Why Do Atheistic and Agnostic Scientists Get a Pass?

Modern scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson claims to be "agnostic", modern scientist Richard Dawkins claims to be "atheistic" and, modern scientist Francis Collins claims to believe in God. Unbiased surveys taken by Rice University and the University of Chicago indicate that over 50% of American scientists and 40% of scientists on a global level claim to believe in God and thus, ideas, theories and discussion of God remain a significant percentage of modern scientific inquiry, thought and reason. Even Richard Dawkins agrees that discussion of God belongs in ever public science classroom.

"God" as commonly understood and typically defined in the modern 21st Century, is Creator of the universe; in most discussions when using the word "God", someone who says they believe in God typically means that they believe the universe is a result of deliberate design and creation. Atheists often try to brand such people as fundamentalist religious "creationists", when in fact many scientists who believe in evolution also believe in God. Francis Collins for example, defines himself as a "Darwinian evolutionist" and is also a practicing Christian. Darwin himself stated that "one can be an ardent theist and evolutionist", which is most certainly true of both Collins and many other modern scientists.

It is universally accepted in the modern age that there is a physical reality called "universe". Someone who claims to be an atheist or agnostic is claiming that the universe either did, probably did or might have come about in some other fashion, other than being a result of deliberate design and creation. Unlike many atheists pretend, the true "default" position of modern science is that there is a physical reality called "universe", the existence of which is agreed to by both scientists who believe in God and those who do not, as well as agreed to by billions of other people living on earth today.

The fundamental question of science and reason therefore becomes, "How and why is there a universe?". Atheists and agnostics don't receive a pass on this most fundamental two-pronged question of science and reason anymore than the rest of us do. In order to remain in the realm of science and reason, any claim that there is no God, probably no God or might be no God requires supporting evidence as to how otherwise the universal reality happens to exist, as do any and all other claims made by human beings. One cannot like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and many other scientists have the bad habit of doing, just claim to be "agnostic" and move on, as if ignoring how and why there is a universe somehow qualifies anyone to be taken seriously from those of us with at least half a brain that is at least partially in working order.

More discussion on common modern 'scientific' fallacies here:
http://freedomtracks.com/theory.html

You really have this backward. You say,

One cannot like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and many other scientists have the bad habit of doing, just claim to be "agnostic" and move on...

Scientists are not "moving on." These big questions as to how the universe began, what happened right "before" the Big Bang, how did life first appear, etc. are all active areas of scientific research. The "I don't know, let's find out" response is the intellectually honest and scientific approach. To claim "God did it" is not only the argument from ignorance (i.e., we don't currently know so let's plug "God" in there) is where discussion and scientific investigation ends (why look for an answer when one believes they have the answer?)

I also want to address your "theories and discussion of God remain a significant percentage of modern scientific inquiry" comment. "God" is only part of scientific inquiry to the extent whatever "God" is claimed to be has a measurable effect on the naturalistic world. Otherwise, "God" remains as part of theology and philosophy. This is because the very core of science is methodological naturalism .

Philosopher Andrew Bernstein describes such theological analysis of arcane and unevidenced claims as “the tragedy of theology in its distilled essence: The employment of high-powered human intellect, of genius, of profoundly rigorous logical deduction—studying nothing.”

As Einstein observed: “It is this mythical, or rather symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science.” Albert Einstein

Oh yeah, as the Pastor John Gray opines, Christianity’s problem is not so much science, but history. Yeah, thst’s where you should direct your attention.

Dear Richard, I believe that you are committing the fallacy of equivocation on several accounts (and a couple of others, like hasty generalisation, jumping to conclusions, etc.) - most of all in how you use the term "believe in God".

Now, in this little phrase, there are no less than two ambiguous terms ("believe" and "god", no surprises there ;-)

I am not aware of the details of the study you are referring to, but can you be sure that all, or even a majority of the respondents share your definition of these terms?

Let's start with "God" (always a good start): the definitions that each of us has for this term vary greatly, and may range from an omnipotent being that sits on it's cloud and literarily did ever thing exactly as it is described in the Bible (including appearing as a flaming bush, being personally responsible for the death of Egypt's first-borns, etc. - and of course creating the world in seven days and finally cutting Eve out of Adam's rib).

For a lot of "believers", these are however rather symbolic stories and while they may "believe" in the existence of a supreme being, they see it more as an abstract concept . In fact, by my own (probably biased) experience, I have the impression that a more abstract, and in fact "pantheistic" concept of God is more prevalent in our time.

The majority of "believers" is probably somewhere between these extremes - but by counting everybody who crossed the "Believe in God" checkbox in a questionnaire to a specific, very narrow definition of what God is, you are not doing this subject, which is quite complex, any justice.

We can make a similar argument for the term "believe": A firm conviction to take the Bible literal can just as well be described as "belief" as a more social concept of enjoying the company of your local church or Bible group, without a clear conviction of the underlying theological aspects.

Again, I'm not saying either of these is prevalent or even a significant group, but again most people who consider themselves as "believers" may indeed believe in a higher being, many may enjoy the social benefits of organised religious activities - but very few would let the religions canon affect their professional life. Least of all scientists.

In the end, I would claim that only a small minority of these "50%" would really subscribe to your idea of "Creator of the universe" and indeed, most religious people still accept scientific evidence and understand the whole "creationism" that is behind your request as what it is: just wishful thinking.

With best regards