take us further to the First Cause. In his opinion, the sudden emergence of matter, space, time and energy pointed to the need for some kind of transcendence. Sandage was an atheist from childhood but became a christian at 50 because of the evidence that he saw in studying the cosmos. Please note that he has spent his life studying stars, galaxies, remote galaxies and quantifying the universe's expansion through his work at various observatories. He even studied and worked with Edwin Hubble. He has received multiple awards from the scientific community. So I think that we can all agree that his scientific credentials are impeccable.

Does this prove anything? The only thing that it proves is that scientists with impeccable credentials are like everybody else: some of them believe in God, some of them don't, some of them are not sure. Can we finally put to rest the idea that no serious scientist could believe in God and move on?

Finally David, if you have a chance to look at my previous posts, you will find that I am a devout christian but a social liberal. I believe deeply in God and just as deeply in your right not to believe in Him.

Regards to all and please try to tone down the rhetoric. It is a great turn off and does nothing to advance either side's perspective.

Daniel:

I am accused often of not apologizing for errors I make. I hereby apologize to you for being verbose. Maybe it's because I used to get paid by the word.

Karen is a Christian who has posted here in the past with her observations about her own faith. She is a very gentle and tolerant person whose posts are quite pleasant to read.

Dr. Ecklund is a sociologist at SUNY in Buffalo NY who did a study on the belief or non-belief of scientists at elite research institutes. I posted a summary of the report a few days ago that I had found in a magazine. The article either deliberately or accidentally made fundamental errors in its report, errors I unwittingly passed on via this blog. I have corrected that error.

Thanks for your post.

CW

To a great extent atheists speak of science as their source of authority and knowledge and say there is no God to guide them and tell them what to do and what to think. They put their faith and trust in science. Thus it is essential that the efforts and overall direction of scientific exploration be regularly examined and debated. There is so much to be discovered that is valuable and so we must ensure that our major national problems are included and given adequate priority with other important efforts. ….One area greatly neglected by science is the inner human non-physical area – our inner thoughts, inner feelings, and our inner behavior i.e. body language. Science is now recognizing the emotional, behavioral areas in a small way and recognizing consciousness in a more adequate degree. However the INNER SUBJECTIVE EMOTIONAL, BEHAVIORAL, CONSCIOUSNESS, NON-PHYSICAL AREA Of OUR LIFE WHERE PEOPLE SPEND A GREAT PORTION OF THEIR LIVING IS EXCEEDINGLY NEGLECTED AND EVEN SOMETIMES DENIED TO EXIST. Yet this inner non-physical, subjective area is where our civilization is decaying, dying, with a great lack of solutions for all the moral, human sickness in the emotional and behavioral areas – alcohol, violence, permissive destructive sex, divorce, road rage, corruption, severe lack of responsibility in nearly all areas of life, severe lack of seeing the good of the whole in social relations and especially politics, etc., etc. …..Business, technology, physical sciences of all description, are making vast progress. However that will not save our civilization if the inner human, social, personal, areas are not healthy and vibrant. Many past civilizations died from this cause. …………..This severe decay of society has occurred a number of times before in the history of Western Civilization and was brought back to health by some religious persons of the times such as St. Paul, St. Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther, The Wesley brothers, etc. as the mystics had taught the oneness, the holiness, and the harmony of the universe. However today science has captured the mind of the great majority of people and promised to solve all our problems so there has been a great decline in religion. ………………..---This next section is a quote from my comment to the Washington Post article of March 19, 2007 on Behavior. --- ………………… So I am suggesting that science advance into the area of our inner being in daily life i.e. subjective consciousness. The famous scientist Roger Sperry, joint 1981 Nobel Prize winner for split-brain research, has opened the door for us with his explanation of the evolution and working of convergence and downward causation which revealed the existence of free will, values, mental entities, and consciousness. ………………The next step is to recognize the inner self and its subjective consciousness with its inner subjective feelings, thoughts, and behaviors*body language*. Then we need to study the OBJECTIVE organization, development and daily workings of these inner subjective feelings, thoughts and behaviors i.e. subjective consciousness. This area has been well described by the famous psychologist and philosopher William James *1842-1910* who was professor of philosophy at Harvard University 1882 and wrote the book Principles of Psychology 1890. He called this area of inner feelings, thoughts and behaviors - *streams of consciousness*.This inner consciousness is not a new idea. Some scientists say it is all a matter of opinion and not worth studying and as to the messages involved there is some truth in this. It is like saying The Internet is all a matter of opinion and not worth studying. But we will be studying the OBJECTIVE organization, development and behavior in daily life. Even as to the messages themselves, the inner feelings, thoughts and behaviors are all accurately defined and classified by thousands of PhD’s and placed in a dictionary. ……………………..The development, refinement and various usages of this inner consciousness by highly skilled professional people has been done over centuries. These people are called artists, writers, poets, architects, musicians, etc. Literature is almost completely about our inner self, our inner feelings, thoughts and behaviors. This area is called The Arts. ….AND SO BY EVOLUTION WE HAVE COME THROUGH THE PHYSICAL WORLD TO ROGER SPERRY”S CONVERGENCE TO FREEWILL, VALUES, CONSCIOUSNESS AND THROUGH THE INNER SELF AND ITS SUBJECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS TO THE ARTS. End of quote from previous comment………………….With science working in the area of our inner subjective consciousness, Science will be able to study and give advice on solving our inner human problems and thus will help to make society healthy and vibrant again and save our civilization from decay.

David:

In your lengthy and splenetic posts addressed to me I may have missed a response to my list of noted scientists who believe in a God, Supreme Intelligence, etc. To that list I would like to add the following, taken from Wikipedia. (A warning: the term "evolutionary creationist" has nothing to do with the pseudo-science of Creationism. It is otherwise known as evolutionary theism. "Creationist" in this frame of reference means a God who set evolution in motion but did not tinker with it.

"Although evolutionary biologists have often been agnostics (most notably Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin) or atheists (most notably Richard Dawkins), from the outset many have had a belief in some form of theism. These have included Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913), who in a joint paper with Charles Darwin in 1858, proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection. Wallace was effectively a deist who believed that "the unseen universe of Spirit" had interceded to create life as well as consciousness in animals and (separately) in humans.

An early example of this kind of approach came from computing pioneer Charles Babbage who published his unofficial Ninth Bridgewater Treatise in 1837, putting forward the thesis that God had the omnipotence and foresight to create as a divine legislator, making laws (or programs) which then produced species at the appropriate times, rather than continually interfering with ad hoc miracles each time a new species was required.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) was a noted geologist and paleontologist as well as a Jesuit Priest who wrote extensively on the subject of incorporating evolution into a new understanding of Christianity. Initially suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church, his theological work has had considerable influence and is widely taught in Catholic and most mainline Protestant seminaries.

Both Ronald Fisher (1890–1962) and Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975), were Christians and architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Dobzhansky, a Russian Orthodox, wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary creationism:

"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way... Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."

[edit] Contemporary advocates of evolutionary creationism
Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and evolutionary creationists include

Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God (Cliff Street Books, 1999), in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God." Dr. Miller has also called himself "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" (the 2001 PBS special "Evolution").
Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick
R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London
evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller (no relation to Kenneth) of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003)
biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999)
biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science
biologist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
biologist Joan Roughgarden, teaches at Stanford University; author of various books including Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist.
paleontologist Robert T. Bakker
microbiologist Richard G. Colling of Olivet Nazarene University, author of Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with Creator
paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe"

David, I didn't count them. But they are more than "none." '

CW

In a nutshell, 10 words or less, who is Dr. Ecklund? Who is Karen? We should care about these people because, why? A person's comment should not have a cast of characters.

To: CW
I know there is a wide range of religeous belief among scientists, because I have spent all of my adult working in high level science, and have known many scientists. I would say that most Christian scientists belong to moderate or mainline groups, and that there are very few Christian fundamentalist scientists, although you will occaisionally meet one. There are also Catholic scientists who go to mass regularly, and Jewish scientists, who do all that Jewish stuff. It is rare to find a believing Islamic scientist, because Islam is mostly fundamentalist, and there are few moderate groups. However, I have met one fundamentalist Moslem Chemist.

I admit, I didn't read all that stuff you posted. It is too much, too much, too much for anyone to read. Why are you compelled to post so much stuff? Very few people, probably no one, actually, would go through the trouble to read it all, even though it apparently means a lot to you.

So, I admit, since you have posted a great deal, and I have only read about the first sentence of each post, I have not been tracking very well, with what you are trying to say.

David:

I have noticed the quality of the debate here has degraded markedly since you joined it. Using words like "liar" and terms like "god-faker" and "web of lies" does nothing to enhance or enlarge the discussion we have been having. I really have been surprised at the level of viciousness with which you (and one or two others) have responded to the various issues I have raised.

In this latest explosion of spleen, you ignored my response to you in which I reported the accurate numbers, and in which I explained that I had unfortunately relied upon the LiveScience article for my original post. My post to Karen is a separate issue. I was not trying to deceive Karen, only to reassure her that, contrary to your contention, there are indeed plenty of scientists who believe in God, as the very abbreviated list of Nobel laureates and others I posted to you demonstrates. I gave her accurate figures.

And in my last response to your over-the-top outrage, I gave you the correct result directly from Dr. Ecklund's study, which she sent me yesterday morning. I also pointed out, that, had I initially reported the numbers correctly, there still would have been the same bitter skepticism about a study that showed 37.8% of science faculty at elite universities believed in God or a Higher Power, while only 31.2% disbelieved. Atheists seem to think that no one with a scrap of brain matter could possibly believe in God, let alone exalted scientists; I am fairly sure you find the 37.8% to be just as false as 62%.

Finally, I started out my participation in this discussion with the observation that most atheists (and as I said, I have debated many) were very angry. You have certainly confirmed once again that observation. Your comments to me sounded like the venting of a rage-aholic, not a sober, serious member of the scientific community. I do believe we can remain civil even in sharp disagreement. Throwing epithets at each other (something I have studiously tried to avoid) profits neither of us.

Meanwhile, here is an email I sent to Dr. Ecklund this morning that might further clarify my concern over having quoted a misleading story from the LiveScience web site.

Dear Dr. Ecklund,

Thank you so much for your prompt response to my request for more information about your study. I read it with great interest. Unfortunately, I had originally posted on the blog I referred to, "On Faith," a summary of your study I found on the internet web site LiveScience that stated that two-thirds of scientists believed in God. I thought at the time that this was a very large number, but the name of Rice University as the source of the study persuaded me that it was valid.

