To Be Irreligious, Stupididy Helps

[Foxfyre]

You're certainly entitled to your opinions. But taking a look through the thread, when the vast cloud of witnesses states otherwise isn't it irrational to question what all of these others believe is true simply because you, personally, don't see it?

Naw, I'll just repeat Hume's point:

If I ask you why you believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation.--David Hume 1737

So far I have seen absolutely zero rebuttal of the points PC has made from that 'cloud of witnesses' and have seen a lot of unkind comments directed at her personally.

I have seen a lot of comments about what she said that I can't find that she said.

So I have to go with Hume's theory that the stated beliefs about what PC intended and/or said are so far entirely without foundation here.

Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I see no points in the OP except the one we already discussed that are worth discussing and my position is clear, nor will I engage in one-sided debate with a straw man other than to point out that it is, in fact, a straw man and move on. Which has also already been made clear. If you seriously expect me to chase my tail over logical fallacies, I'm afraid I will have to disappoint.

So it is now your position that one should NOT take the position of others into account when one is confronted with the testimony of a large group about the existence of an intangible? When does your "cloud of witnesses" matter, and when does it not? Or by rejecting the opinion of the herd when it doesn't suit your predelictions, are you now by your own definition being irrational? I don't follow your logic on this one.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions. But taking a look through the thread, when the vast cloud of witnesses states otherwise isn't it irrational to question what all of these others believe is true simply because you, personally, don't see it?

Naw, I'll just repeat Hume's point:

If I ask you why you believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation.--David Hume 1737

So far I have seen absolutely zero rebuttal of the points PC has made from that 'cloud of witnesses' and have seen a lot of unkind comments directed at her personally.

I have seen a lot of comments about what she said that I can't find that she said.

So I have to go with Hume's theory that the stated beliefs about what PC intended and/or said are so far entirely without foundation here.

Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I see no points in the OP except the one we already discussed that are worth discussing and my position is clear, nor will I engage in one-sided debate with a straw man other than to point out that it is, in fact, a straw man and move on. Which has also already been made clear. If you seriously expect me to chase my tail over logical fallacies, I'm afraid I will have to disappoint.

So it is now your position that one should NOT take the position of others into account when one is confronted with the testimony of a large group about the existence of an intangible? When does your "cloud of witnesses" matter, and when does it not? Or by rejecting the opinion of the herd when it doesn't suit your predelictions, are you now by your own definition being irrational? I don't follow your logic on this one.

I don't think you've made a good case to support that there is a straw man in the OP. And I don't think the 'cloud of witnesses' you used to back you up have made their case that the OP says what they say it says.

The 'cloud of witnesses' analogy that I used was the testimony of the hundreds of millions or billions of people who do believe in a deities. Many claim personal experience with a deity. And again go back to the analogy of the physician and his patients or the pink elephant I used. Can you make a coherant argument for why I am wrong? Did you understand these? Or did you ignore them because you can't refute them?

The OP suggested all these themes to me. Interesting concepts. And interesting and varied ways of looking at them. You continue to make it personal and call it a straw man.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[Madeline]

Actually, the opposite side of the question is under discussion here. That is, are we merely a collection of cells, a biological entity only?

Subsequent to the Enlightenment, and the rise of modern science, Westerners began to embrace a mechanistic model of the world, and of nature. Remember, by the fourteenth century complex and elaborate mechanical clocks featured marching automated figures, and these clocks and toys served as a lynchpin for the kind of thinking that transferred such workings to a perceived understanding of the animations of living things. Adding to this view, was its consistency with Christianity, in the sense that believers could attribute such workings to an inventor, a designer, a creator.

a. This view led to the mind-body dichotomy., which can be seen in your post. We can see that in the writings of Descartes: “ I suppose the body to be nothing but a statue or machine made of earth, …It’s motion…[as a clock] from the power, the situation, and the shape of its counterweights and wheels.” John Cooper, “Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate, “ p. 14-15, and The origin of Descartes'' mechanical philosophy. | Goliath Business News

b. Richard Dawkins asserts that humans are nothing but “machines created by our genes.” Journal of Cosmology

And, if this is so, whence come morality and values?

