Evolution

I admit there might be some nuance there I missed, but I will basically say I agree with you NC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

Yeah. Your point might be obscure to folks who haven't taken college level Calculus I, Physics I, and Basic Statistics, but those of us who have get the point. The radioctive decay of a large mass of radioactive atoms with a certain "half life" seems to be described by a simple antiderivative (integral) dt/t function. But this dosen't allow us to predict whether or not any one atom will decay while we are looking at it. For all we know, we can sit and watch that atom forever, and it might or might not decay without violating the general rule we've established to describe the behavior of a large population of these atoms. Am I getting this right so far?

---

Spot on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

I say, so what? It's apples and oranges. Science is full of these apparent mathematical versus experiential connundrums, especially when the science employs probabalistic versus descrete/finite mathematics to escribe "reality."

---

Right again.

In a nutshell, the small stuff seems to be largely irrelevant in reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

Mathematics is OK when we look at the decay of a group of uranium atoms, but doesn't help much when we look at just one.

---

While Nick Capozzoli addresses this matter well, there is more to be said. Although science can say nothing about the decay of a particular atom, no one can confidently exclude a scientific breakthrough, human or alien, a hundred or a billion years from now. Like Aristotle's long-revered solar system, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, for instance, may not be the last word. The mathematics of radioactive decay may eventually, in the distant future, address more that just the probabilistic.

While The Atheist may argue 'the small stuff seems to be largely irrelevant in reality', past breakthroughs relating to 'small stuff' have led to electricity, electronics and nuclear technology, which are far from irrelevant - and all this in a couple of centuries. Why would breakthroughs in millennia to come count for little?

Yeah, I believe the small stuff is going to be very important, actually.

That doesn't discredit what science has accomplished, and it of course doesn't mean at all that science won't have anything to do with the new things we learn. And, with any luck, there'll always be new stuff to figure out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

While The Atheist may argue 'the small stuff seems to be largely irrelevant in reality', past breakthroughs relating to 'small stuff' have led to electricity, electronics and nuclear technology, which are far from irrelevant - and all this in a couple of centuries. Why would breakthroughs in millennia to come count for little?

---

I don't mean small in size - nuclear fission & fusion and electricity are not what I'd class as small. I'm referring to quantum effects, which appear not to have an effect on everyday things, and the random decay of U238, again, hardly something which has a measurable effect on the world/universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

Yeah, I believe the small stuff is going to be very important, actually.

---

You could be right, but the consistency of physics in the universe measured against the incosistency of quantum mechanics tends to suggest the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

That doesn't discredit what science has accomplished, and it of course doesn't mean at all that science won't have anything to do with the new things we learn. And, with any luck, there'll always be new stuff to figure out.

---

You'd hope that discoveries just become part of science. If it works, we can measure and quantify it.

Isn't the real truth, that none of us know the real truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlaskaDan

Isn't the real truth, that none of us know the real truth?

---

Depends on how pedantic you are on the meaning of "true".

You could claim that you cannot prove 1+1=2 if you like. Technically, you'd be right, but in reality, it's pretty silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

No scientific theory can claim to be 'true' in the way that, maybe, God can.

---

Actually, you've got that backward. If God is "true," it's true in a way that's vastly different from the way we define "true" in any other context.

It's about approaches to knowledge. When we say we know humans and chimps have a common ancestor, or that the Earth orbits the Sun, we're affirming the validity of empirical evidential inquiry. We're saying that the process of hypothesizing and testing actually tells us reliable things about our universe.

However, saying we know God loves us affirms an approach to knowledge that's very different: we say these things out loud, but they can mean something different to each person who says them, if in fact they mean anything at all.

Regards,

Istvan

In point of fact it is very essential to discern a line between science and faith.
And evolution kind of completely revolutionizes everything and today it has reversed or uprooted our age old belief systems.

But the theory of evolution cannot answer every question that may crop up in our minds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

And evolution kind of completely revolutionizes everything and today it has reversed or uprooted our age old belief systems.