Upon reading the tables in your study, I discovered that 31.0% of your respondents stated that they did not know (and could not know) if there was a God, which is of course an agnostic response. That LiveScience included agnostics with believers was dishonest reporting, and I fell into their trap by repeating this falsehood.

I received a literal firestorm of criticism and was accused of deliberate dishonesty for my posting of misleading information. I immediately posted a response that gave the correct figures: 37.8% believers in God or a Higher Power; 31.2% who were non-believers; and 31.0% who were agnostics. I did point out that in my interpretation of the significance of these three attitudes agnostics are neither believers nor non-believers but simply say they do not and cannot know.

I pointed out to the atheists who were gleeful about their exposure of this "hoax" that a report of nearly 40% of believers still would have been received with skepticism by them, and that this number was much higher than another study they cited which showed a "believer" percentage of around 7%. Nonetheless, as a writer for various media for more than 35 years, I pride myself on the thoroughness of my research, and I found myself in a somewhat uncomfortable position.

I plan to email LiveScience today to protest their misleading story which has cast doubt upon the validity of your very fine research paper. Again, thanks for sending the 2005 study, and I look forward to reading the results of your new, in-depth study as soon as it is available.

Best regards,

Thank you, Christopher!

This reminds me of a story an old friend of mine told me years ago. His mother was editor of the 'Life' section of a rather large newspaper. She used to switch around the predictions and advice that came through the syndicated horoscope service. Imagine how many people messed up their days following the wrong advice?

It went on for months, and no one ever noticed.

CW wrote:

>Might be a good idea if you went back and
looked at my last post on this study in my message to Karen

Okay, CW, let's dig a little deeper into your web of lies.

You confess that before that post to Karen you realized that the statement that you had posted on June 2, 2007 12:09 PM:

"62% of natural scientists (physicists, astronomers, etc.) and 68% of social scientists(anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, etc.) believe in God"

was not true.

Where in the post to Karen did you inform her or anyone else of this fact?

Nowhere.

What you did post was:
> Recently, I posted on this blog results of a study done by a Rice University sociologist in which 1,464 natural scientists and social scientists, all faculty members of the 21 top research institutes in the country, filled out questionnaires about their belief in God and spirituality. It was found that only 38% of natural scientists -physicists, chemists, astronomers, etc. -- did not believe in God. Many practiced a traditional religious belief and regularly attended services. A slightly smaller percentage, 32% of social scientists --psychologists, sociologists, etc. -- did not believe in God.

Since you did not deign to inform readers that you knew that your earlier post was false, they would unavoidably read your new statement that 38 % of natural scientists do not believe in God as simply the flip side of your earlier claim that 62 % did believe in God - i.e., as a reiteration and confirmation of that earlier claim.

No one could possibly read it any other way, unless, like me, they already knew from other sources that you were lying.

No one could think otherwise.

It would have been the simplest thing in the world to admit that your earlier post was wrong.

You lacked the guts to do so.

Instead, you intentionally wrote your new post in such a way that readers would assume that it was consistent with the old post.

You are just a lying god-faker. You never intended to tell people here that your June 2 post was false.

Just a minit CW! Are you claiming that agnostics are in fact god-believers?

Ah, CW, still lying I see.

Let me refresh your memory:
In a post on June 2, 2007 12:09 PM, you stated "62% of natural scientists (physicists, astronomers, etc.) and 68% of social scientists(anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, etc.) believe in God."

You have been making a great deal of that claim over the last several days.

That claim is false. I know you lack the guts to come right out and say that you made a claim that is false, but everyone now knows the truth.

You cannot weasel out of this, CW.

Anyone who wishes can check your post at the time I cited and confirm that this is what you wrote.

The correct figures from Ecklund's own essay are what anyone, such as myself, who is well-acquainted with the scientific community, would have expected, and, indeed, confirm a study reported in the New York Times (http://ffrf.org/timely/angier.php ) a number of years ago which I and anyone seriously interested in this subject have known about for years.

Agnosticism is of course a form of unbelief: agnostics lack a belief in God. Indeed, most atheists define "atheism' as "a lack of belief in God," so that the two terms are nearly interchangeable.

The 7 % figure you cite for scientists who believe in God is from the most elite scientists, members of the National Academy of Sciences, as reported in the New York Times article. The brighter the scientist is, the less likely he is to believe in God.

Einstein, for example, angrily made clear that he did not believe in a personal God: he really was annoyed at you god-fakers misrepresenting his views.

You have been very free and easy with the insults and ad hominem attacks, CW. But you don't like having the truth exposed, do you?

Most scientists do not have a belief in God.

Believers are a third or less among scientists in general and less than 10 % among the top scientists.

Dave

Dav:

Wow! You sure get lathered up, don't you? Might be a good idea if you went back and looked at my last post on this study in my message to Karen:

It was found that only 38% of natural scientists -- physicists, chemists, astronomers, etc. -- did not believe in God. Many practiced a traditional religious belief and regularly attended services. A slightly smaller percentage, 32% of social scientists -- psychologists, sociologists, etc. --did not believe in God.

There is nothing in the least deceptive about this. My original post on this topic was taken from a magazine article that made the statement that 68% of natural scientists and 62% of social scientists said they believed in God. Here is an excerpt from that article that appeared in LiveScience on Aug. 11, 2005. "About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do." Here is the URL for the article. I also furnished it as part of my original post: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html

I then emailed Dr. Ecklund and received not only a prompt reply but the entire study, including all of the relevant tables.

I discovered only this afternoon that responses to the question "do you believe in God" included a 31% agnostic response, and in my next post on this issue I reported, that 38% and 32% of the two disciplines reported that they did not believe in God. (Actually, on further examination, the survey showed an even lower non-belief percentage than I reported earlier today).

As you know, agnosticism is not an expression of unbelief, but an expression of an inability to know. It does not belong to either category: belief or non-belief.

An appropriate summary then should be: 31.2% said they did not believe in God; 31.0% said they did not know if there is a God; and 37.8% said they believed in God or a Higher Power.

It should be pointed out here that most of those who attacked the study would have been just as skeptical of a report that showed a 37.8% belief in God. They believe the number is somewhere around 7%.

So, don't get so worked up. Dr. Ecklund did not mention this discrepancy that was misreported in the original magazine article in our email correspondence, it was not mentioned in the original article, and I discovered it myself only early this afternoon when I read the report in detail. So, claiming that this is some sort of internet "hoax" is the typical overreaction of a group of people who seem to become almost hysterical when their pet beliefs are challenged.

The fact remains that only 31.2% of these elite scientists do not believe in God, and 37.8% do. Who'd a thunk it?

Now, just relax and take a deep breath.

CW

Ah, CW, I see that you do not have the honesty to actually click on the links that I posted to check out the Internet fraud that you have been promoting.

At first, I thought you might be an innocent victim of the fraud. But now we know the truth: you don't care that it's a fraud, do you, CW?

You want to lie.

You're a liar, CW.

But the links are there, everyone can click on them.

Very soon, CW, everyone is going to know that you are a liar.

Dave

Daniel:

Well, Daniel, I hardly know what to say. I have repeated my reasonable arguments three times now. Each time you have responded you have become less and less intelligible. You have misunderstood virtually every point I have made, all of which have been written in clear, unequivocal language. Just read any of the previous posts carefully and you will find that your responses misstate my positions almost completely.

As for the study I have referenced, apparently you do not understand that few atheists want to believe there are a lot of scientists who believe in God. When I first posted this study, it came under furious attack by several atheists for being spurious, simply because its results challenged a dearly held belief. A recent poster has even said it was an "internet hoax." I was surprised at the results. Even the researcher was surprised at the results. But you were not? You knew it all along? How?

Finally, on doubt. Your last response is just incoherent. If you are, as you say, a Christian, and you do not understand my last post on doubt, then go ask your pastor or priest about Christ's doubt on the cross.

And please. Nobody is attacking you. This is just a debate.

CW

(cont. from above)
For an expose of the hoax by someone who actually bothered to speak with Ecklund in detail, see http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=35422 (note that the rate of atheists and agnostics among natural scientists is 67 %, even higher than among social scientists).

And here is a link to a Christian website that had the decency to expose the hoax: http://christdot.org/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=35 (scroll down).

The fraud seems to have begun with a bogus report on www.livescience.com that was picked up without fact checking by MSNBC and then spread across the Net by the true believers.

It's shameful how some of the god-fakers will lie to advance their religion!

The god-fakers ought to be ashamed of themselves.

CW, by all means check with Professor Ecklund and see if she stands by her own words or by the meretricious mis-reporting of her research by you and by livescience.com.

Somehow, I don't think that CW or any of the other god-fakers are ever going to apologize.

Dav

I notice that the whole long controversy here about Elaine Ecklund's research failed to note a simple fact: the original claim by CW posted on June 2, 2007 12:09 PM is simply a well-known Internet fraud (i.e., "that 62% of natural scientists (physicists, astronomers, etc.) and 68% of social scientists (anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, etc.) believe in God").

Ecklund appears to be a legit researcher. But CW did not bother to check what she herself wrote about her own work http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund/ :

In Ecklund's own words,
>When asked their beliefs about God, nearly 34 percent of academic scientists answer "I do not believe in God" and about 30 percent answer "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out," the classic agnostic response. This means that over 60 percent of professors in these natural and social science disciplines describe themselves as either atheist or religiously agnostic. In comparison, among those in the general U.S. population, about 3 percent claim to be atheists and about 5 percent are religiously agnostic.

Let me repeat that. According to Ecklund, over 60 percent of scientists are atheists or agnostics: that leaves less than forty percent who believe in God.

I.e., about two-thirds of scientists do NOT believe in God. The hoax perpetuated by CW has exactly inverted this, claiming that about two-thirds DO believe in God.
(cont. below)

David Miller:

Dear Dav:

You wrote: I have never talked with nor even heard of any of these scientists you mention, Karen!

No doubt someplace in the world there may be one such person, but if, as you say, there are "many," I think I would at least have heard of one of them.

I think this is an "urban legend," Karen.

One wonders how a physicist with a PhD from Stanford could possibly have this much education and still have overlooked so much. What a remarkable assertion you have made. I just quickly sat down and made a very short list of noted scientists who believe in God. There are many, many more. In fact, a recent study at the top 21 elite research universities revealed that the majority -- almost two-thirds -- of both natural scientists and social scientists believe in a God or Higher Power.