The mind body dichtomoy is bullshit that arose from a flawed understanding of medicine and likely will not survive this century -- mayhaps not this decade. The morality of mankind is a function of the basic social contract all humans need to live together in harmony in a group.....ever notice not only morals are held be non-christians as well, PC?

Where do moral values come from Maddie? How does the non-believer arrive at a sense of what is right and wrong?

Some are inherent for any group of mammals who wish to live together, man or beast. No stealing. No murder. No assault on the old ones or the young ones. Pair bonds or group bonds. Etc. Others are unique to humans -- truthfulness in serious situations, no adultery, look after the old and the young, property interests, etc. These values are a minimum level of cooperation all humans need to tolerate group living for any length of time.

I can show you thousands of psychological studies to prove my point, as well as works in anthropology and sociology, etc. Any group of humans lacking these minimum shared values is inherently unstable and will not last long. Its members cannot tolerate the chaos.

 

[goldcatt]

I don't think you've made a good case to support that there is a straw man in the OP. And I don't think the 'cloud of witnesses' you used to back you up have made their case that the OP says what they say it says.

The 'cloud of witnesses' analogy that I used was the testimony of the hundreds of millions or billions of people who do believe in a deities. Many claim personal experience with a deity. And again go back to the analogy of the physician and his patients or the pink elephant I used. Can you make a coherant argument for why I am wrong? Did you understand these? Or did you ignore them because you can't refute them?

The OP suggested all these themes to me. Interesting concepts. And interesting and varied ways of looking at them. You continue to make it personal and call it a straw man.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

EXACTLY my point. About the entire thread. And without people who are too lazy to walk to the next room for proof of pink elephants and doctors who confuse symptoms with diagnoses.

Thank you.

 

[uscitizen]

On the theory of evoloution.
I believe it as stated. It is a theory and not proven any more than God created everything.
However we do have a bit more shaky evidence supporting evoloution.
We have ZERO supporting God's creation of the universe.

So where did evolution come from?

I do not know and realize that I will never know and have no urgent need to see it explained.

What is just is.
How it got that way?
There are many more important things in my life than trying to understand things that human kind is not yet capable of understanding.
I feel no need to blame bad things on evil spirits nor credit a divine entity with good things.

 

[Madeline]

Naw, I'll just repeat Hume's point:

So far I have seen absolutely zero rebuttal of the points PC has made from that 'cloud of witnesses' and have seen a lot of unkind comments directed at her personally.

I have seen a lot of comments about what she said that I can't find that she said.

So I have to go with Hume's theory that the stated beliefs about what PC intended and/or said are so far entirely without foundation here.

Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I see no points in the OP except the one we already discussed that are worth discussing and my position is clear, nor will I engage in one-sided debate with a straw man other than to point out that it is, in fact, a straw man and move on. Which has also already been made clear. If you seriously expect me to chase my tail over logical fallacies, I'm afraid I will have to disappoint.

So it is now your position that one should NOT take the position of others into account when one is confronted with the testimony of a large group about the existence of an intangible? When does your "cloud of witnesses" matter, and when does it not? Or by rejecting the opinion of the herd when it doesn't suit your predelictions, are you now by your own definition being irrational? I don't follow your logic on this one.

Naw, I'll just repeat Hume's point:



So far I have seen absolutely zero rebuttal of the points PC has made from that 'cloud of witnesses' and have seen a lot of unkind comments directed at her personally.

I have seen a lot of comments about what she said that I can't find that she said.

So I have to go with Hume's theory that the stated beliefs about what PC intended and/or said are so far entirely without foundation here.

Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I see no points in the OP except the one we already discussed that are worth discussing and my position is clear, nor will I engage in one-sided debate with a straw man other than to point out that it is, in fact, a straw man and move on. Which has also already been made clear. If you seriously expect me to chase my tail over logical fallacies, I'm afraid I will have to disappoint.

So it is now your position that one should NOT take the position of others into account when one is confronted with the testimony of a large group about the existence of an intangible? When does your "cloud of witnesses" matter, and when does it not? Or by rejecting the opinion of the herd when it doesn't suit your predelictions, are you now by your own definition being irrational? I don't follow your logic on this one.

