Forums | MacLife

jerwin wrote:

Let's look at this another way.

How far can a science be practiced before it infringes upon a religious belief?
...
ID limits the scope of biological inquiry. It expands the scope of theology.

I gotta disagree with you here- I think ID limits theology to a special conception of God and the universe and everything. Its not only bad science, its bad theology. Honestly, I dont think science in and of itself EVER steps on God's toes or infringes on religious belief writ large (maybe some brand of religion's specific beliefs might get disproven IF those beliefs are specifically about material claims).

robco wrote:

There are things science cannot currently explain. It depends on whether one wants to default to "god" or other supernatural explanations, or is simply content with "I don't know". It isn't necessary to fill in the gaps in scientific knowledge with deity. Just because there isn't a rational explanation for something doesn't mean there isn't one. There are many things thought to be mysterious and beyond human comprehension that are now easily understood.

What robco just wrote reflects the WORST idea ever presented to the masses by religion- that God is only a useful concept in explaining (usually) material gaps in our accounts.

I think the frame needs to be expanded greatly. People keep assuming that when science explains one feature or another as working or behaving in one way or another that it means God must not be there doing it. But why restrict God to this worker bee mentality? How about the reason for it even being possible that such features exist is because God made it so? God is the Creator, the one who purposes everything- not a God of the gaps between everyday things mankind cant quite figure out yet.

Last edited by StaticAge (2008-07-08 9:03 am)

agedgruel wrote:

Albert Einstein wrote:

God does not 'play dice' with the universe

He's right but what he neglects mention is God does play poker with the Universe.

Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett wrote:

God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players,* to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.

StaticAge wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Let's look at this another way.

How far can a science be practiced before it infringes upon a religious belief?
...
ID limits the scope of biological inquiry. It expands the scope of theology.

I gotta disagree with you here- I think ID limits theology to a special conception of God and the universe and everything.

David Hume wrote:

Here I could observe, Hermippus, that Philo was a little embarrassed and confounded: but while he hesitated in delivering an answer, luckily for him, Demea broke in upon the discourse, and saved his countenance.

Your instance, Cleanthes, said he, drawn from books and language, being familiar, has, I confess, so much more force on that account: but is there not some danger too in this very circumstance; and may it not render us presumptuous, by making us imagine we comprehend the Deity, and have some adequate idea of his nature and attributes? When I read a volume, I enter into the mind and intention of the author: I become him, in a manner, for the instant; and have an immediate feeling and conception of those ideas which revolved in his imagination while employed in that composition. But so near an approach we never surely can make to the Deity. His ways are not our ways. His attributes are perfect, but incomprehensible. And this volume of nature contains a great and inexplicable riddle, more than any intelligible discourse or reasoning.

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

jerwin wrote:

David Hume wrote:

Here I could observe, Hermippus, that Philo was a little embarrassed and confounded: but while he hesitated in delivering an answer, luckily for him, Demea broke in upon the discourse, and saved his countenance.

Your instance, Cleanthes, said he, drawn from books and language, being familiar, has, I confess, so much more force on that account: but is there not some danger too in this very circumstance; and may it not render us presumptuous, by making us imagine we comprehend the Deity, and have some adequate idea of his nature and attributes? When I read a volume, I enter into the mind and intention of the author: I become him, in a manner, for the instant; and have an immediate feeling and conception of those ideas which revolved in his imagination while employed in that composition. But so near an approach we never surely can make to the Deity. His ways are not our ways. His attributes are perfect, but incomprehensible. And this volume of nature contains a great and inexplicable riddle, more than any intelligible discourse or reasoning.

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

As far as science is concerned, thats probably a good way of looking upon it. Hume's great, all due respect to a great thinker, but even in that bit of dialogue, he gives a sort of mystic reason to invoke deity- that the reason we shouldnt jump the gun to use god as explanation is that he is incomprehensible and unapproachable. I mean, I get his drift, but thats entirely not how I feel. (But of course, those are religious reasons!)

