As stated in the following, it's just another modern myth that most scientists are atheists:

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

I haven't read Schroeder but from his site:

God According to God: A Physicist Proves We Have Been Wrong About God All Along

In this groundbreaking exploration, a biblical scholar and M.I.T.-trained physicist combines decades of research to change the debate between religion and science, presenting a new paradigm of how to understand God.

Gerald Schroeder has spent his career revealing the hand of God in the intricate discoveries of physics. Now, for the first time, he turns his attention to this Force, examining both the Bible and the physical world to discover the true nature of God - God according to God.

Schroeder argues that we have ignored those traits of God we find unappealing, replacing them with our personal desire for the all-knowing, all-loving, neverchanging deity that so many worship today. This leads to the age-old problem: How can there be such a God when the world is filled with tragedy? Yet Schroeder reveals that this troubling juxtaposition is really smoke and mirrors. The God revealed in the Bible is 100 percent compatible with the world as we know it today. It is our misconception of God that causes the disparity. In fact, the concept of God that atheists rail against and that believers defend is inaccurate.

In God According to God, Schroeder presents a compelling case for the true God, a dynamic God who is still learning how to relate to creation. The key to God's action in the world, says Schroeder, can be found in a well-known verse in Exodus that is typically translated "I am that which I am." Schroeder's correction that it should be translated "I will be that which I will be" reveals a God that changes Its presence to fit the ever-changing world.

This opens our eyes to other characteristics of God that we have long overlooked despite their being present in some of the most popular stories in the Bible - a God who regrets (the flood of Noah), a God who wants us to argue with Him (Jacob wrestling with God in the desert), and thus a God who changes His mind (Moses convinces God to spare the Israelite people), and a God who allowed nature, and the creation itself, from the very start, to rebel (Adam's and Eve's betrayal in Eden).

With riveting chapters on the origins of life, a scientist's view of creation, and the unique place of our planet in the galaxy, God According to God offers a radical paradigm shift that will forever change how we understand God.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AccordingToGod.aspx

http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Exi...9004840&sr=8-1

I recently heard Father Spitzer (Jesuit Priest) speak and am going to order this book soon. He talks about a group of cosmological scientists who have theorized that our universe had to have a beginning and they haven't been refuted yet. Once I order the book I'll look it up and bring more to this discussion, but it looks to be a very good book.

Yikes. I was talking about the conversations with cosmologists that I have had. You asked a specific question that I don't have detailed data or conversations with cosmologists about. I told you basically all I remembered about the god talk that I have had with cosmologists. I didn't ask them about your exact crackpot claim which you hadn't even made yet at the time I had those conversations.

I will go on record as saying I don't think there is much movement amoung cosmologist toward belief in the existence of a personal god. I just think they are starting to reject atheism.

Excerpts

Introduction
From the Introduction of God According to God:

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AccordingToGod.aspx#

Not sure why naturalism is included, since that is not incompatible with theism (though here again we run into issues of how words are defined). Not sure about atheism. Materialism is already in serious decline and could be very marginal within 100 years.

Both of what

We haven't got to the point yet where we can start giving opinions. You need to first stop saying factually incorrect things. You can't so there is an appearance of fine tuning and then say that there is 0 evidence of a multiverse. Both of those ideas require saying that apparent free parameters in physical equations can actually be different. There is no direct evidence that that is true, it is not an unreasonable idea, but one has to be consistent.

But you are just making this up and you actually don't understand anything about the field and have never talked to these people. Again, what is the point of doing this?

AND WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF THAT?

Hint: Throwing out 2 deceased astronomers from google/wikipedia and then claiming that they were originally atheists who changed to deists before they died with no citation whatsoever is not a good start.

Butnaaaaaah.

The NAS study seems to make no mention of how respondents spend their Sunday mornings. Presumably because it was deemed utterly irrelevant (gotta love the 'any given Sunday' thing, too - no kosher scientists allowed?).

Come on in Pletho, there's room for 1 more.

There should really be a poll with results being public on whether you agree or disagree with the OP statement.

I'm at least one counter-example. I am a hard atheist. That is, I believe that God does not exist.

it was built into mine fwiw, just not when im on my phone.

lol i just can't get over stupidasso having 8 kids...may allah have mercy on their poor little souls

Note to self: bump this thread in a hundred years.

gg no re

"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct"
iff
a) a god who intervenes exists
and
b)god intervenes for (probably close to) the whole world to see in such a way that it is obviously coming from god

here's a statement that's truer than op. within 100 years or so 99.99% of the people reading this thread will be dead so this statement won't matter. besides op, if you really believe in what you've stated, you are saying people tremendously will digress with education and quality of life.

Right. So prior to the observations, both were plausible. Now ID is less plausible - isn't that the exact opposite of what you said.

We're getting better at doing science. We're getting better at observing things previously beyond the scope of measurement. How does that lead to the conclusion that atheism is less plausible? Your first couple of paragraphs don't lead to the conlusion you think they do, imo.

And the fact that the elements that comprise the human body are synthesized inside of massive stars - which form and "die" naturally - is evidence of what? ID?

We are children of stars, not your god. And that is scientifically proven. And guess what? We don't need god to explain the existence of stars. We just need gas, dust and gravity.

You seem to imply Flew was a cosmologist, which is total baloney -- he wasn't any kind of scientist, just a "soft" philosopher (ie not even a philosopher like e.g. Dennett who understands science and follows contemporary advances in science).

Anyway, what happened was that Flew, having no clue about biology or most any other branch of science, was fooled by the lies of the "Intelligent Design" creationists to believe that life could not come about without supernatural assistance.

That's pretty much the whole story, except that he later retracted a bit, admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about.

On a side note: funnily enough, he even managed to publicly blame Richard Dawkins for his own misstep. His logic for that went as follows: Dawkins had never presented a theory for how life could come about from non-life (which is wrong, BTW), so he figured there were none. Therefore the ID people were correct.

Why anyone should have listened to that senile old geezer who self-admittedly was not keeping up with any modern advances in science (nor theology, if there can be such a thing as "advancement" in theology) is beyond me, anyway.

That theists are still using Flew as a significant conversion story says a lot about how much they are grasping at straws in this department.

Well this is jsut wrong, I suspect Blurnsball will be the dominant sport in the US in 45

Francis Collins converted from atheism and he keeps up with science.

Last time I checked he sped up science.