Well, Answers In Genesis is a bit of a tough one to be held responsible for. 
As previously mentioned, they lie. Constantly and consistently. Citing them as a “Christian” site is like citing World Net Daily as a republican site. (Applicable analogy: “now if only Christians/Republicans would stop seriously using it as a citation!”)
I don’t think that I’ve gotten numerous answers from the group of people that this thread is directed towards - Christians. Your response seems to be from the point of view of a non-Christian.
The Christians that have answered seem to just be objecting to the thread rather than actually answering it.
The only Christian answers I can think of would be that the devil is behind it or maybe pride. The other possibility is that the evidence points to atheism due to the Christian God not existing. And I mean the type of God that explicitly creates stars, etc.
AiG doesn’t involve a typical Christians POV but it still is a form of Christianity. I included them due to the lack of responses I could find on this topic.
You’re right. How could I be so stoopid? Of course dentists shake at least six chicken bones then throw them onto the floor to discover how god wants them to fix a tooth. But for real, long-term cures, they read tea leaves.
Oh! Look! Shiney!
I don’t think you understand what the scientific method is. Dentists do not typically do research; they put the findings of research into practice, as they are advised to do.
Calling a dentist a scientist is a bit like calling a mechanic an engineer.
As both a scientist and a Christian, I consider myself well-qualified to answer this question. I can think of three reasons:
First, one of the roles of religion is to explain why the world is the way it is. Why is the world round? Why does this animal resemble this other animal? Why is this kind of tree found in this area, while this other kind of tree is found in this other area? All of these questions can be answered by “God did it”. But science provides more satisfying answers to many of these questions, and so partially renders religion obsolete. Now, that’s not the only role of religion, but it can be enough to be a tipping point for some.
Second, many contemporary religious groups have directly declared themselves to be anti-science. When a significant number of religious people are telling you that you are of the Devil, it becomes a lot easier to reject religion.
Third, once these first two factors are in place, it becomes easier for an atheist who mingles in scientific circles to come out as an atheist. Atheists are all over the place, in all walks of life, but most of them have to put on a pretense of religion to avoid being socially shunned. Even in the most fire-and-brimstone of fundamental churches, there are probably a good number of atheists, but they don’t admit it. Within academia, though, they do.
But it is true… a larger proportion of scientists are atheists compared to the general population.
What about the statistics that adults commonly believe that the earth goes around the sun… is that irrelevant? I mean is the minority belief that the sun goes around the earth just as important? (edit: this might not be true - I was guessing)
But I’m talking about scientists to be more likely to be non-Christian compared to the general population.
I’m not denying that some scientists are Christians. I didn’t say ALL scientists are non-Christians.
But between them they know a lot about the origins of stars and species.
So it is better to ask biologists about the origins of species than to ask an intelligent non-scientist.
Since fundamentalist Christians make up a somewhat large proportion of society I thought they’d also be likely to be here… unless posters here are also less likely to be (fundamentalist) believers. Like scientists the posters on this board might be likely to look for objective answers.
I was just thinking… in Genesis when God creates things he generally just speaks and then it doesn’t explain exactly how things were created… though with Adam and Eve it explains exactly how God created them. So the view that stars and species evolved could be compatible with Genesis… then there is the issue of the six days though (and plants being created before the sun, etc)
But not all Christians believe that the six days thing is literally true. And you’re not going to find a lot of scientists who believe that, because the scientific evidence is all against it. But a scientist might not believe that and still be a Christian.
So, I think part of the problem is that you seem to be conflating “Christian” with “world is created in 6 days”, and are saying, “Most scientists don’t believe B. What’s the answer to why they don’t believe A?”
In other words, the “creation in 6 days” thing is a red herring.
I think part of the problem here is what is meant by “Christian.” Many people that call themselves Christians have viewpoints that completely contradict each other. Some accept the Bible as literally true and others consider it a giant metaphor and are seamlessly able to integrate it into what we currently know about the world. The is an unsurprising trend as the more literal you take it, the more it conflicts with modern understanding.
It makes discussions like these a big exercise in frustration as every Christian has their own interpretation. There is no standard, even within denominations. I grew up in an SDA church that was by all accounts pretty fundamentalist, and even there people were all over the map.
