Reflections on God vs. Science - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-17-2006, 09:20 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Reflections on God vs. Science

The following is my reflections on the November 13 cover story of TIME magazine, an article entitled “God vs. Science”. The feature is “a spirited debate between atheist biologist Richard Dawkins and Christian geneticist Francis Collins.”

Be warned. . .it is long. But even if you don’t read it all, I hope you’ll find at least some of it interesting and thought provoking, and I welcome your feed back on it.

Perhaps the solution to the God vs. Science debate boils down to two things: Humility and personal experience.


First, humility. A lot of the discord when science and religion tangle is the result of a natural lack of humility. No one wants to admit he or she is wrong, yet both the believer and the atheist must put aside pride for faith and science to reconcile. It’s as simple—and as difficult—as this: when a believer encounters scientific discoveries that seem to contradict his current religious understanding, he should reevaluate his current understanding. This does not mean abandoning faith completely or even in part. In fact, it’s the complete opposite. The humble response is: “Wow, obviously I thought I had God figured out, but clearly I don’t because here’s this scientific finding that contradicts what I thought I knew.” Unfortunately, the faithful are often far too certain of their understanding of God, of Scripture, of religious Truth to reconsider long-revered beliefs, so they insist that “No, the Bible says that the earth is the center of the universe” finally relenting long after everyone else has accepted the new scientific finding. Today even the most fundamentalist of believers have no problem seeing that the Bible does NOT say that the sun revolves the earth and easily read texts that suggests otherwise as being either metaphorical or representing the knowledge of the Biblical writer at the time.

This problem is particularly evident when certain religious “truths” aren’t even shared by all religions. For example, the TIME article says: “Brain imaging illustrates the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of the glands and gristle.” Well, the thing is, not all religions teach that the soul is independent of the glands and gristle. My church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, for example, believes that the Bible teaches that there is no division between body and spirit. We believe that most other Christians are mistaken in their understanding of what scripture teaches about the soul. So such scientific discoveries cause barely a ripple in our understanding of our faith, and if anything confirm our belief. However, I can promise you there are many Christians who will resist tooth and nail such a “radical” concept as the non-existance of “the immortal soul”, rather than re-evaluate it, and think perhaps they’ve read the Bible wrong.

The problem is not that God has failed to match the scientific evidence. The problem is that our understanding of God has failed to match the scientific evidence. Dawkins says that a true scientist says “We’re working on it. We’re struggling to understand.” I think the faithful would do well to say the same thing more often.

Arrogance born out of a need for certainty, an insecurity about being “unsure” is a human trait, and is not limited solely to the believer. The atheist has essentially the same problem. The atheist when encountering something of a religious or “supernatural” nature will automatically dismiss the possibility of God. Wouldn’t it be reasonable—and humble-- to conclude that God MIGHT exist in the realm of science that we do not yet understand. One of the first things Dawkins says is: “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that is a scientific question.” But here’s the thing: It’s NOT a scientific question. By its very definition, science can not address the supernatural. Science is, at its core, about the “natural”—that which can be observed, measured, tested and retested, that which can be assessed with the senses. The supernatural, by definition, exists outside of the realm of what can be observed, measured, tested and retested, it is “the evidence of things not seen”, and thus science cannot address it. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m certain that all spiritual or supernatural things actually have a rational, scientific explanation, but those things, which, FOR NOW, science can’t explain, science cannot dismiss. At the present time, science is ill-equipped to answer the “why” questions. Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Why do good things happen to bad people and vice versa? Or as Collins asks: “Do humans have more moral significance than cows?” Here is where faith speaks to morality. Many atheists make the mistake of thinking that religious people need God to tell them what’s right and what’s wrong. I don’t it’s so much that as it is that faith provides a PURPOSE in morality. Dawkins raised a fascinating implication about altruism when viewed from a materialistic, non-spiritual point of view. He says that “altruism is rooted in our prehistoric past, we would have lived in extended families , surrounded by kin whose interests we might have wanted to promote because they shared our genes. Now we live in big cities. We are not among kin nor people who will ever reciprocate our good deeds. . .it doesn’t cross our mind that the reason for do-gooding is based on the fact that our primitive ancestors lived in small groups.” It would seem that Dawkins is implying that altruism is the moral equivalent of the appendix. An evolutionary left-over, now useless. Which, if you’re a materialist, raises the question of whether altruism will eventually disappear from the human species since it is no longer necessary.