---

Philosopher Daniel Dennett says the validity of evolution by natural selection nullifies one of humanity's most cherished myths: that design presupposes a designing intelligence. The notion that a set of natural algorithms operating without foresight for billions of years produced the staggeringly complex wonders of Nature does away with our philosophical fetishes about will and intention.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

Philosopher Daniel Dennett says the validity of evolution by natural selection nullifies one of humanity's most cherished myths: that design presupposes a designing intelligence. The notion that a set of natural algorithms operating without foresight for billions of years produced the staggeringly complex wonders of Nature does away with our philosophical fetishes about will and intention.

---

Ah, the contentious topic of Intelligent Design v. Evolution by Natural Selection. Is it impossible to reconcile belief in God with the evidence that life evolved through natural selection? Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) seems to think so.

I'm convinced that the theory of evolution by natural selection describes the evolution of life, and that it, along with the laws of thermodynamics, is a most compelling scientific explanation of the world.

I think that I understand these scientific theories, and I believe that they explain things very well, within the limits of our ability to undertand and explain the world. I also believe that God created everything in the universe and all of the laws regarding its behavior. I suppose that my belief could be seen as Deistic.

We can't prove that God exists or created the universe. That remains a matter of belief. All I am saying is that I believe that God created our universe and the laws of physics, and that we in fact did evolve. I say that you can believe that life evolved by natural selection and that you can also believe that God created the universe.

In fact it is really hard to reconcile between these two diverse views, one is based on reason and the other on faith, polar opposite notions. I have gone enough through both points of view and I am always in conflict with myself when it comes to make an inference. Of course this cosmos is unfathomable, mysterious. Science through physics tries to illuminate certain phenomena of the universe. It is of course limited and their search cannot be extended beyond a point and when we fail to comprehend these unexplainable episodes and phenomena we of course lend ourselves to theologies and that is why most of us even having been intellectually disposed are still strong believers and that is how faith evolved. And of course we never can reconcile these diametrically opposite views on the world

As someone with a degree in biology the ID debate has always been of interest to me.

Personal belief is purely personal, if you want to believe there is a designer, that's fine. Just make sure you realize that this is faith, and has no empirical evidence to back it up. It is just as unfalsifiable as the notion of gods itself. I don't care what people believe in their private time as long as it doesn't interfere directly with reason.

ID just simply needs to stay out of the science classroom and in the churches. I particularly take issue with the efforts of ID proponents to discredit evolution through dishonest tactics in the media. It makes me furious whenever someone tries to bring non-science into science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

I say that you can believe that life evolved by natural selection and that you can also believe that God created the universe.

---

True. All Dawkins and Dennett are saying is that you can't use the fact that species evolve or that the universe operates according to various physical laws as evidence to justify your belief in a god.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

As someone with a degree in biology the ID debate has always been of interest to me.

---

I would have thought ID/creationism would be of more interest to a psych grad!

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Personal belief is purely personal, if you want to believe there is a designer, that's fine. Just make sure you realize that this is faith, and has no empirical evidence to back it up. It is just as unfalsifiable as the notion of gods itself. I don't care what people believe in their private time as long as it doesn't interfere directly with reason.

ID just simply needs to stay out of the science classroom and in the churches. I particularly take issue with the efforts of ID proponents to discredit evolution through dishonest tactics in the media. It makes me furious whenever someone tries to bring non-science into science.

---

Ditto.

Trying to warp science to fit belief is quite a bizarre thing to do.

As Nick said, and a billion or so Catholics display, science can co-exist with religion. It's the Luddites who are the problem - an unfortunately vocal minority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

True. All Dawkins and Dennett are saying is that you can't use the fact that species evolve or that the universe operates according to various physical laws as evidence to justify your belief in a god.

---

I'm not sure that this is all that they are saying. They seem to be saying that evolution proves (or at least strongly suggests) that God does not exist. Dawkins, in particular, seems to delight in ridiculing the stupidity of those who believe in God. I agree with your position that science can't be used to prove God exists, and I would add that science can't be used to prove that God doesn't exist. As Atheist said, many religious scientists have been able to accept evolution and God. There are Luddites on both sides of the debate, namely the Biblical Fundamentalist ID'ers and the Radical Scientific Atheists.

Lest we forget, there have been many great scientists who had strong religious beliefs, and who were able to maintain their faith in God while working in science. Newton, Einstein, and Darwin were not atheists.

