Creationists and science

Post Reply New Topic

I have to agree that God is probably better suited for metaphysical questions rather than scientific. In theory if he created everything and it shows no seems or no deliberate signs of impossibility without a creator - no one forced him to leave an indelible mark on the universe nor could they have, nor did he need to.

Of course if politics does overshadow or strong-arm science in any corridor - that's problematic (which, I think of intelligent design as being about a much of a joke as when people try to force down the throat of the next person 'No God' because science seems to reach past what many people had historically attributed him to creating from scratch rather than evolution or controlling without any prior forces or laws other than - God) but for the most part aside from politics we can assume that science will reach accurate conclusions if an observation on repeat ad nauseum testing still holds and other variables have been ruled out. The question also seems to be - even if we saw a force that was 'God' which could have hypothetically been anything or everything from nuclear strong forces to proton entanglement; what would actually make a scientist stop and say to himself/herself "Wow, this is God"? Unless they happen to be Christian and rejoice over mapping God's design with every new scientific discovery they make or read of in peer review journals - its not likely. Having an explanation higher up the chain just means that you understand how it works and where it comes from (most of the time at least).

When religion cannot answer a very difficult question it invents a fantasy out of whole cloth and demands total belief in the solution. In contrast, science also invents solutions pieced together out of the possibilities of previous knowledge. But science does not demand total belief in its inventions. It assiduously searches for confirmation of its proposals and holds them in limbo until observations seem to confirm some of them. But these scientific proposals are always held tenuously and can be found wanting and rejected whenever observation indicates they are faulty. Religion never permits its basic assumptions to be found wanting, no matter how idiotic or unlikely they may be. In that manner I find religious beliefs to be, at least to some degree, psychotic.

Pretty much your saying that anyone who believes in a higher power....at all...has to be a ludite, has to be filling theory in with 'God' and if they're not, they're either lying or...well, they're too confusing to you so you'll do your best to forget they exist?

Nothing of the kind. Religion has nothing to do with objecting to mechanization of labor. And how the hell could I forget they exist? Lying is a most peculiar term in this context. Silliness and gullibility is more like it.

Yes, that's *exactly* what I meant. Glad you handled that one so adeptly.



I might be inclined to say that what you have is not true atheism but more your own personal religion, probably needing even more idealism, evangelicalism, blindfolds, and ear gauze than the people your trying to dispute.

Your quite cryptic and somewhat accusative comment leaves me totally in the dark. I am not fond of vague mysteries.

Well, cryptic perhaps but I think I can at least provide you with a possible name for it: New Earth Atheism, the intellectual equivalent of New Earth Christianity - just with an atheistic twist. Don't know how well it will sell but I think it has a catchy ring to it.

It may have a future in the advertising world but your title conveys no concept to me. I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

He is not only a theist, he is also dishonest enough to think that his belief in a diety, metaphysics, a bronze age book and so on is not only possible, it's also probable.

I'm not sure which one of us you're describing. It's certainly not me. The only formal relationship I have with religion is total rejection.

Of course I was describing techstepgeneration, the brand of theists who like to assert their particular theism are 'in the same boat' as atheism, and likes to conveniently shuffle all the problems of their positions under a very burgeoning carpet.

I made a comment that made what I considered to be an interesting point but when I tried to post it I neglected to copy it to the clipboard before posting and the site erased it on the basis that the site was too busy. I am not going to bother redoing it and I am seriously thinking of leaving the site permanently because I have, several times, lost detailed comments because of the poor technology of the site. It's bad enough the long delays in navigating the site but losing considerate material is unforgivable.

Ha, had that happen to me before, it's very disappointing. Most of the time though if I notice a site's been somewhat slow I'll generally copy everything to the clipboard prior to posting. It's a shame this site doesn't use the same forum software as some other sites I've been on, there are some that will save the information for you in the next page if it fails.

I guess hearing that really doesn't bother me considering the source. You guys both seems to shoot down any kind of philosophy as a broken, want-to-be-and-failed science before science was capable, and because of that it seems like you've successfully cooked out any common sense or intuition. I really get the feeling you guys just ignore any question that you don't want to think about.

And sand, I was just indicating that there's atheism and there's atheist fundamentalism, fundamentalism I think is what's indicated where the gnostic assumption that anything that can't be boiled in a beaker or put on a gram scale doesn't exist - IMO its as faulty as pretending that the earth is 6,000 years old for the sake of preserving an ideologue bubble because what your presenting seems as carefully insulated. Acting like man is the measure of all things really is also burgeoning on solipsism, believing there's a higher power or being certain that there's none - you really don't have any stones to throw. I really wouldn't feel the need to drill you guys about this kind of thing if you weren't so strident with this stuff - its not a good sign usually when someone is 100% sure of something that big, especially enough to run around the forum and start shin-kicking anyone who mentions anything about a belief (that's why I bring up the evangelical part - it bares a lot of resemblance to fundy Christian behavior and its just as gnostic).

Mind you I'm not bothered that you guys have opinions different than mine, however its both depressing and irritating to see you guys hammerheading anyone with a different viewpoint. From my understanding though - that's ok by both of you because, apparently anyone who has a viewpoint different from yours has no right to hold those beliefs.

I could not possibly prevent anybody from having an opinion. All I can do is point out that it makes little or no sense to me and indicate why. If somebody respects my reasoning I am puzzled as to why that would be indicated as "hammering".

Good example - Marxists, I may think they're completely and utterly wrong but - I won't call them silly, stupid, gullible, have the time I end up trying to read into their finer points to see if there's anything they're saying that I may have not thought of myself, as in I care about being on the right side of an argument or at least doing my best to be on the right side and if I'm on the wrong side, I shift based on the new information.

That's just it though - I don't see equal respect or attempts to understand where the other side is coming from, or pay them credit for integrity in all other aspects. I've heard your views, Henriksson's, and while I believe that they are good enough reasons for someone to personally take the view of atheism I still firmly believe that there is a leap of faith component in what your presenting - as in its fine if people take that view, but its taking something that seems very two-dimensional, science, and rather treating this as a 3-D world its an attempt to put it all in a car-wrecker and press everything down into 2-D to meet the premise rather than taking the view that science is a road map rather than the land itself.

You don't have to agree with me, that's not the problem, seeing people as being weak-minded, gullible, cowardly, needing a security blanket and then even saying it in on a regular basis - that's where the mutual respect is missing. Looking back on something that really kind of dropped my jaw though, I think it was Henriksson getting on vibratestogether, telling him that being an agnostic just meant that he needed to grow a pair? Grow a pair for what? That's right - a leap of faith. For someone to be agnostic and to live more like an atheist already says they aren't fearing hell, fire, brimstone, or the cold possibility of disappearing from existence altogether when they die and therefore keeping the possibility open that there is a God from idea that they'll get to the pearly gates of heaven and St. Peter will say "Well, we usually won't let your kind in - BUT - you said 'maybe' - so, your all good by us"? If someone's really full of fear there's a place they go - religious fundamentalism.