The atheist scientist simply says there is no why, there is no “purpose”—beyond reproducing your species--and ends the discussion there. Science cannot address it, so it must not be real, it must not exist. But humanity seems to show little sign of being able to live without contemplating the whys and as long as we do, faith will continue to thrive. Like Collins most of us ARE interested in the “whys”.

The second key to reconciling faith and science has to do with accepting something that neither believer or unbeliever wants to deal with: the reality, as I see it, is that whether we choose to believe or not has very much to do with the subjective, with personal experience, with what we want to believe. This stings our pride, insults our sense that we’re able to be objective, to see ourselves as “we really are” But nonetheless it is this subjective experience that helps us decide what is most plausible, what is reasonable to accept. This was particularly evident in the exchange between Dawkins and Collins, as both scientists traded accusations of implausibility:

Collins: “When you look at the evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you’re willing to consider the possibility of a designer this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is other wise an exceedingly improbable event.”

“I actually find the argument of the existence of a God who did the planning more compelling.”

Dawkins: “But that God himself would be even more improbable [than a universe that came into being by chance]”

“What I can’t understand is why you invoke improbability and you will not admit that you’re shooting yourself in the foot by postulating something just as improbable, magicking into existence the word God.”

Here we have two learned men, incredibly brilliant and talented scientists, looking at the same evidence and yet they cannot agree which is more implausible: A Creator God or a random universe. So what is the difference? What causes one man to swing one way, the other to conclude the opposite?

The answer is personal experience. And again both sides seem loathe to admit the impact this has both on their own thinking and on that of their opponents. Collins lets the cat out of the bag when he replies to Dawkin’s challenge from the quote above: “My God is not improbable to me.” That says it all. “My God”. . .”to me”. This is a man who has a personal experience with God. It is his sense of God speaking to his heart, guiding in his life, providing him with a richer and fuller experience than he’s ever known, that causes him to see a Creator as the far more plausible explanation. And that personal experience has all the more weight for him because he wasn’t always a believer. He can’t write it off as “having been socialized by a religious family” or “just kidding myself into believing stuff I’d been taught.” No, there was a time when he didn’t believe until God cracked into his world, and became real to him. I find life-long atheists really have a hard time understanding the experience of believers on this point. They apply their own perspective on faith to believers. “How can you believe in some book written by a bunch of dead people 2000 years ago?” “How can you believe in some magic Guy in the Sky.” They have no concept of how intense, how personal, how REAL the relationship of a believer to his or her God (or gods, or spiritual energy etc) is. When a believer is asked to dismiss the idea of a Creator as implausible you’re also asking him or her to dismiss their own experience as implausible as well, and not many people are that devoted to that level “objectivity” outside of the lab.

Atheists on the other hand do not have any personal experience with God. Perhaps at one point they did—if they were once believers, but at some point the well dried up. The prayers just seemed to bounce off the ceiling. No one answered. What they saw was a lot of people manipulating religion and spirituality. But God was nowhere to be found. So for the atheist, a random universe is infinitely more probable than a Creator that has failed to show up in their personal lives When an atheist is asked to accept the idea of a Creator as plausible you’re also asking him or her to dismiss their own experience as implausible, and not many people are that devoted to that level “objectivity” outside of the lab.

The two men come close to common ground, before dancing away again, when TIME asked:

“Could the answer be God?” [In reference to the inexplicable or unknowable]
Dawkins: “There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.”
Collins: “That’s God.”

I’ve yet to find an atheist who really wants to believe in God, but can’t nor a believer who really doesn’t want to believe, yet must. None of us can claim complete objectivity. All of us are bound to some degree but what we have or have not subjectively experienced.

I’d like to conclude my reflections with my favorite quote from the article, which ironically was by Dawkins, the atheist: “If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.”