One way for a religious scientist to reconcile science and faith would be to postulate that God created the universe (matter, energy, space, time, and all of the "laws" that regulate the behavior of the universe). This is essentially Deism. The modern Deist does not argue that God "designed" living creatures or their complex parts, but accepts that these arose by natural processes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

One way for a religious scientist to reconcile science and faith would be to postulate that God created the universe (matter, energy, space, time, and all of the "laws" that regulate the behavior of the universe). This is essentially Deism. The modern Deist does not argue that God "designed" living creatures or their complex parts, but accepts that these arose by natural processes.

---

A priori assumptions are bad in science. Science is a methodology, and it operates on the basis of a key assumption, that we can trust empirical observations of the world. If we allow the assumption of God into science, then you open the door to any assumption.

As to not being able to disprove God, this is a very weak reason to believe in one. I can't disprove that the Easter Bunny exists either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

I'm not sure that this is all that they are saying. They seem to be saying that evolution proves (or at least strongly suggests) that God does not exist.

---

No.

You need to read him more carefully - he never says any such thing, although lots of people who haven't read his books think so.

He says that evolution disproves young earth creationism, which is quite correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

Dawkins, in particular, seems to delight in ridiculing the stupidity of those who believe in God.

---

Can't say I blame him, and I'm a bit the same myself. There's so much religious stupidity in the world and Monty Python gave up some years back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

I agree with your position that science can't be used to prove God exists, and I would add that science can't be used to prove that God doesn't exist. As Atheist said, many religious scientists have been able to accept evolution and God. There are Luddites on both sides of the debate, namely the Biblical Fundamentalist ID'ers and the Radical Scientific Atheists.

---

(Bolding mine)

I'm not sure the final group I've bolded isn't just a strawman created by religionistas. Of the few atheists I know who insist that "god/s do not exist" as a positive statement - and I'm presuming they're who you mean - not one of them tries to claim that science can prove the non-existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

Lest we forget, there have been many great scientists who had strong religious beliefs, and who were able to maintain their faith in God while working in science. Newton, Einstein, and Darwin were not atheists.

---

You're not going to suggest that Einstein had faith in a god are you? While he never took an atheist tag, he was demonstrably an agnostic who enunciated his views very clearly all his life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

As to not being able to disprove God, this is a very weak reason to believe in one. I can't disprove that the Easter Bunny exists either.

---

I can disprove the Easter Bunny.

I never tasted chocolate until I was 20!

:bawling:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

I'm not sure that this is all that they are saying. They seem to be saying that evolution proves (or at least strongly suggests) that God does not exist.

---

One definition of God, sure. Specifically, the Designing Intelligence God.

The type of design we see in the biosphere is just the sort we would expect after countless iterations of a set of mindless processes: wildly, redundantly, unnecessarily complex jerry-rigging of previous designs. It's not the type of design that suggests intention and foresight. So if someone thinks God made the roses and the bunnies, that's the type of God that the facts of evolution refute.

If you actually read Dawkins, he goes as far as to say (in The God Delusion) that he doesn't claim to KNOW God doesn't exist. Like any skeptic, his notion of certainty is statistically defined: the possibility that God exists may be extremely unlikely, but even Dawkins would not define it as impossible.

Regards,

Istvan

:nod: that's what i am looking for as a new subscriber. te current scientific theories of evolution intrests me so much especially those thas are related to communication in the light of the strong presence of culture shocks , the fear of all what is strange...

lets have a nod at this:argue::santasmil















Mostly...[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You're not going to suggest that Einstein had faith in a god are you? While he never took an atheist tag, he was demonstrably an agnostic who enunciated his views very clearly all his life.
:bawling:

---

Well, didn't Einstein comment on his aversion to Quantum Theory by saying that "God doesn't play with dice?" (or something very close to that)? Newton's belief in God is well documented. Darwin never denied his belief in the existence of God, and never claimed that his theories were incompatable with belief in a Creator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

Well, didn't Einstein comment on his aversion to Quantum Theory by saying that "God doesn't play with dice?" (or something very close to that)?

---

That's what he said, but he was using it metaphorically.

His denial of theism is well documented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

Newton's belief in God is well documented. Darwin never denied his belief in the existence of God, and never claimed that his theories were incompatable with belief in a Creator.

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

His denial of theism is well documented.

