Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
That's a circular definition of complexity. Why must the answer be more complex than what it resulted in? God, at the very least, has always been a useful approximation for the things that lie beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
|
When something runs against the laws of physics it must be more complex than physics if it's real. Also, as Dawkins has said, anything that knows what god knows and can do what god does must be complex. A designer must have at least as much information as what he designs. The maintainer must have power over that which is maintained. That's the complexity.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
It doesn't have to be a matter of "we weren't meant to understand." It can also be a matter of, "It doesn't really matter either way, so believe whatever you want; as long as you trust yourself and keep an open mind you will be miles ahead of anyone who can only rigidly adhere to their own dogmatic perspective."
|
Asking someone not to question is telling them that understanding something isn't necessary. From a theistic framework, I guess it's fine (ignorance is bliss?), but for someone seeking answers (someone who would ask the "why" questions, it's like turing them away when they need help with answers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Not in any kind of meaningful way. Some of the greatest intellectuals in history were theists, many of them better scientists than you or i or dawkins. Many theists spend an inordinate amount of time refining their theological perspectives; theism can be a very intense intellectual activity.
|
Working within a framework is like playing in the sandbox. It's fun, and it helps you to understand the sandbox, but it ignores everything outside the sandbox. Everything else that may help you understand the sandbox better—knowing that the sand comes from a beach and the wood is from a forest, and that you can purchase a sandbox from places or build one yourself—is unattainable lest you work outside the framework. I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with the framework per se, but the lack of perspective can ultimately be self defeating if you are honestly seeking a full knowledge.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Don't get me wrong. It is important to be able to understand and utilize a systematic way of evaluating the information provided by the world around you; this is science. It is also important to be able to make sense of things that can't be evaluated in the context of the scientific method. This is where science breaks down. I think that if there is any place where god could fit in, it would be here.
|
I think the point of divergence lies above: "It is also important to be able to make sense of things that can't be evaluated in the context of the scientific method." Because there is no evidence to suggest anything exists that's beyond the scope of the scientific method, why would one try to make sense of anything by dropping it? I mean science can't break down. Mistakes in science break down all the time—hypothesis' that turn out to be wrong, for example—but science didn't break down. Human fallibility broke it down. Science is simply systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (
www.dictionary.com). Science is the explanation of what is. Explanations that are wrong aren't science.