The Bible says essentially the same thing. “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard. . .” “My ways are not your ways, My thoughts are not your thoughts. . .”

At this place, I think both science and faith can rest.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-17-2006, 01:50 PM   #2
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:58 AM
You say you'd "welcome feedback"--which to me suggests that you perhaps intended this as something more than a thread/discussion-starter or a journal entry? It reads almost like something that's meant to be read aloud, actually. Anyhow, based on that assumption I'm going to reply as if you wanted "feedback" on an actual composition--not so much as if you were looking to start an FYM discussion. Hope this doesn't wind up making me look like a complete eejit...lol.

In addition to reflections on the TIME article, I can see where this is bringing together various points you've addressed in earlier FYM posts. The closing section on personal experience is especially clear and pleasing to read. A few things that gave me pause from other sections:
Quote:
This problem is particularly evident when certain religious “truths” aren’t even shared by all religions...not all religions teach that the soul is independent of the glands and gristle. My church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, for example, believes that...However, I can promise you there are many Christians who will resist tooth and nail such a “radical” concept...and think perhaps they’ve read the Bible wrong.
Perhaps it's just my background, but to me your opening sentence here sets up an expectation that you're about to provide an example from "another" religion as conventionally understood...that you're about to cite some point from Hindu or Islamic thought, say. Instead, your example comes from what an average reader would most likely see as a sect within Christianity, discussing a distinctly Christian doctrine (the soul) and linking it in turn to a reading of a distinctly Christian text (the Bible).
Quote:
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m certain that all spiritual or supernatural things actually have a rational, scientific explanation, but those things, which, FOR NOW, science can’t explain, science cannot dismiss.
To my ear this is a rather startling statement, and probably worth elaborating on a bit--especially since it seems to contradict your assertion immediately preceding it. Do you really mean that all spiritual things have a rational explanation--for example, that in principle God is a "thing" with properties which might be measured and observed, if we only had the proper equipment? If you do choose to elaborate on this point, it might be interesting to bring it into dialogue with Dawkins' critique that Collins is simply answering improbability with further improbability.
Quote:
At the present time, science is ill-equipped to answer the “why” questions....Here is where faith speaks to morality...I don’t it’s so much that as it is that faith provides a PURPOSE in morality. Dawkins raised a fascinating implication about altruism when viewed from a materialistic, non-spiritual point of view...Which, if you’re a materialist, raises the question of whether altruism will eventually disappear from the human species since it is no longer necessary...But humanity seems to show little sign of being able to live without contemplating the whys and as long as we do, faith will continue to thrive. Like Collins most of us ARE interested in the “whys”.
This almost reads like a separate, third point in your "God vs. Science" debate. I can somewhat see why you've placed it under "humility" instead, but not completely; it feels to me like there's a transition missing here, something to indicate how and why you chose to segue from the natural/supernatural distinction to the issues of purpose and morality. In addition to that, purpose (why are we here?) and morality (what is right and wrong?) are themselves distinct enough concepts that you should probably also briefly indicate how and why the latter ties into and complements the former from your perspective.

It's neither here nor there as far as what you've written, but I found Dawkins' evolutionary perspective on altruism here to be suprisingly crude. There's a lot of evolutionary psychology and primatology research that's been done on altruistic behavior, and most of it is far more nuanced and sophisticated than this. But, I haven't seen this TIME article and don't know the context in which he brought this particular hypothesis up, so...
--------------------------------------------
Other than that, there's a few very minor usage points I could harp on and so forth, but since I'm unclear as to quite what you intended this post for, I'll pass on that. I really enjoyed reading this!
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 11-17-2006, 09:19 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:58 AM
Interesting that you are a Seventh Day Adventist. I have Seventh Day Adventists in my family as one of my aunts married one, became one herself and raised four children in the faith. They're great people.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-17-2006, 11:55 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:58 AM
I don't think so, I was never raised with faith and I have no need for it, furthurmore I see no reason to entertain the idea of God in the absence of any evidence towards the existence of a deity; if I put all the evidence of the universe that we have now on the table there is nothing to even make me think a higher power is responsible; now probability, that is observed in the universe - we describe subatomic particles with quantum mechanics, a theoretical framework that is probabilistic - investigation into the nature of reality with science must be built on evidence, hypothesis, testing and ultimately theory - I think God fails on every count; there is an absence of evidence, the deity cannot be tested and is discounted theoretically because most theories of God (religions) are unfalsifiable.

