Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Eternal Life (thanks, but no thanks)
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 235 of 296 (594187)
12-02-2010 1:46 PM


Where is science in this?
Just a couple of thoughts on life beyond what we know.
In my Nov. issue of Scientific American the headline on the front cover is this.
Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter -- An entire universe may be interwoven silently with our own.
There was a major story on time in the Sep. issue. Here is a quote from that article.
quote:
Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts that time ends at moments called singularities, such as when matter reaches the center of a black hole or the universe collapses in a big crunch. Yet the theory also predicts that singularities are physically impossible.
A way to resolve this paradox is to consider time’s death as gradual rather than abrupt. Time might lose its many attributes one by one: its directionality, its notion of duration and its role in ordering events causally. Finally, time might give way to deeper, timeless physics.
Emphasis mine.
There is a lot of scientific study around the nature of consciousness.
Science is very open to the idea that there is more to this universe than what we can perceive with our five senses.

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-02-2010 8:35 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 237 of 296 (594268)
12-02-2010 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Dr Adequate
12-02-2010 8:35 PM


Re: Where is science in this?
Dr Adequate writes:
Where is science in this?
I'm not sure that science is involved in this.
I suppose it isn't technically science but it is theoretical science.
I'm not saying it proves anything but Christianity holds that is God's heavenly dimension exists, presumably all around us and that time, or more precisely change, is experienced differently as well.
All I'm saying is that secular science is also open to the possibility of another universe or dimensions all around us, as well as the possibility of other time dimensions.
It's just interesting and you can make what you want of it. Obviously if someone had their theology 100% accurate and their science 100% accurate the two would be totally congruent.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-02-2010 8:35 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Phage0070, posted 12-04-2010 5:17 AM GDR has replied
 Message 241 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-05-2010 12:29 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 239 of 296 (594651)
12-04-2010 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Phage0070
12-04-2010 5:17 AM


Re: Where is science in this?
Phage0070 writes:
Is that like "make-believe science"?
It's in "Scientific American" written by guys like Jonathan Feng who is called a theoretical physicist and Mark Trodden who is the co-director of the Centre for Particle Cosmology at the University of Pennsylvania.
They probably would prefer the term theoretical physics as opposed to make believe science, but then they probably aren't as informed as you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Phage0070, posted 12-04-2010 5:17 AM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 2:26 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 242 of 296 (594961)
12-05-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Otto Tellick
12-05-2010 12:29 PM


Re: Where is science in this?
Otto Tellick writes:
And the relevance/importance of these possibilities is the potential of someday understanding them well enough that we can reliably identify some physical manifestation of their interaction with natural phenomena that we actually observe (and couldn't properly explain by other means).
That is, the value of considering things beyond our current perception lies in reaching for the ability to incorporate them someday in an expanded and more accurate account of observable reality.
I'm in complete agreeement with that.
Otto Tellick writes:
If someone had their science 100% accurate, they would have no need for theology -- indeed, the notion of "theology" would be nonexistent. As it is, with our science being imperfect and incomplete, theology is simply a side-show of undefinable terms and unverifiable claims.
In the final analysis nothing is provable.
In saying that science is capable of giving us all of the answers, you are using a science of the gaps argument, in that essentially you're saying that although we don't know the answers now science will eventually fill in the gaps.
Maybe there are answers that are beyond the scope of the scientific method and maybe there aren't. It's back to the issue of faith again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-05-2010 12:29 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Modulous, posted 12-06-2010 7:03 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 260 by Omnivorous, posted 12-15-2010 11:16 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 244 of 296 (595165)
12-07-2010 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
02-04-2009 9:33 AM


OK Modulous
I'll go back to your OP to make sure we are on topic.
Modulous writes:
Do I get a choice?
For reasons I will explain, the concept of eternal life whichever way it is dressed up fills me with either horror or non-caring. If I had a choice I would not accept this offer. Can I not simply request to be sent into the dark absence of oblivion rather than suffering permanent consciousness? It seems highly immoral to force me to do the thing which I would loathe to do.
If I had to guess I'd say yes. Essentially it is my belief that you ultimately have to choose to embrace God's call for a heart that humbly loves kindness, and a life that humbly reflects justice, or you can choose to separate yourself from God by essentially choosing love of self.
CS Lewis says writes metaphorically in his book the "Great Divorce" about these choices. Here is a quote from it:
quote:
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. "
So this means that you won't be without an option, but as to whether oblivion is possible or not we'll have to wait to find out.
Modulous writes:
Do I grow?
In many versions of immortality my personality remains the same for all eternity. What horror! My goals remain the same? Does that mean they are never fulfilled? Or does it mean I never get any new goals? Do I learn anything? If I do learn, gain new goals and so on and so forth - then I surely am growing. The dilemma is this:
If I do grow, then I change. This is good. I like changing - I am a different person now, then when I was six years old and I am different from when I was eighteen. The me aged eighteen can be said to be 'dead' since it doesn't really exist any more. It has been replaced with me aged twenty eight. If I have eternal life and I grow and change, I will be so radically different by the age of five hundred, what difference would it make to my twenty eight year old self if that five hundred year old person exists? *I* don't exist, in that my personality, my beliefs and my goals don't exist any more. So if I do change over time: I don't really care if I have eternal life. It makes no difference since I will eventually no longer exist and a different person will exist.
If I don't change - what the heck is the point of having eternal life? An eternity of stasis without learning, without discovery? That is the most hellish concept I can think of. To even spend eternity in a state of bliss and wonder seems to me to be hollow and pointless gratification if I don't learn or change in anyway.
The Biblical picture of what happens at the end of time is a new creation, (new heavens and new earth), when our earthly dimension is combined with God's heavenly dimension. I would then assume that the next life will essentially be this life plus much more. (I have to agree that an eternity of harps and clouds doesn't do much for me either. )
As one aspect of this world is change as experienced through our dimension of time, I have to assume that we will experience change in the next life as well whether it be the way we do now or through some way that is beyond our comprehension. Maybe we will be able to move around in time. Who knows?
modulous writes:
So God, can you take your offer of eternal life and stick it somewhere dark and unconscious?
You might want to hang around long enough to find out just what it is that you are rejecting.
Modulous writes:
Either that or explain to me why I'm wrong.
This ain't God speaking, but I've done what I can.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2009 9:33 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2010 1:40 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 246 of 296 (595268)
12-07-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Modulous
12-07-2010 1:40 PM


Modulous writes:
Indeed: the tyrant's choice. We get to choose between eternal joy or eternal sorrow? It's the eternal part I was asking about.
I can't see where a tyrant would give you a choice. As for the question of whether or not you can top yourself in the next life; I have to say that I haven't the foggiest. I believe that we were made to exist with God but maybe separation from him wouldn't be such a bad thing for those who choose it.
Modulous writes:
I don't know. I can't get too excited about vague mysteriousness, I'm afraid.
I suppose it is analogous to being in the womb. It's nice and warm but at that point we have no idea what happens after we leave that comfortable environment. We don't even know what's going to happen tomorrow but the vast majority keep on keeping on.
Modulous writes:
I might. Or maybe I've hung around long enough? How long do you propose I need to live for to know I can say I've found out the answers to the problems raised by eternal life?
Not to worry. We are "The Borg". We will assimilate you.
Just as I can't tell you what's happening tomorrow, next week, or next year I don't have an answer. Just hang in there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2010 1:40 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2010 9:08 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 248 of 296 (595485)
12-08-2010 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Modulous
12-08-2010 9:08 AM


Modulous writes:
I'm asking if it is possible to construct a hypothetical eternal life which escapes the dilemma, or for any reason why the dilemma is a false one.
Hypothetical is certainly the key word, although the word "guess" is probably more accurate. My guess is that consciousness/soul/spirit is eternal but IMHO we will have to wait until the next life to find out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2010 9:08 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Modulous, posted 12-09-2010 11:31 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 250 of 296 (595588)
12-09-2010 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Modulous
12-09-2010 11:31 AM


Modulous writes:
No, hypothetical is more accurate. I'm not asking people to guess if there is a 'next life' or what that life will be like, I'm asking for a philosophical discussion whether a certain class of 'guess' (ie., an eternal afterlife) is actually as attractive (to us non mortal beings) as some people say it is (or at least should be) as per the insistence of certain religious views.
Briefly I believe that the future life will have much in common with this one except that suffering, pain and death won't be a feature of it. I believe that there will still be purpose and that it will still be relational. I believe that we will still be physical beings but with a different type of physicality. I'm looking forward to it but I plan to hang on to this life for some time to come yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Modulous, posted 12-09-2010 11:31 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Theodoric, posted 12-09-2010 9:04 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 252 of 296 (595684)
12-09-2010 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Theodoric
12-09-2010 9:04 PM


Re: splain please
Theodoric writes:
What does this mumbo-jumbo even mean?
The only example we have of someone being resurrected is Jesus. The gospel accounts indicate that there were things about the physicality of Jesus that were different after he was resurrected.
AbE Just to add to this. It is my understanding of scripture that God created heaven and earth as separate dimensions, (universes or whatever),and at the end of time all of creation, heaven and earth will be joined together into one. In light of this I also assumme our resurrected physical bodies will be adapted for our new way of life.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Theodoric, posted 12-09-2010 9:04 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 261 of 296 (596510)
12-15-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Omnivorous
12-15-2010 11:16 AM


Re: What is 'science of the gaps'?
Omnivorous writes:
I have several times recently seen references to a "science of the gaps" argument. I recognize the turnabout charm of amending the "god of the gaps" charge, but I can't quite grasp the sense of it.
Otto made the following statement.
quote:
If someone had their science 100% accurate, they would have no need for theology
On other words given sufficient information he believes that science can give a material or naturalistic answer to all of the big questions.
That is an issue of faith. I believe that science will never be able to provide a satisfactory answer for our ability to think altruistically. I believe the answer lies outside the materialistic world. That is a matter of faith and if I were to make that argument I would be guilty of making a 'god of the gaps' argument.
Otto is stating that science can provide the answer to questions such as why we can think altruistically. He believes that there is a material answer. That is a matter of faith at this point and so I consider that he is using a 'science of the gaps' argument.
I'm not suggesting that science should stop looking for answers to those questions but the point is that, although there are theoretical explanations to many of the big questions, there is no scientific answer. Maybe there will be some day and maybe there won't.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Omnivorous, posted 12-15-2010 11:16 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by nwr, posted 12-15-2010 12:11 PM GDR has replied
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 12-15-2010 12:16 PM GDR has replied
 Message 265 by Omnivorous, posted 12-15-2010 2:41 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 266 of 296 (596552)
12-15-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Omnivorous
12-15-2010 2:41 PM


Re: What is 'science of the gaps'?
Omnivorous writes:
As I noted in my prior post, I don't think that's what Otto means. Let's review your exchange on this.
Maybe, but when Otto says
quote:
If someone had their science 100% accurate, they would have no need for theology
I take from that an assumption that science given enough time, could conceivably provide all the answers. As science is a study of the natural world I conclude that Otto is suggesting that there is nothing beyond the material world.
The belief in a completely materialistic or natural world is as much a matter of faith as is my belief in something beyond the natural.
So when Otto makes the statement that there is a scientific answer for altruism, as an example, I see him as defaulting to a position of "science of the gaps". If I were to make an argument that science has been unable to make a definitive case for why we have the ability to behave altruistically therefore science has nothing to say about it and that it must be god or gods, then I would agree that I could be accused of a 'god of the gaps' argument. It works both ways.
Having said that I absolutely agree that science should go on searching for all the answers it ca. Personally I see science as a form of theology in that I think that we can learn about God by studying what I believe He has created, and if science finds a definitive way that the ability to behave altruistically I'll be the first to say well done.
Omnivorous writes:
Expecting scientific labor to be fruitful is reasonable based on past performance.
Science does fill gaps--gaps in understanding, gaps in nutrition, gaps in medical care: theology has never revolutionized our evidence-based understanding of the natural world, never filled an empty belly and never advanced new cures for the sick.
I agree that science has done in many cases a great job of those things. It is my belief though that the motivation to accomplish those things comes from more than just a strictly materialistic world.
Omnivorous writes:
As you can see, I find the attempt to turn the "of the gaps" accusation against science repugnant, somehow making a liability of what science seeks to do and has done so spectacularly well.
What I said was in no way an attack against science. It was strictly a comment on the legitimate beliefs of Otto.
I also think that science has done spectacularly well and frankly it has help shape what I believe theologically, including what I believe about eternal life.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Omnivorous, posted 12-15-2010 2:41 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Omnivorous, posted 12-15-2010 11:21 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 267 of 296 (596553)
12-15-2010 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by ringo
12-15-2010 12:16 PM


Re: What is 'science of the gaps'?
ringo writes:
The difference is that religion retreats into the gaps. Science advances toward the gaps.
Well put. I have no problem with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 12-15-2010 12:16 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 268 of 296 (596555)
12-15-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by nwr
12-15-2010 12:11 PM


Re: What is 'science of the gaps'?
nwr writes:
Scientists who say that they have no need for theology are mostly not saying that science has answers to all of the big questions.
I agree, but I interpreted Otto as saying that science if 100% complete would answer all the big questions.
nwr writes:
They are only saying that theology doesn't have answers - or at least doesn't have real answers.
I agree with jar. Theology has answers that in most cases can't be proven scientifically. The answers may be right or they may be wrong. Beliefs that are theological or philosophical are believed on a different basis than are things that are believed scientifically.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by nwr, posted 12-15-2010 12:11 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 278 of 296 (596691)
12-16-2010 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Omnivorous
12-15-2010 11:21 PM


Re: What is 'science of the gaps'?
Omnivorous writes:
I disagree. A rational man starting without preconceived notions would soon believe in the natural world he inhabits. Whether or not he concludes there is an unseen world, he can see that the natural world's existence is indisputable; he can see that the natural world operates by laws that have applied for time out of mind without exception; he can see that claims about exceptions to those natural laws, religious or otherwise, evaporate under the light of close scrutiny. He can see no ready evidence for any other, unseen world. He considers the above, and posits that there is no world but the natural one, and science is its handmaiden. He has observed clearly and reasoned well to determine that "it's only natural" is a strong, evidence-based theory.
I disagree. Of course we can look at the natural world and see that the "natural world operates by laws", but that begs the question of; 'who is the law-giver'. It always seems to me that the fact that natural laws exist make the existence of a law-giver more probable than the belief that there isn't one. (JMHO ) If there then is a law-giver, it would make sense that that law-giver would have the ability to suspend the laws.
Mind you, I don't see miracles in quite that way anyway. Personally I look as the miraculous as being a case of God's dimension interacting with our own. In other words, if we could perceive all of reality, what we now call miracles we wouldn't perceive as miracles at all.
Omnivorous writes:
However, the two grounds of belief are radically different. Evolutionists and scientists in general may sometimes wax so in support of their theories that it sounds like faith, but it isn't--and, I think, with a moment's reflection, it clearly isn't.
Continuing to claim that scientific theories are actually articles of faith isn't going to further the conversation.
I didn't mean to imply that. I agree scientific theories are not a statement of faith. However, when scientists make claims about things that are outside the purview of science, such as that the material world is all that there is and that there is no external intelligence, then that is a statement of faith and not a scientific theory. I think that this is what Otto did, which is why I used the term "science of the gaps" which is not meant in any way to denigrate science or scientists.
Edited by GDR, : emoticon
Edited by GDR, : typos

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Omnivorous, posted 12-15-2010 11:21 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Omnivorous, posted 12-16-2010 7:57 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 280 of 296 (596786)
12-16-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Omnivorous
12-16-2010 7:57 PM


