It's a rather sincere question, though. Not to knock ZoneSeek specifically, but from questions of the origin of the universe to biogensis to the incorporation of mitochondria into larger organisms, often as not the response I hear from people is either, "It's too complicated" or "Well, there's life on earth, so obviously something unknown but scientific must've happened." Not here, obviously, but outside the board.

What is "outside" the Board?

i know it was sincere. As was the hug.

But your suggestion just takes the same questions about origins one step further up the ladder.

quote:

Originally posted by Dark Mark:
What is "outside" the Board?

dweller, feel free to disagree with me on this, but my thoughts would be that although we can't now explain how the universe began using the science we have now, at some point in the future it is entirely possible that we will make a discovery that makes it obvious. whereas, saying that a higher being created the universe himself is kind of a block to any further investigation.

*agrees with Fion* Science is about learning and theorising, and that means a capacity for acknowledging misjudgements in analysis when new data contradicts our theories. Putting a deity in the gaps because science has not yet filled them is putting the cart before the horse.

I want to invent a cart that can be pushed by horses.

*draws designs*

quote:

Originally posted by Dark Mark:
*agrees with Fion* Science is about learning and theorising, and that means a capacity for acknowledging misjudgements in analysis when new data contradicts our theories. Putting a deity in the gaps because science has not yet filled them is putting the cart before the horse.

While I know that the current example of modern creationists is a poor example, isn't there a bit of a lie put to that idea by the simple fact that most of the best early scientists were men of faith? I don't think that believing in God requires one to use him as a stopgap for a lack of knowledge any more than a belief in string theory requires the same, and I'd challenge any person of faith who thinks otherwise to show where faith demands otherwise.

the jesuits, are a prime example.

my knowledge of history is pretty shocking so feel free to shout and scream at me if this is totally wrong, but weren't a lot of those scientists making their discoveries in a culture where to be outwardly non-religious was considered a crime?
i wouldn't say that all religous people are using god as a 'fill-in-the-gaps', but to answer your original query i think that people are more likely to see a religious explanation as a tautology than the sort of explanation MG gave (was it MG?) simply becuase any sort of scientific explanation will always be subject to more discovery and the possibility that it may be wildly wrong, whereas the religious explanation is more a 'be all and end all'

which is why i bring up the jesuits. a very very religious organisation, missionary in a lot of ways, they were also highly scientific in others, and played a large part in the dissemination of the scientific method.

So, scientists can use tautologies until something better comes along because they aren't likely to burn people at the stake over it?

And when I'm talking about famous early scientists, I'm meaning guys like Mendel, a monk who codified many of the rules of heredity, Francis Bacon and, well, Darwin who, while his faith diminished through the end of his life, was never able to fully reconcile himself to anything more drastic than agnosticism.

quote:

So, scientists can use tautologies until something better comes along because they aren't likely to burn people at the stake over it?

i meant something more along the lines of "scientists can use tautologies until something better comes along becuase they are looking for something better to come along" .
but i'm not saying that i'm necessarily right, just trying to put my thoughts in some kind of order

But one has to look at the whole idea of concepts relating to religion.

It wasn't even really an idea that one could entertain to be atheist.

I mean a heretic at one time was one that wanted the bible written in English.

Not one that thought the whole thing was bupbkis.

A lot of early scientists were religious this is true, but most of them didn't have a clue what they were actually discovering. Mendal for example actaully discovered Genes, he however was completely unaware of this fact and its implications. His actual "fame" comes due to the fact that someone 200 years down the track was looking into esoteric records and noticed a correlation.

I don't know if this question really helps the discussion at hand, but can't I say "I belive God created the universe" and still ask "But how did it do it?" and still search through scientific means? Why does one's belief in a devine creator mutually exclude a search for (scientific) answers? I'm not convinced that the various means for searching can't be held equally in the same brain (though one may have sway at any given time).

quote:

Originally posted by halucinagenia:
But one has to look at the whole idea of concepts relating to religion.

Not quite sure how this relates. How does religion require one to put an end to one's intellectual curiosity?

quote:

It wasn't even really an idea that one could entertain to be atheist.

Unless you were Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, to name a few. And our knowledge of the state of his spirituality doesn't come from his public life, but from his private letters, some of them in correspondence with avowed atheists.

quote:

I mean a heretic at one time was one that wanted the bible written in English.

. . . according to an ecclesiastical hierarchy that I neither recognize, respect or acknowledge. I might just as well cite Mengele as an example of a modern scientist.

quote:

Not one that thought the whole thing was bupbkis.

Which whole thing are we talking about?

quote:

A lot of early scientists were religious this is true, but most of them didn't have a clue what they were actually discovering. Mendal for example actaully discovered Genes, he however was completely unaware of this fact and its implications. His actual "fame" comes due to the fact that someone 200 years down the track was looking into esoteric records and noticed a correlation.

A scientist's knowledge of the import of his or her discovery isn't a factor in determining whether their methodology is sound, is it?

Guess i shouldn't throw half asses remarks out while trying to skive off work.

And throughout history, only very recently has it been at all acceptable to not believe in any deity.

The whole thing being the bible the sentence related to the one above it.

and i've totally lost the whole point of anything.

quote:

Originally posted by jp:
I don't know if this question really helps the discussion at hand, but can't I say "I belive God created the universe" and still ask "But how did it do it?" and still search through scientific means? Why does one's belief in a devine creator mutually exclude a search for (scientific) answers? I'm not convinced that the various means for searching can't be held equally in the same brain (though one may have sway at any given time).

This may be true, however, if I said I believed that an onmipotent deity created the universe, I wouldn't go on to say that he did it by making this particular atom collide with that one (or whatever, I don't know what actually happened). If God truly is all powerful, then I don't think he would need to create the universe in that way, it seems unnecessarily complicated.

i'm not going to delete the above post because i do think the point i'm making has some relevance, but i have just read it through and realised how dumb it is. so to forestall people telling me that the same logic applies to evolution but that no-one gives any credence to creationists, i know

It just seems to me (imo) that too many people (in our culture, let's say not here) get away unchallenged with telling everyone "religious people fear, or don't understand, or try to stop Science" ... and then as examples they bring up bad history from centuries ago.

You seldom HEAR about religious scientists who approach the study of medicine or agriculture, etc with the simple idea "I can help my fellow mankind by using Science" ...

You hear about people who have ethical (or religious) issues about using fetal human beings in experiments and research, and it's presented like "a flawed scientist is letting ethics get in the way of Research" or somesuch slant.

But where's the on-going social war over the problem with "Christian Math" or "Jewish Engineering" etc? Vishnu knows, if you look at some leading names in Physics, there could well be a lot of HINDUS playing with the "Tao of Physics" and the building blocks of Creation.

What's narrow-sighted is, it's just ASSUMED that "religion" and "science" don't mix.

People focus on a very narrow band of Creationism and Intelligent Design (which, we won't go into) and assume Evolution cannot be legitimately questioned, that interpretations of fossil history are beyond challenge.

"Science is right, until more Science proves it's been wrong. Long live Science!"

When people are hailing the "self-correction" modes of Science, they should remember that Religion isn't necessarily still ripping out human hearts atop pyramids and offering them to the Sun. Religion is also the true Christian/Jew/Muslim serving his/her fellow human being in their poverty, hunger, or despair ... and the true Ahimsa-practicing believer dedicated to the sacredness of all life.

And Scientists give both faster computers, and atomic bombs, and germ warfare.

When Science goes wrong, that's Bad People or Accidental Research. When People do bad things in the twisted excuse of bigotry or ethnic hate, and mention a twisted concept of god ....
THAT'S RELIGION IS BAD & SUPERSTITIOUS.

If not here, then elsewhere. imo