There is no need to introduce the idea of God and when people spout sentimental about love they should just use that word rather than mix up words.

As for reciprocal altruism in human beings I say that the social nature of humanity is founded from such mammalian instincs, we take it to the next level and all of our commerce, communications technology and politics is a function of it; far from dissapearing altruism in human beings is even more important today, it underpins social networks.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 05:19 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
You say you'd "welcome feedback"--which to me suggests that you perhaps intended this as something more than a thread/discussion-starter or a journal entry? It reads almost like something that's meant to be read aloud, actually. Anyhow, based on that assumption I'm going to reply as if you wanted "feedback" on an actual composition--not so much as if you were looking to start an FYM discussion. Hope this doesn't wind up making me look like a complete eejit...lol.

Well, it wasn't really mean't to be more than just an ordinary discussion starter. I suppose it was a little self-indulgent of me to post such a giant, meandering post (much of which was written as the hour was getting late and it was getting hard to organize my thoughts. It probably could use some serious editing. . .). If this was an abuse of the proper use of FYM, I humbly apologize. Certainly I'm amazed at those who took the time to slog through the whole thing. . .Perhaps it would have been better as a journal entry. But I wanted to know what some of the FYM regulars might think of it. . .so there it is.

Needless to say, if anyone should look like a "complete eejit" it would be me, not you.

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
In addition to reflections on the TIME article, I can see where this is bringing together various points you've addressed in earlier FYM posts. The closing section on personal experience is especially clear and pleasing to read. A few things that gave me pause from other sections:

Perhaps it's just my background, but to me your opening sentence here sets up an expectation that you're about to provide an example from "another" religion as conventionally understood...that you're about to cite some point from Hindu or Islamic thought, say. Instead, your example comes from what an average reader would most likely see as a sect within Christianity, discussing a distinctly Christian doctrine (the soul) and linking it in turn to a reading of a distinctly Christian text (the Bible).

Yeah. I reposted this today on my religion blog www.movingfaith.blogspot.com, and I tried to clarify that. I can see how it is misleading and perhaps comes off as a bit parochial.

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
To my ear this is a rather startling statement, and probably worth elaborating on a bit--especially since it seems to contradict your assertion immediately preceding it. Do you really mean that all spiritual things have a rational explanation--for example, that in principle God is a "thing" with properties which might be measured and observed, if we only had the proper equipment?


Yeah, I suppose I do. Perhaps, I'm truly a materialist at heart or something. I don't know. But I figure why wouldn't spiritual realities have properties that theoretically could be measured (though right now are completely inaccessible to the scientific method. . .unfalsifiable, as A_W says)? I think of the spiritual world as existing perhaps "in another dimension" (hope I'm not misusing that term) that does interact with ours but is undetectable at the present time with the capabilities that we have. I suppose things of a spiritual nature could be inherently completely outside of any kind of possible rational explanation which could be measured or observed, but I don't know why that HAS to be the case.

Not sure whether that really resolves the contradiction or not.

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
This almost reads like a separate, third point in your "God vs. Science" debate. I can somewhat see why you've placed it under "humility" instead, but not completely; it feels to me like there's a transition missing here, something to indicate how and why you chose to segue from the natural/supernatural distinction to the issues of purpose and morality. In addition to that, purpose (why are we here?) and morality (what is right and wrong?) are themselves distinct enough concepts that you should probably also briefly indicate how and why the latter ties into and complements the former from your perspective.


You are very much correct. It really should be a sperate thrid point. They don't really mesh well. I shouldn't have been so lazy about editing properly before posting. I feel very sheepish. . .

