Posted on 02/13/2015 8:58:43 AM PST by Jack Hydrazine
The jury is still out on wednesday, thursday friday and saturday. By the following Sunday it gets really easy since the publish the solution
“Science is the attempt to try to explain how God works.”
That is not true at all.
It is an attempt to learn how His creation works.
It can only address natural things, material things.
I agree that things about God may be inferred from learning about His creation. Paul said everything about God could be known by His creation, but like you said, mortal man couldn’t accomplish that on our own.
Yes, Dawkins and his crew should know that they can no more prove that God doesn’t exist any more than can Ken Ham demonstrate His existence.
I am sure he does know.
Dawkins is furious over Stephen Gould saying science cannot address God.
That is not a new idea. Rubic's Cube is often touted as evidence of this theory of shared learning. I personally still use the cube that is all one color so I can't attest to the truth of that theory.
Actually they can set standards that are not fair and consistent because you can't stop them.
I think what Sheldrake is unwittingly talking about is actually the spirit. Of course, he wouldn’t admit that because suddenly God becomes the center of reality - something the intellectualoids don’t want to think about.
And you are mixing the methodology of science with the philosophy. I suggest you watch the video I posted after my first post.
An infinitely old universe “would relieve us of the necessity of understanding the origin of matter at any finite time in the past.” Robert Dicke, Princeton 1965
They exclude the idea of a creator causing them to cling to incorrect models. This is simply so that they, as stated by Paul in Romans, don't have to consider the possibility of a creator. Science suffers since their presuppositions lead them astray.
Their presuppositions are religious in nature. They believe that nature is material and have included that belief in their methodology.
The presuppositions of naturalism also cause science to cling to a belief in macro-evolution and spontaneous creation of life even though the math is not on their side.
When confronted with the lack of time required for evolution to have produced the current world, Dawkins resorted to positing the existence of extra-terrestrials depositing life on our planet. He punctuated his unsubstantiated assertion by further positing that those extra-terrestrials had evolved in some distant place. Thus, we have religion posing as science in order to deny the possibility of a creating God.
“And you are mixing the methodology of science with the philosophy.”
I don’t think so.
Science can only address physical material things. Things that are natural.
The method of science is the philosophy of science as far as there is a philosophy of science.
What do you think the philosophy of science is?
“When confronted with the lack of time required for evolution to have produced the current world, Dawkins resorted to positing the existence of extra-terrestrials depositing life on our planet.”
That wasn’t Dawkins. Dawkins always cites the enormity of time, arguing that the age of Earth provides more than sufficient time.
Francis Crick talked about something like what you describe. Fred Hoyle I think came up with directed panspermia.
But Dawkins always talks about how much time there has been.
I’m not going to watch an hour of Stephen Meyer to find out what you mean.
I like a lot of Stephen Meyer and suffice it to say that, regarding this thread, Meyers in no way is a supporter of, or in agreement with, Sheldrake.
As far as materialistic science, Meyer’s does fully agree with me and you are mixing up the New Atheism advocacy with Materialistic science.
That is actually what the Dawkins of the world want you to do.
They are wrong in their contention that science necessitates a materialistic atheistic worldview.
Just because science cannot address non-material non-physical things does not mean things such as God or spirit cannot exist.
It’s been decades since I read Sheldrake’s first book; but it seemed to me that he was suggesting that all of Creation is permeated by a kind of intelligence. I don’t find that “pantheistic” or incompatible with belief in a self-aware Creator God who is also a personal one.
I don’t think it’s forever beyond the possibility of scientific investigation, either.
(Sheldrake is not an atheist. He outgrew that. And I do believe that he was thinking of Spirit, as someone else suggested; not ‘spirits’.)
-JT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.