I suppose you could, with some justification, accuse me of being a troll, given that my post "So I'm a Christian. Shoot me." generated an entirely predictable set of flames tearing me down for unscientific thinking, and for trying to claim that there is any kind of bias against the religious anywhere on scienceblogs. I continue my trolling here -- though, of course, trolling is not the reason I'm doing this. I'm hoping that there are actually some out there who see this as a valid intellectual exchane.
In that post, I lay a few things out which aren't even the things I thought people might really object to. Indeed, mostly nobody objected to what I wrote-- which says something about the redership around here, since a bunch of what I wrote would be offensive to many who are religious. Instead, some objected to to the very fact of me being religious with the usual "stump the deluded godist" questions. Others actually objected to something in what I wrote, not liking my grousing about the anti-religious rehtoric that's so common around scienceblogs. The view seems to be that since atheists are so persecuted in general American societ,y it's OK for them to behave like intolerant boors around here. (I should also note that I received some comments in support of what I wrote, and I thank those of you who did that.)
In that post, I make it very clear that religion is no good at explaining the processes of the natural world. Once upon a time, that was a big part of what religion was for. We want to understand, to explain, how the world works. Until ancient Greece, at least Western thought didn't even attempt to explain it without recourse to theology. In the last few hundred years, science has demonstrated tremendous power in explaining the natural world without recourse to theology-- there's just no competition. We don't need religion to explain the natural world any more, and indeed it's clear that religion does a terrible job at that, whereas science has done an impressive job, and there's no reaspon to suspect that it will stop any time soon
Given that, is there any point to religion any more? For many, the answer is no. However, to some subset of those many, they think that the answer should be no for everybody. When somebody uses language like "The God Hypothesis," there's a good chance that they are taking a narrow view of religion as merely a "science substitute." What I want to argue is that there still remains a point and a purpose to "God" even if there is no point or purpose to "God the Creator." I would say that indeed the hypothesis of "God the Creator" has not stood up to observational scrutiny, for there is a whole host of other hypotheses that have stood up an awful lot better. While we can't strictly rule out "God the Creator," the role of that creation is shrinking into an ever decreasing set of gaps-- that I full expect science will one day close. Despite the Discovery Institute's senseless rambling, there's no need to invoke any kind of God or Intelligent Designer to explain how humanity arose. We've got broad theories that get our Universe from a very early state, that produced our Sun and our Earth. I fully expect that one day we will even have scientific theories that satisfactorily address the creation of our Universe itself.
So if we don't need God to explain how we came to be, how the world or Universe came to be, or how things work, what good is God?