Basically I think people who look for evidence of miracles or spirit are bound to be disappointed if they preconceive that evidence of needing to fill certain imagined manifestations. Vitalism is a great way of illustrating the point- they imagined vitalism as being a kind of spiritual non-organic sort of stuff that could nonetheless still be discovered- thats really wacky if you think about it.* And yet even after the fact that this form of "vitalism" is disproven, science still doesnt really have a conclusive formal definition of exactly what life "is," although they have a pretty solid understanding of how its mechanics work.


*"what you do not smell or taste is iocaine powder..."

Last edited by StaticAge (2008-07-08 10:48 am)

But I do think there is enough to completely debunk the notion of a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Perhaps - though there is not enough to say that all life on earth evolved from single celled organisms that magically spontaneously generated.

Parts of the Genesis story were certainly never intended to be literal - the serpent eating the dust of the earth is clearly allegory. The OT (and modern) concept of death decaying to dust can not be reasonably denied. The rest of the creation story may also have been allegory, it would not surprise me one bit.

I do however believe though that the only way life could have possibly evolved from proto life to elephants is if there was an intentional intelligent design behind such an evolution, and then I have to wonder what the purpose of such evolution served.

Evolution on the scale we can actually see with our fruit flies and bacteria does serve a purpose - it allows life to adapt to a world that undergoes changes (such as global warming and global cooling) beyond what genetic variety in the species can compensate for.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Perhaps - though there is not enough to say that all life on earth evolved from single celled organisms that magically spontaneously generated.

Do you see the irony in you sarcastically referring to something having occurred "magically?"

Its kind of funny that the only answers science gives about origin is that something comes from nothing, with no purpose, by accident.

Most people grow up expecting rational answers to add on to a sense of purpose and that the world is supposed to be meaningful in some way. For religious persons, God is a great explanation that adds up in that way, it is a satisfying answer, and evolution doesnt just clash with some doctrine, but with their common sense of how the universe is supposed to be.

And its exactly reversed if you already dont believe in God.

"Magically" is all in how you see it.

bratboy wrote:

That doesn't seem accurate..."from nothing" and "by accident?"

I'm not religious, but I certainly don't view the evolution of life as being something without "purpose" or somehow out of step with the ways of the universe. 

I still don't understand the desire to reject evolution for these reasons....it doesn't rule out a "creator" or "purpose" whatsoever.

I was just trying to offer another perspective, like I said, if you already dont believe in that kind of worldview, you may not find the concepts too disappointing, but many do find them that way and it isnt just some sick attachment to dogma, but a clash of their sense of meaning and purpose.

And yes, nothing and accident- maybe not "nothing," but the singularity which the big bang started from wasnt really an easily grasped "something" either. And accidental in being unforeseen, unplanned, lacking intention, unwilled, non-purposed.

Last edited by StaticAge (2008-07-09 9:16 am)

Is there something wrong with desiring purpose? What is the difference between having a sense of purpose and desiring meaning or purpose?

I wasnt arguing that accidental is wrong, I was saying one's reaction to that explanation is understandable.

Last edited by StaticAge (2008-07-09 9:33 am)

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Perhaps - though there is not enough to say that all life on earth evolved from single celled organisms that magically spontaneously generated.

Do you see the irony in you sarcastically referring to something having occurred "magically?"

No, I don't.
I have an answer for how the laws of nature can be violated.

I'm just not buying your explanation.

For religious persons, God is a great explanation that adds up in that way, it is a satisfying answer, and evolution doesnt just clash with some doctrine, but with their common sense of how the universe is supposed to be.

Could god have not 'gotten the ball rolling' within the bounds of the laws of nature?  It seems that the need some feel to reject this relates directly to "doctrine."

...so we're talking about some specific spectrum of individuals that reject the theory of evolution because they simply 'don't trust it' but not due to the fact that they believe in an incompatible religious story of creation?

StaticAge wrote:

Why cant they be people who both think creation appeals to their common sense and a sense of distrust towards the science which is also incompatible with it? Why must they lack complexity and just be dull easy categories?

You keep implying that I'm attempting to paint such people as 'lacking complexity' or 'bumpkins' or whatever, but my point has been that evolution is not incompatible with religious belief generally and that those who find such inconsistency do so for doctrinal reasons.

It's not the same thing as "intelligent design."  ID attempts to argue through "scientific" reasoning that evolution could not have occurred without a creator.