I don't think you've made a good case to support that there is a straw man in the OP. And I don't think the 'cloud of witnesses' you used to back you up have made their case that the OP says what they say it says.

The 'cloud of witnesses' analogy that I used was the testimony of the hundreds of millions or billions of people who do believe in a deities. Many claim personal experience with a deity. And again go back to the analogy of the physician and his patients or the pink elephant I used. Can you make a coherant argument for why I am wrong? Did you understand these? Or did you ignore them because you can't refute them?

The OP suggested all these themes to me. Interesting concepts. And interesting and varied ways of looking at them. You continue to make it personal and call it a straw man.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Your evidence proves that wishing God existed is a fairly universal human desire -- and it is. It is not evidence that, in fact, God exists. There are several other such beliefs that we prolly agree are not reality-based, such as monsters. For whatever perverse reason, humans everywhere and at all times in history seem to need to believe in monsters (as a rule) and virtually every society that exists or has existed has some myths verging on beliefs about their existence.

That does not add a whit to the argument that monsters actually exist, Foxfyre. No matter how many NYers report encounters with The White Lady or Mexicans report "seeing" El Chupacabra, I bet we agree -- the very idea is preposterous.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really? Where? I had read the thread and went through it again and the only thing I saw was a quote from a scientist stating that he had faith that naturalism would one day explain all life. But that is different than saying one has the same faith in science as in religion. His faith that in naturalism is based upon a body of scientific work leading him to a conclusion. There is no body of work which leads one to believe in the existence of God. It is entirely based on faith. Likewise, the debate on macroevolution is based on microevolution. It may turn out to be totally wrong, but at least it is a foundation. There is no foundation for religion other than faith. Again, you don't need faith to believe in photosynthesis. You need total faith to believe in God.

Check out the post on the weaknesses in the theory of evolution...significant, as it represents the idea that generally separates believers from non-believers.

And, of course, consider the dearth of scientific theory as to the creation of the universe itself...a pretty good question, no?

The Big Bang Theory is a theory of the universe, which is rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena.

But that is beside the point. There is more to science than how the universe started or evolution. The body of scientific knowledge does not remotely pretend to have answered every single question in the universe. (Likewise, simply because science cannot prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that the proof of God is currently beyond the bounds of human technological ability.) But scientific answers are based upon methodology, not unverifiable belief systems, which is religion. That is why it is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion. By definition, this cannot be.

One should also realize that the most vocal critics of evolution are not from within the scientific community but from the religious community. The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate about the origins of mankind and the universe. Religion already has those answers, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support them. They are attempting to discredit evolution in the hopes that by discrediting evolution, people will turn to religion for answers by default. Religions are created in part to provide answers to questions people cannot comprehend. When science attempts to give answers to those questions, it threatens the foundations of religion. So religion attempts to discredit science because its credibility and very survival depends on it.

Yep the 'big bang' has been around for a long time and has a lot of scientific approval. And it may indeed eventually be accepted as the ONLY logical explanation for the universe we now have. I don't personally have any problem with it.

But it still leaves questions that science can't answer. How did the stuff of the universe get there in the first place? What created the mechanism that put the 'big bang' into motion? What will we replace the theory with if the heavenly bodies in the universe suddenly stop moving away from each other and begin contracting similar to how it is theorized that the continents of the Earth will someday come back together and re-create Pangea?

You say, without qualification, that religion has all those answers. Well I sure missed those lessons during decades of studying theology because I don't have those answers. I don't know anybody who does other than a very few fundamentalists who religiously avoid any hard questions challenging their theology just as some Atheists and hardcore fundamentalist science religionists avoid any hard questions challenging theirs.

In both science and religion, an open mind can be a very valuable thing.

So where do morals come from?

 

[uscitizen]

Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I see no points in the OP except the one we already discussed that are worth discussing and my position is clear, nor will I engage in one-sided debate with a straw man other than to point out that it is, in fact, a straw man and move on. Which has also already been made clear. If you seriously expect me to chase my tail over logical fallacies, I'm afraid I will have to disappoint.