What beliefs must one have for the term to even be a meaningful label? Many have reduced and reinterpreted it to such a degree that I don’t think pointing it out is a No True Scotsman fallacy. I’ve met more than one “Christian” that didn’t believe Jesus was actually a divine being. Some have gone even further and reduced it to some abstraction whereby they consider Christianity nothing more than a belief system to do right by their fellow man and praise the Lord. It just becomes increasingly meaninglessness. And I haven’t even gotten to the people that integrate belief systems from other religions forming a hybrid variant whereby something like reincarnation or eastern interpretations of karma aren’t off the table.
I’m an atheist, but speaking as a former Christian of 16 years, the answer to the OP’s question is “depends on who you ask.” If you’re seeking a consensus, you won’t find one. You’ve mentioned the devil several times. You’ll find a WIDE range of answers about how capable he is of directly affecting the minds of people. If you’re curious if some think that the devil is responsible for rampant atheism then the answer is not only do some think that, there are those that believe we are actively in league with him. Other Christians rightfully laugh this off as ridiculous. So it goes…
You can include other religions also. The religiously minded person, seeing five different ways of understanding god, tends to pick one, often based on what their parents believe, and then exclude the rest. That covers both fundamentalists and liberal Christians - they seem to me to reject the other side about equally.
The scientifically minded person seeing this situation rejects all of them and goes with the null hypothesis of no god at all - or at least until someone comes up with some decent evidence.
Maybe you did. I’m a post-evangelical Anglican. Once upon a time, I was a young-earth creationist*
*I got better
The Bible talks about creation in 6 days. If it isn’t literal then it should be explained in some way… e.g. each day was an age or it is just some poem. Christians should have some type of opinion on that.
Apparently Benny Hinn believes that Genesis 1:1 says the earth “became” formless and void… i.e. there was a history of the universe before the 6 days of creation. I haven’t been able to listen to what he’s said about that but I think that’s what others believed who had a similar belief.
I’ve come up with many potential explanations of my own. I’m looking for the opinions of Christians (not non-believers). A lot of people here are just dodging the question.
Well in the NT there was a lot of demon possession… including when Judas was possessed by the devil twice.
If the devil isn’t responsible then what is? I think the only explanations left are a lack of evidence for Christianity - which suggests it isn’t true (which would seem like a strange thing for a Christian to say) or the problem is pride (not wanting to submit to God) or that you need the holy spirit to believe - that you can’t become a believer by your own effort (I don’t think I’ve mentioned that possibility in this thread before)
What I found interesting about Answers in Genesis’s article “What’s the Best “Proof” of Creation?” is that they remind us of some of the best known “proofs” of Creation - many/most of which they used themselves in the past and instead of bringing up another “proof” - which may turn out to be misguided in the future - they forget about the whole idea of objective proof and say that you need to have a foundation of the Bible in which to interpret the evidence. But if evidence was found such as the remains of the Ark, it would be good objective evidence…
It seems like you’ve changed the question - is it about why science doesn’t seem to need religion any more, or is it about whether demon possession is real?
I think answers from the Bible are sometimes more satisfying… I mean what about why is there childbirth pain and why are there thorns? According to the Bible this is because of human sin and one day there will be a restoration to how “good” creation was and there will be no more suffering in the new Heaven and Earth.
Why are scientists finding things that seem to contradict the Bible though and therefore being considered to be of the Devil? Either they’re closely influenced by the devil, or maybe they don’t want to rely on the Holy Spirit during their thought processes and so are led astray by the wisdom of this “fallen world”.
I wonder why it is more likely for scientists to “come out” as being atheists compared to other groups of people. BTW communists very commonly “come out” as being atheistic even though they aren’t that scientific about whether the sun orbits the earth, etc. What do you think is the cause of atheism amongst many old groups of communists?
It is about why scientists are more likely to not believe that aspects of the Bible are not literally true such as the frequent mentionings of demon possession. In the gospels it says that the demons talked to Jesus. It didn’t say that people merely believed that there were demons.
Really, the answer to this thread is simple. Science has shown over and over that the old explanations which require a god to keep the universe running are invalid. Believing in a god is a fantasy that never really comes through in a satisfactory way to anyone who pays attention.
Scientists are trained to seek empirical evidence and use reason and logic to reach conclusions about the universe. The fact is, you do that, and then you reach the inevitable conclusion that the universe doesn’t need god. And neither does humanity.
Science has outgrown the answers that religion was providing and has provided better answers of its own. In order to be competent as a scientist (in many fields) you don’t have to be non-religious, you just can’t use the religious toolbox in your work - well you can apply some things; a religious work ethic maybe, but (for example) you can’t reject the geological column and be a competent geologist in the field of petrochemical survey, because you will fail.