It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door
This is merely a factual statement. ..
Many strange phenonema which at the time were attributed to the hand of God have since been fully explained by science. You would hardly expect a scientist who on getting an unexpected, even counterintuitive, result from an experiment to call in a theologian.
Lewontin doesn’t like his observations on the limits of science to be presented in such a way that they support the existence of a god. The Jehovah's witness's quote was used to support this assertion, nothing crazy about that.I agree. Purple where were you going with that crazy post above regarding Jehovah's witness's and claims of misquotes etc.?
Only because they choose to ignore their incompatibility.Science and religion are obviously not incompatible for many people.
So the current Popes rowing back on his predecessors position on evolution and the enemies of reason and enlightenment that seek to teach creationism in American schools have nothing to do with it? When reason and logic are attacked it is reasonable and logical to defend them.The ill will that's being stirred up lately between science and theology is possibly a tactic on behalf of some of the more entrenched atheists in the scientific community.
Lewontin doesn’t like his observations on the limits of science to be presented in such a way that they support the existence of a god. The Jehovah's witness's quote was used to support this assertion, nothing crazy about that.
Only because they choose to ignore their incompatibility.
So the current Popes rowing back on his predecessors position on evolution and the enemies of reason and enlightenment that seek to teach creationism in American schools have nothing to do with it? When reason and logic are attacked it is reasonable and logical to defend them.
Only because they choose to ignore their incompatibility.
I agree completely but that’s nothing to do with religion. A humanistic moral code need not be informed by science at all.Science has nothing privileged to say about issues that matter most to human beings seeking knowledge of how to live.
The same point, I still agree and it still has nothing to do with religion. “gods” and “demons” in this context could easily be metaphorical. My understanding of the above quote is that science does not teach a moral code, I agree with this. However belief in a god is not in any way required in order to develop a moral code (or whatever phrase you wish to use to describe it).Like everyone else, "the scientist must decide which ends to pursue, which gods to serve, which demon will hold the very fibers of his life.' (Max Weber - Science as a Vocation ) And these are exactly the questions that the scientific method cannot answer.
- (Source Eric Cohen - The Ends of Science)
I have never suggested that it does, indeed I have never heard anyone else on AAM suggest it. I don’t know where you got the idea that I would agree with this. Anyway, this is all off topic."There is another fundamentalism: the belief that Darwinism explains everything important about being human "
Evolution is a fact, the exact cause and effect and path of evolution is unclear and is proposed by many theories. They are sideshows within the main event.If you accept this...well that's your business. But if this is being hauled into the public square and touted as truth then no surprise if it is challenged. And long may the debate continue..
I've often wondered about this. I'm actually typing this from a scientific conference which has representation from just about every major faith in the world. I've worked with people before who I would consider very religious and were keen observers of the various demands of their faith - be it fasting, praying, not drinking alcohol etc. Yet it in no way impacted upon their scientific ability. So it's definitely not the case that they just adopted a fairly lassiez faire attitude to the whole subject and didn't think about it much. These were people for whom religion meant a great deal. I've never understand how they could square that with working in this field.
That said, I've never been brave enough to ask either.
A good book is "The Language of God" by Francis Collins.
The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence.
I shall definitely have to check it out. I will say as an avowed atheist I have no problem with the concept of deism - a belief in the existence of a supernatural being or even a supernatural creator of the universe. It's not implausible as Thomas Hobbes has often wrote.
However I reject absolutely any ideology that posits that this being takes an active interest in the affairs of man, intervening in our affairs, revealing himself through scripture, caring what particular incantonation of his names is used, what our sexual proclivities are etc.
It's huge leap from looking at the wonders of the universe and saying "there must be a God" to saying "I better not eat fish this Friday or God will be angry and will deny me eternal life" ...
That's fine - that's your right and you can relax about that. As someone pointed our earlier - the church proposes not imposes.
You're giving the impression that militant atheism is browbeating/bullying a meek and gentle religious community who just want to be left alone to worship their respective Gods in private.
While it has thankfully declined in Ireland in recent years, religions still impose a rigid control on the lifestyle/freedoms of millions wordwide. One or two uncompromising atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens have appeared in recent years and they are accused of being unreasonable, offensive and of sowing discord!!
In Catholicism, the method of freedom has been completely embraced:
"The Church imposes nothing; she only proposes." - That came from the vatican itself!
Did you hear about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic?
He sat up all night wondering if there really is a dog.
"A huge proportion of scientific teaching over the years on the same topics has also been shown to be utterly wrong.
It is less than 100 years since most scientists were absolutely sure of the existence of the wholly imaginary luminiferous ether.
It is not much longer since our doctors learned that dirt in wounds causes infection.
It is less than 30 years since children were taken away from their parents on the strength of findings of abuse from scientists spouting the accepted theories of the day, now wholly discredited.
There is obviously plenty of evidence for the existence of god.
Without, I hope, sounding facetious, the fact that millions of people claim to have a relationship with God is evidence (though not proof) of God's existence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?