So it is now your position that one should NOT take the position of others into account when one is confronted with the testimony of a large group about the existence of an intangible? When does your "cloud of witnesses" matter, and when does it not? Or by rejecting the opinion of the herd when it doesn't suit your predelictions, are you now by your own definition being irrational? I don't follow your logic on this one.

Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I see no points in the OP except the one we already discussed that are worth discussing and my position is clear, nor will I engage in one-sided debate with a straw man other than to point out that it is, in fact, a straw man and move on. Which has also already been made clear. If you seriously expect me to chase my tail over logical fallacies, I'm afraid I will have to disappoint.

So it is now your position that one should NOT take the position of others into account when one is confronted with the testimony of a large group about the existence of an intangible? When does your "cloud of witnesses" matter, and when does it not? Or by rejecting the opinion of the herd when it doesn't suit your predelictions, are you now by your own definition being irrational? I don't follow your logic on this one.

I don't think you've made a good case to support that there is a straw man in the OP. And I don't think the 'cloud of witnesses' you used to back you up have made their case that the OP says what they say it says.

The 'cloud of witnesses' analogy that I used was the testimony of the hundreds of millions or billions of people who do believe in a deities. Many claim personal experience with a deity. And again go back to the analogy of the physician and his patients or the pink elephant I used. Can you make a coherant argument for why I am wrong? Did you understand these? Or did you ignore them because you can't refute them?

The OP suggested all these themes to me. Interesting concepts. And interesting and varied ways of looking at them. You continue to make it personal and call it a straw man.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Your evidence proves that wishing God existed is a fairly universal human desire -- and it is. It is not evidence that, in fact, God exists. There are several other such beliefs that we prolly agree are not reality-based, such as monsters. For whatever perverse reason, humans everywhere and at all times in history seem to need to believe in monsters (as a rule) and virtually every society that exists or has existed has some myths verging on beliefs about their existence.

That does not add a whit to the argument that monsters actually exist, Foxfyre. No matter how many NYers report encounters with The White Lady or Mexicans report "seeing" El Chupacabra, I bet we agree -- the very idea is preposterous.

Ohh come on now you cannot deny the existance of Karl Rove!

 

[dilloduck]

Why cant you people understand that the vast majority of non belivers have looked at the evidence for all sides and determined the evidence for gods exsistance is non exsistant so they do not believe there is a man in the sky who controls everything.

Why can't you believe that people who do not believe in spirituality look to other things to have faith in ?

You don't think that the millions of people who donate to cancer research have faith that donating their money to science will help cure it ?

 

[uscitizen]

Why cant you people understand that the vast majority of non belivers have looked at the evidence for all sides and determined the evidence for gods exsistance is non exsistant so they do not believe there is a man in the sky who controls everything.

Why can't you believe that people who do not believe in spirituality look to other things to have faith in ?

You don't think that the millions of people who donate to cancer research have faith that donating their money to science will help cure it ?

Well yes I do have more faith in science than prayers.
Science has proven that neither evil spirits nor sins against god cause disease.
And has cured many of them.
and witches do not need to be burned they can run for political office now.

 

[dilloduck]

Why cant you people understand that the vast majority of non belivers have looked at the evidence for all sides and determined the evidence for gods exsistance is non exsistant so they do not believe there is a man in the sky who controls everything.

Why can't you believe that people who do not believe in spirituality look to other things to have faith in ?

You don't think that the millions of people who donate to cancer research have faith that donating their money to science will help cure it ?

Well yes I do have more faith in science than prayers.
Science has proven that neither evil spirits nor sins against god cause disease.
And has cured many of them.
and witches do not need to be burned they can run for political office now.

and on the 8th day science created atomic bombs and toxic pollution.

 

[uscitizen]

Why can't you believe that people who do not believe in spirituality look to other things to have faith in ?

You don't think that the millions of people who donate to cancer research have faith that donating their money to science will help cure it ?

Well yes I do have more faith in science than prayers.
Science has proven that neither evil spirits nor sins against god cause disease.
And has cured many of them.
and witches do not need to be burned they can run for political office now.

and on the 8th day science created atomic bombs and toxic pollution.