Here is my very abbreviated list:

Charles H. Townes, Nobel Laureate, 1964, and inventor of the laser.

Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate, 1978, discovered cosmic microwave background radiation, establishing validity of Big Bang Theory.

Bernard Haisch, astrophysicist, Solar & Astrophysics Laboratory at Lockheed Martin in Palo Alto, California;served as deputy director of the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley; published more than one hundred research papers in publications such as Nature, Science, Physical Review, Astrophysical Journal, and Annalen der Physik; served for ten years as an editor of the Astrophysical Journal; author of the book "the God Theory."

Paul Davies, physicist, writer and broadcaster, Professor at Arizona State University; previous academic appointments at the University of Cambridge, University of London, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, University of Adelaide and Macquarie University. He has written 20 books, including "The Mind of God" and "Other Worlds." Winner of numerous awards including an Advance Australia Award and two Eureka Prizes, and in the UK by the 2001 Kelvin Medal and Prize by the Institute of Physics, and the 2002 Faraday Prize by The Royal Society. For his contributions to the deeper implications of science, Davies received the Templeton Prize in 1995.

Max Planck, physicist, Nobel Prize laureate, 1918; founder of quantum theory, considered one of the most important scientists of the 20th century. Max Planck was a devoted and persistent adherent of christianity from early life to death; was very tolerant towards alternate views and religions and was discontent with the church's demands for unquestioning belief.

Werner Heisenberg, physics, quantum mechanics, Nobel Prize laureate,1932, inventor of matrix mechanics, the first formalization of quantum mechanics in 1925; his uncertainty principle, developed in 1927, states that the simultaneous determination of two paired quantities, for example the position and momentum of a particle, has an unavoidable uncertainty. Held the view that the intelligence of the universe points to an intelligence that has "no limitation."

Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel Laureate 1921, founder of the theory of relativity, the most influential of all 20th century scientists. Einstein did not believe in a personal God but recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists."

Of course, most of the famous earlier scientists from Galileo to Newton to Faraday, were believers in God, but because of the state of scientific knowledge in their eras, most atheists do not take their belief seriously.

You might think about, well, thinking before you write on this blog. It is full of people (both atheists and rational believers like me) who tend to look things up. Welcome.

CW

CW,

I did not say I know of no scientist who believes in God: I know of a few although none who are top-rate.

Karen made a much more specific claim. She claimed, in her words:
>As I said before, many reputable scientists have become Deist because of what they see in the cosmos and the universe pointing toward a creator of the big bang.

I have never heard of any such scientist, i.e., one who became Deist "because of what they see in the cosmos and the universe pointing toward a creator of the big bang."

If you or Karen know of such a scientist, let us all know. I will be very surprised if you can list "many reputable scientists" as Karen claims.

And your claims about most scientists' believing in God is a long-known Internet fraud. I'm trying to post all the details here but have had technical difficulties.

Dav

CW
You finally got to the point about that study you have been ranting about. So, the study shows that alot of scientists believe in God? I thought everybody knew that. Among scientists, you will find a wide range or religious belief. That is just common knowlege, isn't it?

You claim that the atheists are taking over everything, and the Chrisitans are a tiny minority. But that is just your plain weird delusion. There is a church on every street corner in America. You could not run for President, Congress, or even dog catcher, if you do not profess some sort of Christian belief. So what is your delusional point?

Why were you preaching to me about doubt? I brought up doubt, that only a sincere Christian who has experienced doubt could empathize with the doubt of atheists, and not feel threatened that atheistic doubt might weaken an insincere and forced certainty, which many weak Christians maintain.

I think you, like most people on these boards, do not really know what you believe, but are just here babbling.

CW, I assure you I'm a very friendly fellow. My attitude is always to be freindly with people, at least until someone does does something unfriendly.
So I promise from here on now to do my best to avoid saying anything here that you may find insulting. But hey CW will you promise the same?
I mean what are we to make of statements of yours such as:
"I suggested to Daniel that both atheists and Christians need to grow up. Perhaps you should too. Why not try laying off the insults for a while for starters?"

But CW is it everybody else but not you that should grow up!
This is the sorta thing that is inclined to make you appear laughable to say the least.

Now CW I don't mean that in any way insulting just an another example o' Rabbie's observation on if only we could see ourselves as others see us!

Karen,

You seem to have become a focal point for a sort of atheistic "conversion" exercise. I recall a while back in this endless blog someone even suggested you "watch out for me" because I was being deceptive (or some similar warning) in simply posting my beliefs.

Then I noticed you were "wooed" by another atheist who said you were really a sweet but misguided person, and urged you to teach your children about atheism. Patronizingly, he told you just how to do it, by telling them how little children get over believing in Santa Claus. It almost made me sick.

Now comes another atheist, a scientist, who tells you than neither he nor his PhD wife know any scientists who believe in God. In fact, I think he said while there might be one out there somewhere he had never heard of one. Given such a nonsensical statement, one must wonder if indeed he is legit in his claim to be a scientist. You are correct, there are many, many scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, who believe in God. Not all are merely Deists, either. Some have written persuasive books about science and religion -- I have read several.

Recently, I posted on this blog results of a study done by a Rice University sociologist in which 1,464 natural scientists and social scientists, all faculty members of the 21 top research institutes in the country, filled out questionnaires about their belief in God and spirituality. It was found that only 38% of natural scientists -- physicists, chemists, astronomers, etc. -- did not believe in God. Many practiced a traditional religious belief and regularly attended services. A slightly smaller percentage, 32% of social scientists -- psychologists, sociologists, etc. -- did not believe in God.

This was an exhaustive survey that gathered a great deal of personal data about the participants. One of the more interesting findings was that the younger the scientist, the more likely he or she was to believe in God. Another finding showed that having a family also played a role in belief and religious observance. And still another -- one that I find very interesting -- is that some scientists select science as a profession because they are already atheistic or agnostic and believe they will be more comfortable in that environment.

So, don't be wooed by these people who have described me as a charlatan or in the pay of the Intelligent Designers or who tell you to tell your children that believing in religion is like believing in Santa Claus. Stick to your guns.

I am going to post separately a short (and quite incomplete) list of scientists who believe in God. I'm sure it will shock your alleged Stanford PhD.

Best wishes,

CW

Daniel:

You wrote: There is a Christan crusade going on in America to stamp out atheists and atheism. Atheists react to it with mistrust and anger. So? What about that don't you understand? As a Christian, I do not agree with this crusade; however, I am well aware that it is happening.

The part that I don't understand is the whole argument. You seem to keep repeating the same charge with no evidence to support it other than that you are somehow aware that it is happening.

I believe I am fairly well read, and although as I mentioned, I do not pay much attention to the activities of the right-wing religious zealots, the televangelists, the IDers, the Creationists, et al, I'm not aware of any concerted effort to "stamp out atheists and atheism."

Nor is there even an effort by churches to convert atheists to religious belief -- their numbers are too small to really matter. (I think that during the Cold War Catholics were urged to pray for the "conversion of Russia" -- but this was really a prayer for the overthrow of atheistic communism).

On the other hand -- and you don't address this in your posts -- there is in fact a concerted effort by secularists (not all atheists by any means, but well-populated by non-believers) to greatly reduce the influence of religion in American life.

It is not "paranoia" as you suggest that there is an ongoing, successful attempt to trivialize religion. Hollywood, television, certain agencies concerned with the law such as the ACLU, some environmental groups and much of academia have anti-religion agendas. There is no similar and concerted effort to marginalize atheism and atheists themselves. (This is not to say that the religious right is not feverishly involved in trying to expand the role of religion -- it is, and I don't like it any more than you do).

Finally, to return to the idea of "doubt" which you maintain comes to Christians (and one would assume to members of other faiths as well) as the result of fear aroused by the arguments of atheists. I simply see no evidence of this anywhere. Doubt, as I pointed out in my last post on this subject, is a component of religious belief: the other side of the coin of faith. In the Christian tradition, doubt was expressed by Christ not only on the night before his death in the Garden of Gethsemane, but upon the cross itself. This is a metaphor in Christian theology for Christ's humanity -- an assurance that to doubt is to be human, but that faith in something "divine" overcomes doubt and makes man victorious.

CW

Karen wrote:

>As I said before, many reputable scientists have become Deist because of what they see in the cosmos and the universe pointing toward a creator of the big bang.

I have a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford; my wife's Ph.D. is in biology.

I have never talked with nor even heard of any of these scientists you mention, Karen!

No doubt someplace in the world there may be one such person, but if, as you say, there are "many," I think I would at least have heard of one of them.

I think this is an "urban legend," Karen.

All the best,

Dav

Karen:

I am glad to see you back on this blog. Your post was beautiful. I have some thoughts to share with you, but I have to run to a meeting and to lunch. Thanks again for your wonderful message. It resonates strongly with me and I admire your courage in entering this sort of hostile atmosphere. More later.

CW

There is a Christan crusade going on in America to stamp out atheists and atheism. Atheists react to it with mistrust and anger. So? What about that don't you understand? As a Christian, I do not agree with this crusade; however, I am well aware that it is happening. If I try to point out to my brethren that maybe their problem with doubt is within their own hearts, then their anger becomes directed at me. So, I do know that there is great and extreme anger and anxiety from Christians, directed at atheists, and atheism. You know, if you want to practice Christianity, there is a church on every street conrner in American, and you are free to do so. If you have doubt, then stop blaming it on atheists, and look into your own heart.

Daniel:

You wrote:

To: CW
I guess you sure see the world differently than I do. Christians, especially Fundamentalist Christians, are usually filled with great animosity towards atheists. Aheists and antheism is consdiered a great threat, even though it is not. There is no atheistic campaign to stamp out religion; that is just your personal paranoia.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't match anything I said to you in my post. I said that I don't believe Christians worry very much about atheists because they are so few in number. Fundamentalists rage about sin and corruption and the degradation of the culture, but I don't think they single out atheists in particular. (I admit, I don't pay much attention to fundamentalists).

I also said that I have no fear of atheists, and have a number of atheist friends. However, there is little doubt that there is a more or less organized (and largely successful) campaign among secularists to remove God from the public square, and to diminish the role of religion in American life. A good source of information on this phenomenon is "The Culture of Disbelief" by liberal lawyer Stephen Carter. Carter shows how religion is trivialized (and even demonized) by the law and politics, the media, entertainment and activist organizations like the ACLU.