---

From Wiki:

Quote:

---

In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

---

I haven't been following this thread, partly because what little I do know of the hard science, even written for a general education audience, is complex, but I can say that Einstein used *God* as a noun inconsistently, perhaps as a way to personalize the forces involved. I don't know. Theoretical physics and biology stretches the limits of my mind's ability to grasp it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

One definition of God, sure. Specifically, the Designing Intelligence God.

The type of design we see in the biosphere is just the sort we would expect after countless iterations of a set of mindless processes: wildly, redundantly, unnecessarily complex jerry-rigging of previous designs. It's not the type of design that suggests intention and foresight. So if someone thinks God made the roses and the bunnies, that's the type of God that the facts of evolution refute.

If you actually read Dawkins, he goes as far as to say (in The God Delusion) that he doesn't claim to KNOW God doesn't exist. Like any skeptic, his notion of certainty is statistically defined: the possibility that God exists may be extremely unlikely, but even Dawkins would not define it as impossible.

Regards,

Istvan

---

I too have that feeling and in point of fact it is really hard to conclusively say whether or not God exists. I cannot reason it or measure it in empirical terms. Science is there; theory of evolution stands there and lots of arguments of course for and against the existence of God. Yet deep down I feel that we know little with all our reasons, sciences and logical reasoning.

But I somewhere deep down feel that billions of people over centuries, millenniums have been holding faith and of course there is no strong logic and that those who hold faith cannot logically or scientifically prove does not mean that the idea of God is totally wrong.

You can not exactly say what love is nor can any logic or any ideas or arguments can measure the depth of the mind.

I often become skeptical about God and particularly when I read lots of books and read books of atheism I turn to be an atheist and argue against the existence of God.
But when I see so many people flocking to temples, churches, monasteries I feel there is something beyond what we logicians, evolutionists, empiricists construe in point of fact.

If I am conscious, there must be some bigger whole or powerful being that must me more powerful and that power empowers me and yet I do not feel different from that source of consciousness.

This is what I feel exactly today, honestly speaking and tomorrow what I may feel I do not know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

From Wiki:

---

First off, "Spinoza's god" is a deist position, not theist.

Secondly, Einstein's feelings on the theist position are best exemplified in his private correspondence where he describes the belief as "childish".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's what he said, but he was using it metaphorically.

---

Well, he also said that science without religion and religion without science were "blind" and "lame," respectively. It doesn't clarify anything by saying that Einstein used "God" metaphorically. Einstein was not an atheist. He clearly professed a belief in God (as did Newton and Darwin). Einstein's God seems to have been like Spinoza's, which was like the God of the Deists.

Spinoza was excommunicated for heresy in teaching that the Universe was a manefestation of God. It's a bit unclear whether his ideas amounted to pantheism or panentheism, but from my reading it seems he tended to believe more in the latter.

Science may never be able to prove that God exists or does not exist.

I have read Dawkin's books quite closely, and I don't think I have misunderstood anything he wrote. Of course he was never so foolish as to say that evolutionary biology disproved the existence of a Creator, but he clearly takes he position that a Creator is extremely improbable and is in any case "unecessary" from the scientific point of view.

I think that it is possible to believe in a Creator of the Universe, a supreme being who preceded existence and at some point said "Let there be..." time, matter, the Big Bang, or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

Well, he also said that science without religion and religion without science were "blind" and "lame," respectively. It doesn't clarify anything by saying that Einstein used "God" metaphorically. Einstein was not an atheist. He clearly professed a belief in God (as did Newton and Darwin). Einstein's God seems to have been like Spinoza's, which was like the God of the Deists.

---

Trying to present Einstein as anything other than the mildest form of deist is flat wrong.

How clear do you want it?

Quote:

---

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this

---

I don't think anyone's suggested he was an atheist, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating that he wasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

Science may never be able to prove that God exists or does not exist.

---

Science has no business in it at all; the onus is clearly in those who posit god/s to present evidence on their behalf. Science can then test those claims, but matters of faith are irrelevant to science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

I have read Dawkin's books quite closely, and I don't think I have misunderstood anything he wrote...

---

Which is why I agreed with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

I think that it is possible to believe in a Creator of the Universe, a supreme being who preceded existence and at some point said "Let there be..." time, matter, the Big Bang, or whatever.

---

Yes.

It's also possible to believe in fairies, the Loch Ness monster, alien crop circles and bigfoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

Science may never be able to prove that God exists or does not exist.