Ohh yeah science is a mixed bag because humans use it.
It brought us penicillin and nerve gas.

But some say god made it all and everythign is preordained. so we can blame it all on god.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I see no points in the OP except the one we already discussed that are worth discussing and my position is clear, nor will I engage in one-sided debate with a straw man other than to point out that it is, in fact, a straw man and move on. Which has also already been made clear. If you seriously expect me to chase my tail over logical fallacies, I'm afraid I will have to disappoint.

So it is now your position that one should NOT take the position of others into account when one is confronted with the testimony of a large group about the existence of an intangible? When does your "cloud of witnesses" matter, and when does it not? Or by rejecting the opinion of the herd when it doesn't suit your predelictions, are you now by your own definition being irrational? I don't follow your logic on this one.

Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I see no points in the OP except the one we already discussed that are worth discussing and my position is clear, nor will I engage in one-sided debate with a straw man other than to point out that it is, in fact, a straw man and move on. Which has also already been made clear. If you seriously expect me to chase my tail over logical fallacies, I'm afraid I will have to disappoint.

So it is now your position that one should NOT take the position of others into account when one is confronted with the testimony of a large group about the existence of an intangible? When does your "cloud of witnesses" matter, and when does it not? Or by rejecting the opinion of the herd when it doesn't suit your predelictions, are you now by your own definition being irrational? I don't follow your logic on this one.

I don't think you've made a good case to support that there is a straw man in the OP. And I don't think the 'cloud of witnesses' you used to back you up have made their case that the OP says what they say it says.

The 'cloud of witnesses' analogy that I used was the testimony of the hundreds of millions or billions of people who do believe in a deities. Many claim personal experience with a deity. And again go back to the analogy of the physician and his patients or the pink elephant I used. Can you make a coherant argument for why I am wrong? Did you understand these? Or did you ignore them because you can't refute them?

The OP suggested all these themes to me. Interesting concepts. And interesting and varied ways of looking at them. You continue to make it personal and call it a straw man.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Your evidence proves that wishing God existed is a fairly universal human desire -- and it is. It is not evidence that, in fact, God exists. There are several other such beliefs that we prolly agree are not reality-based, such as monsters. For whatever perverse reason, humans everywhere and at all times in history seem to need to believe in monsters (as a rule) and virtually every society that exists or has existed has some myths verging on beliefs about their existence.

That does not add a whit to the argument that monsters actually exist, Foxfyre. No matter how many NYers report encounters with The White Lady or Mexicans report "seeing" El Chupacabra, I bet we agree -- the very idea is preposterous.

Is there something in the water some of you people drink that makes you read stuff into posts that isn't there? I haven't even suggested that anybody 'wishes God exists'. Nothing in my argument even relates to something like that.

Again if one person reports to you that there is a pink elephant in the next room would you shrug that off as improbable or that it was a joke? I would. But if dozens of unrelated people reported to you that there is a pink elephant in the next room, is it more logical to believe that it is improbable or untrue or does it become increasing probable that there is some basis for all those reports? If not an actual pink elephant, then something that would create such an illusion?

Now suppose billions of people report it? Would the person who stubbornly insists that there is no such thing and refuses to even consider it be as rational as those who would hold open the possibility of such a thing?

That is a very different question than me wishing something exists or does not exist. It does make a case for not thinking that what we know is all that there is to know or that is worth knowing. And it makes a case for the influence of what others around us tell us and perhaps gives us some insight into the opinions that we form about many things.

And all that does relate to the OP as I perceived it.

Where do you think our sense of morality comes from?

 

[uscitizen]

I don't think you've made a good case to support that there is a straw man in the OP. And I don't think the 'cloud of witnesses' you used to back you up have made their case that the OP says what they say it says.

The 'cloud of witnesses' analogy that I used was the testimony of the hundreds of millions or billions of people who do believe in a deities. Many claim personal experience with a deity. And again go back to the analogy of the physician and his patients or the pink elephant I used. Can you make a coherant argument for why I am wrong? Did you understand these? Or did you ignore them because you can't refute them?