I also pointed out that most atheists would like to see religion disappear -- many on this very blog have said so repeatedly. Chris Hitchens's polemic is a good example. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and others have become known in the media as "evangelical atheists." There is nothing comparable going on among Christian writers.

Finally, I merely suggested that the doubts that Christians may have about their faith have nothing to do with atheism, but with the doubts that many religious people have. Doubt is common in religion, in fact, faith and doubt are two sides of the same coin.

CW

Bernie Bee:

Do you ever post without insulting those with whom you disagree? Civil behavior in these debates, particularly when they involve people with putative intellects, is always to be desired. You have a tendency to accuse me of hidden agendas, being a closet ID advocate, in the pay of Templeton or a member of an organized religion. None of these is true, and I wonder where you get these ideas. Certainly not from anything I have written.

Your observation that I am a braggart was just another in a long line of insults. I merely listed a number of my past experiences in the theatre and broadcasting to counter your little jibe that I had no sense of humor. I do laugh at myself often; apparently you die laughing at yourself.

I wonder what you meant when you said I had learned nothing from Daniel's wonderful post? I agreed with him for the most part and also thought it was a lovely post. I only disagreed that Christians worry a lot about atheists and that Christians "persecute" atheists. I doubt that Christians ever think very much about atheists at all.

You might also clarify your statement that for an unbeliever I sound "pro-Christian." I am not an "unbeliever;" surely you know that by now. I am a rational believer in God, but not as a member of any organized religion. I am not, however, "anti-Christian," either, and the values I embrace in life could be described as "Christian" values.

I suggested to Daniel that both atheists and Christians need to grow up. Perhaps you should too. Why not try laying off the insults for a while for starters?

CW

To: CW
I guess you sure see the world differently than I do. Christians, especially Fundamentalist Christians, are usually filled with great animosity towards atheists. Aheists and antheism is consdiered a great threat, even though it is not. There is no atheistic campaign to stamp out religion; that is just your personal paranoia. The President of the United States, himself, is a great Christian Poseur, and kisses up the more ignorant groups of Christians, every chance he gets. Most atheists do not believe in God. After that, their only interest in religion is to react to attacks from weak and cowardly Christians, who blame all their own inner turmoil on atheists.

E Favorite: sorry for the delay in responding. I have not looked at this thread since last week. I did not realize it was still going so strong.

To clarify: my agreement with CW's first post was with regard to the evidence in the universe for the existence of a Creator. As I said before, many reputable scientists have become Deist because of what they see in the cosmos and the universe pointing toward a creator of the big bang.

Aside from that, you are right. I remain a commited christian and believe in a God that is present in our lives though there is much about Him that I still don't fully understand. And I continue to derive great comfort from my faith in the face of adversity. Faith coexists with doubt. Moments of doubt become fewer the longer we walk with God and the more we read and study God's word, or at least I should clarify that that is how it is for me. If in the end, it turns out that I was completely wrong... what would I have lost? In my opinion to believe in Christ is all gain and no loss because my faith is about love and not about fear.

I also agree that the question of evil and pain remains the biggest roadblock to faith in God and is often what brings doubt to my mind. I will again recommend Philip Yancey's book "Disappointment with God" to anyone who is interested in looking at some serious, thoughful and non sugar coated study of the problem of pain.

Mr. Mark:

You may have retired from the fray altogether -- I have not seen a response to my final plea for clarification about how the Rice survey could've been rigged. I may have saved you the trouble. I emailed Dr. Ecklund this afternoon and she responded promptly with a detailed article about the research project. I cannot post it here, as it is copyrighted, but you can access it at the site Dr. Ecklund gives in her kind email to me. You will please note her comments about how Rice gets the grant and administers it, and her impression of Templeton.

Dear xxxx,

Thank you for your interest in the study. I have attached here an article published in the Journal Social Problems, one of the top journals in the field of sociology, which should provide you with more specifics about the survey. The response rate was 75%, which is an uncommonly high response rate in social science research and there was very little non-respondent bias. In addition, I completed 271 in-depth interviews with a random sample of those who responded to the survey. I am copying my project manager on this e-mail and she will put you on a list of those who we notify when publications from the study come out.

I found the Templeton Foundation to be quite good to work with. Funding is provided to universities, not to individuals, and universities must agree that a project meets their criterion for scientific integrity and human subjects protections before accepting funding. Both Rice University, where I was a postdoctoral fellow, and University at Buffalo, SUNY, where I am a professor in the sociology department, offered full support of my study. We are happy to answer any follow-up questions.

warm regards,
Elaine Howard Ecklund

So, we now have still another university in on the conspiracy. It is never-ending. I will post the URL of that magazine (probably also part of the cabal) tomorrow. The study, which I have read thoroughly, is scholarly and I can see no hidden biases in any of the questions. They are quite straightforward.

CW

Dear Bernie Bee:

Ridiculous?

Only one atheist who has posted here (it may have been Mr. Mark) has acknowledged even the slightest possibility that there might be "something else." The very tone and tenor of the rest of the responses -- ranging from rage to ridicule to scorn to contempt -- indicate that the atheist believes he is in possession of ultimate truth and is nearly hysterical at the benightedness of the believer. Tell me what ultimate truth about the non-existence of God do you not possess?

Poor Antony Flew. And he could've been a great hero. All he had to do was abandon his integrity and renounce his newfound belief. Instead, he chose the path of honesty and now, of course, he is worthless, senile, and is being airbrushed out of the picture like the old Soviets who displeased their atheist comrades and went down against the wall in the basement of Lubyanka. What a world you kind, thoughtful atheists would run if you had the chance.

And finally, in spite of your insults, I have a soft spot in my heart for Scotland, and the Scots. I had the joy to appear in a production of "Brigadoon" a number of years ago, and it was one of the greatest of my experiences in theatre. "Brigadoon," you may (or may not) know, was a village in the Highlands of Scotland that God had spared from the torments and evils of the world by allowing it to appear for only one day every one hundred years. It was a show full of great songs and highland flings and bagpipers and a magical, wonderful story. But you are a curmudgeonly lot, you know.

CW

And for goodness CW can't you see how ridiculous you make yourself with statements such as:

"I agree that Christians doubt -- and should -- but I think at bottom, many atheists, in spite of their protestations that they are in possession of ultimate truth, have great doubts about their views. Antony Flew's conversion is ample testimony that atheists do grow up, even if they have to reach 80 to do it.

Name an atheist, any atheist protesting they are in possession of the ultimate truth!
Surely you must know it is the other way about!
And as for atheists having to reach 80 to see the light haven't you considered that could be down to senility?

CW, you obviously don't notice but you do come over as someone with a very high opinion of yourself, indeed a bit of a braggart with regard to your achievements for instance.
Well I suppose lots of comedians are inclined that way, yearning for the lead part in Hamlet and so forth so you're not all that unusual.

But don't you ever relax, even laugh at yourself or as our great bard put it "O wad some Power the giftie gie us, To see ourselves as others see us"

And I'm sure I'm not alone in noticing that for an unbeliever you are very pro Christian (in pay of the Templeton Foundation perhaps?)

Yep, methinks you're as rabid a Catholic as you've ever been.

You don't seem to have learned anything at all from that wonderful post Daniel has sent.

Daniel:

I have no problem with atheists, either, Daniel, and I enjoy debating with them. I am not a Christian, but I don't think Christians worry too much about atheists -- they are simply too few in number, and those numbers are declining worldwide.
I really think it is quite the other way around: I know of no Christians who talk about abolishing atheism, but I know few atheists who would not be delighted with the abolishing of all religion.

In fact, the brutal suppression of religion in all communist countries during the Cold War was carried out by atheists along with the murder of more than 100 million people in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and wherever communists were able to gain control of the government. (Christopher Hitchens's suggestion that Stalin merely used the existing repressive model of the Russian Orthodox church -- in other words, the system was already in place -- as a vehicle for his depredations is almost funny it is so transparent).

I don't fear atheists -- Some of them are quite nice people -- although their power is disproportionate to their numbers. They occupy key positions in media, government and academia.

I agree that Christians doubt -- and should -- but I think at bottom, many atheists, in spite of their protestations that they are in possession of ultimate truth, have great doubts about their views. Antony Flew's conversion is ample testimony that atheists do grow up, even if they have to reach 80 to do it.

I would like to see Christianity grow up too, and abandon some of the anachronistic baggage it carries with it. I sense this is happening through the hermeneutic changes that regularly occur in more enlightened Christian denominations, but the evangelicals have enormous power still.

CW

Since no one appears willing or able to respond to my questions regarding the mechanism Dr. Ecklund used to perpetrate fraud in her study of the attitudes and beliefs of members of science faculty at elite universities, I have asked her to help us all. Here is that email:

Dear Dr. Ecklund:

I am a free-lance journalist and I am presently informally engaged in a spirited debate with several atheists. This debate began with comments from readers of an article by Christopher Hitchens published online at the "On Faith" web site sponsored by the Washington Post and Newsweek Magazine. I cited your 2005 study of the attitudes of some 1,500 scientists at elite research institutions, the results of which you found to be quite surprising.

The response from the atheists was predictable and overwhelming. They immediately attacked the credibility of your study on the basis of your own personal bias (study of religion being one of your chief interests), the fact that the John F. Templeton Foundation provided the funding, and the methodology, which included the advance payment of $15 to the participants.

In short, these atheist commentators on the forum have accused you of producing a fraudulent study for the purpose of satisfying a result which either you, or Templeton, or both, desired, in pursuit of a religious agenda.

While fraudulent studies are not unknown in academia, I believe they are relatively rare; therefore, I was skeptical of their accusations. I am also aware of the reputaton of Rice University (my sister is a graduate) and doubted that Rice would be so negligent in its oversight that such a fraud could occur. The consequences to you if it were found that you had produced a deliberately skewed result could be severely damaging to your reputation and your career. It seemed highly unlikely that you would run this kind of risk to promote a religious agenda. Moreover, I know that Templeton funds research of all kinds at all times, and I have never heard of the foundation being accused of outright fraud.

One of the criticisms of the study was the advance payment of $15 to the scientists to encourage greater participation. I myself have conducted questionnaire-type market research in which respondents received token compensation. In the case of your study and the respondents, all of whom would be reasonably well-paid science faculty members, I found ludicrous the idea that they would tailor their answers to suit the presumed aim of the study. Further, I pointed out that to obtain a desired result, you would have had to find some mechanism whereby you could communicate to the respondents how you expected them to perjure themselves. I know that none of this makes any sense, but I have found that atheists, in spite of their claims of independent thinking and even intellectualism, often make little sense when in defense of their own pet beliefs (in this case, that virtually all scientists are atheists).

