That's an interesting comment from an actuary.

Yes, I am following what I consider to be the preponderance of evidence. The odds of a divine origin are quite small, IMO. Right around zero.

I submit you and woot are narrowly defining scientist to mean research scientists who join trendy organizations to have a good looking resume.

Are scientists who develop inventions but who do not engage in traditional research elite? hey, they're often doing something practical.

Are scientists who got great grades but decided to go teach high school also not elite?

I could go on, but let's state woot's case as crassly as he is, "Only smart dudes don''t believe in God, and really dumb people like y'all believe in God, it's scientifically proven."

Keep going with your simple-minded binary thinking; I'm sure it makes your life easier.

Simple-minded and binary, that's me.

You posit, "elite scientists" as only those that join the organization you designate and all others "not elite." Sounds binary to me.

I posit, there are lots of scientists functioning in many realms some of them choosing not to participate in the ivory tower, and these guys might still be considered elite. Thomas Edison wasn't much of a researcher in the classical sense, but his inventions certainly contributed to society, and he would be considered elite by others, of course not by you.

Woot, for such a young guy, you have developed quite a sense of self-importance and hubris. So when you get a mighty anthropology degree does that also convey omniscience in particle physics, inorganic and thermo-dynamic chemistry, together with molecular biology as well as genetics and hemonology?

This is so ironic that it is comical. I know you will shout in defiance and red-cheeked denial, but there is no one that posts here regularly that is any more dogmatic than you.

Or a woman.

Who invited your opinion here? Gee, now there goes the neighborhood.

I'm starting to think you don't like me Jeff.

Thanks, Indy. I really was sincere. I've realized that nobody is going to change positions on this issue. As Tex alluded, this is well worked ground here on CG and most people have staked their claim and formed their ideas. Fair enough. I just honestly wanted to know how else someone could explain it other than through a racial lens.

Assuming that god exists, is interested in human affairs, etc. etc., I think that, just as we can't know all the ramifications, implications, and reasons for the priesthood ban and how it figured into the great and complete divine plan, so we can't really know what god is like, his nature, character, etc. (despite what JS said in Lecture on Faith III). We feel free to accept Jesus' merciful god, but are unwilling to recognize the vengeful, jealous, bloodthirsty god of the OT. We are content to cherry-pick stories and aphorisms that back up our preconceived notions of what a "father" god is like. I don't buy it, and think there's more to the story. We may know some . . . . we may know a lot . . . . but I doubt anyone knows the whole story.

I personally don't know very many answers, knowing only that I don't know (like Arch's signature line). Agnosticism is unsettling and unsatisfying, that's for sure.

At any rate, my issue isn't with the doctrine per se - churches of all kinds believe all sorts of stuff, some good, some bad, some crazy. My issue is with the current LDS leadership's unwillingness to own or refute this doctrine in a public, unambiguous way. But that's another topic.

You're bombing territory I don't occupy. I specifically stated that by elite I was referring to members of the NAS, a very prestigious organization populated by only the best scientists. I refer to that organization because that's the one that was studied. If you think the results at other elite organizations would be different, I think you're deluding yourself. You invocation of Edison is a total non sequitur. The study was done on research scientists. Whining that such a study excludes those that are not research scientists is like whining that a study of diabetes patients excludes those without diabetes.

The entirety of your last paragraph is the typical arm-flailing that I've come to expect when you are wrong about something and don't know how to respond other than to state the obvious in an authoritative way.