The OP suggested all these themes to me. Interesting concepts. And interesting and varied ways of looking at them. You continue to make it personal and call it a straw man.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Your evidence proves that wishing God existed is a fairly universal human desire -- and it is. It is not evidence that, in fact, God exists. There are several other such beliefs that we prolly agree are not reality-based, such as monsters. For whatever perverse reason, humans everywhere and at all times in history seem to need to believe in monsters (as a rule) and virtually every society that exists or has existed has some myths verging on beliefs about their existence.

That does not add a whit to the argument that monsters actually exist, Foxfyre. No matter how many NYers report encounters with The White Lady or Mexicans report "seeing" El Chupacabra, I bet we agree -- the very idea is preposterous.

Is there something in the water some of you people drink that makes you read stuff into posts that isn't there? I haven't even suggested that anybody 'wishes God exists'. Nothing in my argument even relates to something like that.

Again if one person reports to you that there is a pink elephant in the next room would you shrug that off as improbable or that it was a joke? I would. But if dozens of unrelated people reported to you that there is a pink elephant in the next room, is it more logical to believe that it is improbable or untrue or does it become increasing probable that there is some basis for all those reports? If not an actual pink elephant, then something that would create such an illusion?

Now suppose billions of people report it? Would the person who stubbornly insists that there is no such thing and refuses to even consider it be as rational as those who would hold open the possibility of such a thing?

That is a very different question than me wishing something exists or does not exist. It does make a case for not thinking that what we know is all that there is to know or that is worth knowing. And it makes a case for the influence of what others around us tell us and perhaps gives us some insight into the opinions that we form about many things.

And all that does relate to the OP as I perceived it.

Where do you think our sense of morality comes from?

Experience.


Not god that is for sure. He condoned mass murder of women and children.

 

[Toro]

Yep the 'big bang' has been around for a long time and has a lot of scientific approval. And it may indeed eventually be accepted as the ONLY logical explanation for the universe we now have. I don't personally have any problem with it.

But it still leaves questions that science can't answer. How did the stuff of the universe get there in the first place? What created the mechanism that put the 'big bang' into motion? What will we replace the theory with if the heavenly bodies in the universe suddenly stop moving away from each other and begin contracting similar to how it is theorized that the continents of the Earth will someday come back together and re-create Pangea?

You say, without qualification, that religion has all those answers. Well I sure missed those lessons during decades of studying theology because I don't have those answers. I don't know anybody who does other than a very few fundamentalists who religiously avoid any hard questions challenging their theology just as some Atheists and hardcore fundamentalist science religionists avoid any hard questions challenging theirs.

In both science and religion, an open mind can be a very valuable thing.

So where do morals come from?

Where did I say without qualification that religion has all the answers? What I said is that religion is created in part to answer questions mankind has difficulty answering.

Regarding the questions for which science does not have an answer, I'll respond similarly to what I said about science and the existence of God. Simply because science is not able to prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that the proof of existence is right now beyond the capability of mankind. (Or it may mean that God simply doesn't exist.) Likewise, as I said earlier, science has not answered all questions. But simply because mankind has not yet answered how the Big Bang began does not mean that God is responsible for the creation of the universe. (Though it may, I don't know.) It may simply mean that the knowledge of how the Big Bang began is beyond the bounds of human technical advancement at this time and will be discovered in the future.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep the 'big bang' has been around for a long time and has a lot of scientific approval. And it may indeed eventually be accepted as the ONLY logical explanation for the universe we now have. I don't personally have any problem with it.

But it still leaves questions that science can't answer. How did the stuff of the universe get there in the first place? What created the mechanism that put the 'big bang' into motion? What will we replace the theory with if the heavenly bodies in the universe suddenly stop moving away from each other and begin contracting similar to how it is theorized that the continents of the Earth will someday come back together and re-create Pangea?

You say, without qualification, that religion has all those answers. Well I sure missed those lessons during decades of studying theology because I don't have those answers. I don't know anybody who does other than a very few fundamentalists who religiously avoid any hard questions challenging their theology just as some Atheists and hardcore fundamentalist science religionists avoid any hard questions challenging theirs.