I think the connection between morality and purpose is that, at least for some people, the sense that there is a "purpose" or reason to life, is what motivates them to behave in a moral manner. This is not the same as saying "Oh, I only live a moral life because God will punish me if I don't/reward me if I do." It's more saying that many people, if there was no purpose to life, would find it more difficult to see why they should care about moral issues. "If none of it really "matters" why should I bother to care. It's an issue of morale, perhaps? During the hijacked atheist thread this summer, most of the atheist posters (with the notable exception of A_Wanderer) seemed to argue pretty fiercely for a "purpose" to life irregardless of God's existence. So I'd say even if you don't believe in God, the desire for life to have meaning remains pretty strong. I believe that for most people, whether they believe in God or not, it's the sense of purpose in life that gives people enough motivation to be moral.

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
It's neither here nor there as far as what you've written, but I found Dawkins' evolutionary perspective on altruism here to be suprisingly crude. There's a lot of evolutionary psychology and primatology research that's been done on altruistic behavior, and most of it is far more nuanced and sophisticated than this. But, I haven't seen this TIME article and don't know the context in which he brought this particular hypothesis up, so...
--------------------------------------------


Well, that could be my fault rather than Dawkins. It would probably be wise to check out the original article to make sure I haven't misrepresented his view. In a way perhaps I did misrepresent him, because he himself did not express the implication that I read into his understanding of the roots of altruism. I saw the implication there and raised the question, not Dawkins.


Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
Other than that, there's a few very minor usage points I could harp on and so forth, but since I'm unclear as to quite what you intended this post for, I'll pass on that.


Sorry about that. But I'll take solace in this:

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
I really enjoyed reading this!
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 05:43 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I don't think so,
You don't think so what?

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I was never raised with faith and I have no need for it, furthurmore I see no reason to entertain the idea of God in the absence of any evidence towards the existence of a deity; if I put all the evidence of the universe that we have now on the table there is nothing to even make me think a higher power is responsible;
Yes I chose not to elaborate on atheists who were NOT raised with faith (given how long the post was already). I felt it would be obvious that those raised without faith would not have any personal experience with God, so I chose to focus on atheists who might have once been believers.

In either case, you prove my point about personal experience quite well. You've made it quite clear that you've never had any kind of personal interaction with a god or anything else of a supernatural nature, so obviously the existance of such would seem highly implausible and unreasonable to you.

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
There is no need to introduce the idea of God and when people spout sentimental about love they should just use that word rather than mix up words.
It's also clear from this quote that you really can't wrap your mind around the experience of people who are believers. A believer does not perceive themselves as "introducing the idea of God." We are having an experience that's very real to us. Perhaps, you can understand it by thinking about the experience of someone with schizophrenia. What seems absurd to you is absolutely real to them. Only we believers don't respond so well to medication.


Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
As for reciprocal altruism in human beings I say that the social nature of humanity is founded from such mammalian instincs, we take it to the next level and all of our commerce, communications technology and politics is a function of it; far from dissapearing altruism in human beings is even more important today, it underpins social networks.
Well, I guess that answers that question. Obviously for my own reasons (having everything to do with faith, of course) I don't think altruism is going to disappear. And to be honest, I don't think Dawkins expects it to either. I was just wondering out loud about what of his theory of the origins of altruism MIGHT imply,and looking for someone to respond to that. You did so ably.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 05:52 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:58 AM
In terms of experience I too can feel that neck tingling euphoria and joy; the question is what it is ascribed to. Biologically I am the same and I feel all thats in the scope of existence like most - in terms of ascribing it to divine intervention I won't unless there is a proof or evidence. Given the choice between an unknown materialistic answer and divinity I think that pursuing proper investigation is the only sound option.

Belief involves faith and faith is acceptance without reason or cause; one mentality that has rarely led us down the right path. By path I am refering to the state of knowledge not a destiny, in a universe devoid of purpose and meaning then we are left to our own devices to give ourselves one.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 06:27 AM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

Belief involves faith and faith is acceptance without reason or cause;
False.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 06:50 AM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:58 AM
If it didn't involve those elements then it wouldn't really be faith, do people carry around proof of God?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 06:58 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
In terms of experience I too can feel that neck tingling euphoria and joy; the question is what it is ascribed to. ]



