|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:55 pm
It's not that I'm disagreeing with you about intuitive insight (or 'pure' reason, as Kant would call it). But I fail to see how either intuition or rationalization clearly supports a pantheistic God over an Abrahamic God (since we're narrowing the field to that). I disagree that an Abrahamic God would necessarily leave clear scientific evidence behind (other than general clues hidden in the nature of the universe, such as matter imbalance and physical constants I mentioned).
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:11 pm
Also, if you're so interested in science and a pantheistic God, you should check out the philosophy of Teilhard, who believed that the God of the Bible was drawing the entire universe into him... the 'Omega Point' of complexity and consciousness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:24 pm
Eponishta I also don't believe that Science and Religion are mutually exclusive. It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution (which has not been proved off of paper) as it does to believe in any religion or lack of religion. Personally, I tend to believe that we were created from the stars and when we die, we will return to them... sounds just as good as the Christian version.
Science is a little different since it deals with OUR reality. We can see it and experiment with it. We create ideas and test them to see if it adds up with findings. If it does, good. If it doesn't, more testing can be done and more theories made.
As for the evolution statement, it's not the idea hasn't been written down on paper; the idea isn't complete. We literally have found dozens and dozens between the link of man and we are only missing one or so. Yet, suddenly without this link, evolution is nothing and just a theory. Sure, let's just through out all those fossils, throw out all those coincidences we've connected together, throw out all the research we done, just toss in the garbage. Because a belief that sounds cool is more trusting then physical research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:06 pm
Captain_Shinzo We literally have found dozens and dozens between the link of man and we are only missing one or so. Yet, suddenly without this link, evolution is nothing and just a theory. Sure, let's just through out all those fossils, throw out all those coincidences we've connected together, throw out all the research we done, just toss in the garbage. Because a belief that sounds cool is more trusting then physical research. There's nothing missing. Or, if you want every link is missing. Since every time you find another intermediate stage, you create two new gaps. It's just that the gradient gets smoother as we find more specimens. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming - geology, palaeontology, genetics, embryology, comparative anatomy ... All of these provide evidence of common ancestry and show the nested hierarchy of species and support each other. And best of all, it makes sense. Creationism however, does not. And the "evidence" is piss-poor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:57 pm
Artto Captain_Shinzo We literally have found dozens and dozens between the link of man and we are only missing one or so. Yet, suddenly without this link, evolution is nothing and just a theory. Sure, let's just through out all those fossils, throw out all those coincidences we've connected together, throw out all the research we done, just toss in the garbage. Because a belief that sounds cool is more trusting then physical research. There's nothing missing. Or, if you want every link is missing. Since every time you find another intermediate stage, you create two new gaps. It's just that the gradient gets smoother as we find more specimens. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming - geology, palaeontology, genetics, embryology, comparative anatomy ... All of these provide evidence of common ancestry and show the nested hierarchy of species and support each other. And best of all, it makes sense. Creationism however, does not. And the "evidence" is piss-poor.
The process of evolution doesn't make large, gigantic jumps from ape to man. It's a slow and smoothing process from point A to B.
Another thing that gets me here is where science is grouped as something that needs faith like religion. However, there is a little, debate to that.
Although science and religion CAN go hand in hand, that doesn't mean they can't reject each other in certain aspects, either. AKA breaking the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy all the time as well as other things.
You can't think of science and religion being a split path by a fork in the road and having to take one or the other. No, it's a single road with science on one side and religion on the other. People who believe in humanist ideals, that everything can be solved by science, usually don't need faith in science. It really comes from the LACK of faith in religion in most cases. Point I'm trying to get at is science doesn't involve faith, but more as a search on trying to find facts and ideas that make the most sense to you and life itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