In both science and religion, an open mind can be a very valuable thing.

So where do morals come from?

Where did I say without qualification that religion has all the answers? What I said is that religion is created in part to answer questions mankind has difficulty answering.

Regarding the questions for which science does not have an answer, I'll respond similarly to what I said about science and the existence of God. Simply because science is not able to prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that the proof of existence is right now beyond the capability of mankind. (Or it may mean that God simply doesn't exist.) Likewise, as I said earlier, science has not answered all questions. But simply because mankind has not yet answered what was the mechanism that created the Big Bang does not mean that God is responsible for the creation of the universe. (Though it may, I don't know.) It may simply mean that the knowledge of how the Big Bang began is beyond the bounds of human technical advancement at this time and will be discovered in the future.

Or quite possibly humans will bwecome extinct and never understand. Or perhaps our limited intelligence and short lifespan combined means that we will kever understand.
Or something else. But in any case I lose no sleep over not understanding how the universe was created.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep the 'big bang' has been around for a long time and has a lot of scientific approval. And it may indeed eventually be accepted as the ONLY logical explanation for the universe we now have. I don't personally have any problem with it.

But it still leaves questions that science can't answer. How did the stuff of the universe get there in the first place? What created the mechanism that put the 'big bang' into motion? What will we replace the theory with if the heavenly bodies in the universe suddenly stop moving away from each other and begin contracting similar to how it is theorized that the continents of the Earth will someday come back together and re-create Pangea?

You say, without qualification, that religion has all those answers. Well I sure missed those lessons during decades of studying theology because I don't have those answers. I don't know anybody who does other than a very few fundamentalists who religiously avoid any hard questions challenging their theology just as some Atheists and hardcore fundamentalist science religionists avoid any hard questions challenging theirs.

In both science and religion, an open mind can be a very valuable thing.

So where do morals come from?

Where did I say without qualification that religion has all the answers? What I said is that religion is created in part to answer questions mankind has difficulty answering.

I didn't say all THE answers. I said you said religion has all THOSE answers. And you said that here which I quoted when I responded to you:

You said

One should also realize that the most vocal critics of evolution are not from within the scientific community but from the religious community. The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate about the origins of mankind and the universe. Religion already has those answers, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support them.

And now you say:

Regarding the questions for which science does not have an answer, I'll respond similarly to what I said about science and the existence of God. Simply because science is not able to prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that the proof of existence is right now beyond the capability of mankind. (Or it may mean that God simply doesn't exist.) Likewise, as I said earlier, science has not answered all questions. But simply because mankind has not yet answered how the Big Bang began does not mean that God is responsible for the creation of the universe. (Though it may, I don't know.) It may simply mean that the knowledge of how the Big Bang began is beyond the bounds of human technical advancement at this time and will be discovered in the future.

I don't disagree with any of this and didn't in my previous remarks.

My only quarrel is with those who say that God could not possibly exist since I can't prove that he exists while no such demands are made of science. And that goes back to my argument that it requires as much leap of faith to believe in God or to not believe in God or to believe what we are told about science or anything else that we have not experienced ourselves.

Going back to my comments re David Hume, I have much to quarrel with Hume about, but he was absolutely correct in that we can only know for certain that which we have experienced, and even then we can sometimes get it wrong.

So where do morals come from?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Really? Where? I had read the thread and went through it again and the only thing I saw was a quote from a scientist stating that he had faith that naturalism would one day explain all life. But that is different than saying one has the same faith in science as in religion. His faith that in naturalism is based upon a body of scientific work leading him to a conclusion. There is no body of work which leads one to believe in the existence of God. It is entirely based on faith. Likewise, the debate on macroevolution is based on microevolution. It may turn out to be totally wrong, but at least it is a foundation. There is no foundation for religion other than faith. Again, you don't need faith to believe in photosynthesis. You need total faith to believe in God.

Check out the post on the weaknesses in the theory of evolution...significant, as it represents the idea that generally separates believers from non-believers.

And, of course, consider the dearth of scientific theory as to the creation of the universe itself...a pretty good question, no?