Like I say, you've not had any personal experience with the supernatural so it's hard for you to grasp. This experience of neck tingling euphoria and joy--(like when U2 kicks into "Where the Streets Have No Name"--I'll be in Japan next week! Whooohooo!!!!!!!! sorry, I got a little carried away) is not what I mean when I refer to a personal experience with God. Perhaps for some religions and for some branches of Christianity that may be the case--I can't speak for them. But for me, and for my experience with God such euphoria is rare. Euphoric feelings have occasionally been associated with spiritual things but I don't base the sum of my experience with God on that. That's typical of my denomination which is pretty cerebral as far as the worship experience goes. The ongoing conversation I have with my "invisible Friend" usually doesn't involve an excess of emotionalism.


Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
[BBelief involves faith and faith is acceptance without reason or cause; one mentality that has rarely led us down the right path. By path I am refering to the state of knowledge not a destiny
Well when it comes to making scientific progress I would agree that faith is not the appropriate path to take. Faith's purpose is not to advance scientific progress. But I don't think it needs to stand in the way either. It sure doesn't seem to be providing much of an obstacle to Francis Collins.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 07:33 AM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:58 AM
We have to also cast distinctions; beyond the nature of faith and subjective experience we are surrounded by evidence of reality, the universe. Now the idea of God generally rests on one of creation - taken to the literal level this means divine formation of all organisms, that is not the debate. The debate is between a universe designed to be condusive to humans and one chance arrangement.

Now chance should never be dismissed lightly, the universe itself is vast and there is the open question of what variations in physical laws and constants exist - in the entire series even the most improbable must occur in infinity an infinite ammount of times.

If the universe is infinite then it was never created, hence no need for a creator and no cause to be, Earth is a constantly appearing permutation of particles in existence that has existed in the past and will repeat elsewhere and in the future. If the the universe or specifically all that is (not to exclude higher dimensions) is finite then the question of creation can exist. In the interim we understand the physical laws in our universe and beyond a vague higher power without interference in our affairs then God seems improbable.

Another concequence of infinity is that God does exist, only God is a being bound by the phsical laws in that particular set of physical conditions; that is an interesting idea that deserves consideration.

Some of these questions may be knowable, the only way we can understand the limits of knowledge is to hit that wall. That is the domain of cosmologists and other physicists, that is the principle area of debate between these men; I do admire Dawkins for his commitment to reductionism however he can be a little too dogmatic in lieu of biological interactions above gene level, overall my views towards evolution are that it is the natural concequence of gene level changes acting at a variety of scales.

Goulds idea of seperate Magisteria between science and humanities posited that they were seperate domains that yielded answers only for their specific domain; but if we are dealing with questions of reality what role is there for the humanities in any objective facts.

So I am willing to accept the existence of God if it was allowed to exist in the physical world, whatever laws that portion of existence is governed by. I also think that those scales of reality, if they existed, could dwarf even that God being itself. I do not think that a God being has any influence in our reality nor the ability to influence anybody - it would be a being that for all intensive purposes does not exist.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 07:35 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
If it didn't involve those elements then it wouldn't really be faith, do people carry around proof of God?
Logic and reason can take you to edge of the cliff - then faith is required for one more step. However, just because one has faith doesn't negate all of the steps along the way that used logic and reason.

The proof, ultimately, is a transformed heart. It is something that is very difficult to explain to a non-believer.

C'mon on through to the other side - and then you'll understand
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 07:37 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer


If the universe is infinite then it was never created
Modern astrophysics disagree with you.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 07:49 AM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:58 AM
Modern astrophysics is a dogs breakfast, we have a universe that expanded too quickly and needs dark matter to fill in the gaps, we have paradoxical faster than light effects, we have theoretical explanations for the very small and the very large that cannot be reconciled. There are constantly new bits of evidence coming in and new theories being proposed and rejected or accepted.

Big bang theory does have a strong case and there is good cause for it to be the dominant paradigm but the gaps and anomolies (the interesting stuff) may reveal something else altogether. Then we can have cylcical models of the universe which also exist for an infinite timescale - just one type of model that has been proposed.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 08:15 AM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 01:58 AM
I have nothing to add.

A_Wanderer has said it all
__________________

__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com