Would it be possible for you to simply forward to me a brief statement about the study and perhaps even the questions that were asked of the participants? I would be most grateful. If you do not wish me to disclose these questions on a public forum, please be assured I will not do so. Thank you very much.

CW

I am giving my comments from a Christian point of view:

I am not bothered by atheism or atheists. Atheism means "without God" and an atheist is someone who does not believe in God. An atheist does not need to have a reason for not believing in God, because this not believing is actually a kind of sketicism or doubt.

So, why do Christians worry so much about atheism and atheists? It is not the atheist nor the atheism that bothers Christians; it is the doubt that bothers them, perhaps a doubt, which they do not wish to face, or cannot face, cannot meet, and entertain; and atheism makes them think this unwanted thought.

I believe that Christians should not blame atheists for their own doubts, but if they may have doubts, that they should face them, and leave the atheists alone.

In denying ones own inner doubt in favor of a forced certainty, a Christian is really a little disingenuous, and to seek to persecute any group unjustly, such as atheists, is actually against the basic teachings of Christianity.

So, Christians, as they appear in these threads, are actually protraying a very weak and flawed version of their religion, which could and should exist and be practiced in a much more real and robust way.

There's no perhaps about it CW! Being the sensitive wee soul that E Fav is, I've often made him blush tae the roots and not only E Fav by the looks o' it!
But then how dae ye imagine I earn my fifteen bucks from that fraudster promoting foundation you think so highly of!
Did ye know it was a pal o' Templeton's who said that every time he heard the word 'intellectual' he reached for his gun?

E Favorite:
Do you perhaps find Bernie Bee to be something of an embarrassment to your cause? I mean you atheists being so intellectual and all? Or is he (or she) a kind of little mascot?

CW

Don't know about where Chris is in the Zodiac but that CW sure can be a pain in the aries!

Hitchens only says these things because he's an Aries.

Even if ye dae say so yersel' E Fav I havtae go alang wi' ye...CW is def'nitly the better comedian.

D'ye know, I'm beginning tae suspect that CW is none other than that other comedian, Timmy, having us all on!
If it turns out to be so I'll wring his bliddy neck!

Bernie Bee and CW – Wow, I’ve been an actor and singer on the Broadway stage, host of a comedy television show and podcast; owner of six radio stations; and writer, producer and performer in more than 501 humorous radio and television commercials, and I have been able to grasp both the “humour” and humor that each of you have displayed here.

I’m also humble, honest, totally self-assured and quite funny, both in person and in print, if I do say so myself. You guys slay me.

Dear Bernie Bee:

I suppose that perhaps because I spent a number of years as an actor and singer in musical comedy; host of a comedy television show; a deejay, program director and owner of radio stations; and then as the writer, producer and performer in more than 500 radio and television commercials (most of them humorous),I somehow failed to grasp what you describe as "humour." Maybe you are a sight gag and that's what I'm missing.

Among the other things I lack is a closed mind -- probably the product of an inquisitive nature, a healthy skepticism of any kind of orthodoxy, and, oh yes, a modern education.

I love these little exchanges. You guys just leave yourselves so wide open!

CW

Among other things CW you also appear to lack a sense of humour.
Aye, it was me that condemned ye tae (non-existent) hell to burn forevermore and so ye should for giving the slightest credence to astrologers, alchemists, necromancers, voodooists and such like in today's world.
There's just no excuse for it least of all for those who have benefited from a modern education.

If ye're ever in these parts my auld granny, a certified spey-wife, will read yer teacup (only loose tea allowed) with satisfaction guaranteed or yer money back! I can assure ye nobody has yet ever had money returned!

Mr. Mark:

You write: I'll try again: you're asking the wrong question. The question isn't "did the payment influence" the participants? The question is "could it have" influenced the participants?

This still does not answer my question; one that I thought I had made quite clear. The up front payment did indeed influence 75% of the scientists who received the questionnaire to fill it out and return it, thus producing a larger sample size and a more reliable result. But how could the payment influence the participants' answers to the 36 questions? This would require the researcher to somehow demand that the respondents answer the questions in a particular way to produce a desired result, in return for paying them the quite modest sum of $15.

So, please answer my question: How did this supposedly dishonest researcher in the pay of the sinister Temple Foundation get tenured, well-paid scientists to lie about their religious beliefs by paying them $15? As I asked you earlier, "would you renounce your atheism for $15?"

Sorry about getting the 7% upside down -- it was late and I was getting fuzzy. As for the other study done by Larson, I found the results of both the Larson study and the National Academy of Sciences study in the same article and assumed that was where you got your information; thus my charge of cherry-picking. I apologize.

As to the offer of friendship; how nice. I have not reviewed all of your posts in response to mine but recent ones have been quite civil and you are a worthy disputant. I have one atheist friend with whom I have corresponded off and on for years; we now no longer even raise the issue of our differences.

However, I don't think I've ever been involved in a blog debate in which I was ever so vilified by other posters. I may have been acerbic and sarcastic myself in response to some of these attacks, but I don't think I have descended to the level of the slurs and accusations of being deceptive, dishonest, a closet evangelist, in the pay of the Creationists, etc., that have been leveled at me by others on this blog. I think one even suggested I would (or should) burn in hell.

For a clear statement of my beliefs and how I acquired them, please see my recent post addressed to "the atheist gang."

I have enjoyed our exchange. But please tell me how the researcher influenced those scientists to sell their souls for fifteen bucks.

CW

CW -

One final thought. You wrote:

"I was disappointed to discover that you apparently deliberately left out another study from one year earler, 1997, that yielded a much different result."

Nothing deliberate about it. Your post is the first I've heard about the 1997 Larson study. Yep, it's true. I had no idea.

Time to get out your "jump to conclusions" mat, CW (Office Space joke intended).

CW writes:

"I really must insist you answer the central question I have asked repeatedly, or we really have no debate at all: How did the Rice study go about influencing 60% of the scientists who completed questionnaires to lie about their religious beliefs?"

I thought I answered that in my last post.

I'll try again: you're asking the wrong question. The question isn't "did the payment influence" the participants? The question is "could it have" influenced the participants?

If the answer is that it's possible that it could have influenced them (postively or negatively from the aspect of the researcher), then the cleanest fix to eliminate an unwanted variable is to totally eliminate it, OR to build a compensating agent into the formula used to produce the results. If I was running the research, I'd follow the KISS principle and not include the upfront payment, even on the outside chance that it could skew results.

I can't ask you to prove a negative (ie: that such payments don't influence responses), so I would go with playing it safe. If I was worried about receiving enough responses to give me a true read on the questionairre, then I would prefer to expand the universe of participants and go with a smaller response rate from a larger group.

Re: that 7% figure you just quoted. You have the numbers turned around. In the 1998 study I cited, only 7% of scientists said they believed in a personal god, not that they were atheists. The number that didn't believe in a personal god was over 90%. If the quote you provided is accurate, it means that 14% of the world's population are atheists or agnostics. That would make the number of non-believing scientists 6.4 times the amount of atheists/agnostics in the general population.

I know, it's late, and things get fuzzy.

One final thought - you have stated several times that you have had good debates with your atheist "friends." Have you ever considered the fact that you might actually cultivate a few atheist "friends" on this board in due time?

Think about it, won't you?

Mr Mark:

One really final thing: I just noticed this:

"In the last few decades atheists and others who are radically anti-religious have been a rapidly declining percentage of world population. They are now 2.5% of world population. Agnostics and those who are indifferent to religion are also a somewhat more slowly declining percentage of the world's population, they are now 11.5%."

If we are to assume that the 7% figure among scientists is accurate, it is almost three times higher than the percentage of atheists in the world.

CW

Mr. Mark:

I was busy writing a general response about Varghese while you were busy writing a specific (but not nearly specific enough) response to the Rice study issue.

I appreciate the return to civility. It is late and I am not going to take the time to re-read my earlier post in which I asked you to provide a single instance. . . etc. So if you don't mind, I'd like to take that issue off the table until tomorrow. (I don't think it's very important anyway; if you're going to question one survey you simply must question all, and be back at the starting point).

I know disputants often cherry-pick to bolster their arguments, but. . .you cited a 1998 survey of 517 members of the National Academy of Science (to which half responded) that showed only 7% believed in a "personal God." Aside from the fact that this leaves out many theists, deists, pantheists, Buddhists and who knows who else, it is an all but useless sample size as you know. And we know nothing at all of how the research was conducted.

I was disappointed to discover that you apparently deliberately left out another study from one year earler, 1997, that yielded a much different result.

Edward Larson of the University of Georgia used a
survey that followed the methodology of a famous 1916 survey of religious belief among scientists.
60% responded, a figure considered high for any survey. Of those, 40% expressed belief in a deity, while nearly 45% did not. Larson's survey also discovered that physicists were less likely to have such faith, while mathematicians were significantly more likely to believe in a supreme being.

Finally, I really must insist you answer the central question I have asked repeatedly, or we really have no debate at all: How did the Rice study go about influencing 60% of the scientists who completed questionnaires to lie about their religious beliefs?

CW

To the atheist gang:

I am almost sorry I introduced Roy Abraham Varghese into this debate. Many of you have used that post of mine of a couple of days ago as a means of attacking not only Roy but me and the horse I rode in on. You have dragged him as a giant red herring across the path of your own failed arguments substantiating atheism as the only “rational” choice in explaining the universe.

First, let me assure you that I am not Roy Varghese, although I am somewhat flattered by the suspicion. Thanks. Varghese is indeed a brilliant man, as those eminent Nobel prize-winning scientists who endorsed his book attest, and as further attested to by his influence in the conversion of Antony Flew to philosophical theism. (I know full well – and in your hearts you do too – that if Flew had resisted the arguments of Varghese and Gerald Schroeder and had affirmed his lifelong atheism you would have hailed it as a great victory and lauded this wise old “patron saint” of atheism. Instead the atheist community {if there is such a thing} has ridiculed him, banished him, mocked him, accused him of senility, and now, lately, has begun to even ask “who is he and who cares?”).