The Big Bang Theory is a theory of the universe, which is rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena.

But that is beside the point. There is more to science than how the universe started or evolution. The body of scientific knowledge does not remotely pretend to have answered every single question in the universe. (Likewise, simply because science cannot prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that the proof of God is currently beyond the bounds of human technological ability.) But scientific answers are based upon methodology, not unverifiable belief systems, which is religion. That is why it is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion. By definition, this cannot be.

One should also realize that the most vocal critics of evolution are not from within the scientific community but from the religious community. The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate about the origins of mankind and the universe. Religion already has those answers, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support them. They are attempting to discredit evolution in the hopes that by discrediting evolution, people will turn to religion for answers by default. Religions are created in part to provide answers to questions people cannot comprehend. When science attempts to give answers to those questions, it threatens the foundations of religion. So religion attempts to discredit science because its credibility and very survival depends on it.

1. Thanks much for re-reading the thread, and for this post, which highlights exactly what the OP was intended to indicate.

Case in point, your selection of the Big Bang Theory' as disposiive of he superiority of the 'science thesis: "...rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena."

This shows a misunderstanding of the theory, and how it applies to our discussion. The explanation in which you invest your rebuttal refers to 'during and after' the creation...and suffers from the huge lacunae of the source of the material that became the universe: what was there before? Or do you have faith that something can come from nothing?

a. "Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question... " Big Bang Theory

So, the theory that you bring into the discussion is as much an argument for the OP as against it, i.e. the 'outside the realm' of natural science.

2. Let's review...

a. Prior to the Enlightenment, ideas whether empirical or of morality, were considered knowledge.

b. So, impressed with science and where it could lead us, caused many, such as yourself, to be enamored with same to the extent that any other kind of knowledge was relegated to a lesser position.

c. My contention is that in some prominent provences of science, the vehicle is faith, just as it is in religion. I submit weaknesses in Darwinian evolution theory as evidence. You are begging the question by stating "...is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion." I never made the claim about all of science.

d. "...a quote from a scientist stating that he had faith..."
Well, first, there was more than one scientist mentioned in the thread in that light...including Jonas Salk.
So, it seems that there are acclaimed scientists less sanguine than yourself on the matter.

e. "...The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate..." Actually, it is your side that is adament on the matter, for example you seem downright hostile on the matter. Further, the Academy of Science went to court to prevent any other argument to be presented as far as evolution. That doesn't seem very inquisitive, does it?

3. Allow me this anecdote..
I'm certain that you are familiar with Gregor Mendel, the father of Genetics. Genetics is pretty scientific, no?

He determined that some traits are determined by the dominance or recessive nature of genes, and in his studies, over several generations of Garden Peas, he proved same using data "...rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena."

Now, here's the thing...Mendel was a monk, a deeply religious man. Get that: a blending (pun intended) of science and religion...

and, he knew his God was enlightening him with scientific prooof because the ratio that proved his theory was three to one...

Get it? This monk initiated the science of Genetics based on a relelation that corresponded to the Trinity.
What did he see that you don't?

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

a. "Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question... " Big Bang Theory

It would only be 'incomplete without asking the question, what about God?/an area where science and theology meet' if you are already religious.

 

[MelissaD]

a. "Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question... " Big Bang Theory

It would only be 'incomplete without asking the question, what about God?/an area where science and theology meet' if you are already religious.

Outside of the natural realm? How do you know that the big bang isn't part of the natural process of the universe? You read it in a book? You just make that up?

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. "Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question... " Big Bang Theory

It would only be 'incomplete without asking the question, what about God?/an area where science and theology meet' if you are already religious.

Sorry, Urby, but most would say, I think, that the hallmark of science is to ask questions, such as the source of the material that became our universe....not to ignore such an obvious quiry...

and sometimes hypothesizing a theory suggests any and/or all possibilities.

Further, the scientific theory protocol then suggests posing an experiment, if possible, i.e., "can matter arrive without any prior matter?"

Then consider the axiom 'matter can neither be created not destroyed...'

Think 'faith' could sneak in there?