Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Ignorance Is Bliss

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Shadows/">Shadows on October 5, 1998 22:50:13 UTC

: I'd like to add another perspective. I think yur generalising a little when you describe a scenario of the "whole world demanding proof of Gods existince". You have offered a conjecture about the state of the world. I offer you a refutation. I met this little lady on the bus the other day who told me explicitly that she never ever once demanded from anyone proof of God's existance. I was a little perplexed at the time but I now realise that she then and there offered my the one shard of evidence that would refute your model. Only one single shard of evidence is needed to support the null hypothesis. All other evidence is purely statistical.

: This is all science is trying to do. Test conjectures of possible truths by asking questions that refute the model of truth (i.e. support the null hypothesis).

: To apply science to theology one would have to pose a question like "what shred of evidence would I accept that could possibly undermine my entire model of all that I know to be true about this concept I learnt about one day called "God"?", and then you dedicate your energy to finding that question and that evidence.

: If you chose to say "but nothing will ever dent my faith in the Creator" then you're not being scientific. You're not speculating or enquiring or creating anything new. You're being empirical. Metaphysics is not physics - quite different - and the model of "truth" you will create (after all it is a historically collective and artistic corpus of prose) will vary from the model created by the mathematicians.

: The fundamental scientific method is conjecture and refutation. It requires no faith, no belief, no emotion (but it can be a lot of fun), no ego, no defence. It is just a methodology - not a theology.

: Merely gathering anecdotes from people who agree with you is not science. It is empiricism. And it never proved or disproved anything.

: It can be a little straining conversing about science with people who don't actually know what science is. But it's really nothing to get defensive over.

: Over'n'out from the Antipodes

I must agree with Rob, also if you look at statistics you will note that athiest and agnostics are the minority BY FAR and that the majority of the worlds population believe in some sort of supreme being. So no the whole world is NOT demanding proof of God's existance, as a matter of fact the majority of the world is NOT trying to prove God's existance and are happy with ignorance.

I know I'm going to get alot of people angry but IGNORANCE IS BLISS. But I don't like living in bliss I like to know what's really going on.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins