What's wrong with science as religion

Salon.com ^ | 31 Jul 08 | Karl Giberson

[JamesP81]

Provide an example of an unknowable truth please.

By your own standard, any truth that I could name to you wouldn't exactly be unknowable, now would it? This is like considering mathematical methods of generating random numbers, or proving that any given number is, in fact, random with a computer program.

By my standard, a good example would be 'does God exist'? Such a question will never be answered by the scientific method.

[Soliton]

By my standard, a good example would be 'does God exist'? Such a question will never be answered by the scientific method.

What do you mean by "God"?

[JamesP81]

In other words, you are a Christian by an accident of birth.

Actually, no. I was not born a Christian (and I defy you to name someone who is 'born' a Christian). I became one at the age of 12 by my own choice. No one becomes a Christian by accident. Some people have an easier time of it (for example, they don't kill you in the US if you convert to Christianity like they do in some countries). However, my conversion wasn't exactly kosher (if you'll pardon the term) when it happened. I have many family members who are still unhappy about it to this day, as they taught me from birth to not follow traditional Christianity.

So, to further refute your comment, being born in Saudi Arabia or India does not mean I would never have become a Christian. Just that I'd be defying cultural norms to do so.

[JamesP81]

What do you mean by "God"?

Don't be coy. You know what I mean.

But for the sake of discussion, I am referring to the God of Christianity.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements, beloved brother in Christ!

Truly, gender is a physical necessity. But because "man is not the measure of God" we should not superimpose our concept of the physical body onto the spiritual body.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. – John 3:6

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. – I Corinthians 15:50

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:9

And of course this:

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Corinthians 15:42-45

To God be the glory!

[hosepipe]

[ SOliton to JP81- What do you mean by "God"? ]

More important what do YOU mean by God?..

[Soliton]

But for the sake of discussion, I am referring to the God of Christianity.

What are the characteristics of the god of Christianity?

[JamesP81]

What are the characteristics of the god of Christianity?

Didn't you win some Bible contest? I'd think you might know this if you had.

[Soliton]

If you want to claim that something exists, you have to identify what characteristics it will have. Since everyone has a different concept of God. It is up to you to supply the charateristics He might have in your opinion. We can then use scientific method to test for evidence of His existence.

[JamesP81]

The characteristics of the God of Christianity are laid out in great detail in that Bible you claim to know so well.

[MirrorField]

PZ Myers has written a response.

[betty boop]

Man's egocentric insistence that the timescale of our eternal, omnipresent Creator must be measured by the rotation rate of this minor planet -- just because it is the time scale that man uses and comprehends is "making man the measure of God". And that, of course, leads to the YEC fallacy...

"Man is the measure" — either of nature or of God — leads to all kinds of fallacies!

I just wanted to write to say how deeply moving I found this essay-post, and your earlier one at #82 of this thread. Simply marvelous, TXnMA! So beautiful....

IMHO FWIW.

Recently I came to realize that this question of whether man can be the measure of anything, in what way, and to what extent, is at the heart of the great debate between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr regarding the sufficiency of quantum theory as an ultimate theory of physical reality. That is, this question has already been asked, within the physics community, by the two greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century. Asked — but not yet answered.

The details of this insight will have to wait 'til I can get something down on paper. I'm working on it, and will ping you in due course — for I feel strongly you will find it of interest.

Thank you so very much, dear TXnMA, for your insightful, deeply moving, and beautiful essay-posts!

[betty boop]

I am incapable of faith.

This is an untruthful statement, Soliton. For clearly, you do have faith — at the very least in solitons; and then again, in Soliton.

Your capacity for faith is not the issue. The issue is: Why is God such a "bugaboo" for you?

[Soliton]

Man's egocentric insistence that the timescale of our eternal, omnipresent Creator must be measured by the rotation rate of this minor planet

Don't you believe the Bible?

"And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day."

Looks like God Himself timed His days to the rotation of the earth.

[Soliton]

I cannot accept anything as true without evidence. I do not have faith in solitons or in myself.

[MHGinTN]

In your arrogance, you fail to recognize a possibility that God's perspective is so much beyond your feeble mental capacity that He can decide to 'look' from the human perspective and describe for you what He 'sees', then have someone record His perspective in that 'look' so you can have a chance to make some semblance of meaning with it. You choose to deny His existence, His ability, His perspective, and His love for you.

Perhaps it would help you to read what the Physicist, Gerald Schroeder, has written regarding the different temporal calculations based upon different where/when for 'looking'. I would provide you with a hotlink, if I thought you actually wanted something more than room to scoff and deride, and show your limitations.

[Soliton]

In your arrogance,

Me arrogant? I'm not the one being so presumptuous as to make excuses for God. If He exists, He doesn't need you making up crap to cover for scientific gaps in the creation myth

[MHGinTN]

Ah, the typical arrogant mischaracterization of someone who calls you out. You spout this garbage about how smart you believe you are, yet you aren't using intelligence with your rants, you're massaging your ego thus spewing your emotions in the name of discussion. I have never tried to make an excuse for any gap in the different explanations (some of which are contradictory, btw) being offered. You're delusional in your insulated ego cellar. But you keep stroking your ego. It is so very transparent that it is almost embarrassing to witness your self-imposed blindness.

[betty boop]

I cannot accept anything as true without evidence. I do not have faith in solitons or in myself.

Good grief, how do you manage to live through an ordinary day with an attitude like this?

Your problem — if you have one — seems to be that you already take so much on faith, but simply don't realize the extent to which you do this....

Plus you avoided answering my question: Why is God such a bugaboo for you?

Don't merely declare there is no proof of God. "Proof" or evidence cannot be forthcoming in a situation where you absolutely deny, as your initial position, the reality of God. If you say He is "not there," then you won't look for Him. And if you don't look for Him, He won't find you.

On like grounds, how would you "prove" the evident, palpable existence of yourself?

FWIW.

Thanks for your reply Soliton!

[Soliton]

Don't merely declare there is no proof of God. "Proof" or evidence cannot be forthcoming in a situation where you absolutely deny, as your initial position, the reality of God. If you say He is "not there," then you won't look for Him. And if you don't look for Him, He won't find you.

I am happy the way I am. I don't fear ghosts, goblins, devils, or demons. If God exists, He can let me know anytime He wants. If I had evidence, I would be a believer too. The fact that so many believers are rude, semi-literate goobers makes it a hard club to join though.