Re: Creation... intelligent design or happen chance?
Speaking for myself, I'm not saying that science and religion can't peacefully coexist. I'm saying that trying to establish the existence of God through science is not only impossible, but flies in the whole notion of faith to begin with. A belief in God or religion is basically putting faith into an inherently unverifiable truth. If you're looking to science to provide justification for your faith, is it really "faith" at all?
Sorry dude, but this is officially the silliest argument I've ever heard to justify faith in God or anything. I don't know if you've noticed, but we -- as in we, the inhabitants of this planet -- have made some pretty significant strides in terms of knowledge over the last few millions of years. That knowledge provides us with the understanding necessary to grasp the world in which we live. Part of the role in religion historically was to help make sense of that which we didn't understand.
Think about how many religions worshipped the Sun as a God because they didn't know what it was? Now, thanks to the folks at Schoolhouse Rock, we know that it's "hydrogen and helium in a big, bright, glowing mass," and not a god after all. Under your reasoning, though, their belief system would be more valid because it has been around longer. That's absurd.
How about the Greeks and Romans that worshipped multiple gods? Wouldn't their beliefs be more "correct" than modern religion because they have been around longer? That seems to be consistent with what you're saying. The argument that religion is more valid than science because it has been around longer simply holds no water under any rational interpretation of the issue.
There's plenty out there that is still unknown and likely unknowable. No matter how smart we get, I doubt we'll ever know exactly how it is that life sprung forth as an initial matter. Too much of a "chicken or the egg" sort of thing. Let religion fill those gaps for you if it makes you happy. Come to think of it, let religion be whatever role you want, I could really care less. But don't tell me that a belief system based on God is more valid than one based on science simply because the former is older. That's just not solid logic.
Originally posted by cowardly dj
Originally posted by cowardly dj
Think about how many religions worshipped the Sun as a God because they didn't know what it was? Now, thanks to the folks at Schoolhouse Rock, we know that it's "hydrogen and helium in a big, bright, glowing mass," and not a god after all. Under your reasoning, though, their belief system would be more valid because it has been around longer. That's absurd.
How about the Greeks and Romans that worshipped multiple gods? Wouldn't their beliefs be more "correct" than modern religion because they have been around longer? That seems to be consistent with what you're saying. The argument that religion is more valid than science because it has been around longer simply holds no water under any rational interpretation of the issue.
There's plenty out there that is still unknown and likely unknowable. No matter how smart we get, I doubt we'll ever know exactly how it is that life sprung forth as an initial matter. Too much of a "chicken or the egg" sort of thing. Let religion fill those gaps for you if it makes you happy. Come to think of it, let religion be whatever role you want, I could really care less. But don't tell me that a belief system based on God is more valid than one based on science simply because the former is older. That's just not solid logic.
Comment