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

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Sorry, But Something Just Isn't Clicking

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mario Dovalina on May 1, 2002 01:47:31 UTC

First of all, You have reached a fair amount of success in establishing meaning even within a secular humanist framework. However, it's not catching on in the world. And, where it does catch on, there is worrisome signs (e.g., PRC, Soviet Union, etc).

But again you're arguing only on the basis of faith's usefulness, not its probability of validity. As I said, sure, faith has positive side effects, but using that to say "It works, go with it" is self-contradictory in my eyes.

You say I have certain core beliefs that I use to hypocritically criticize others' core beliefs, but I wasn't sure exactly what you were referring to. A belief is not a belief if it's stated as an uncertain idea coupled with observational evidence to support it. Then it's a theory. I try not to make any absolute statements at all: never once have I said that God doesn't exist. All I say is don't jump the gun. Name me one instance in which faith has made a discovery or expanded our "knowledge."

You say that science is based off of the same pragmatic guesswork that theism is. I disagree. If I were to say "String theory is absolutely correct, hands down." then you would be correct. But I don't do anything like that, and I have never seen a scientist who has. They accept and admit that their theories are just theories, methods to explain the data recieved but not an ultimate answer.

Faith does the opposite. It is portrayed both as an ultimate answer and doesn't neccesarily fit the data collected thus far.

I don't understand where you draw the paralell between science and theology. As long as the scientist adds in the phrase "but this is just a description" he will always be above the theist who says "this is truth." Shouldn't any theory be firmly grounded in observational data? Anything else is conjecture, which is fun and diverting, but it's not a solid foundation to build a belief structure on.

Nothing is.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 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