Re: What is 'science of the gaps'?
Omnivorous writes:
You know the drill: If I must look behind the curtain for the operator of this world, I must imagine the curtained rooms may recede forever. It's like spelling Mississippi--hard to know when to stop.
Love your writing style. Actually the concept is pretty simple. Didn't you see the "Wizard of OZ"? There was just one operator and one curtained room. Simple eh?
Omnivorous writes:
Well, I'm glad you did not mean to denigrate scientists. They are a wolfish lot, and would no doubt have poked holes in your pocket protector and packed it with leaking pens. Their depravity knows no bounds.
I thought that scientists were the only ones to use pocket protectors. Why would you even suspect I would have such a thing?
Omnivorous writes:
So a scientific theory is not a science of the gaps argument, but a scientist's opinion about a spiritual realm is? Then is your expression of faith in an unseen world also automatically a "god of the gaps" argument because you can offer no evidence?
Good one. I had to sit back and ponder on that. I think that in a sense theological opinions are not unlike scientific theories with the difference being that there is no empirical test for things theological.
I would use the term 'science of the gaps' in a case where an individual attempts to use their science to argue for an atheistic position as opposed to someone who just makes the statement that there is no god as a statement of belief.
I think that Dawkins’ memes would be an example of that. No one has ever seen a meme, or found mathematical evidence for a meme. Dawkins came up with memes as an argument against theism with no scientific evidence, yet with the implication that memes have a scientific basis. It is one thing for someone to say that our moral code comes from our socialization which is a statement of faith, in the same way as it is when I say that I believe our moral code comes from God, but it is something different entirely if someone suggests that their position comes from scientific knowledge.
Another example might be abiogenesis. Let's say that tomorrow some brilliant scientist comes up with a solution for how the first cell was formed. That's fine as far as it goes, but if he then uses this discovery to start making a case for why abiogenesis occurred, I would then say that he has gone beyond science and is using his/her science to fill in the gap for which he/she has no evidence.
Omnivorous writes:
At first blush, you seem to be saying that should an elderly scientist, say, reflect on his life's work and conclude, "You know, I can't prove it, but I think this world is probably all there is," he's making a "science of the gaps" argument.
No, he is just making a statement of belief.
Omnivorous writes:
I assume the scientifically illiterate atheist then is constitutionally incapable of making a "science of the gaps" argument when he states his native disbelief. I drew my own atheistic conclusions at age 10, and science played no role. Once I learned a good deal more about science, did my statement of disbelief then become a "science of the gaps" argument?
No, for the same reason
Omnivorous writes:
I can't think that is what you mean. Do you mean that an attempt to use science's popular authority to discredit the possibility of a spiritual realm is guilty of a science of the gaps argument? I can see your point, and even agree, if so, but for the most part even atheist scientists tend to limit themselves to observing that we don't need God to account for phenomena in the natural world.
I believe Dawkins does it and I think that Hawking recently did, although I haven't read that most recent book.
Omnivorous writes:
Some among them will note that they see no reason to believe in something for which there is neither evidence nor necessity. But very, very few, if any, would go on to say that science shows--or ever could show--there is no God.
There seem to be a number that hold to the idea that because there is no empirical evidence for any external intelligence that the obvious conclusion is that we should believe that such an intelligence doesn't exist.
Omnivorous writes:
I tell you than I am an atheist; there is no god, only this marvelous universe. Eventually, I say, as our knowledge and understanding grow, we will cast aside gods altogether the way we long ago discarded human sacrifices and temple prostitutes.
Was that a science of the gaps argument?
That is your belief or opinion. My belief/opinion is that as our knowledge and understanding grow we will continue to learn more and more about the one who created us.
Omnivorous writes:
You disagree. You tell me that your faith in God is strong, and you are certain that a spiritual realm exists. Science is great, but it can have nothing to say about the existence of God.
Was that a god of the gaps argument?
No. It's faith. As to the last part, although I don't think that science can empirically prove the existence of God, I do think that we should use the results of our science to help construct our theological views.
Omnivorous writes:
Well, I reply, that is so. On the other hand, science has failed to detect Him, despite concerted attempts to see all that can be seen around us. I can provide no proof of God's nonexistence, but there is certainly no evidence to the contrary. I trace religion's roots back to the superstitions of hunter/gatherer groups and tribes; I note the staggering array of religious beliefs, both between and within religions. I conclude, then, that considering the complete lack of positive evidence, the known primitive origins of religious belief, and the lack of any unity among God's proponents on earth, that the hypothesis that there is no world but this one is reasonable. That is my scientific hypothesis until a better one comes along or God pulls back the curtain.
Am I guilty of a "science of the gaps" argument here?
No because you are agreeing that science can't disprove the existence of god and you are forming an opinion based on what you know.
I'll try another angle. It seems to me that theists are expected to argue with one hand tied behind their back. If I were to say that the fact that there is no scientific evidence for abiogenesis is evidence for an intelligent designer I would be accused of using a 'god of the gaps' argument, and an atheist can just say that it is simply that science hasn't yet discovered the answer, and that answer seems to get a free ride.
Omnivorous writes:
So Mary, quantum mechanic extraordinaire, at her first interview after winning the Nobel Prize, responds to her interviewer's query by saying that, no, she isn't religious at all; in fact, it is her firm belief that there is but one world, and this is it. Lately, she finds that the deeper she looks into the structure of the universe, the more certain she becomes. God is a hangover of our social evolutionary past, and the sooner we toss Him off the sleigh, the better.
Did Mary, QME, make a science of the gaps argument?
Would you want to characterize her statements as tenets of faith?
I get your point but in this case I'd say yes. She is essentially saying that science is doing away with the possibility of the existence of a god(s).
I know that atheists get upset when you talk about their beliefs as faith but as for your last question I would say yes.
I gotta say I love your insights and writing style. I'd love to sit down over a beer with you. Incidentally, my wife was born in Hartford, although she grew up in Boston. I eventually rescued her and brought her safely up to Canada.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Omnivorous, posted 12-16-2010 7:57 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Omnivorous, posted 12-16-2010 10:12 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 283 by Omnivorous, posted 12-18-2010 5:24 PM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024