---

I imagine so because it's logically impossible to prove anything, and the god hypothesis is unfalsifiable, thus can not be disproved by convention of it's formation.

I can't prove or disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny, it is hardly worth mentioning.

Of course the existence of God is unnecessary in science, all untestable hypotheses are unnecessary.

I just don't get the idea that religions of any kind have to prove themselves by the methods and demands of science. It's just dumb. It's like asking science to prove it's existence in the Bible or Koran or Bhagavad Gita.

How about we prove that I love my wife my doing a color analysis of my love? Or ask me to measure the stink of latest trip to the can in centimeters? Or produce a logical tautology as prove why my 5-year old daughter cries when no one sits next to her on the school bus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

I just don't get the idea that religions of any kind have to prove themselves by the methods and demands of science. It's just dumb. It's like asking science to prove it's existence in the Bible or Koran or Bhagavad Gita.

---

Religions don't have to prove anything, but if claims are made that god/s exist and interact with the physical world, they are claims which are testable.

I'm just putting the onus of proof onto those who make claims.

No claims = no proof needed.

It's pretty simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

I just don't get the idea that religions of any kind have to prove themselves by the methods and demands of science. It's just dumb. It's like asking science to prove it's existence in the Bible or Koran or Bhagavad Gita.

How about we prove that I love my wife my doing a color analysis of my love? Or ask me to measure the stink of latest trip to the can in centimeters? Or produce a logical tautology as prove why my 5-year old daughter cries when no one sits next to her on the school bus?

---

I agree. There are falacies in scinetific theories or hypotheses. What we call science today may be a dogma tomarrow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

I agree. There are falacies in scinetific theories or hypotheses. What we call science today may be a dogma tomarrow

---

Science is a methodology, it is a tool, not a way of belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Trying to present Einstein as anything other than the mildest form of deist is flat wrong.

How clear do you want it?

I don't think anyone's suggested he was an atheist, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating that he wasn't.

It's also possible to believe in fairies, the Loch Ness monster, alien crop circles and bigfoot.

---

Well, I'm glad that you admit that Einstein believed in a Creator (you can call it "Spinoza's God," "Deus, Mildest Form," or whatever, but it is still a Creator. This is more than just using the term, "God" metaphorically, which was your original comment. As an atheist, are you in any way disappointed that Einstein (or Newton or Darwin) was not? Do you think that they were deluded?

I don't know why you have to refer to fairies, the Loch Ness monster, alien crop circles, and Bigfoot, except to take a cheap shot to equate belief in God
with belief in hoaxes. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

Well, I'm glad that you admit that Einstein believed in a Creator (you can call it "Spinoza's God," "Deus, Mildest Form," or whatever, but it is still a Creator.

---

No, I do not admit that Einstein believed in a creator and I'm not at all sure he did. I read his words and se metaphors.

Since he's not here to ask, I never take much interest in what he thought aside from ensuring people don't try to claim he was a theist, which he very clearly was not.

It always amuses me that people pick on what Einstein thought as though he was some kind of guru who could not be wrong. Yes, he was the greatest genius we've known, but he still made mistakes, plus, an important factor is that Einstein was very keen not to step on toes and kept his real feelings to himself, which is why we only now can look at what he really did think by virtue of his private correspondence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

As an atheist, are you in any way disappointed that Einstein (or Newton or Darwin) was not? Do you think that they were deluded?

---

No disappointment at all. They lived in a different world to me and I hold no enmity for their beliefs. Like Einstein, we are only guessing at what Darwin and Newton thought, because we can't ask them.

If they were actually theists, then they were certainly deluded.

Luckily, being in the minority of people in the world who don't believe in god/s, I figured out very early on that what anyone else believes is no consequence to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

I don't know why you have to refer to fairies, the Loch Ness monster, alien crop circles, and Bigfoot, except to take a cheap shot to equate belief in God
with belief in hoaxes. :confused:

---

I hold all irrational beliefs to be equal.

