Hmm. That's not exactly in keeping with the spirit of scientific discovery, is it?
We can suggest answers, but we don't state that they are true until we have evidence.
It seems to me that you're basically saying that any question that doesn't lend itself to a naturalistic explanation isn't worth asking.
Not at all. Questions are worth asking. The problem is when people say they have definitely found answers using highly questionable methods (such as divine revelation).
But the fact that questions about meaning, purpose, etc. cannot be answered by science in any definitive way does not suggest to me they aren't worth asking, only that the answers to them, if answers can be found, will not be provided by science. These kinds of questions are hugely important to a vast majority of people and it has been so since the dawn of civilization.
Perhaps that is true, but it seems to me a bizarre idea that religion is a better method of answering them. I don't think that "I have a feeling" is a way to answer such things.
There are surely better ways, such as philosophy.
I'm curious. What do you envision as a good test for God's existence? Would would a "paternity test" for the Universe look like?
Coming up with a testable explanation for how it got going, such as to show that a timeless quantum fluctuation could give rise to everything.
1 comment:
I decided to man up and come over and see your site for myself. I must say, being a student of this kind of think in more ways than one, your understanding of science is a bit, how can I put this politely, 19th century. Also, like many self-professed "skeptics" you just don't seem to know, or believe, or understand, that (a) religion as a human and Christianity as one expression of that phenomenon are not synonymous; and (b) not all Christians are fundamentalists. You argue from the assumption that, in fact, we are. I'm not, and I'm quite happy about that, thank you very much. There are millions of Christians who aren't. Your argument isn't with "religion" or "Christianity", but one small, albeit very loud, sub-group of Christians.
As for your views of science, have you ever heard of Heisenberg? Schrodinger? Do you know the difference between Darwin's theory and contemporary neo-Darwinian, and non-Darwinian theories of evolution (Ernst Mayr from Harvard might be a good place to start)?
Do you wonder why I'm asking these questions? Because they are all begged by your posts, your comments, and your insistence not only that you have the answers, but that your answers are patently obvious while the rest of us are shuffling around in the dark, our flashlights burned out, even while we insist we can see. A more wonderful example of hubris I haven't seen in quite a while. To spare myself further headaches (I have enough in my life already, thank you very much), I shall make sure that this is my only visit here.
Post a Comment