Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Dec 2000 19:40:49 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.%AntiSpam%net
|
Viewed:
|
2467 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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?
Sorry, I didn't mean you specifically; I was querying the atheists in the crowd
who do this:-)
> Certainly not me, since I've never
> demanded any proof of God's existence.
Then you agree that it is inconsistent to do this?
> 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.
Ah, but who does?
> 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.
Really? But at least they are credible witnesses in the eyes of scientists?
Dave! -- I'm sorry to have been addressing you and others at the same time, but
your distinction of science and religion surprised me. If others hold that view,
I want some answers!
-John
>
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) Oh. That makes sense, then. I thought you were directing it just at me, but I see what you mean. (...) Absolutely (which I almost spelled "absoulutlely" which would have been a cool pun). That's what I've maintained all along, that science has (...) (26 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) Why it is not inconsistent for you to assume we should be forced to prove God's nonexistence in order to not belive in him? -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (26 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) 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 (...) (26 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
|
|
|
|