Atheist,
Thanks for your responses, and let me say that I really don't think we disagree on fundamentals. I agree that Einstein did not believe in a "theistic" God (a redundancy?), which is to say a "Personal" God that interfered in the day to day events of the Universe. I think that I believe in the same God that Einstein believed in, which is to say a Creator of the Universe, a Being that created matter, energy, and the laws of nature. In that sense, God is the "Designer" of the universe, but we don't have to believe that God micromanaged the "Design" of living things or anything else. He created the material world and the laws which decribe material behavior. In the case of material behavior, the physical laws can explain much of what we experience. There is a lot we still can't understand, and to the extent we can't, it remains mysterious. There may even be limits to what we can understand. "The unviverse may not only be stranger than we think; it may be stranger than we can think."

There are two ways for honest scientists to deal with the limits of our undertanding of the Universe. One approach is to postulate the existence of an omniscient inscrutable Creator who made the world and its laws and set it in motion (this is the Spinozan/Deist approach). The other approach is that of the atheist, who forgoes a Creator and assumes that the Universe just came into being. You can't prove or disprove either approach.:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Science is a methodology, it is a tool, not a way of belief.

---

Oh, I'm fairly certain that science is in part a "belief" -- ultimately, you simply have to believe in the methodology. Faith in the scientific method as a truth-getting device is an essential lens to scientific insight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

Oh, I'm fairly certain that science is in part a "belief" -- ultimately, you simply have to believe in the methodology. Faith in the scientific method as a truth-getting device is an essential lens to scientific insight.

---

This annoys me every time someone brings it up.

If we talk about faith in the scientific method, we mean something very different from faith in religion. I'm not trying to say one's better than the other. It's not a matter of degree, they're fundamentally different.

We say we know things through scientific inquiry because we understand its basis. Empirical research has illuminated many former mysteries of our universe. We affirm the validity of the scientific method because of the consistency and intelligibility of its results: everyone understands what we mean when we say we know the Earth orbits the Sun, even if technically that's an oversimplification of astronomical research.

Religious faith is completely different. In religion, we have faith in deities or forces that by definition can't be understood. We can't point to the efficacy of religion in any objective way, because there's no consistent definition for a term like God or soul.

Trying to conflate these two very different concepts is futile and counter-productive. Let's keep them separate.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

Atheist,
Thanks for your responses, and let me say that I really don't think we disagree on fundamentals. I agree that Einstein did not believe in a "theistic" God (a redundancy?), which is to say a "Personal" God that interfered in the day to day events of the Universe. I think that I believe in the same God that Einstein believed in, which is to say a Creator of the Universe, a Being that created matter, energy, and the laws of nature. In that sense, God is the "Designer" of the universe, but we don't have to believe that God micromanaged the "Design" of living things or anything else. He created the material world and the laws which decribe material behavior. In the case of material behavior, the physical laws can explain much of what we experience. There is a lot we still can't understand, and to the extent we can't, it remains mysterious. There may even be limits to what we can understand. "The unviverse may not only be stranger than we think; it may be stranger than we can think."

There are two ways for honest scientists to deal with the limits of our undertanding of the Universe. One approach is to postulate the existence of an omniscient inscrutable Creator who made the world and its laws and set it in motion (this is the Spinozan/Deist approach). The other approach is that of the atheist, who forgoes a Creator and assumes that the Universe just came into being. You can't prove or disprove either approach.:eek:

---

Well said.

It's a popular, and as you say, unprovable (and untestable) hypothesis. It's to the world's great detriment that some where along the line USA changed from a deist society at the time of the founding fathers to the christian one it is now. I know a surprising [to me] number of people who'd agreed with you 100%. My own dad was always the believer in the inscrutable "supreme being" without wanting a personal god.

I'm not knocking it, but the question I always have to the approach is simply, what's the point? A god creates the universe, then what? I guess it suits a zen-like philosophy, but it seems to me to be an easy way out. If a god has no presence or effect in the physical universe, what, exactly, is there to believe in?

Still, I will admit that that type of god needs a lot less cash than the other one!

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

This annoys me every time someone brings it up.

..../

Trying to conflate these two very different concepts is futile and counter-productive. Let's keep them separate.

Regards,

Istvan

---

:thumbs_up

Wait until you've been hearing it for 40 years, you get past annoyed and into completely disgusted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

:thumbs_up

Wait until you've been hearing it for 40 years, you get past annoyed and into completely disgusted.

---

I'm sorry if my ideas disgust/annoy you both. I'll refrain from posting any honest inquiry here, lest I annoy or disgust you further.

Apologies,

The Comedian.