But Roy Varghese is a latecomer in my own conversion to theism via science. As an atheist for more than 16 years I began to find my way back to a belief in a God as creator entirely through reading books by noted scientists: Carl Sagan’s “Broca’s Brain,” “The Dragons of Eden,” “Cosmos” and the fictional work “Contact;” Robert Jastrow’s “Red Giants and White Dwarfs” and “God and the Astronomers;” Stephen Hawking’s obligatory “A Brief History of Time;” Paul Davies’ “Other Worlds” and “Mind of God” and others. These books, written both by atheists (Sagan, Hawking) and what I call “rational believers” (Jastrow, Davies), re-awakened in me the wonder of the universe. Many years before I ever read Varghese, I had concluded that the universe’s precision and intelligibility presupposed an Intelligence.

To me, the great value of Varghese’s book was found in his clear and complete exposition of the latest science in biology, physics, cosmology and quantum mechanics; a thorough review of the evolution of scientific inquiry dating from Galileo forward; and an interesting if one-sided “debate” between two fictional characters: an atheist and a believer. Since I am quite tolerant of both atheists and religionists so long as neither tries to convert me or kill me, I have no problem with a man who can explain an intelligent source of the universe cogently and persuasively and who also belongs to a specific religion. Your supposition that one cancels out the other is, as I have pointed out before, distinctly anti-intellectual. The noted Catholic theologian Hans Kung (who was stripped of his ability to teach Catholic theology because of his denial of papal infallibility) is only one example of a true intellectual who fully embraces the theory of evolution, believes there can be a bridge between science and religion and has written persuasively about both (“Does God Exist” was his seminal work). But back to Roy Varghese.

In my original post on Varghese and particularly in subsequent defenses of the original, I may have left the impression somehow (I can find it nowhere, but your posts in response to mine indicate you think so) that I am a religionist and a stealth ID proponent. I am neither. (Nor is Varghese a proponent of ID or Creationism and rejects both). Here is a short excerpt from a letter I wrote to Sam Harris which was my first post to this blog some days ago:

I have debated atheist friends on numerous occasions and I find that most have two things in common: First, their principal attack is upon the "God of Abraham" and the religions that have organized the worship of that God: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Second, many atheists (but not all) are very angry.

On proposition one, to a large degree I side with the atheists. Religions are indeed filled with superstitions, internal contradictions, divine figures in earthly forms, outlandish tales of miracles and assorted artifacts of their founding long ago. That the world’s three major religions are more coherent than primitive worship of the sky god or wood spirits only makes them more accessible to intelligent people, not any less incredible upon close examination. So, in truth, arguing against religion is like shooting fish in a barrel.

But religion is a superstructure imposed upon theism – belief in God -- not the other way around. And arguments against God as creator of a wondrous universe become much more difficult when religion is taken out of the equation. I have yet to hear a convincing argument against God that presents a credible alternative for the creation and existence of the universe. Few scientists even try.

I hope this will clarify my position. I am not a sycophant of Roy Abraham Varghese or anyone else. I found his book to be wonderfully crafted and brilliantly written. There were many aspects of it that I did not like, did not agree with, and was disappointed by. But as a whole, it was as clear an interpretation of science as a case for God as I have read, in spite of the paucity of his scientific credentials (which seemed, for many of you to be fatal to the whole enterprise, in spite of the praise it has received from noted scientists).

I have no illusions about persuading the unpersuadable, as most atheists are; I merely hope that I have convinced you that I am not a “charlatan” (what a charming word that really is) or some sinister closet evangelical out to woo unwitting women like poor gullible Karen (gee, I was touched by your concern for her well-being) away from "rationality."

Finally, I really do find many of your arguments to be well stated; others – I’m sorry – not only weak but tiresome. The ad hominem attacks were expected -- it is the last resort when one is placed on the defensive. Atheism and Rational Belief, I am confident, are at a standoff. Science cannot prove God does not exist. Rational Belief says science has made the case for God. It is that simple, and the current spate of almost venomous books attacking religion itself cannot change that. I too hope that religion will one day move away from the superstition that so hampers its effectiveness toward science and a rational belief that is there for the taking.

CW

Dear CW -

Thanks for staying engaged in the dialogue.

My most-recent longish responses have been attempts to provide you with answers to your questions. Or should I say your challenges to "prove it."

I would note that you never asked me to prove conspiracy as it related directly to the study at Rice, at least until now. You made bald-faced challenges to "name a single" instance where such "conspiracies" took place, and I provided more than enough empirical evidence to make the case (BTW - in the future, you may be more cautious with such challenges. There is always the exception that proves the rule. In reality, your challenge wasn't much of a challenge at all).

Had you bothered to read the article I linked ("The Kept University") you would have read this paragraph directly following the paragraph that I quoted on fen-phen:

"Corporate underwriting of research is by no means confined to the medical sciences. In his book The Heat Is On: The High Stakes Battle Over Earth's Threatened Climate (1997), Ross Gelbspan documents how, over the past several years, fossil-fuel companies have bankrolled numerous academic studies that downplay the threat of global warming -- distorting, Gelbspan argues, the public-policy debate."

Indeed, had you read that entire article, you would not make yet another ridiculous statement about deliberately falsified reserach. ie: "You may yet find one, but even if you do, it would provide a statistically insignificant challenge to my argument." On the contrary, the problem we're talking about is a huge and growing problem in the field of research, from the examples I cited, to Microsoft getting to determine curriculum at places like MIT. To state that this is a "statistically insignificant" problem is to not know the statistics.

As far as my "scurrying around" to make my case, I have a confession to make. First, I knew about the Atlantic Monthly article already because I have discussed it elsewhere. So, I guess I sort of cheated there. As far as my opinion of Templeton - well, I basically cheated there as well, for I am well aquainted with the article, "A Skeptics' Tale," by former Templeton Fellow John Hornan (Richard Dawkins and others have commented on the article). In that April, 2006 article, Hornan recounts an incident at a Templeton conference at Cambridge where a Templeton official made what Hornan contends were inappropriate remarks about what his Templeton-funded research should be producing as results:

"One Templeton official made what I felt were inappropriate remarks about the foundation's expectations of us fellows. She told us that the meeting cost more than $1-million, and in return the foundation wanted us to publish articles touching on science and religion. But when I told her one evening at dinner that — given all the problems caused by religion throughout human history — I didn't want science and religion to be reconciled, and that I hoped humanity would eventually outgrow religion, she replied that she didn't think someone with those opinions should have accepted a fellowship. So much for an open exchange of views." (here: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/horgan06/horgan06_index.html )

So, while I realize that religionists believe that the universe revolves around them, I must disabuse you of that belief in this instance. I'm really not spending hour after hour searching the net just to answer your questions. I'm using my well-worn cheat sheet. Don't hate me for that, please?

Having admitted that, let me ask you a question: what would be wrong with bloggers "scurrying around" to find responses to your questions? I kinda assumed that you were asking your questions honestly and expecting we atheists to try our best to answer them honestly. I have to say that it's a bit insulting to have one's honest efforts to engage in a dialogue - and to provide information beyond one's personal opinions to support one' arguments, complete with links to various sources - thrown back in one's face with a dismissive, "ha, ha...it's cute when you play gothcha."

OK. Two points remain. Have I proved that the Rice study was an example of a funder, a university and a researcher conspiring to produce false results? No.

Was that what you asked me to do in all of your previous posts before the one you submitted June 3, 2007 7:12 PM? No. You asked me to produce a SINGLE case of conspiracy, and I did that.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were moving the goalposts on this one. I have no doubt that had I produced evidence to prove that this particular Rice research was false information produced via a conspiracy, that your next question would be, "yeah, but can you show me a single instance where a funder, a university, a researcher and a traveling group of dwarfs conspired..." :) (CW - notice the smiley face this time!)

OK, last point - the $15 paid to the participants.

I have provided you with the ethical standard that says that while payments are OK in principle, that such payment-involved studies should then be "subject to explicit conditions, with special regard to the reliability of the information provided."

Well, that was my whole point to begin with. I said that as a researcher, I would not trust the results based on the upfront payment. I prefer a cleaner format.

Do I think the $15 made each and every doctor renounce his atheism and claim to be a practicing Xian? No, I just think the payment left 75% of the doctors solicited with a feeling of obligation to take a survey. I've never been in a position to pay people upfront to participate in a survey, but maybe that's because I've always had the luxury of working with large universe (10,000+) where a 3% reponse rate will give an accurate result.

I would wonder why one would even bother with such a small honorarium to begin with. I think it's the placement - the $15 upfront instills a feeling of obligation. Had the initial approach not included the $15 but only hinted at some future reward, then the participation level would have suffered. That simple obligation can be enough to skew results in "some" situations.

So, I am willing to concede your point on a payment and that it happens sometimes. I'm even willing to concede that a payment would have less and less influence on participants who get surveyed and paid all the time (the feeling of obligation would naturally lessen with repeated experiences), but I would still say that opinions that are gathered without payments are more to be trusted.

As far as my skepticism of the Rice study - it's a combination of many background factors (chiefly Templeton) that make me question its vailidity. As I pointed out in one of my initial posts on this matter, the Rice 60-percentile response stands in stark contrast to the 7% of the 1998 Nat Academy of Science study.

Taken as a whole, I think I am on very firm ground in my skepticism about the "compelling evidence" you thought you provided. My earlier posts make my reasoning clear, and I stand by them - even if a minimum of scurrying was involved in producing them.

:)

Quoting CW: "But don't waste too much more time on the irrelevant. (Although it is fun to watch you scurrying around so frantically). Just answer the question about the 700 scientists (those guys and dolls at whose feet your worship) who sold their souls for $15."

CW, those guys n dolls come over as ID eejits who'd sell their souls for a lot less than $15!
Begone tae where ye belong the lot o' ye!

Mr. Mark,

I love when you say "gotcha!" It's cute. Well, you've done a lot of work, which I suppose I grudgingly admire you for, but you have failed miserably to make even the slightest dent in my argument. I simply pointed out that you have not produced an instance in which a university, a funding source and a researcher all conspired to deliberately do dishonest research or falsify results. You still have not done this. You may yet find one, but even if you do, it would provide a statistically insignificant challenge to my argument. But even that's not really the point.

The type of research in the Rice study involved the filling out of a questionnaire by a large number of respondents. What I asked you to do was explain how, for the princely sum of $15 (paid in advance), this infernal researcher at Rice University was able to convince nearly 700 well-paid scientists at elite research universities to tell blatant falsehoods about their belief in God and their religious practices. Would you renounce your own atheism for $15? Well, maybe you would; I'll send you a check.

