False dilemma/'created dilemma'

As long as theistic conclusions have no bearing on physical empirical reality there is no real "dilemma" or conflict between religion and science. Notions of an intangible "higher purpose" or "meaning" to the universe and/or our existence in it have no real interraction or crossover with the conclusions of science. Science may even go as far as to suggest that such notions are an inevitable part of the psychology of being human BUT at the end of the day if such notions can be accepted despite this suggestion, if such notions can be accepted on the basis of faith alone, then it becomes more of a philosophical argument as to what one actually means by these things. Science has nothing much more to say on the matter.The more common problem arises when gods are used as explanations or starting points for for physical phenomenon. Phenomenon as diverse as the very physical idea of a global flood to the less tangible but still scientifically researchable motives and psychology of men. Not to forget the old favourites such as the formation of life, the nature of consciousness and the "creation" of the universe.When we start invoking gods or any other faith based answers to explain objectively investigatable questions such as the ones above conflict is pretty much inevitable. I genuinely believe that science in the widest sense is looking for answers that are objectively "true" with scant regard for any "culture war". It is true that individuals, and even whole scientific cultures, may temporarily get distracted from this purest of pursuits at times. Science is a human endevour after all and humans have desires that are all too seperate from the truth. But the inbuilt quality control and self correcting methods of science - prediction, verification, discovery etc. etc. etc. ensure that such lapses are temporary and that the false conclusions borne of such lapses are eventually exposed for what they are. The continual test of theory against reality is what makes science the powerful and successful tool that it is. I think that most religions believe themselves to already have most of the answers that they require and that the "culture war" that they are engaged in is in many cases their chief concern.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That is not exactly what I said and not really what I meant. What I meant was that scienctific investigation, as the result of being a human endevour, can at times be abused. Whether intentionally or otherwise. Whether consciously or otherwise. It is human nature to try to verify that which we subjectively believe or want to be true and nobody is immune from that all of the time.However - What I also said was that the very nature of scientific investigation applies methods and checks that will ultimately weed out those conclusions which are wrong as compared to reality no matter how much we may desire or believe those false conclusions to be true.That is the beauty or the horror of the scientific method depending on your point of view. Science is essentially a practical discipline. Whatever philosophy or logic may tells us is true regarding the natural world comes a distant second to the conclusions that we draw based on what reality dictates to be true. Ultimately the theory that best matches reality "wins". That is the essence of science.In this sense science is completely consistent because the methods of science have been demonstrated to work fantastically well in practise. Are you seriously going to dispute the success of science in allowing us to understand and even manipulate physical reality?Can theology, pure logic or pure philosophy claim any similar practical success? If not then they must be deemed inferior methods of discovering the nature physical reality as compared to empirical scientific investigation. If the root aim of science is to determine the nature of physical reality in a practical sense then by this criteria the ability of science to work in practise wholly validates it's own methods. If it comes down to philosophy Vs reality then I am afraid reality wins. Really? Can you explain why not as I think most people would strongly disagree with this apparently obviously false assertion. Prediction and verification in the form of discovery of new physical phenomenon are the hallmarks of of any truly scientific theory. Big Bang cosmology and evolution are two such monumentally well evidenced theories. Theories repeatedly tested against objective reality.Lacking these key ingredients and the best that we can hope to have is a well evidenced hypothesis. All too often even that standard is lacking and we have instead subjectively derived claims seeking justification by masquerading as scientifically valid conclusions.Creationism in all it's forms is a case in point.

Your posting style is somewhat difficult to respond to in a strictly logistical sense. A single block of text that includes no indication of the individual points you are addressing is not helpful. Have a click of the 'peek' button on better formatted messages to see how others format their posts. Then I feel that you are attributing me with a position that you would rather I had in place of the position that I actually do hold. If clarification of my position is required just ask.BUT my key point holds. Prediction and verification of newly discovered physical phenomenon will weed out those erroneous theories derived from subjective desire and belief as false and promote those theories that are true regardless of our beliefs, desires, wishes or world view bias.The test of nature is objective and ruthless. That is why it is so key to the scientific method. Man made climate change is not the topic here. We can discuss that in an appropraite thread if you so wish.However the test of theory against the reality of nature by means of prediction and verification remains the gold standard measure of any truly scientific theory. Evolution and the BB have passed these tests multiple times with flying colours.Can you say the same about whatever theories it is you are advocating? Nobody is disputing the role of logic, and thus philosophy of sorts, in science but without the test of nature as it's basis investigation of the natural world amounts to little more than voodoo with intellectual knobs on. A form of rationalised wishful thinking if you will.In strictly practical terms rationalism has been found to be an inferior method of investigation as compared to empirically evidenced conclusions tested against objective reality. On what basis is this "god" explanation scientifically, or even logically, valid or justified? Science is not about proof it is about superiority of theory.Whatever theory it is you are advocating needs to be able to match the established and demonstrable predictive and discovery power of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.If you are unable to do this then your theory must be deemed inferior, your position untenable, and whether you realise it or not, your argument refuted.So, tell me, whatever theory it is that you are proposing - What predictions has it made and what discoveries have resulted?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Erm Onifre's avatar is an image of the famous but now deceased comedian Bill Hicks.Onifre is probably of similar age to that which the picture suggests and is no doubt perfectly capable of speaking for himself (he is himself a professional comedian and a regular EvC contributor) but I thought I should let you know that the avatar is not him.......