Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Dec 2000 18:31:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
647 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Then WHY do atheists and agnostics try and hold religion up to the scientific
> method? Seems to me you can't have your cosmic cake and eat it too. Anyone
> stating that they need some sort of proof or evidence that God exists is
> inconsistent, when we all agree that that is *by definition* not possible.
Which atheists are you referring to? Certainly not me, since I've never
demanded any proof of God's existence. I *have* demanded proof of miracles
such as prophecies, because these are terrestrial in effect, and therefore
part of the natural world, and therefore within the purview of science--a
descriptor of the natural world.
> And what does it mean to all of you atheists and agnostics out there that some
> of the brightest minds in science believe in God? Do you "know better" than
> Einstein or Hawking? I'm not saying that you should believe *because* they
> believe, but perhaps there is more merit to the existence of God than you
> "thought".
Just because Einstein and Hawking know more about physics than I will ever
know, there is no reason for me to use those men's faith (whatever it may
be) as fuel for my own. They are experts--titans, really--in the field of
physics (science), but they don't have any particular expertise in matters
of faith. That is, while I wouldn't presume to tell Hawking how to describe
the behavior of black holes, I wouldn't assume his concept of "God" is any
more solid or rational than yours, mine, Larry's, or anyone else's.
Your appeal is noted but is misdirected; Einstein and Hawking are no more
qualified to instruct in matters of faith than any other person, and their
status in the world of science is utterly irrelevant to that qualification.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) Sorry, I didn't mean you specifically; I was querying the atheists in the crowd who do this:-) (...) Then you agree that it is inconsistent to do this? (...) Ah, but who does? (...) Really? But at least they are credible witnesses in the eyes (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) Then WHY do atheists and agnostics try and hold religion up to the scientific method? Seems to me you can't have your cosmic cake and eat it too. Anyone stating that they need some sort of proof or evidence that God exists is inconsistent, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