The ethical guideline you cited about paying money up front to participants says it is acceptable in principle, (but) should be discouraged as far as possible and subject to explicit conditions, with special regard to the reliability of the information provided. Very good guideline indeed. Do you have evidence that the payment of money in the Rice survey did not include those explicit conditions? I didn't think so. Further, the ethical guidelines for sociologists also included the following instruction:

"Each sociologist supplements the Code of Ethics in ways based on her/his own personal values, culture and experience. Each sociologist supplements, but does not violate, the standards outlined in this Code of Ethics. It is the individual responsibility of each sociologist to aspire to the highest standards of conduct." Again, what evidence do you have that Dr. Ecklund fails to aspire to such a standard? That because she studies religion among her specialites she is therefore utterly untrustworthy?

The reason one pays respondents up front for questionnaire-type surveys (as researchers know) is to compensate them for the time they have to spend in completing a somewhat lengthy work, thereby assuring a sufficient sample size to produce credible results. Usually it is a token amount like, say $15. The more questions, the more reliable the results.

Your presumption that the Rice study was deliberately dishonest in its methodolgy from its funding source to the specialty of the researcher and apparently to the university itself is simply ludicrous. Rice is no bastion of the religious right or of the political right; quite the opposite, and its endowment of $4.1 billion makes it one of America's richest small universities -- they don't need to lie on Templeton's behalf to make payroll. And in case you decide to advance the argument that Templeton itself has "cooked the books," Dr. Ecklund published her own findings.

Finally, the survey which produced the long, long, tediously long laundry list of improper conduct in various disciplines within the academic community suffers from a fatal flaw, at least certainly in your eyes: It is a survey. If one, like the Rice survey, can be dismissed out of hand, why not any survey? Particularly one where professors or students are ratting out other professors. No axes being ground in collegial academia; of course not.

Try again, Mr. Mark. But don't waste too much more time on the irrelevant. (Although it is fun to watch you scurrying around so frantically). Just answer the question about the 700 scientists (those guys and dolls at whose feet your worship) who sold their souls for $15.

CW

The first lesson CW and those of his ilk need to learn is to wonder why there is the need to go in for so much deceit and downright lies in the hopes of bamboozlin folk into become believers.

If only they would stop to ask themselves what Jesus would think of their methods they would surely realise such ways would not have his approval.

He is so creepily deceitful I even doubt CW's claim that he was ever atheistic. I'd bet my maximum this character is and always has been a rabid Catholic.

CW writes:

"In the laundry list of misuse of funds by universities you provided, you included not one instance of a university, a researcher, and a funding source conspiring to deliberately produce a false result."

I would suggest you read the article, The Kept University
by EYAL PRESS & JENNIFER WASHBURN / Atlantic Monthly v.285, n.3 Mar00 ( http://www.mindfully.org/GE/The-Kept-UniversityMar00.htm )

Hers'a an excerpt:

"Worse than the problems of enforced secrecy and delay, however, is the possibility that behind closed doors some corporate sponsors are manipulating manuscripts before publication to serve their commercial interests. In the summer of 1996 four researchers working on a study of calcium channel blockers -- frequently prescribed for high blood pressure -- quit in protest after their sponsor, Sandoz, removed passages from a draft manuscript highlighting the drugs' potential dangers, which include stroke and heart failure. The researchers aired their concerns in a letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association: "We believed that the sponsor ... was attempting to wield undue influence on the nature of the final paper. This effort was so oppressive that we felt it inhibited academic freedom." Such meddling, though generally difficult to document, may well be common. A study of major research centers in the field of engineering found that 35 percent would allow corporate sponsors to delete information from papers prior to publication."

Later in the same report:

"More than a year before fen-phen, the appetite suppressant, was pulled off the market because it seemed to be implicated in a number of deaths, a group of researchers published a study in The New England Journal of Medicine warning that drugs like fen-phen could have potentially fatal side effects. But the same issue contained a commentary from two academic researchers that downplayed the health dangers of fen-phen. Both authors had served as paid consultants to the manufacturers and distributors of similar drugs -- connections that were not mentioned. "I was outraged when I saw that," Stuart Rich, a professor at Rush Medical College, told the Chronicle of Higher Education when the ties were exposed. "The study was the only scientific study that said these diet pills kill people." Like universities, some journals have begun requiring academic contributors to disclose corporate financial ties. But in a study released last year Sheldon Krimsky and another researcher examined 62,000 articles and found that these ties were disclosed in only 0.5 percent of them."

OK, CW, I think I answered that one.

Boy, you've got a lot to learn.

Next challenge, please!

Dear CW -

I know that I'm being a nudge on this research thing, but I must thank you for bringing it up. I've been surfing the web and I'm finding a tremendous amount of eye-opening information on the subject of ethics in research.

Most enlightening has been this multi-page article I found at American Scientists Online. The article is entitled "Ethical Problems in Academic Research," and it may be read in its entirety here:

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/33432/page/6;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0

Here are some teasers from that article:

"Sociology stands out in terms of both faculty and student exposure to three forms of interpersonal misconduct. High proportions of sociology faculty report that their colleagues have engaged in sexual harassment (40 percent), have discriminated based on race, ethnicity or gender (32 percent), or have used their positions to exploit or manipulate others (57 percent). Sociology students report even higher levels of exposure to discrimination (55 percent) and exploitation (60 percent) by faculty."

"Overall, one can infer from our data that, although misconduct is not rampant, examples of behavior that fall into the National Academy’s definition of science-related misconduct are not rare. Between six and nine percent of both students and faculty report that they have direct knowledge of faculty who have plagiarized or falsified data. Faculty reports of plagiarism and falsification by students are considerably higher; nearly a third of faculty claim to have observed student plagiarism.

"Exposure to data falsification does not follow a clear disciplinary pattern. At 10 percent, civil engineering faculty report the highest level of "cooking" among their colleagues, but 12 percent of microbiology students say that their teachers have falsified data. Faculty report similar levels of falsification among chemistry, civil engineering and microbiology students, but sociologists report significantly less. Among the students, chemistry doctoral students note the greatest exposure to falsification by their peers (20 percent)."

"Across the disciplines, reports of questionable research practices are far more common than reports of outright misconduct. For example, 43 percent of faculty say they know of peers making inappropriate use of university resources for personal purposes, and almost one-third know of inappropriate assignment of authorship of research papers. Twenty-two percent of faculty report instances of their colleagues overlooking sloppy use of data, and 15 percent know of cases where data that would contradict an investigator's own previous research have not been presented. Although students reportedly engage in questionable research practices at somewhat lower rates than faculty, the data indicate that substantial numbers of both students and faculty have observed such practices by students."

This entire report is worth reading.

CW writes:

"I have conducted dozens of research projects involving questionnaires, and the participants are always paid a modest sum for their time!"

Hmmm?

"Payment of informants, though acceptable in principle, should be discouraged as far as possible and subject to explicit conditions, with special regard to the reliability of the information provided." - Code of Ethics Approved by the Interntional Sociological Association Executive Committee, Fall 2001 (Sec. 2.3.2)

http://www.isa-sociology.org/about/isa_code_of_ethics.htm

Ah, Mr. Mark returns to the fray!

In the laundry list of misuse of funds by universities you provided, you included not one instance of a university, a researcher, and a funding source conspiring to deliberately produce a false result. But the glaring failure in your detailed (and irrelevant) rebuttal was you failure to explain how these evil religionists were able to convince 1,500 scientists at elite universities to lie about their religions beliefs?

This is what I said in my last post:

Next, how to obtain the desired result? How to get a group of scientists -- not all of them, just enough of them -- to lie? By paying them! I have conducted dozens of research projects involving questionnaires, and the participants are always paid a modest sum for their time! And how modest was the sum? $15! Again, fifteen dollars!!

So you would have us believe that a large number of tenured science professors at elite universities who probably earn somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000 to $250,000 annually, would perjure themselves, abandon their integrity and betray their own profession for $15? Imagine the phone conversation: "Now, look, professor. We're prepared to pay you $15 for filling out this questionnaire. There's only one catch: You must say that you believe in God and go to church on Sunday. Okay?" And the scientist says, "Why sure, Dr. Ecklund, I'd do most anything for $15. Will you send it in cash so I don't have to pay taxes on it?"

The whole idea is utterly preposterous, and surely you know it (or do you?) This kind of paranoid fantasy -- it's a conspiracy and everybody's in on it -- is the same kind of thing that paranoid schizophrenics regularly experience.

Do you really expect me to believe that this is mature talk from "rational" people?

CW

Dear CW -

You really are the naive one, aren't you?

You find it unbelievable that an elite university or a professor would do something untoward. yet one could make the claim - rightly - that they have already done something untoward by accepting money from such an irreputable and biased outfit as Templeton whose stated mision is to prove the truth of the Bible.

Do you think that universities are devoid of bad practices and decisions, and that the personnel are all on the up and up? If so, how about the recent incident at MIT where longtime Dean Marilee Jones was dismissed for falsifying her resume to include 2 college degrees to schools that she never attended and one school that she attend for only a few months? Mrs Jones was in charge of admissions and toured the country giving speeches to high school kids on how it paid to be honest on your resume! She was one of the slew of recent resignations from colleges due to falsified resumes.

How about the elite colleges with atheletic departments that are involved in all types of cheating, like point shaving, etc.?

One wouldn't think that the US Justice department would compromise their prestige, and yet we've just learned that the JD was staffed by 150 graduates of Pat Robertson's laughable Regent Law School, all placed in their positions by Monica Goodling, a RW hack with absolutely no trial experience (and another grad of Regent) who was responsible for evaulating the job performance of seasoned, career lawyers...and recommending their termination for purely political reasons.

But I'm off on a tangent. You asked if I believed that elite medical schools would act dishonestly. I did a quick search on "medical university scandals" and came up with the following:

• Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, which has been beset for a year by charges of financial mismanagement and fraud...At least 18 students set to graduate on Sunday from its dental school have been implicated in a cheating scandal.

Administrators at the university’s New Jersey Dental School are investigating allegations that students secretly traded, or even sold, credits for clinical procedures required for graduation. (May, 2006)

• Saturday, January 21, 2006
The Sheffield University scandal
Stay tuned for updates on the saga of Aubrey Blumsohn, the Sheffield University medical school professor who was suspended after he raised questions about a shady $250,000 research contract between the university and Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals.

• Why should California's stem cell agency be more, rather than less open with disclosure and transparency?

If you read the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, 8/16/05, you know why. A front page piece by reporter Bernard Wysocki described a case at Cornell University that "exposes what some scientists call a dirty little secret of university medical research: the misuse of taxpayers' funds.

"The NIH last year funneled $20 billion to campus researchers, an amount that has doubled since the late 1990s," Wysocki wrote. "Now, a string of multimillion-dollar settlements by leading universities is showing how vulnerable the system has become to abuse."

"Since the beginning of 2003, Northwestern University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University and the University of Alabama at Birmingham have agreed to civil settlements. In each case, the government alleged that the universities pledged to do one thing with their NIH money and then spent it on something else. This spring, the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed to pay $6.5 million to settle charges it diverted money from one grant to other grants running short of funds. The institutions agreed to upgrade their accounting practices, but admitted no wrongdoing." (NB: talk about elite colleges! The list in that last paragraph reads like a who's who of elites!)

"In a recent survey of 3,300 research scientists, researchers at Minnesota-based HealthPartners Research Foundation and the University of Minnesota found that more than 50% of established grant-getting scientists used grant money designated for one project on another project -- often for undisclosed research that might lead to future grants," Wysocki wrote.

Public disclosure and openness do not guarantee that there will be no abuses. But without public transparency, temptations arise. Even the well-intentioned can fall into arrangements that cannot stand the light of day. The collateral damage can be weathered by institutions such as Harvard and the Mayo Clinic. But they can be life-threatening to a young agency, such as CIRM, that is engaged in controversial research.

There's plenty more out there if you look.

So, yes - I do believe that elite universities and their researchers will act unethically at times. Considering the evidence, don't you?

To the whole atheist gang:

I suppose that this latest outpouring of vitriol is designed to send me scurrying back into the rat hole I came out of, vanquished at last. Well, think again (or is it really within your purview to actually think, or just to sloganeer?).

I have long known that many atheists have a schizophrenic view of life -- I have debated many of them. But I was unprepared for how deep the paranoia goes. I laughed aloud at the conspiracy theory you advanced to debunk Dr. Ecklund's research. What will be next? Black helicopters? Stop and think what you've said:

A research study into the attitudes of scientists regarding God and religion, to be performed by an elite research university, is funded by a grant from a religious organization (Templeton). Stop the presses! Who else would be a likely source of funding for such a study? General Motors? Bill Gates? Interested parties always are the source of funding for research. Where have you been?

You then assume that this prestigious university would risk its reputation by allowing one of its professors, Dr. Ecklund, to manipulate data to produce a desired outcome for Templeton. Ecklund has her own integrity (to say nothing of her career) at stake if she falsifies or otherwise skews research data to produce a specific result. Yet, the university, Ecklund and Templeton enter into a conspiracy for the measly sum of $283,000; modest indeed for a research grant.

Next, how to obtain the desired result? How to get a group of scientists -- not all of them, just enough of them -- to lie? By paying them! I have conducted dozens of research projects involving questionnaires, and the participants are always paid a modest sum for their time! And how modest was the sum? $15! Again, fifteen dollars!!

So you would have us believe that a large number of tenured science professors at elite universities who probably earn somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000 to $250,000 annually, would perjure themselves, abandon their integrity and betray their own profession for $15? Imagine the phone conversation: "Now, look, professor. We're prepared to pay you $15 for filling out this questionnaire. There's only one catch: You must say that you believe in God and go to church on Sunday. Okay?" And the scientist says, "Why sure, Dr. Ecklund, I'd do most anything for $15. Will you send it in cash so I don't have to pay taxes on it?"

The whole idea is utterly preposterous, and surely you know it (or do you?) This kind of paranoid fantasy -- it's a conspiracy and everybody's in on it -- is the same kind of thing that paranoid schizophrenics regularly experience.

Do you really expect me to believe that this is mature talk from "rational" people?

CW

First a big thank you to CW for confusing me with Mr Mark. Made my day.

Then, thanks to Mr Mark for doing your internet research. I had done some of it earlier before leaving my computer. You spared me the write-up. Market researcher, eh? Contact me at efavorite@verizon.net

Bernie Bee – Kudos for injecting a wee bit of Scottish-atheist humor in this otherwise dour endeavor.

Karen – Please keep alert for charlatans like CW and Varghese (possibly one and the same). There are a lot of them out there and yhey give religion a bad name.

By Christ! As far as I'm concerned that last missive from CW has convinced this atheist that if there ain't no God there sure is a Devil when ye consider all that deceit and lying from that source!
Get thee behind me CW! Begon tae where ye belong in the everlastin fires that wiz prepared for you an yer like!
An serve ye right!

CW writes to E Fav:

"Remember, I have just presented you with rather compelling evidence that most scientists in both discipline categories -- natural science and social science -- believe in God and most practice religion."

Compelling evidence my *ss! Did you read my research on your Templeton-funded "compelling evidence?" Really, CW, if you're going to debate in a public sphere like this, you've got to do better. Every post you've made subsequent to your posting of that original study has been weaker and weaker in its defense of that piss-poor-excuse-for-a-scientific study from Rice.

What makes it compelling, CW? The $283,000 grant of religious apologist money that funded the study, the $15 payoff given to the participants, the breaking of basic ground rules for running a statistically unbiased study, or the fact that the researcher herself is clearly a religious apologist as well?

The evidence you present is no evidence at all.

BTW, Mr Messenger - the message you're delivering is unscientific propaganda that is transparent to one and all. I almost fell out of my chair laughing when you wrote this:

"Varghese has no scientific degrees. Does this disqualify him from possessing a brilliant mind? Read the book and judge for yourself.

"As for his book about apparitions, why is this surprising (or disqualifying) to you? Varghese is an avowed Syrian Rite Catholic, who believes in the tenets of his church, including the virgin birth. Why would he not write a book about phenomena -- no matter how outlandish they sound to you and me -- that are part of his religion?"

Wow. What a ridiculous statement! Just because Varghese BELIEVES in unscientific fantasies like the virgin birth, that shouldn't disqualify him as a SCIENTIFIC mind???! Are you nuts? Yes - he can write about fantasies promoted by his religion. He can even write about them as if they are facts. But that doesn't make them facts, and they can never be proven as facts. You make the mistake of asserting the fantasy as fact. Unless you and Varghese are prepared to submit such drivel to the rigors of the scientific method, then you are selling snake oil and nothing else.

Your presenting the uncredentialed, fantasy believing Varghese as a counter the the weight and sum of scientific fact is as audacious as it is irresponsible and unlettered.

Challenge for Varghese/CW - cite a single scientific study/source that supports the idea of a human virgin birth.

Taken as a whole, your comments in this thread are pretty much an insult to the intelligence and rational thought that is being displayed in spades by those challenging your whole-cloth assumptions. That you can't see that, and that you continue to offer the ignorant, untested and untestable religion-driven OPINIONS of the laity as a counter to established scientific fact is risible and, truth be told, an old and sorry song that has been shot down on this particular blog on many, many occasions.

Next time you can save us all a lot of time by simply posting a link to the Discovery Institute and leaving it at that.

I think I'm about done with you, CW. With every post you reveal yourself as just another religious sap who will go through the most twisted contortions to convice yourself - and no one else - that you are citing "compelling evidence," when all you're really doing is citing pseudo-science that can be debunked in seconds by anyone with an internet connection...and the stomach for engaging in yet another a pointless "debate" between scientific fact and religious fantasy.

E Favorite:

If I get you mixed up with Mr Mark, please forgive me. Scrolling back and forth to view the comments of each of you is tiresome and you are both pretty much saying the same thing.

Attacking Roy Varghese without having read his book -- "contempt without investigation" -- seems to be a typical ploy of the defenders of the true faith.

I was first introduced to Varghese by an article in Texas Monthly Magazine (a very liberal publicaton, I might add) by noted Texas writer Gary Cartwright, who interviewed Varghese some time last year, and later in a much longer article in Dallas Observer Magazine (a publication owned by the Village Voice). Both provided details of Varghese's education.

In college in India, Varghese studied literature and liberal arts, earning a master of arts from Madras University. While studying science and philosophy Varghese came to embrace atheism because, he says, atheism was the canon of many of the world's most famous thinkers. Why not emulate them? "I went through my own period of insanity," he admits. He has other names for atheism: confused, schizophrenic, arrant nonsense, a form of irrationality. After deeper study he became convinced of God's existence and gradually found confirmation in the works of leading philosophers and scientists.

In 1983, he earned a Master's Degree in International Journalism from Baylor University, and a short time later he was asked to co-edit a book with the noted Yale physicist Henry Margenau.

In addition to authoring and editing several books on the relationship between science and religion, he became a computer systems consultant to high-tech companies. He has organized and conducted numerous symposiums, inviting noted atheists and theists to debate the issue of God's existence. He has funded these activities out of his own pocket. In 2003, he founded the Metascience Foundation, which is dedicated to facilitating the debate between science and religion (or more accurately, belief in God). The result of one the symposiums was the conversion of the long time atheist philosopher Antony Flew to philosophical theism. (Why you find Flew's acceptance of an award from a religious group, in light of his apostasy from atheism, is puzzling. They were delighted to have a new convert to the fold, regardless of his disavowal of organized religion; apparently he thought it was okay too. Perhaps he should have checked with you first).

Varghese has no scientific degrees. Does this disqualify him from possessing a brilliant mind? Read the book and judge for yourself.

As for his book about apparitions, why is this surprising (or disqualifying) to you? Varghese is an avowed Syrian Rite Catholic, who believes in the tenets of his church, including the virgin birth. Why would he not write a book about phenomena -- no matter how outlandish they sound to you and me -- that are part of his religion?

Remember, I have just presented you with rather compelling evidence that most scientists in both discipline categories -- natural science and social science -- believe in God and most practice religion. What beliefs one adopts after making a rational choice for God is a matter of individual choice. This choice involves finding a "nature of God" that satisfies the individual; certainly it disqualifies no one in science from either participating in science or engaging in religion. Think about these things.

Meantime, you might consider abandoning the attack the messenger mode and pay some attention to the message he is delivering. To do that, it might be useful for you to read the book.

CW

Jist a minit Mr Mark! Are you insinuatin' CW was in on all that suberfuge! That he's a bliddy agent for they fundies!
If not you should think black burnin' shame o' yersel'!
Come on CW tell it like it is (as countless daft Yanks put it!) or for ever hold yer tounge!

Dear CW -

OK. I've done a bit of web searching. Here’s what I found out about the Rice study at the Rice website:

"With a $283,000 grant from the Templeton Foundation, Ecklund mailed $15 and a request to participate in a 10-minute on-line survey to 2,148 faculty at 21 of the top U.S. research universities. She phoned those who did not take the survey to give t