Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gregor
/snip tons of stuff
|
I don't think the thread should be closed at all.
I found your story really facinating. I do love when there is equilibruim in nature, as it contradicts the idea that the universe is chaotic by it's nature (something that just doesn't sit well with me). I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so I have to ask: are you suggesting that it's possible that coincedences and/or occourances of equilibruim in nature are evidenec of an intelligent design? I've heard that suggested before, without any real connection between the evidence, be it physical or mathematic, and an intelligence beyond simply the "who else could have done it" or "what are the odds" arguments. I'm left wondering if there might be a more simple explaination: that's just how things work. Instead of suggesting a Judeo-Christian diety or Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for coincedences or equilibruim in nature, isn't it more practical and reasonable to suggest that is simply how nature works?
The more common argument made is our very existence. Without having information on another planet with life, people suggest that the odds of life, let alone intelligent life, developing are astronomical and it's easier to suggest that an intelligence designed us (ID) than to say we are the result of a random set of coincedental happenings (evolution). I think that this thread is an attempt to appease both sides by playing the middle: yes, God exists, Yes evolution exists. I'm fine with people believing that, but to frame the existence of a supernatural being in science is fundamentally flawed. Something supernatural cannot, by definition, be explained by science. We can guess, without evidence, that God might exist. People have been doing that for thousands of years and they will continue to do so for thousands more, I would guess. The problems start when the supernatural enters the world of science.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SirLance
I don't disagree, but to my tiny little mind, the opposition is perceived and not actual. Science attempts to chart the workings of the universe using a well defined methodology. Faith cannot work in such rigid parameters, because by definition, faith is not necessary in the presense of proof. Faith attempts to address what science cannot. What happens to our self when we die? Is there a unity to the universe? Something from which all things spring?
|
I died once, nothing happened. It depends on what meaning of unity you're using. We all came from the big bang.
I agree completly. Philosophy, in my mind, is an interesting way to try and bridge science and religon or spirituality, but at the end of the day, science has rules that faith can't follow, so faith has to wait outside.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SirLance
The religious fundys maintain that science and faith are opposed, and they clearly understand neither science nor faith. I think you maintain that science and faith are opposed because you want to apply the same guidelines to both, and you can't. Faith is not the result of, nor subject to, the scientific method.
|
That's exactly what I'm thinking. Science doesn't fit in with the rules of faith because science would be too limited. Likewise, faith does not fit in science because it refuses to follow all the rules.